# Most valuable Carrier Fighter Of WWII



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2018)

I would like to post an unusual thread on what constituted the most valuable fighter of the war. By that I mean the fighter that influenced the broader outcomes of the war, or could have affected the outcomes of the war



I think it will be universally agreed that the best carrier fighter will come down to two choices, the F6F, and F4U. These two fighters are deserving of that mantle, but did they contribute as much to the outcome of the war as those types that were manning the gunlines from earlier in the war? The A6M and the F4F for example. The f4f sustained the USN in its darkest hours in 1942, the A6M made possible an amazing string of victories for Japan that profoundly altered the world order after the war. My point is that these “hot” designs arrived in the latter parts of WWII. Were they essential to securing victory or avoiding defeat?



For some aircraft they were never going to win the war outright in their own right. But they may have significantly affected the course of the war. Case in point are the European Axis planes like the Bf109. Other types like the A6M were always bound for defeat, because of the circumstances in which they were fighting. Some may feel that these types were still important….their performance so outstanding and so unexpected as to materially lengthen or affect the way the war was fought.



Some may consider some types as not materially important in themselves, but leading to later developments because of some aspect of that earlier design. You might put the French D-376 or Grumman F3F in that category. In the case of the French fighter, it was its relative failure that provided some of the impetus for the design and development of the American F4F.



Some designs started out pretty badly and developed quite well and unexpectedly. The transition from Seafire II to Seafire XV would fit into this category 



The Fulmar, so often derided was at least available in 1940 when Britiain was in dire need of a reliable carrier based fight.



I am going to run a poll where people select the carrier fighter most valuable to the course of the war. Just to make it a bit interesting, I will add some fighters from those nations like Italy Germany and france that were either projected, or which were never provided a carrier on which to fly. 



So the choices are as follows



Sea Gladiator

Dewoitine D376

Grumman F3F

Fairey Fulmar

Mitsuibishi A5M

Fairey Fulmar

Bf109T

Re2000

Re2001

Grumman F4F

Hawker Sea Hurricane

Mitsubishi A6M

Supermarine Seafire

Fairey Firefly

Grumman F6F

Vought F4U corsair


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

Well, there is certainly some low hanging fruit in there. 

For the French, Italians and Germans the chances of any aircraft changing the outcome of the war, or changing the course of the war (shortening or lengthening it by several months?) or affecting the operations of their enemies to any large degree are about nil.
1 to 2 dozen aircraft (about all the prospective flight decks would hold) just don't have that much influence, except in a hollywood movie 


For the US, as far as development/design goes for the early planes, monoplane fighters were coming, it was just a matter of When. Being the first Naval air service to use monoplane torpedo bombers and the first to use monoplane dive bombers (even if the Northrop BT-1 wasn't very good) monoplane fighters could not have been that far behind. I am not seeing any influence of the Dewoitine D376 on the F4F??

For the British the list goes to three real quick (or 2 1/2)
Fairey Fulmar
Hawker Sea Hurricane (1/2?)
Supermarine Seafire

The Fulmar for it's use in getting the Malta convoys through. Effects of the convoys being much more important than the numbers of aircraft shot down. 
I could be wrong on the Sea Hurricane, not well read on it's exploits but while it did provide good service in shooting down (or chasing away) Fw 200 and flying boat snoopers did it really participate in any other important naval actions? Just asking. 
The Seafire did most of the heavy work for the RN that was not done by lendlease fighters.

The Gladiator really didn't do much, and the Firefly arrived a bit to late to make a significant difference to the war. 

I am not saying that the crews didn't fly on dangerous missions or had an easy time of it. But what did the Firefly do that could not have been done by other aircraft (lend lease Hellcats?) that impacted the course of the war?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2018)

The reason I included the French, German and Italian wasn't from the perspective of achieving war changing outcomes. For the germans, for example, it has been argued that the presence of even a few carrier based a/c early in the war may have produced an upset. I don't buy it myself, but I needed people to have the chance to express that opinion, and provide some sort of support for it.

The French I thought was a novel reason. The D-376 was really a failure, but from that failure grew at least some of the impetus to build the American F4F, which the French referred to as the G-36 I think. And the f4f was a very significant aircraft, but needing a lot of work (which it can be argued was provided by the French really) in its early days.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

I am not sure about the French connection to the F4F. Things seem to be a bit murky. 
Grumman gets a contract for the XF4F-1 _Biplane _on March 3 1936.
July 10th 1936 sees the Navy approve a change to the monoplane configuration and change of designation to XF4F-2. at this time the engine is a 900hp (at altitude) P & W R-1830 with a single speed/single stage supercharger. 

Sept 2 1937 sees the first flight of the XF4F-2 which by March of 1938 looks like this.






Grumman looses the contract to Brewster, in part, according to one story, because the Grumman fuselage is just enough fatter to make crating a shipping by rail a problem???

In Oct of 1938 Grumman gets a contract for a modified version, the XF4F-3 with new wing, engine (two stage supercharger) and tail. 

After many trials and tribulations Grumman gets a contract for 54 F4F-3s on Aug 8th 1939. 

France orders 100 exort versions using commercial Wright R-1820 engines. This is the first mention of the French. They may very well have been looking around and talking to Grumman months before. 

Things get a bit confusing as the first production F4F-3 makes it's first flight in Feb 1940. April sees the 3rd and 4th F4Fs ordered to be equipped with Wright R-1820 engines and called XF4F-5s. May 11th sees the first flight test of a French F4F with Cyclone engine. The AMerican XF4F-5s first fly in June and in July are sent to Anacostia for test work on superchargers. July also sees the* 2nd * production F4F-3 make its first flight. July 27th 1940 sees the British take over the French order. Oct 1940 sees the first test flight of a British Martlet II (ordered when? ) with single stage two speed R-1830. By the end of Oct 81 Martlets (of both types?) have been delivered to the Royal Navy. By the beginning of Dec Grumman has delivered 22 F4Fs to the US Navy out of 578 on order. By Dec 31 1940 Grumman has delivered 103 aircraft and one has shot down a JU-88 near Scapa flow (or claimed one).
Now like production of the Buffalo and the P-40 I have no idea how much the US Navy allowed The French and British orders to take precedence over their own. 
I have no idea if the French really influenced the design of the F4F to any extent or just bought what was offered. Or asked for an extra gun bay so the plane would hold six 7.5 mm machine guns? just speculating.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

Would have been interesting to see how the A7M played out had it not been side-lined for increased A6M and G4M production.

