# Best anti-shipping aircraft?



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

Ive heard many claims for this role, of the best anti-shipping aircraft to see service in all theaters. From the Ju-87, Sm.79, D3A, SBD, and TBM?TBF, among many others. I was just wondering what everyone thought about this, and what theyre favorite, out of all theaters and operators was.

Ive come to a stalemate on my own question to be honest. Ive heard of great claims by the D3A, especially against the british battleships that were sunk, the Prince of wales, and repulse i believe. I heard around 80% of bombs were delivered on target by D3A's, and even some sources saying no D3A's even took part. Ive heard also about the Stuka, Ju-87 being the best anti shipping platform, sinking many convoy and warships around malta, and everywhere north from there. I would, overall however, have to choose the SBD, in the PTO...How about you?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2005)

The B25's strafers of the 5th AF proved they were the best aircraft. Even though they only flew in the PTO, the impact on the Japanese navy was devestating.

Skip bombing at wave top height minimized the number of AA guns that could shoot at you, while the heavy MG would give the ship gunners something to think about.

Dive bombers had their limits as they could only carry 1 bomb at a time. Torpedo attacks required a slow vulnerable approach in which the torpedo usually missed.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 11, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Ive heard many claims for this role, of the best anti-shipping aircraft to see service in all theaters. From the Ju-87, Sm.79, D3A, SBD, and TBM?TBF, among many others. I was just wondering what everyone thought about this, and what theyre favorite, out of all theaters and operators was.
> 
> Ive come to a stalemate on my own question to be honest. Ive heard of great claims by the D3A, especially against the british battleships that were sunk, the Prince of wales, and repulse i believe. I heard around 80% of bombs were delivered on target by D3A's, and even some sources saying no D3A's even took part. Ive heard also about the Stuka, Ju-87 being the best anti shipping platform, sinking many convoy and warships around malta, and everywhere north from there. I would, overall however, have to choose the SBD, in the PTO...How about you?



Simple....

Mosquito, Beaufighter, B-25 Mitchell and A-20G Havoc. For the Axis, the Focke Wulf 200 Condor devastated shipping in the north Atlantic.

Operations of Mosquitos and Beaufighters (which was used by the USAAF too) in the MTO and off Norway are legendary. In the SWPA, the operations of the "Air Apaches" and their Mitchells are equally legendary. Just check out how Mitchells butchered the Japanese in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. A-20Gs were also extremely effective and could out-run most Japanese fighters on the deck.

Oh, and the PoW and Repulse were attacked by land-based bombers of the 22nd Air Flotilla, not carrier-based dive bombers. 26 G4M-1 (Betty) and 60 G3M (Nell) were involved in the attack, which combined level bomb attacks and torpedo attacks. 

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

Thanks for that information about the sinking of the POW and Repulse, ive heard so may mixed claims, even on the history channle at one point, that i didnt know what to believe, thanks.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

Wasnt it the B-25H mitchell that was armed with a 75mm cannon in the nose for AS duties? ive heard some, though i dont remember the model letter, that carried up to 12 .50 cal brownings up front in a solid nose, that made attacks on merchant ships, and even destroyers and light cruisers with great success.


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2005)

If I had to pick one aircraft then it would be the Beaufighter. No other plane carried such a variety of weapons the options were almost never ending.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 11, 2005)

I'd agree with you Glider
Beaufighter or Mosquito both carried a wide variety of weaponary from light and Heavy MG's to 20mm Cannon, rockets, bombs as well as a 57mm Cannon in some versions of the Mossie.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2005)

As good as the Beaufighter was, only the B25 had the capability to swoop into the heavily defended harbor at Rabaul. Against lightly defended targets, the Beaufighter and A20's made a good 1-2 punch. Beaufighter leads and hoses down the ship disabling the AA crews, with the A20 coming in to put the bombs on target. That technique was used in the Battle for the Bismark Sea.

I dont think the Mosquito could have survived the conditions of combat in the SW Pacific. A wooden airframe just couldnt cope with the light AA and shell fragments that would pepper it, let alone the jungle rot. I wonder if the many varieties of voracious termites would have eaten them up too?

If you look close at the pix, it looks like a bomb had gone off at the waterline before this B25 flew over. Look at the shockwave in the water.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 11, 2005)

The low level speeds of the Mosquito were what kept is safe, rather than the heavier construction and armour of the B-25. Its a matter of building philisophy more than anything else.

Both were excellent straffers and antiship A/c. Actually, pretty much all of the Allied twin engine anti shippping aricraft had devestating foward firpower;

B-25: up to 12 forward firing 12.7 mm Hmgs (thats about 160 rounds per second!), or
1 75mm cannon and 8 forward firing HMG

Mosquito: 4 20mm cannon and 4 .303 Mmgs, (about or
1 57mm cannon 4 20mm cannon and 2 .303 Mmgs

A-20: 6 forward firing 12.7mm Hmgs

A-26: 6 foward firing 12.7 Hmgs 

Beaufighter; 4 20mm cannon and 6 .303 Mmgs, or
4 20mm cannon and 4 12.7 Hmgs

The main sriking weapon of the twins wasn't really the machine guns or various calibre of cannon. It was rockets and skip-bombing that had the most devestating effect on Axis shipping.

The Beaufighter was the first plane to conducts anti-shipping strikes with rockets, debuting against German shipping in Norway in May of 1943. The standard tactic was to mix striking forces of Mosquitos and Beaufighters. Mosquitos would be used in flak supression and Beaufighters would act as strike aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2005)

Could you imagine if some B25 strafers were converted to use a mix of 20mm and 30mm cannons?

That would have ruined some Japanese skippers day.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

A b-25, converted to carry two 30mm cannon in mid nose, and two 20mm cannon on each side, with rockets on the wings and droppable fuel tanks in the bomb bay would have been the ultimate maritime strike aircraft.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 11, 2005)

Both the G and H models of the B-25 carried the 75mm cannon. Due to it's low rate of fire, it wasn't as effective as it could have been. It had a low rate of fire because it was hand loaded by a loader who sat behind and below the cockpit.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 11, 2005)

sIts an interesting mental exercise to attempt to plan out the ultimate WW2 style shipping strike aircraft.