In regards to the Bf109T, had the Germans actually committed themselves to their Carriers, it may have been a thorn in Britain's side, as now Germany would be able to project themselves further than their traditional range in attacks on the UK or conducting attacks on convoys - for example, the Graf Zeppelin accompanied by a taskforce comprised of a Pocket Battleship, several cruisers and a destroyer screen would have created quite a bit of trouble.

My poll choice goes to the F4F - it held the line against Japan and after being replaced in the PTO, continued on to war's end in the Atlantic, protecting convoys.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 3, 2018)

Excellent topic for a survey. My knee jerk reaction is to pick the F6F (as practically everyone would expect) but I want to really study the other planes listed and learn something about their service history before casting my vote.

A LOT of great candidates here by the way.....


----------



## Fishboy (Aug 3, 2018)

I have to go with the A6M Mitsubishi and the F4F Grumman. The A6M in my mind is an obvious choice as being a game changer at the beginning of conflict. True.....it became less “effective” as newer US designs came online in 1943, as well as suffering due to reduced numbers and losing skilled pilots. But as far as being one of the most valuable....it has to be there.

So why the Wildcat? In no way am I saying the Wildcat is a better platform than the Hellcat, or Corsair. But, in my opinion, by the time those aircraft replaced the F4F, the course of the Pacific conflict was pretty well determined, although there remained 2 more bloody years. While the Wildcat couldn’t match the Zero in many performance areas, by depending on it’s robust construction and coming up with newer tactics (Thach Weave, etc.), the Marine and Navy pilots for example at Guadalcanal, “gave as good as they got”. Without the Wildcats at Henderson Field, as well as supporting carriers, it is doubtful that the US would have retained control of Guadalcanal. And if so, how would things have changed? 

I admit that while this might not be in the majority view, I’m going with the 2 main adversaries at the beginning of the Pacific war. Again, my opinion and I would welcome any additional thoughts.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> In regards to the Bf109T, had the Germans actually committed themselves to their Carriers, it may have been a thorn in Britain's side, as now Germany would be able to project themselves further than their traditional range in attacks on the UK or conducting attacks on convoys - for example, the Graf Zeppelin accompanied by a taskforce comprised of a Pocket Battleship, several cruisers and a destroyer screen would have created quite a bit of trouble.



Or handed the British a propaganda/morale boosting victory. capacity was 40-42 planes. Which isn't quite enough. You either have a decent but not great strike group and a poor escort/CAP group or a poor strike group and a decent but not great escort/CAP group. 
You need a minimum of 4 planes in the air at a time for a CAP. So a pair of planes can investigate any radar contact and leave the 2nd pair to investigate a 2nd contact. Now how many planes do you need to maintain 4 planes in the air in all daylight hours? 8, 10 or 12? Now how many fighters do you want to escort the strike group? 4 or eight or???? 
And what are the Germans using for recon planes? 
The 109T  
Ju-87R (or equivalent?) 

What do you figure the chances of a JU-87 Recon plane against a Fairey Fulmar? or two? 

If the British know the Germans have a working carrier they operate theirs in pairs, less flexibility operationally but much greater strike power.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

The Graf Zeppelin was slated to have the Fi167 in a dual role: torpedo bomber and recon. In recon role, the Fi167 had a range of 930 miles with a drop-tank fitted.

However, consider this: the Graf Zeppelin (or Peter Strasser) would certainly have CAP in place, but for recon, I'd imagine that an accompanying Battleship or Cruiser would utilize one (or more) of their Ar196 compliment.

But in my earlier comment, I was thinking that a co-ordinated attack from the mainland and by sea (with the proposed task force) would have caused quite a bit of trouble.

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

"Value" implies that the aircraft was _present_, which immediately eliminates all German and Italian carrier aircraft as neither navy got carriers to sea. 

Only the US, Japan, UK, and France had carriers, and France got little value out of theirs. I think the F4F wins this contest


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

Parsifal introduced the German aspect in his post, therefore, it is part of the discussion.

And if we get right down to it, he forgot to add the Japanese army types that flew from Imperial Japanese Army carriers.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2018)

My take on determining value is firstly to look at the contributions each aircraft made, or potentially could have made and proportionate to the effort put into them determine what impact that aircraft had.
(militarily) were in Europe and North Africa whilst the most significant in terms of post war power and effect were in the pacific. . If the European Axis managed to break out of the containment ring thrown around them it was possible that a complete upset could be inflicted on the allies. The same logic cannot be applied to the Japanese. They were essentially a regional power, but their logistics were so limited that they were never going to extend much further than they actually did. moreover, the battles at sea that decided the fate of the war, in both the PTO and ETO were fought 1940-1943.

So, by process of elimination , I would discount both the F6F and F4U, whilst still acknowledging their very significant technical and material achievements.

I would discount also the Seafire . It was introduced in 1942, but was a failure until much later in the war, because of its high attrition. I would acknowledge the Sea Hurricane. It made quite an impact on battles 1941-2 but not enough to claim the mantle of 'most valuable". So too the Fulmar and firefly.

From a philosophical standpoint of sheer technical advancement I think F3F is up there as well as the Japanese A5M . The claude was probably as much an advance over the A4N as the A6M was over the A5M. The A6M was of greater value to the Japanese because of the shock value it generated.

Great as the valueof the A6M was in terms of planting this stamp of power and innovation to a nation outside the European clique, it was still contained and defeated by the F4F. The Grumman had a hand in both the PTO and ETO. It was a design available relatively early until almost the end. My vote went to the f4F as a result 

(Edit): unlike other types, seemingly more advanced, the F4F was quite useful aboard cramped carriers like the RN carriers and CVEs. Larger types could and did operate from these smaller platforms, but for the CVEs in particular, they were not easy to operate from. And at the end there were more than 100 CVEs built, or on order. 
.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2018)

I don't agree with the usual arguments about German carrier a/c effects, but that is not to say they are not valid. 

Ive mistakenly entered the Fulmar twice in the poll and don't know how to delete one of them.