During the war it was shown that high-altitude, level bombing of moving ships was completely ineffective. Similarly, torpeedo bombing was also a highly ineffective approach because it required a slow speed approach, with a usually less than reliable weapon, right into the middle of the flak envelope.

Dive bombing was shown to be a little less suicidal, but most dive bombers were single seaters with relatively limited range/endurance and bombload. Most dive bombers were relatively slow and cumbersome and were at the mercy of any fighter opposition that the enemy carrier/convoy/shore defenses could put up. 

So my ultimate strike A/C must have a few features.

1. Long range and endurance; its important to be able to hit the enemy a long way from home. Oceans are VERY large. Endurance includes having a second crew member to act as copilot/navigatior, something essential for long overwater flights.

2. Good speed; particularly at low level. The less time spent in the target zone, means the less exposure to flak, fighters and the dangers of low level flight. It also give the enemy less warning of attack.

3. Twin engines; goes hand-in-hand with range and endurance. Also provides a large measure of redundancy. Shiping strikes are high risk operations so damage is probably to be expected.

4. Internal bomb bay; Hauling external ordanace decreases range, speed and increases vulnerability and the risk of malfunctions. Internal weapons bays do increase the size of the aircraft.

5 Ability to carry rockets. A rocket strike was similar in effect to a full broadside from a destroyer. Eight 60lbs or 5 inch rockets in a salvo would have a devestating effect on a target

6. Heavy foward firepower. Straffing was highly effective in decreasing enemy flak, sweeping the decks clear of opposition and generally causing havoc on the upper decks of a target ship. Whether machine guns or cannon are better is debatable, but a concentrated foward armament of at least 4 cannon or 8 HMG would be preferable. 

7. Radar capably. Oceans are often very difficult places to find targets. ASV radar was very effective in pinpointing convoys/ships for the strike group.



For my money the two best aircraft seem to be the Mosquito FB variants and the A-26 Invader. The Invader wasn't as fast at low level but had higher internal bombload (4000lbs!) and could mount up to 8 foward firing HMGs. It also has defensive armament, something that the Mosquito lacks. Both were rocket capable, both had very long range (here the Invader wins out again) and were decently manuverale. [/code]


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 11, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> A b-25, converted to carry two 30mm cannon in mid nose, and two 20mm cannon on each side, with rockets on the wings and droppable fuel tanks in the bomb bay would have been the ultimate maritime strike aircraft.



Did the USAAF or USN ever use a 30mm? I thought they had enough trouble getting the 20mm right.

I think that a 30mm might actually not be that effective. The lower rate of fire and generally poorer balistics of 30mm weapons might rule it out in a straffing role. 

About the only suitable 30mm that I can think of is the German Mk 103. The high m/v and heavy round combination would of been excellent. Belt loading of HE(M), API, AP, HE(M), API, or something similar would be suitable, particularly with the blast/fragmentation effect of the mingenschloss shells. Then again, a warship is a lot more heavily armoured than a 4 engined bomber. 

If we are going for theoreticals, maybe a nose package of 4 Soviet VYa 23mm cannon would be best; high rate of fire, very, very powerful round, excellent reliability, high M/V and quite a compact weapon to boot. Better AP perfromance than any other weapon under the 30mm class as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Both the G and H models of the B-25 carried the 75mm cannon. Due to it's low rate of fire, it wasn't as effective as it could have been. It had a low rate of fire because it was hand loaded by a loader who sat behind and below the cockpit.



Bet you didnt know that the only officers in the US Army who were cannon loaders were the co-pilots of the B25 with the 75mm cannon. 


The A-26 wouldnt have made that good of a maritime strike plane. The pilot had limited visibility. Gen Kenny rejected the use of A26's when it was offered to him. The pilots who tested it said they couldn't see their targets correctly from the side.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 12, 2005)

The USAAF did have a 37mm cannon, the one used on the P-39. I mistyped on my previous entry. The weapon was used for ground strafing, but didnt have too great a punch, but using HE rounds, the sovites didnt have for it, it could do some good damage to a ship.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 12, 2005)

My visionary B-25, armed with weapons i have mentioned, would operate in groups of five, two defensivly armed, radar equipped aircraft guiding the three others offensivly equipped, over the vast blue expanses to theyre targets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2005)

B-25, Beau, and A-20 - it don't get any deadlier unless you add an A(B) - 26


----------



## plan_D (Sep 12, 2005)

The Mosquito has to be in there. It was a remarkable machine and was able to deal with almost any vessel it came across. The FB.XVIII 'Tse-tse' was equipped with the Molins 6pdr (57mm) cannon in the nose. And the wooden construction of the Mosquito could survive the SW-Pacific. How do I know that? Because it did serve in the SW-Pacific!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

For anti shipping I would go with this:

Allies - B-25, Mossie, Dauntless, and Avenger. Out of historical reasons I would go with the Swordfish also. Only because of the Bismark and the attack on the Italian Fleet in Toronto (I probably spelled that wrong).

Axis - Fw-200 Condor and He-177 or Do-217 fitted with Henschel Hs 293 A-1 Anti-Shipping Missle. This missle was devestating.

Henschel Hs 293 A-1 Anti-Shipping Missle 

Over-All Length: 381.9cm
Span Of Wing: 310.0cm
Span Of Horizontal Stabilizer: 113.6 cm
Span Of Vertical Stabilizer: 98.0 cm
Diameter Of Fuselage: 47.0 cm
Diameter Of Power Unit: 33.0 cm
Over-All Height (Approx.): 109.0 cm
Average Chord (Approx.): 79.3 cm
Wing Area (Total): 2.4 Sq. Meters
Wing Loading (Launch): 441.0 kg/sq. m.
Wing Loading (Target): 390.0 kg/sq. m.
Maximum Velocity: 260 m/sec
Average Velocity: 230 m/sec
Maximum Range At:
2.2 km alt.: 4.0 km
4.0 km alt.: 5.5 km
5.0 km alt.: 8.5 km
Radius Of Turn: 800.0 meters
Max. "G" Load: 3.0 g
Weight Of Warhead: 500.0 kg.
Weight Of Launching: 1045.0 kg.
Weight At Target: 967.0 kg.
Weight Of Fuel: 78.0 kg.