A/c being transported on carriers, but not actually carrier aircraft I didn't think worth including.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 3, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Would have been interesting to see how the A7M played out had it not been side-lined for increased A6M and G4M production.
> 
> In regards to the Bf109T, had the Germans actually committed themselves to their Carriers, it may have been a thorn in Britain's side, as now Germany would be able to project themselves further than their traditional range in attacks on the UK or conducting attacks on convoys - for example, the Graf Zeppelin accompanied by a taskforce comprised of a Pocket Battleship, several cruisers and a destroyer screen would have created quite a bit of trouble.
> 
> My poll choice goes to the F4F - it held the line against Japan and after being replaced in the PTO, continued on to war's end in the Atlantic, protecting convoys.


Was the F4F entirely replaced in the Pacific? I had the impression it continued to serve in limited numbers in the Pacific aboard escort carriers till the end of the war.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Was the F4F entirely replaced in the Pacific? I had the impression it continued to serve in limited numbers in the Pacific aboard escort carriers till the end of the war.




It also served in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. 

The carrier Graf Spee is no more relevant than the Aquila, and for the same reason: for it to be useful, it would have had to be completed and equipped no later than 1938 to be militarily useful in 1940, because the procedures for carrier aviation to work would need to be developed. The British may have noticed the German Navy swanning around with a carrier.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 3, 2018)

As much as I like the often under appreciated F4F my vote is for the F6F. 
In my opinion it was to the Pacific theater what the p51 was to the European one. Most notably a sudden and dramatic increase in kill/loss ratios. Not to mention docile handling caracteristics(so I have read anyway), dependability, and realative ease of maintenance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Was the F4F entirely replaced in the Pacific? I had the impression it continued to serve in limited numbers in the Pacific aboard escort carriers till the end of the war.


The F4F/FM was scaled back considerably in the PTO, but was of exceptional value in the Atlantic. But yes, they did continue to serve aboard escort carriers in the PTO, and during the battle of Samar (25 October 1944), proved they were still a serious force to be reckoned with when they defended the Taffy task forces from IJA surface elements.



parsifal said:


> A/c being transported on carriers, but not actually carrier aircraft I didn't think worth including.


The IJA carriers did transport aircraft, but they also operated the Kayaba Ka-1 for ASW duties. In the case of the IJA's Akitsu Maru, it was the world's first Amphibious Assault ship, so it did have an impact - especially in the sense of bringing land-based aircraft into a theater dominated by Naval aircraft.

So the short story is, the Imperial Japanese Army's carriers provided more function than the carriers of the Italians or the French

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> It also served in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.
> 
> The carrier Graf Spee is no more relevant than the Aquila, and for the same reason: for it to be useful, it would have had to be completed and equipped no later than 1938 to be militarily useful in 1940, because the procedures for carrier aviation to work would need to be developed. The British may have noticed the German Navy swanning around with a carrier.


Yes didn't the F4f serve in the Atlantic pretty much till the end. I think I recall reading about a clash between Martlets and Bf109s off Norway in Very late 44 or early 45?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 4, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The F4F/FM was scaled back considerably in the PTO, but was of exceptional value in the Atlantic. But yes, they did continue to serve aboard escort carriers in the PTO, and during the battle of Samar (25 October 1944), proved they were still a serious force to be reckoned with when they defended the Taffy task forces from IJA surface elements.
> 
> 
> The IJA carriers did transport aircraft, but they also operated the Kayaba Ka-1 for ASW duties. In the case of the IJA's Akitsu Maru, it was the world's first Amphibious Assault ship, so it did have an impact - especially in the sense of bringing land-based aircraft into a theater dominated by Naval aircraft.
> ...


 Yes I've always found it fascinating how F4fs seemed to be able to hold their own and in some cases even come out on top when pitted against later types that on paper at least doesn't look like they had any business being in the same sky with. The Bf109g for example.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Yes didn't the F4f serve in the Atlantic pretty much till the end. I think I recall reading about a clash between Martlets and Bf109s off Norway in Very late 44 or early 45?


The F4F was manufactured until 1943, the FM was manufactured right up to the end of the war. They (primarily the FM) served in the Atlantic until the last day of the war.



michael rauls said:


> Yes I've always found it fascinating how F4fs seemed to be able to hold their own and in some cases even come out on top when pitted against later types that on paper at least doesn't look like they had any business being in the same sky with. The Bf109g for example.


The interesting thing about the F4F, was that it's design was nearly as old as the Bf109.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 4, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The F4F was manufactured until 1943, the FM was manufactured right up to the end of the war. They (primarily the FM) served in the Atlantic until the last day of the war.
> 
> 
> The interesting thing about the F4F, was that it's design was nearly as old as the Bf109.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 4, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The F4F was manufactured until 1943, the FM was manufactured right up to the end of the war. They (primarily the FM) served in the Atlantic until the last day of the war.
> 
> 
> The interesting thing about the F4F, was that it's design was nearly as old as the Bf109.[/QUOTE
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Yes I've always found it fascinating how F4fs seemed to be able to hold their own and in some cases even come out on top when pitted against later types that on paper at least doesn't look like they had any business being in the same sky with. The Bf109g for example.



The Wildcat was tough, maneuverable, and actually pretty fast at low altitudes. Consider the anecdote of somebody who flew against it: Sakai found it a much tougher opponent than the other Allied aircraft he fought before he was shot down by a rear gunner in a dive bomber, some of those aircraft doing quite well in Europe and the Mediterranean against German aircraft. The Wildcat could have been developed farther than it was, but the US industry was better run than Germany's, so it could field new aircraft to replace it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

I am not sure what you could do the F4F that could have improved it to any great extent. 
While anything can be improved given enough effort (time and money) sometimes it is better to start over like with the F6F.

The R-1830 and R-1820 engines had both come to a temporary halt in development in 1941 and while both were later improved there was a 1-2 year gap (maybe more for the R-1830?) while other engines were worked on. 
The later versions of both engines gained more power down low (or for take-off) than they did performance at altitude so new superchargers would be needed on addition to beefing up the engines and improving cooling. 

The next jump in engine size/power is the R-2600 and that is what started the whole F6F development story. Grumman thought it was better to start over than try to modify the F4F to take the R-2600.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure what you could do the F4F that could have improved it to any great extent.
> While anything can be improved given enough effort (time and money) sometimes it is better to start over like with the F6F.
> 
> The R-1830 and R-1820 engines had both come to a temporary halt in development in 1941 and while both were later improved there was a 1-2 year gap (maybe more for the R-1830?) while other engines were worked on.
> ...