Description: The Hs 293 A-1 has principally an aluminum, stressed skin, spot welded structure. The forward portion of the fuselage is structurally the bomb casing with an aluminum covering or fairing. Fastened to the rear of the bomb is a vertical plastic beam (about 3/8 inch thick) which runs to, and is fastened to, the after portion of the fuselage. The radio, and the associated gear for the controlling of the bomb are mounted on either side of this plastic beam. On the after corner of this beam is mounted a roller. The after portion of the fuselage is a stressed-skin, semimonoque structure with a rail (for the aforementioned roller on the plastic beam) mounted on the top inside of the structure. Quick disconnection fasteners are mounted at the connection between the rear of the bomb fairing and the forward end of the rear fuselage to be quickly detached and rolled off the bomb and plastic beam, giving quick and complete access to all the control gear. The wing and tail are aluminum and of the usual built-up type.

Aerodynamic Characteristics: The missile is controlled in roll by normal type of ailerons on the trailing edge of the outer portion of the wing. The ailerons also control the yaw effect. It is controlled in pitch by the normal type of control surfaces on the trailing edge of the horizontal tail surface.

Control System: The control system consists of the following parts:
A. Receiving set E-230. This unit could use any one of the 18 channels, each of which were 100 kc apart in the band
between 48 and 49.7 mc/s and could be changed easily in the field to satisfy the operation requirements for frequencies.
B. "Aufschalgerate" for damping and smoothing the receiver signals.
C. Three-phase AC gyro for stabilization in roll and yaw. It has a precission rate of 2 degrees per minute.
D. High resistance double potentiometer for proportioning the data.
E. 210-volt D.C. generator for the receiver.
F. A transformer with built-in relays to activate the aileron surface magnets.
G. Elevator mechanism with an "Oemiz" motor and potentiometer for returning the elevator to it's normal position.
H. An iron nickel plate battery of 24 volts with approximately 14 amp/hours.
This missile, because of the type of intelligence used, is limited to use in good, clear weather and with air superiority. It is subject to jamming, and this, therefore, may limit the use to targets where jamming equipment is not installed.
A joystick type of control was used in the parent aircraft. This control box made use of a very clever cam arrangement which gave proportional control.

Warhead: The warhead was constructed of in one section of drawn steel. The base plate was welded in position. The nose filling plug was threaded and held in place by two set screws. A kopfring was welded to the nose just behind the nose plug. One transverse fuze pocket was located aft of the suspension lug. A central exploder tube was used in the explosive cavity to insure high order detonation of the warhead on impact with the target.

Operation: Upon locating the target, the carrier aircraft makes its approach to the trajectory distance, and in the last part of its dive, sets a course such that the target can be seen 30 degrees to 60 degrees to the right of the course. Shortly before release time and particularly at the moment of release, the carrier aircraft must be in a horizontal position. At the time of release the aircraft must have a minimum speed of 334 km/hr if the He 111 is used, and 400 km/hr if the He 177 or the Do 217 are used.
The missile is released and directed to the target by the bombadier. Immediately after release, the speed of the aircraft may be reduced, but the release altitude and direction should be maintained for a period of approximately 10 seconds. After this interval of time, it is not essential to maintain release altitude and course direction. It is important that any change in flight course be done slowly and carefully so that the target remains on the side of the bombadier during the entire flying time of the missile. The field of view of the operator and the freedom of the carrier plane in approach vary according to type of aircraft. In all carrier planes, there should be a field of view of approximately 110 degrees to the right. The flying time of the Hs 293 A-1 should not be greater than approximately 100 seconds.

Remarks: The Hs 293 is the outgrowth of the "Gustav Schwartz Propellerwerke" glide bomb which was first designed in 1939. The further development of the glide bomb by Henschel represents their first attempt at a radio controlled missle.
The original Schwartz design was a pure glide bomb guided on a straight course by means of an automatic pilot. The method of attack entailed high altitudes for the carrier aircraft in order that sufficient range could be attained and still be out of antiaircraft fire.
Henschel took over the work of further developing this missile in early 1940, and it was decided to use some form of propulsion for the missile so that attacks at low altitude and increased range could be made. The Hs 293 A-1 was the first model to be used operationally with the new motor.
The Hs 293 was first used in the Bay of Biscay. Launched by Do 217E-5s of II/KG 100 against destroyers.

Further Developments:
Hs 293B: This was a wire-controlled version of the original radio-controlled series, designed to be used in the event of a jamming of the radio control mechanism of the original series of bombs. The Luftwaffe considered that up to 70 percent disturbance was permissible before a change-over to the wire-controlled series would be necessary. Since these conditions were never attained, the Hs 293B was never put into production.
Hs 293C: This missle was a modified version of the Hs 294 and had a detatchable warhead, etc., in the same manner as the Hs 294, but a conventionally shaped body. The fuzes include an impact fuze with a short delay to allow for penetration in cases where the missile struck a ship above it's waterline, an impact fuze which detonated immediately on impact after it entered the water, and a fuze operated by a spinner which detonated the missile after a passage of 45 meters through the water. This subtype was designated the Hs 293C during it's development stage, but when large scale production was to start, it was changed to the Hs 293 A-2, and was to replace the original radio-controlled series for general purpose against shipping targets.
Hs 293D: This was a projected type of missile to be fitted with a television camera in the nose. The camera was designed to repeat data back to the missile controller. The camera was designed to swing vertically and was aimed in the line of flight by a small wind vane on the outside of the projectile. As the projectile was rudderless, and in theory should not yaw in flight, there was no need to allow for any traverse in the camera mounting. About 20 of these missiles were built and test flown, but the television gear proved to be unreliable, and the project was abandoned.
Hs 293E: This was purely an experimental model built to try out a system of spoiler controls to replace the conventional aileron mechanism. These controls were incorporated in the final model of the Hs 293 A-2, but were never employed operationally, since by the time the bomb was brought into large scalle production, the Luftwaffe had no aircraft available for antishipping purposes.
Hs 293F: This was a tailless missile which was never developed beyond the design phase.
Hs 293H: This missile was intended to be released and controlled in flight by one aircraft and detonated by a second observing aircraft, which would be flying in position where it would be easy to bserve the impact of the missile against the target. The project was abandoned because it was felt that the detonating aircraft would be unable to remain directly over the target long enough to carry out its function.
Hs 293 V6: This subtype was developed for launching from jet-propelled aircraft at launching speeds up to 200 meters/second. This involved modification of the wing span of the missile so that it could be carried within the undercarraige of the aircraft. The Ar 234 aircraft was to be used as the parent plane, however, these aircraft were not available in sufficient numbers by wars end and the missile never progressed beyond the design stage.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs293.html


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 12, 2005)

The Hs-293 was countered by Allied developments in jamming and spoofing

"The Allies also introduced electronic countermeasures against the Kehl-Strassburg control system. One system was a broadband jamming transmitter that simply disrupted the control transmission with radio noise. Another system was more subtle, "spoofing" the bomb by sending false control signals to the Strassburg controller that slammed the weapon's control surfaces to an extreme position, causing it to stall and tumble, or descend in an aimless spiral. When the Luftwaffe attempted to attack the Allied fleet during the Normandy landings in June 1944, they were unable to overcome Allied fighter defenses. What few glide bombs they dropped were ineffective due to jamming and spoofing. The Hs-293A and Fritz-X were no longer useful weapons."

That said, they did hit and sink a number of Allied (and Italian) ship during the war.

The Allies also developed standoff and precision guided weaponry. The ASM-2 BAT comes to mind, it was a S-band active radar guided glide bomb.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 12, 2005)

Nice info DerAlder.
It was Taranto and not Toronto though.


----------



## quayhog (Sep 12, 2005)

The USN's unsung hero of the PTO. The Lockheed PV-1 Ventura. With the turret locked forward they had up to 8 fwd firing .50 caliber BMGs. Squadrons perfected glide bombing techniques and if good they could place a 500lb HE at the waterline on axis shipping. Good at ASW too.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 12, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> Mosquito, Beaufighter, B-25 Mitchell and A-20G Havoc. For the Axis, the Focke Wulf 200 Condor devastated shipping in the north Atlantic.



Got any data on the number of ships the Fw200 sunk? Ju88s and He111s were more successful.

........



> The Mosquito has to be in there. It was a remarkable machine and was able to deal with almost any vessel it came across. The FB.XVIII 'Tse-tse' was equipped with the Molins 6pdr (57mm) cannon in the nose. And the wooden construction of the Mosquito could survive the SW-Pacific. How do I know that? Because it did serve in the SW-Pacific!



Just barely did the Mossie survive in the SWP. 

Only a reletive few Tse-tse were made. Not worth the effort as cannons and rockets proved more successful.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 12, 2005)

Can someone briefly explain to me why the US didnt adapt the 20mm Oerlikon cannons to the medium bombers? The B25/A20 had an airframe stout enough to handle it.

This cannon worked wonderfully for shipboard air defense, and it could have been a great addition to the strafer planes


----------



## evangilder (Sep 12, 2005)

When they did the initial testing for the 75mm on the B-25, the first test was done with a 20mm. Which 20mm, I am not sure. I once heard that when they tested the 20mm versus the .50 caliber on the P-47, they found the damage differential was slight. I don't have all the details on the test nor what the targets tested were.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Sep 12, 2005)

> Got any data on the number of ships the Fw200 sunk? Ju88s and He111s were more successful



I think another aircraft was still more successful, much more successful in particular if we remember that it was born as passenger and mail carrier, that it attacked merchant or warships in small groups of no more than 2-3 aircrafts by day or by night it didn't matter, that it had no fighter protection in most of its war actions.

As example, Captain Carlo Emanuele Buscaglia flying this ugly wooden-made bomber made 29 war actions up to November 11 1942 ( when he launched his last torpedo from his burning bomber), with 24 torpedos at target!
He sunk two cruisers, two auxiliary merchant cruisers, one net support ship, 5 merchant carriers ; he severely damaged two battleships, one aircraft carrier, 6 cruisers, two destroyers, three merchant carriers.

I would give a comparable tribute, for the same reasons, to another ugly wooden-made aircraft: Fairey Swordfish.
They had both exceptional results with poor roots , without 12.7 mm machine gun battery or 75 mm or 57 mm guns, without rockets.
It means that those roots were not so poor, maybe.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 12, 2005)

Interesting you chose this aircraft. A sentimental favorite?

I dont think either of this aircraft would have survived for long if it was in on the missions in the PTO that the B25/A20/Beaufighters had to contend with.

One thing that made these aircraft superior to yours is they not only performed well sinking ships, but on the days when there were no shipping to attack, they could attack Japanese airfields and other targets.

I say the "standard" for what made an effective anti-shipping aircraft was whether it could perform a low level attack on Rabaul and have a good chance getting out in one piece.


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2005)

SM79. I assume that your talking about the SM79 against the RN in the Med. 
If this is the case can I ask which ships Captain Buscaglia sank. As the list you mention doesn't match with the records that I have by such a margin that I must have the wrong end of the stick somewhere. 
Generally Italian air attack was very ineffective. Scary and bravely undertaken but with a lack of results, The Italians were well known for carrying out very accurate attacks on shipping from high level and a number of ships were damaged by near misses but few if any vessels were sunk in this way.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 12, 2005)

The PBY Catalina "CAT" was a preety good anti-shipping aircraft to, but not the best.


----------



## GregP (Sep 12, 2005)

I worked with an old WWII B-25 crew chief about 20 years ago. He said they used to put the 75mm cannons into old, war-weary B-25 airframes because all they would get is about 15 - 18 shots or less. The airframe was junk after that. The 75mm gun was hard-mounted to the airframe, with no recoil absorbers, and it made the rivet holes oval shaped. They quit flying them when the wings started flapping!