Good point that at some point it's more productive to move on to a new design than upgrade an older one.
Just a question that has bothered me for a long time pertaining to the Wildcat, the Fm2 had a fairly substantial increase in horsepower( 200 hp i think) and very little increase in weight yet the speed given for the Fm2 is always about the same as the F4f, around 320 to 330. This doesn't seem possible. There's a few of you guys on here that seem to know more than most of the books or articles on the internet ive read so just wondering if anyone here knows if this is accurate.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

The FM-2 got the Wright R-1820 9 cylinder single row radial instead of the P & W R-1830 14 cylinder two row radial. 
The HP difference was much smaller, 100hp at take-off to begin with with later engines getting a new crankshaft that allowed higher rpm and another 50 hp. (difference 150hp).
ANd here we have a major problem in quoting take-off horsepower and trying to figure max speed at altitude from it. The R-1830 engine used a two stage supercharger and was still making 1040hp at 18,400ft. The R-1820 engine used in the FM-2 had a two speed single stage supercharger and despite the power advantage down low, was down to 1000hp at 17,000ft. 
So the FM-2 had slightly less power at the higher altitudes and had fatter engine (more drag?) 
FM-2 might have made better use of the exhaust thrust





from F4F Wildcat (multiple)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 4, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Good point that at some point it's more productive to move on to a new design than upgrade an older one.
> Just a question that has bothered me for a long time pertaining to the Wildcat, the Fm2 had a fairly substantial increase in horsepower( 200 hp i think) and very little increase in weight yet the speed given for the Fm2 is always about the same as the F4f, around 320 to 330. This doesn't seem possible. There's a few of you guys on here that seem to know more than most of the books or articles on the internet ive read so just wondering if anyone here knows if this is accurate.



*The greater power gave the FM2 a much better low and medium altitude climb rate.
It had a greater initial climb than any F6F or F4U-1/2. I read somewhere (about 30 yr. ago)
that its low speed acceleration surpassed the Corsairs. However there is always the
drag limited issue. The FM2 reached its limit at around 330 mph and it was going to
take a considerable amount of power to push that speed significantly. Wind resistance
is your answer.*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 4, 2018)

Thanks for clearing that up for me guys. Now i understand how performance can be altitude dependant depending on the supercharger type and how you could have better acceleration and initial climb but not have that translate to much higher max speed.
If I'm understanding corectly seems like the Fm2 would probably have been somewhat faster at low altitude than the F4F though?


----------



## davparlr (Aug 4, 2018)

I had to vote for the F4F. I like the early birds which held the line against the cream of Japanese pilots who were some of the best in the world, and highly experienced. They weren't the later poorly trained pilots thrown into the battle nor were they the clay pigeon Kamikazes, which the later planes racked up their scores.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 4, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *The greater power gave the FM2 a much better low and medium altitude climb rate.
> It had a greater initial climb than any F6F or F4U-1/2. I read somewhere (about 30 yr. ago)
> that its low speed acceleration surpassed the Corsairs. However there is always the
> drag limited issue. The FM2 reached its limit at around 330 mph and it was going to
> ...


Sorry in my last post I didn't mean to gloss over what you said about drag as a limiting factor in top speed for the Fm2 I guess I just got focused on the supercharger dynamic for a bit.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 4, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Sorry in my last post I didn't mean to gloss over what you said about drag as a limiting factor in top speed for the Fm2 I guess I just got focused on the supercharger dynamic for a bit.


Nothing to be sorry for what-so-ever. It is a great thing that we are all able
to come together and answer a question from different angles and perspectives.
That ability as a group has always been what makes this site great.
You done great Michael, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 4, 2018)

I do not at this time have an answer for the most valuable carrier based
fighter of WW2. The Wildcat held its own even when its performance
was outmatched early in the war. In the FM2 model it proved to be a
worthy advisory to Zero right up until the end. The US carrier based
Corsairs came along very late in the war.The F6F was the answer
to the Zero's reign in 1943 and was just a great answer for all the
needs of the USN at that time. But I just can't shake the mystique
the Zero (A6M2 and 3) was able to project in 1941-early 1943.
No other fighter in WW2 I can think of that was able to project its
abilities to and in many ways past its actual abilities like the Zero.
I ain't pickin' one yet. I am just making a very clear observation.
, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2018)

The R-1820 seems to have had somewhat more development work than did the R-1830, with versions up to about 1350 hp seeing service in WW2, vs about 1200 hp for the R-1830 (don't quote me, and I've not spent much more than 10 minutes looking at this). The R-1830 could have produced more power had the effort been made -- it had about 25% more piston area, and could have been developed to about 1700 hp (this would be at about the same ratio of horsepower to piston area as the R-1820 managed) but there was no perceived need. Conversely, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft could have used the front row of an R-2800 to create a 1200+ hp single-row R-1400 but, again, there was no perceived need.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

The needs were there, the extra engineering man hours were not. 

HP per unit of piston area is interesting but it requires a lot of work to get it to happen. The extra 1.375in of stoke on the R-1820 meant that there was a lot more fuel/air being burned per sq in of piston area compared to the R-1830. Granted the R-1830 ran a few hundred RPM faster. 

P & W were working on the R-2800 in two different versions (they gave up on the "A" in 1941) the "B" and the "C" and the "C" shared next to nothing except the bore and stroke with the "B". It is the "C" that made that 2800hp from 2800 cubic inches and it needed a turbo charger 100/130 fuel and water injection to do it.
They were also working on the R-2000 to give more power than the R-1830 for transport use, and they had started work on the R-4360 28 cylinder engine (which used the same bore and stroke as the R-2800). Fooling around trying to hot rod the R-1830 was NOT on their list of priorities. 
Late in the war some of what they learned on the R-2800 trickled down to the R-1830 and some were built with a 1350hp take-off rating, this required new bearings, new cylinders and new cylinder heads. 

The R-1820s that gave 1300-1350hp were another engine that shared nothing except the bore and stroke with the model that preceded it. New Crankcase, new crankshaft, new connecting rods, new pistons, new cylinder barrels with a new way of making the fins and new cylinder heads. They used four more bolts to hold each cylinder to the crankcase than the preceding R-1820.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 4, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> It had a greater initial climb than any F6F or F4U-1/2.