This was the field modification, not the factory new planes. I don't know the details of the factory 75mm mounts. I would guess they DID have recoil absorbers, but do not know htat for sure.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 12, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Got any data on the number of ships the Fw200 sunk? Ju88s and He111s were more successful.



I have read estimates that put total losses to Fw 200s at over 600,000 tons of shipping. One unit managed 363,000 tons by itself. I'll wager Ju 88s and He 111s combined didn't approach 25% of what the Condors sunk.

My regards,

Widewing


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 12, 2005)

Pappy Gunn is credited with coming up with the field modified Mitchells in the 5th AF. 

B-25H models were fitted with a specially designed light-weight M6 75mm gun. Designed with a concentric recoil mechanism, it occupied 50% less volume than the standard 75mm M3 gun. This gun was so successful that it was adapted to the M-24 light tank, which was easily the best light tank design of the war. Having the firepower of an M4 Sherman (the guns used the same ammo), but was much faster and a far lower silhouette making it more survivable despite having relatively thin armor.


My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## evangilder (Sep 12, 2005)

I hadn't heard about the 75mm causing _that_ much trouble. Hand loading giving it a low rate of fire was a big drawback. Pappy Gunn worked with an engineer from North American, who happened to be my wife's great uncle, Jack Fox. Unfortunately, Jack passed away before I met my wife. I would have loved to talk to him about those mods that he did down there. No one else in the family appears to have talked to him about his wartime experiences either, darn it.

One of my son's namesakes is Jack. He had a life that had many interesting stories, including rescuing my wife's grandfather from Russia during the revolution. I completely stumbled on his history with the military when researching the B-25 a few years ago.

Here is a shot of Jack from those days.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 12, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Can someone briefly explain to me why the US didnt adapt the 20mm Oerlikon cannons to the medium bombers? The B25/A20 had an airframe stout enough to handle it.
> 
> This cannon worked wonderfully for shipboard air defense, and it could have been a great addition to the strafer planes



Oerlikons were markedly inferior to Hispano type cannons as aircraft guns. A typical Oerlikon aircraft gun round can be seen below as the 20x80RB. All the way to the right is the 20x110 Hispano round. Needless to say, the Hispano was far more effective in terms of velocity, trajectory and explosive power. The 20x82 was for the German MG151.






The U.S. Navy fitted Hispanos to the F4U-1C and some of the F6F-5Ns. Most SB2C dive bombers were armed with two forward firing Hispanos. Likewise, the P-61 was armed with four Hispanos as was the F7F Tigercat. All P-38s were armed with one 20mm Hispano and four .50 BMGs. 150 early Allison powered Mustangs originally ordered for the RAF were fitted with four Hispanos (those retained by the AAF were designated as the P-51 without a suffix). Indeed, the XP-51B was one of these Mustangs, modified for the Merlin. Too bad they didn't carry over the 20mm cannons in production. As to bombers, the B-29 was armed with one Hispano in the tail.

In general, the Navy was switching over to 20mm cannons while the USAAF thought the .50 BMG to be adequate. The Korean war would show that cannons were essential and almost every combat plane in the Navy was so armed. On the other hand, all of the USAF fighters in Korea were armed with the old standard of six fifties... Hundreds of MiGs survived to cross the Yalu (badly shot up from F-86 machineguns), which would not have survived if the Sabres were armed with cannons.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 12, 2005)

Thanks for the info NAVAIR. I figured if the Navy thought it was good enough for mass use on shipboard, it was probably just as good in an aircraft. I still wonder though if anyone tested a B25 with 6-8 20mm Hispano cannons.

Maybe the AAF figured the approach speeds were so high, the number of rounds that could be fired was essential.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Sep 13, 2005)

> If this is the case can I ask which ships Captain Buscaglia sank. As the list you mention doesn't match with the records that I have by such a margin that I must have the wrong end of the stick somewhere



My source about 24 torpedos at target on 29 war actions is "SM 79 Sparviero"-i grandi aerei storici" -number 2, October-November 2002 Delta Editorial-Parma.Author: the competent historical researcher Nico Sgarlato . Sources:Ufficio storico stato Maggiore Aeronautica Militare; John Milner, Eagle Press. 
I will search other international sources if possible.
I myself can surely remember from my books the following claims, up to 1941:
September 17, 1940: HMS Kent out of action for 12 months

December 3 1940 HMS Glasgow out of action for 9 months

Dec 26 1 hit on an unidentified cargo , in Sollum's harbour

May 8, 1941: 1 hit on cargo Ranswley

March 28 1941 : 1 hit on "Formidable " aircraft carrier , one torpedo that has always been denied by British sources I don' t really know why, exactly as I don' t understand the reason why the damages caused by one 450 mm torpedo hit and 100 mm gun and 20 mm machine-gun shells from Lupo torpedo boat( which received back 14 152 mm shells on board) to Orion cruiser in May, 21 1941 have always been denied by British sources( someone wrote about "pom Pom" shells from Dido!) , on the contrary Rear Admiral Irvine G. Glennie,commander of the task force, was severely inquired for his behaviour under enemy fire even if he had really been successful in blocking the Axis motorcraft convoy carrying troops to Creta, under the escort of the Italian torpedo-boat .....


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 13, 2005)

Those German rockets could've been quite a problem for the Allies...good point, Adler....

I concur on the Mosquito in the PTO, the Aussies made and used them, and they were up with the Brits in Burma etc. too, they had great range...

Capable of carrying a torpedo, a variant later became the Sea Mosquito, but the Beaufighters, although slower, were more a torpedo variant until RP's came in....

I believe the Hurricane IID's the with 2x 40mm 'S' guns were used in the MTO on the odd coastal strike between tank-busting... 
They were also the first Allied aircraft to trial RP's, and did use these combos in the MTO and Far East...shame they didn't use them in the Strike Wings with the Mossies and Beaus, that would've really mixed it up against the German Navy along the Low Countries up into the Baltic...

But I agree, the B-25 was the real PTO ship-buster, used by the US Forces, and the Beau's were used by the other Allies...nothing like twin-engines for that type of task, but in no-way do I discount the sterling work done by the other variants that were also used though, such as the Dauntless, right through to RP-firing Corsairs....

Gemhorse


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Sep 13, 2005)

> Interesting you chose this aircraft. A sentimental favorite?
> 
> I dont think either of this aircraft would have survived for long if it was in on the missions in the PTO that the B25/A20/Beaufighters had to contend with.
> 
> ...



The risk faced by a wing of 15-20 A-20s attacking a Japanese target was not so different from the one met by 2-3 SM 79s attacking Nelson battleship, moreover with the threat of Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes waiting in the same sky, while Allied fighter-bombers could usually fly quite free, after Midway..Rebember the "coat of arms" of italian torpedo bombers: four cats. In Italian "quattro gatti=four cats" gergally means "very few people", they chose that nickname also because they realized that no more than 2-4 aircrafts could go to battle in the same time.

A sentimental favorite?It is possible.I chose Swordfish too, for the same reasons.Ironically, the two aircrafts shared the same engine!Alfa Romeo 126-128 series was Bristol Pegasus built in Italy under British patent.

I wouldn' t despise old fashioned wooden-made stringbags with cloth wings: in Korea some Polikarpov Po-2 armed with frags and 50-100 kg old bombs destroyed in one night two F-86 Sabre and severely damaged 6 more.And it was not the first successful raid neither would have been the last!Few cheap ( or poor) biplanes were successful in one night in the purpose in which Mig 15 and Shturmovick failed in 6 months!And they showed to be very difficult preys, in the night.

It is apparently absurd to say that Po-2 "bedcheck charlie" is a better strike aircraft than Ilyushin Il-10 or a better fighter than Mig-15, but nobody can deny that in the reality, ON THE BATTLEFIELD , in its own appropriate background ( the night), with the right skilled pilot, with a bit of courage IT WAS THE BEST WAY TO DESTROY F-86s without many losses, consequently IN REALITY it behaved as an excellent strike aircraft and an excellent fighter. 
Not all is written on the books, as not all depends from a battery of 1 37 mm and 2 23 mm guns , or from eight 127 mm rockets.


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

The Stringbag is bound to be my choice,
I am still waiting for a reply from the Fleet Air Arm archives regarding tonnage of shipping sunk but I think its going to come out as the most successfull anti shipping aircraft of WW2.
As to was it the best all I can say is it proved its self with a remarkable kill rate eg 11 solo and 10 joint U-boat kills just for starters.
Add the odd couple of battleships and cruisers, a few destroyers, E-boats etc it starts getting into impressive figures before the mercantile kills are even thought about.
Probably a lot of its success was down to it's adaptability in various roles from low level torpedo attacks to dive bombing ,rocket and mine laying capability's among its many rolls.
I also believe it to be one of the few aircraft to have brought down 2 enemy aircraft simultaneously without firing a shot. (Commander C Lamb Vs 2 FIAT,s ) by encouraging them to crash inverted into the sea after trying to maintain contact with his incredibly maneuverable Swordfish as he did a vertical stall turn to port at very low altitude.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Sep 13, 2005)

> also believe it to be one of the few aircraft to have brought down 2 enemy aircraft simultaneously without firing a shot. (Commander C Lamb Vs 2 FIAT,s ) by encouraging them to crash inverted into the sea after trying to maintain contact with his incredibly maneuverable Swordfish as he did a vertical stall turn to port at very low altitude



Which Fiats?When?

I don't think CR 42


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

No not CR 42,s SM79, they where CR22's near Corfu March 1941 during the Greek campaign (War in a String bag By C Lamb )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Nice info DerAlder.
> It was Taranto and not Toronto though.



Yeah I figured I spelled it wrong, thanks though.


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

I think we may have upset a few Kanucks dumping 21" torps on down town Toronto Adler


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 13, 2005)

trackend said:


> I think we may have upset a few Kanucks dumping 21" torps on down town Toronto Adler



Not at all.  Best thing that could happen to Fogtown.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

Just send a few right down the middle of Yonge Street.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

Okay! Lee, get the Swordfish ready, we're going on a little visit to Canada.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 13, 2005)

Well hurry up. The hockey season is starting and we don't want to hear the crying by the Maple Greif fans.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

Get Lee to hurry up. He's getting the Swordfish.


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> trackend said:
> 
> 
> > I think we may have upset a few Kanucks dumping 21" torps on down town Toronto Adler
> ...



Dont talk about bleeding fog KK I took a elderly couple to Duxford on Sunday (the lady suffers from MS and he doesnt drive) to the BOB display and it got socked in at 400 yards vis so nothing flew except a Chipmunk for a scout round and a Chinook which i must say put on a good display considering the awful conditions.
I found a very rare P47 while there though see what you think


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

Awesome pic, but it was KK who said that, not me. We don't all look alike y'know.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

There's something odd about that picture but I can't quite put my finger on it.  

And in defence of Lee, you all do look alike. South Park told me so.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 13, 2005)

Nice pic trackend, but why the extra wheel?


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

Sorry skim Its me hormones, Moan moan moan thats all she does one hell of a complaining whore I tell you Skim


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Nice pic pD, but why the extra wheel?



I think its to handle very heavy starboard cross winds


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 13, 2005)

trackend said:


> Dont talk about bleeding fog KK I took a elderly couple to Duxford on Sunday (the lady suffers from MS and he doesnt drive) to the BOB display and it got socked in at 400 yards vis so nothing flew except a Chipmunk for a scout round and a Chinook which i must say put on a good display considering the awful conditions.



The Fogtown reference is because during a Grey Cup the fog rolled in and caused all kinds of havoc with the game.

December 1-2, 1962 at Toronto
Game halted by fog. Final 9:29 played on December 2.

It is also the provincial capital and all politicians are in a perpetual fog.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 13, 2005)

Ok, still seems odd though.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 13, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Ok, still seems odd though.



It is not a soccer game. It is the game where the quarterback throws the ball and someone is suppose to catch, if they can see it.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

Dude, it's not real! You can even see where it's altered next to the "inner" strut.