I've heard this before but haven't extensively compared the climb rates of the three (I'm very familiar with the Hellcat's climb performance from studying Navy test results, the other two not so much). Is that in both military _and_ combat power?

You're the guy who charts these planes all the time so you should know...


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It is the "C" that made that 2800hp from 2800 cubic inches and it needed a turbo charger 100/130 fuel and water injection to do it.



IIRC didn't the -59 and -63 "B" series engines found in later P-47Ds produce around 2800hp when boosted to 70" Hg while using 104/150 fuel and ADI?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

There wasn't a whole lot of "combat" power to be had from the R-1820 engine in the FM-2.

One book claims 1360hp at sea level at 2600rpm and 52in MAP in low gear, Take-off was 1300hp at 2600rpm and 46.4in of MAP.
Military power was given as 1300hp at 2600rpm at 4,000ft.
Power dropped off to about 900hp at 15,000ft and after shifting to high gear power climbed back up to 1000hp at 17,000ft.

Up to about 9-10,000ft the FM-2 might have 200hp more than the F4F-4 but the F4F has about 100hp more from about 10-15,000ft and except for a brief burp it has 40-50 more from around 17,500 on up. the FM-2 weighed about 7500lbs (or a bit under clean) but was under 1200hp by 6,000ft or so.

No water injection, no WEP except for that 50-60hp boost near sea level.

edit: upon further research water injection seems to have available some time in 1944 but max allowable boost may not have exceeded 52in.?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> IIRC didn't the -59 and -63 "B" series engines found in later P-47Ds produce around 2800hp when boosted to 70" Hg while using 104/150 fuel and ADI?


 There is a test saying they could but the test doesn't say if it was approved for service use or not.
P 47D Performance Test Using 44-1 Fuel

It does say there were cooling problems and climbs had to limited to short periods of time (without saying how short?)

The R-2800C as used in the P-47M and N was approved at 2800hp for service use. It ran 100rpm faster than the -59 and -63 "B" series engines and had much better finning on the cylinder heads and cylinder barrels and required something like 10% less cooling air for the same power (?)
It was also rated at 72in of manifold pressure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a test saying they could but the test doesn't say if it was approved for service use or not.
> P 47D Performance Test Using 44-1 Fuel
> 
> It does say there were cooling problems and climbs had to limited to short periods of time (without saying how short?)
> ...



Very good. Do you happen to know why the Navy's -18W "C" engine never achieved similar MAP ratings/horsepower as the Army's -57, -73, and -77 versions? From what I can tell the greatest boost level authorized in "combat" power remained at 60" Hg (identical to the "B" series -8W and -10W engines). Maximum horsepower of the -18W was boosted to 2380hp at 2800rpm according to AHT (Dean).


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 5, 2018)

After looking over the data presented at _wwiiaircraftperformance.org_ I could definitely see the initial climb advantage the FM-2 possessed over the other two naval fighters. From all the aircraft testing performed, both the F6F and F4U-1 averaged right around 2,900 fpm at S/L when in military power while the FM-2 averaged over 3,500 fpm in similar settings (although the FM-2 does have a much smaller grouping of data to pick from than the other two airplanes). When flown at combat power the F6F and F4U-1 gained approximately 300 and 400 fpm respectively from the boost in horsepower but they still lagged behind the sprightly FM-2 in either power setting (one test of the FM-2 showed 3670 fpm in combat power). Quite impressive indeed.

FM-2 Performance Trials
F4U Performance Trials
F6F Performance Trials

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 5, 2018)

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 5, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> After looking over the data presented at _wwiiaircraftperformance.org_ I could definitely see the initial climb advantage the FM-2 possessed over the other two naval fighters. From all the aircraft testing performed, both the F6F and F4U-1 averaged right around 2,900 fpm at S/L when in military power while the FM-2 averaged over 3,500 fpm in similar settings (although the FM-2 does have a much smaller grouping of data to pick from than the other two airplanes). When flown at combat power the F6F and F4U-1 gained approximately 300 and 400 fpm respectively from the boost in horsepower but they still lagged behind the sprightly FM-2 in either power setting (one test of the FM-2 showed 3670 fpm in combat power). Quite impressive indeed.
> 
> FM-2 Performance Trials
> F4U Performance Trials
> F6F Performance Trials


That is impressive. Especially for a type that so often gets characterized as slow and clumsy in so many books and internet articles.
Have always really liked the F4f/Fm2 as it seemed like the underdog that still managed to come out on top but now have a new respect for what it could do performance wise.
The fact that a Fm2 in the later dark blue finish is one of the most beautiful sites to ever grace the human eye( in my opinion) doesn't hurt its case either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 5, 2018)

FM-2 Performance Trials

In TED No. BIS 2127 page 14, FM-2 No. 15953 boasted an initial
climb rate of 3,730 fpm at 7,282 lb.

In TED No. PTR 0416 which was a report on *WATER INJECTION*
test on FM-2 No.16169 gave initial climb of 3,670 fpm at 7,418 lb.

The information I would use for comparison purposes would come
from BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS, NAVY DEPT. NAVAER - 1335 D
dated 9/1/44. In this document is given a much more standardize
initial climb of 3,650 fpm at 7,487 lb. These figures are from the
main graphs and charts in the report. There is also a section in
that report that states the clean initial climb of the aircraft is
3,660 fpm. at 7,473 lb.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2018)

This is very impressive but the initial climb rate soon (very soon) drops off, down to about 3200fpm at 4,000ft and 3100fpm at 5,000ft. At which point the supercharger is shifted into high gear and things stay somewhat stable to 8,000ft at which point the supercharger hits it's FTL for this level of boost and climb delines at a steady rate. about 2850fpm at 10,000ft and 2600fpm at 12,000ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 5, 2018)

Shortround is right on. The climb rate fell off rapidly.
The critical altitude for high supercharger on climb
was 8,600 ft. at which altitude the FM-2 was climbing
at 2,955 fpm. This reflected greatly the Navy's stance
on supercharger gearing. Check out the F8F's climb
rate. It very much followed suit.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> This is very impressive but the initial climb rate soon (very soon) drops off, down to about 3200fpm at 4,000ft and 3100fpm at 5,000ft. At which point the supercharger is shifted into high gear and things stay somewhat stable to 8,000ft at which point the supercharger hits it's FTL for this level of boost and climb delines at a steady rate. about 2850fpm at 10,000ft and 2600fpm at 12,000ft.


Good information but 2850 fpm at 10,000 still seems pretty impressive for a type not generally given alot of credit for its climb and acceleration performance to say the least especially when you consider its in the ballpark of climb rates of types generally considered to have impressive climb and acceleration like the p51(3200 fpm i think?) and the A6m at 3100 and that doesn't even account for how those climb rates may have deteriorated with altitude( not sure of the numbers on that but I'm guessing there must have been some effect of increasing altitude on those types also)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 5, 2018)

Just one other note I would like to add. There was nothing
in the entire US fighter inventory that could maneuver with
the FM-2 for short distances. The only possible exception
would be the Curtiss P-40N-1 with reduced weight. The
Warhawk probably had the advantage in acceleration into
the roll and sustained roll rate. Just an FYI., Jeff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 5, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Just one other note I would like to add. There was nothing
> in the entire US fighter inventory that could maneuver with
> the FM-2 for short distances. The only possible exception
> would be the Curtiss P-40N-1 with reduced weight. The
> ...


Wow verry enlightening and certainly alot different than the conventional wisdom on the type one generally reads.
Gives me new appreciation for a type I have always liked anyway. Thank you!


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> This is very impressive but the initial climb rate soon (very soon) drops off, down to about 3200fpm at 4,000ft and 3100fpm at 5,000ft. At which point the supercharger is shifted into high gear and things stay somewhat stable to 8,000ft at which point the supercharger hits it's FTL for this level of boost and climb delines at a steady rate. about 2850fpm at 10,000ft and 2600fpm at 12,000ft.





michael rauls said:


> Good information but 2850 fpm at 10,000 still seems pretty impressive for a type not generally given alot of credit for its climb and acceleration performance to say the least especially when you consider its in the ballpark of climb rates of types generally considered to have impressive climb and acceleration like the p51(3200 fpm i think?) and the A6m at 3100 and that doesn't even account for how those climb rates may have deteriorated with altitude( not sure of the numbers on that but I'm guessing there must have been some effect of increasing altitude on those types also)



Yes, climb does drop off considerably after FTH, but because it's initial climb rate was so good it would arrive at 20Kft in the basically the same amount of time as the average F6F in military power (it would lag behind to that height if the F6F was using combat power however). Ditto for the F4U-1.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 5, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive



Thanks CORSNING for sharing this website with us. It has some very useful information indeed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 5, 2018)

Your welcome Darren. I once was posting on the warbirds forum
all the information I could get my hands on. Shame that site closed
up this year.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 5, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Your welcome Darren. I once was posting on the warbirds forum
> all the information I could get my hands on. Shame that site closed
> up this year.



It is a shame but luckily you made a great contribution towards the hobby before that happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 5, 2018)

Thank you sir. Did I happen to mention anywhere that I
kept hard copy of it all? I am just waiting for the right
time and place to post it all again.....with many updates and
revisions of course.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 5, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Thank you sir. Did I happen to mention anywhere that I
> kept hard copy of it all? I am just waiting for the right
> time and place to post it all again.....with many updates and
> revisions of course.



NICE!!!


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 5, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Thank you sir. Did I happen to mention anywhere that I
> kept hard copy of it all? I am just waiting for the right
> time and place to post it all again.....with many updates and
> revisions of course.


 Yes thank you for not letting all of that valuable information slip away.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 5, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thanks CORSNING for sharing this website with us. It has some very useful information indeed!



Be aware that the F4F-3/4 SAC data was never replicated by actual flight tests of individual aircraft. For whatever reason the USN seems to have "sexed up" the F4F data somewhat. In particular it's climb rate was considerably overstated.

BTW, the Fulmar is listed twice.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 6, 2018)

BTW, the Fulmar is listed twice.[/QUOTE]

Thank you RCAF. None of us were really going to mention that
fact. We all figure the Fulmar needed all the help it could get.

True Story, Jeff

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 6, 2018)

It is a shame that warbirdsforum closed shop. I was just
starting to wind up with information on several A/C vs. A/C
comparisons. I was going to use the comparisons in the
books Duels in the Sky by Captain Eric M. Brown and
Fighter Aircraft Performance of WW2, A Comparative
Study by Erik Pilawskii for the foundation of the discussions.
I am open to all and any ideas where all the information
I have can be posted.

Thanks guys, Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 6, 2018)

OK, down to business.

1941: Mitsubishi *A6M2*: If there ever was a mystique around
an aircraft, this baby had it. This year and early next goes to the ZERO.

1942: For at least the first six months the honor goes to the *A6M2.*
Now here is where everything gets interesting. Its performance
outclassed in almost every way, the *F4F-3* holds the line. These
two great fighters have to share this year

1943: Early on the Zero in both the *A6M2 and A6M3* models continue
to prove there worth. The higher loaded* F4F-4* manages to still hold
the line. USN Navy pilots are sweating bullets but manage.

1943: This is the second half of the year. The* F6F-3* takes all honors
at this time.

1944: We are talking carrier fighter here and we are talking about
the most valuable one. The honor passes from the *F6F-3 to the
F6F-5* with its water injection system. The USN now has a 400
mph fighter.

1945: Guys, I would like to work the F4U-1D or F4U-4 in here
but the topic does not ask "The carrier fighter with the best
performance. It asks about the most valuable. The *F6F-5*
was still the most forgiving off the deck and kept flyers
alive. I thoroughly love the Corsair, but I am going to have
to back the Hellcat on the question asked. This is also
a numbers thing.

That is how I see this at this time, Jeff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 6, 2018)

If I might also contribute an Honorable Mention to the list, partucularly for 1942:
The Douglas SBD, which, while not a fighter, helped shoulder the burden of defending the fleet from Japanese attackers, accruing 138 confirmed victories.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 7, 2018)

I voted for the Fulmar (I managed to resist voting for it twice) and the F4F. They were both vital to the Navies of the RN and USN because there was nothing else to fight with and both did extremely well. 