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

Well blow me down D I would never have known without your aviation expertise, or the fact that I cocked up the picture when using the panoramic mode on me camera


----------



## Erich (Sep 13, 2005)

a question was raised about the Fw 200's service record..... KG 40. any one of our English friends have access to the records at PRO~KEW ? therein may lie some interesting materials. I'll try to hunt down some info from Freiburg soon


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 13, 2005)

Hangs head in shame and hits himself for being immensely unobservant doh!


----------



## trackend (Sep 13, 2005)

This is another version of the Swordfish giving it an 
even better ability at detecting enemy vessels.


----------



## Glider (Sep 13, 2005)

Sm79. I think my records are close to your second posting. 
The first claimed that he sank two cruisers, the second that two cruisers were damaged which matches. I don't think any cruiser was sunk only by Italian aircraft torpedo attack.
I don't think the RN lost five merchant carriers in the entire war. As for the Orion I don't believe that she was hit by a torpedo. If she had benn she would have had to have been sent to drydock for repairs. That sor tof damage is impossible to hide.
Sorry but we have to agree to disagree on this


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

One other qualification falling under "anti-shipping" was the performance for hunting and sinking the small luggers and motorized barges that hug the coast.

In the SW pacific, the B25, the P39 and the Beaufighter performed well doing this. 

One of the reasons the Japanese collapsed in this area was they simply could not keep their garrisons supplied. Just imagine having a freighter offshore loaded with supplies, and no barges available to take off the cargo.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2005)

Straight up, the best anti-shipping aircraft were the B 25 and the Beaufighter, with the Mossie and the Fw 200 close seconds....


----------



## Erich (Sep 13, 2005)

does this still work....Beaus beating up some German late war shipping in the north


----------



## Erich (Sep 13, 2005)

I do believe I have asked this before, is that a Beu or Mossie in the upper right of the pic ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2005)

Beau...


----------



## evangilder (Sep 13, 2005)

Yep, looks like a Beau to me also. Great pic, BTW!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

It _is_ a great pic. Beau for me too.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2005)

Heres some pics I have... Got some from the Picture Album I think...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

Great action shots!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2005)

Thanks to the brave bastards that took em........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 13, 2005)

Erich,

it is easy to tell a Beau from a Mossie, as in the pic.

Beau - low wing mounting; Mossie - mid wing
Beau - sqd codes above wing; Mossie - behind wing
Beau - fat fuselage; Mossie - thinner fuselage


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

Beau - radial Hercules engines
Mossie - inline Merlin engines


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 13, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Beau - radial Hercules engines
> Mossie - inline Merlin engines



Beaufighter Mk IIs and Mk Vs had Merlins.

There is more points for IDing the 2 such as the stab position, engine position on wing (Mossie below) and fin/rudder shape but was giving for Erich's pic.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

Yeah, I knew about the Mk.II's and V's, it was more of a joke. I do that from time to time. Annoys the hell outta my wife.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 13, 2005)

Great shots, Les! That looks like some serious pucker factor action.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2005)

See how low those Bettys are flying????


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

Yeah.


----------



## Erich (Sep 14, 2005)

great kick butt pics Les ! another one guys


----------



## evangilder (Sep 14, 2005)

Amazing. Doesn't look like a fun place to go into the water either for pilots or sailors.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2005)

Japanese frigate on March 29th 1945 under attack by 345th BG.

You can see a bomb dropped by the B25 about to hit the ship. You can also see the Japanese gun crews crouching by the guns. 

A bomb dropped by the plane that took this pix has just finished exploding on the bridge area.

Theres another pix of this ship from a different angle that shows some dead/wounded sailors laying on the deck.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

Excellent pictures, les. I was quite shocked at those G4Ms flying that low. Really no room for error there. Great pictures, Erich, too!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I was quite shocked at those G4Ms flying that low. Really no room for error there.



Those Betty's were attacking the fleet the day it invaded Guadalcanal. Several of them were shot down too. The burning fuel left on the ocean made it look like to the strike commander that his squadron had scored "many torpedo hits" on the fleet.

This was the first of many times when imprecise and false information was transmitted to the Imperial fleet HQ in Rabaul with disasterous results in planning. Not, to say the Allies had their blunders too.


----------



## trackend (Sep 14, 2005)

Great action shots guys the vid clips (which those stills are from) of those Beaufighters are very spectacular to watch talk about chuck the muck.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Great pics all of you. I really like them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

Excellent 8)


----------



## Glider (Sep 14, 2005)

Notice that the Betty which was flying only slightly higher than the other two, was attracting nearly all the AA fire. The lower you are the better.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2005)

Heres a Japanese corvette getting attacked yet again by the 345th BG. This was in the Tsushima Straights on Aug 8 1945.

Notice the plane has dropped its bomb way wide of the ship. Also note the gun crew in the front manning their gun.

Second pix is from a following plane which caught a bomb going off amidships. The Gun crew is still at their posts.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 15, 2005)

Not sure on this one, but didn't the FW Condor sink billions of tons of allied shipping, is that the best?

Also it looks nice and IIRC carried a HS294 8)


----------



## trackend (Sep 16, 2005)

I don't think the allies ever had billions of tons of shipping to sink in the first place Sch-panzer but im staying with the Swordfish and a approximate tonnage based on monthly kill figures of very roughly, around 2 million tonnes total ( including subs and capital ships ) .


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 16, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Not sure on this one, but didn't the FW Condor sink billions of tons of allied shipping, is that the best?
> 
> Also it looks nice and IIRC carried a HS294 8)



If you want to include the ships sunk by subs and other German a/c that had been directed to convoys by the recon Fw200s, OK.


----------



## trackend (Sep 16, 2005)

Im think in terms of UK billions KK 2 million million not 2 thousand million
but even then I dont think our merchant fleets ever had that tonnage of shipping of either amount.


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2005)

thought I would throw this pic in. lower gunners position with the twin MG 81Z ~ Ju 88A ?

a little ebay scan


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Yeah but I still dont think a billion tons were sunk.