The Fulmar had 122 confirmed kills against 40 losses to enemy action, as best as I can find 16 to fighters 18 to bombers and 6 to AA. The only time the Fulmar was overwhelmed was when the air base at Ratmalana Ceylon was attacked by Japanese carrier-based aircraft on April 5 1942. As they struggled to take off, four of the six operational Fulmars of 803 squadron were destroyed and only one Japanese aircraft claimed as a kill. This is often pointed to as the inevitable failure of the Fulmar in the face of more advanced Japanese machines. However, few aircraft “bounced” taking off from their airfield/Deck make a good accounting of themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## David Fred (Aug 7, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That is impressive. Especially for a type that so often gets characterized as slow and clumsy in so many books and internet articles.
> Have always really liked the F4f/Fm2 as it seemed like the underdog that still managed to come out on top but now have a new respect for what it could do performance wise.
> The fact that a Fm2 in the later dark blue finish is one of the most beautiful sites to ever grace the human eye( in my opinion) doesn't hurt its case either.



The wilder Wildcat. Interesting gun options for the pilot as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2018)

parsifal said:


> My take on determining value is firstly to look at the contributions each aircraft made, or potentially could have made and proportionate to the effort put into them determine what impact that aircraft had.
> (militarily) were in Europe and North Africa whilst the most significant in terms of post war power and effect were in the pacific. . If the European Axis managed to break out of the containment ring thrown around them it was possible that a complete upset could be inflicted on the allies. The same logic cannot be applied to the Japanese. They were essentially a regional power, but their logistics were so limited that they were never going to extend much further than they actually did. moreover, the battles at sea that decided the fate of the war, in both the PTO and ETO were fought 1940-1943.
> 
> So, by process of elimination , I would discount both the F6F and F4U, whilst still acknowledging their very significant technical and material achievements.
> ...


The reason I chose the Sea Hurricane were that it was a readily available rugged and successful land based fighter that could be quickly turned into a carrier based fighter by means of what was effectively a conversion kit. Performance was equivalent to a Wildcat and in a dogfight better. Downside was dive speed and range although with drop tanks as good as a Wildcat. It defended the Malta convoys successfully and provided cover for the Allied landings in French North Africa. If Malta had been lost then we would have been out of the Mediterranean, so that's a game changer. Successfully taking French North Africa was a game changer. Could it have been improved upon? The answer is yes. If the Spitfire could take the two stage Merlin then so could a Sea Hurricane, so that would have given the the FAA, a fighter with a performance equivalent to a Hellcat. Same downsides though, range and dive speed.
I forgot the other downsides, ditching and landing characteristics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Aug 12, 2018)

I chose the F4F for the reasons that it was the original "sound" design that got us through the first half of the war, but also, because its shortcomings prompted the aircraft companies to come out with improved designs...basically, the F6F and other late war naval aircraft owe their performance to the F4F showing just how much we needed to improve certain aspects of performance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2018)

The F6F had been in the works since the late 30's, the contract for the XF6F was signed in June of '41...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The F6F had been in the works since the late 30's, the contract for the XF6F was signed in June of '41...




Blimey, that is a loooong development period. It actually pre-dates the design of the A6M.

That is not a good thing. A design period of nearly 5 years from inception to sqn entry is like 2 generations of aircraft development t at the time. The USN could have lost the war several times over if its lfe depended on the Hellcat.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2018)

The Hellcat would have most likely been available a little sooner, but with the advent of the U.S. being drawn into war and thus USN pilots encountering the A6M with the F4F, changes to the F6F to reflect the Wildcat's shortcomings, as well as the change from the original Wright R-2600, to the P&W R-2800.

It's first action against an enemy was 1 September '43, where they downed an H8K, but shortly after, on 23-24 November, they had their combat debut at Tarawa with great success.

So in retrospect, I would say the short delay was well worth it, as the F6F emerged as a top performer right out of the gate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2018)

It wasn't quite that bad.

Grumman had done three preliminary studies (all on paper) about using the Wright R-2600 in a fighter (one based of a modified F4F) so while they weren't starting from scratch neither were they 'tweaking' an existing design. The modified F4F pretty much showing them what _not_ to do.

The early studies (F4F-2 based) were designs 33 and 33A, design 35 was pretty much clean sheet but worked stopped while the F4F-3 was gotten into production. 
Grumman started work again in Sept 1940 with design 50. After _briefly_ considering using some F4F components a much larger and heavier aircraft was worked out. A mock up was ready on Jan 12th 1941. after the mock up the fuselage was lengthened, the wing was made bigger. This was the aircraft the Navy signed for in June of 1941

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Or handed the British a propaganda/morale boosting victory. capacity was 40-42 planes. Which isn't quite enough. You either have a decent but not great strike group and a poor escort/CAP group or a poor strike group and a decent but not great escort/CAP group.
> You need a minimum of 4 planes in the air at a time for a CAP. So a pair of planes can investigate any radar contact and leave the 2nd pair to investigate a 2nd contact. Now how many planes do you need to maintain 4 planes in the air in all daylight hours? 8, 10 or 12? Now how many fighters do you want to escort the strike group? 4 or eight or????
> And what are the Germans using for recon planes?
> The 109T
> ...



I think it is always wise to remember we not always have the full facts when dealing with German stuff given how much was lost. Yes, 43 aircraft was its declared air group... but the thing had 2 hangars with an area almost as large as Ark Royal's, only the large IJN carriers beat it, but most IJN aircraft didnt have folding wings.

You can fit 70+ aircraft there if you want to or need to...

The KM delayed its 2nd carrier after signing the building contracts in order to give priority to the BBs, have them NOT change their minds, thus retaining their building priority, and the KM could have started the war with 2 CVs.

Early recon planes were dead meat when caught by fighters... how do you like the odds of a Fulmar (or Skua, rather) against a radar directed 109T in 1940?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2018)

once again the Germans get to "tweak" their forces while the British stumble along fat, blind and stupid. 

British might have adjusted their own carrier building program had the the Germans changed their building program to stop a battleship (which one pray tell? the Bismark?) and build a 2nd carrier in time for 1939/40. 

I like the odds of the Fulmar against the 109T a whole lot better than the odds of a Fi 167 against a radar directed Fulmar.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It wasn't quite that bad.
> 
> Grumman had done three preliminary studies (all on paper) about using the Wright R-2600 in a fighter (one based of a modified F4F) so while they weren't starting from scratch neither were they 'tweaking' an existing design. The modified F4F pretty much showing them what _not_ to do.
> 
> ...


They also repositioned the cockpit to a higher stance with a sloping cowl to improve pilot visability as well as incorporated better armor at key points.