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2005)

I have never seen any concise, true figures of the amount of shipping sunk by the German Luftwaffe ............. it's anybody's guess


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2005)

hey just noted..............is that zwei Flammenwerfer below the tail ?

♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Looks like it to me. Atleast it looks like the flame throwers in the pictures that I have in my book. I believe it was called the GERO FmW-51 Flame-thrower. The tubes led to supply tanks and each tank held 120 ltrs of Flammoel 19. It was a mixture of light and heavy coal-tar oil that was fired out of the tanks at 21 atmosphere nitrogen pressure. The project was discontinued by mid-1941 because it just did not work out they way they had hoped. The flame only reached out 40m.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 17, 2005)

they tried mounting them to -88s in the BoB didn't they??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

I dont know if it ever entered operational status. I think it was only in testing but it was about the time of the BoB.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2005)

Ok, so now that we have some interesting comments here, whats the 2nd rounds of comments for which was the anti-shipping plane of WW2?
B25
SBD
Mousie
Beaufighter
A20
Condor


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

I think pretty much everyone has allready agreed on the Dauntless, B-25, Beaufighter or Condor.


----------



## Erich (Sep 17, 2005)

ah no..........

Ju 290


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Ju-290 used more for Maritime Recon than anti shipping?


----------



## Erich (Sep 17, 2005)

hee hee, your getting close Adler. actually both really .......

I'll be back with more info tonight as I gotta run


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

I know they used it for Maritime recon and that it was in the running for the Amerika Bomber program that never materialized. I have no info though on it being used to sink ships though. I believe though that it was used to search for convoys and then tell the U-Boots where the convoy was at.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2005)

I have a question for you Mosquito experts about its anti-shipping operations in the North Sea.

Did they go on daily (weather permitting) anti-shipping patrols, or did they only go after shipping when they knew a convoy was operating.

The 5th and 13th AF often went on regular patrols just to sink any barges they might come across.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

I am sure they would go on patrol as well as attack known convoys. It just makes sense.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 17, 2005)

To my knowledge, both....The occupied country's resistance-movements kept British High Command up to date with the German shipping, and there was extensive mining-ops carried out as well...mostly the Strike Wings' attacked on information received though....

A total of 4,786 British merchant ships and fishing vessels were sunk by subs, mines, surface craft, aircraft and 'unknown causes'...as stated, aircraft-figures alone are elusive here.....
Roughly 52,000 RN sailors died in action, and 31,000 British Merchant Navy seamen....
A total of 10,600,000 personnel were moved around the world in troopships during the War, and of these, only 2,978 lost their lives at sea.

Many thanks for presenting those awesome action-shots guys, bloody superb !!!!.....

IMHO, the B-25 Dauntless were the PTO's best....and Beaufighters....
- ETO, the Mosquito and Beaufighter, the latter had to be a refinement of the Beaufighter at this task, being a little faster and more manoeuverable, both as heavily-armed and with a few 'Tse-tse's' as well...

The Fw-200 was really more a reconn to bring the U-boats in, or if within land-range, Luftwaffe bombers.....Although heavily-armed, they appear to have only attacked vulnerable targets, and with the advent of the Cam ships, which put up a Hurricane, they would try to avoid aerial combat....afterall, they were only airliners with guns and were quite structurally vulnerable...As Coastal Command got more aircraft to support convoys, Condors' kept out of their way.... 

Gemhorse


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 17, 2005)

*evangilder wrote:*



> Both the G and H models of the B-25 carried the 75mm cannon. Due to it's low rate of fire, it wasn't as effective as it could have been. It had a low rate of fire because it was hand loaded by a loader who sat behind and below the cockpit


.

Isn't that the one that de-torqued all the bolts on the plane?  

Some Ju88's carried 75mm cannons for anti-tank work, did maritime versions also?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> ...
> 
> The Fw-200 was really more a reconn to bring the U-boats in, or if within land-range, Luftwaffe bombers.....Although heavily-armed, they appear to have only attacked vulnerable targets, Gemhorse



Thats partially because there main targets were convoy ships.


----------



## trackend (Sep 18, 2005)

Good info Gem cheers, im still hunting on the aircraft ship kills but as you say its really hard to get an accurate figure


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

I dont really think anyone except for the allies would have the true figures for there tonnage lost and the real question is where to find that. For German tonnage lost I am pretty sure that is lost unless it is in the Bundesarchives.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

Its easier to track tonnage losses in the Pacific than in the ETO for some reason, though not sure why...

I still think it comes down to 2 anti-shipping platforms, the Beaufighter and the B-25J...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

I can agree with that about the 2 aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Sep 18, 2005)

I also concur with the B25 and Beaufighter, both flexible tough planes.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

I dont think the -25J was really operated as an anti-shipping stike craft in the MTO... Maybe in the Med, but Im not sure...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2005)

I never heard of the B25 operated in that role either (in the MTO). I think all of the B25's operated in Europe were used strictly as medium altitude bombers. Only the PTO/CBI got the strafer versions.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2005)

I just found this interesting set of photographs from a 475th FG website (of all the things).

Its some pix of Japanese shipping at Rabaul during the famous attack on Nov 2 1943.

Its proof that the B25's could go where the other's couldnt. 

I dont want to violate any copyright restrictions, so here is the website. Click the links on the right side, to see these pix. Its unbelievable the details in the photo's.

http://www.475thfghf.org/rabaulfw.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2005)

Cool.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 21, 2005)

I think that the Beaufighter was the best. 
Not only was it a fighter/night fighter but it was used in anti shipping roles unlike the B-25 which was a bomber/anti shipping designed to take damge and carry heavy objects e.g torpedoes or big guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Val Jester (Jul 10, 2018)

Jabberwocky said:


> The low level speeds of the Mosquito were what kept is safe, rather than the heavier construction and armour of the B-25. Its a matter of building philisophy more than anything else.
> 
> Both were excellent straffers and antiship A/c. Actually, pretty much all of the Allied twin engine anti shippping aricraft had devestating foward firpower;
> 
> ...



Do you know of any good history books regarding the B25s anti shipping activities in the PTO?


----------