Going from memory, but I believe Grumman's engineers had a Q&A session with Butch O'Hare when he toured their plant.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> once again the Germans get to "tweak" their forces while the British stumble along fat, blind and stupid.
> 
> British might have adjusted their own carrier building program had the the Germans changed their building program to stop a battleship (which one pray tell? the Bismark?) and build a 2nd carrier in time for 1939/40.
> 
> I like the odds of the Fulmar against the 109T a whole lot better than the odds of a Fi 167 against a radar directed Fulmar.



Did I claim the RN would do nothing? No? English is my second language but I do seem to recall there being an expression for making up of changing someone else's argument in order to attack it... wicker man? stick man? Nevermind, it will get back to me.

Tirpitz, not Bismarck... and a 2nd Ark Royal may have been a logic response, but I think it was intended for Pacific and not European use, IIRC. Another Invincible?

AFAIK the RN was still having trouble using air search radar in 1941, much less 1940, specially considering it wasnt very good at detecting single aircraft... the Fi 167 in that context would have better chances than a Fulmar or Skua against a 109T.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 12, 2018)

Ok folks....before I make my suggestion, please note that my tongue is pretty firmly placed in my cheek (primarily because I'm stretching the "of WW2" part of the question into the mid/late 1930s). 

My suggestion is the much-mocked Brewster F2A. And before everyone starts shooting me down in flames, think about what the USN fighter fleet would have looked like without the F2A being around? Still equipped with development models based on the XF4F-1 biplane? Or perhaps Grumman would have made the leap to a monoplane fighter but would it have turned out like the initial XF4F-2 design which was less maneuverable than the F2A? Whatever the scenario, it's certainly possible that the USN's fighter force facing Japan in 1941 would have been somewhat less capable than it turned out to be. Sometimes failures turn out to be blessings in disguise. 

I'll now let you all get back to your fascinating discussion about Wildcats and Hellcats and Fulmars!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2018)

The F2A has been much maligned, but it was the USN's first all metal monoplane fighter.

The F2A entered service (1939) just three years after Grumman's F3F was introduced into service (1936) with the USN, so it was certainly a step forward, especially with it's armament configuration.
It's performance was just short of the F4F's, which entered service a year later (1940).


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2018)

The F2A wasn't that innovative in the US Navy. The Navy seemed to be doing things backward. It already had an all metal monoplane torpedo bomber. It had both an all metal scout dive bomber monoplane and a scout dive bomber monoplane with metal wings and forward fuselage and fabric covered rear fuselage. 2 of them had folding wings which the Brewter did not. Leaving the fighter contingent as the last to get a monoplane seems a bit strange but also means it was coming no matter who made it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 12, 2018)

I wasn't suggesting that the USN wouldn't eventually have procured a monoplane fighter...simply that it was accelerated by the success of the F2A in its initial competition with the "next gen" Grumman biplane.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> ...It actually pre-dates the design of the A6M.



The design work for the _Zero-sen_ began in October 1937 and the first A6M1 was flown on April 1, 1939. This was a remarkably short period of time from design inception to an aircraft's first flight. The development of the F6F mimicked this, taking less than a year from contract signing on June 30, 1941 to the prototype's first flight on June 26, 1942.

After these maiden flights both fighters took a little over a year to enter combat - the Zero in China during the summer of 1940; the Hellcat in the Solomons during the summer of 1943.

So while Grumman did indeed start work on a possible replacement for the Wildcat in 1938, by 1941 the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics changed the requirements (asking for greater range, firepower, armor, ect.) and the "improved F4F" concept was scrapped in favor of "Grumman Design Number 50" which ultimately became the XF6F-1.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2018)

Agreed...I have always wondered why the Navy went with the F3F so late in the decade when the writing was on the wall in terms of aircraft technology and warclouds gathering on the horizon.

My only guess, is that the depression and deep cuts to the military may have been a contributing factor.

Cost of an F3F-1: $20,424 
Cost of an F2A: unknown, but Brewster's unit price was lower than the XF4F-2, so they won the contract.
Cost of an F4F-3: $30,000


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2018)

I am also not sure how much of a success the initial F2A was. Leaving aside it's performance at Midway (a different model) the navy took delivery of 11 by Dec of 1939 but had already had the XF2A-1 converted to the XF2A-2 back in June/July of 1939. The US allows the Finns to take the rest of the order and allows the Belgian and some of the British orders to be completed before getting back in the production queue and gets F2A-2s. In May of 1941 Brewster rebuilds eight of the original 11 F2A-1s into F2A-2s. 
They may not have been happy with the F2A-1s as they were?


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 12, 2018)

The success I was quoting was the competition against the Grumman biplane...and, frankly, the initial Grumman monoplane.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 12, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Going from memory, but I believe Grumman's engineers had a Q&A session with Butch O'Hare when he toured their plant.



Yes and Lt. Cmdr John Thach, developer of the highly successful aerial combat tactic known as the "Thach Weave"....


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> I think it is always wise to remember we not always have the full facts when dealing with German stuff given how much was lost. Yes, 43 aircraft was its declared air group... but the thing had 2 hangars with an area almost as large as Ark Royal's, only the large IJN carriers beat it, but most IJN aircraft didnt have folding wings.
> 
> You can fit 70+ aircraft there if you want to or need to...
> 
> ...



Graf Zeppelin had so many design faults, it is unlikely she could even have fielded 40 a/c at sea. 

Her power rating of over 208000 shp meant a lot of space was taken up with machinery spaces. The insistence that she be able to carry a heavy gun broadside limited her hangar space. Her catapult launching system was relatively weak and inefficient, and had aircraft of greater weight than those of the original CAG been embarked, would have required major work on the carrier, as the belated resurrection of the project in 1942 was to find. 

There were significant problems in achieving a decent wing folding system for the Bf109Ts 

There were 3 Versions
T-0 produced by Fieseler 7 prototypes
T-1 produced by Fieseler 70 aircraft
T-2 de-navalised T-1 --- means that all naval features were removed. when the first stop for GZ came, the T-1 were modified to T-2 and assigned to "Luftflotte 5" as fighter bomber. December 1941 order came to rebuild the T-2 to T-1 standard again as it was thought they would be needed for GZ. 

T-0 and T-1 had folding wings so that width of a Bf-109 below deck was 4590mm. In T-2 this feature was deactivated, but still there. The wings folded outboard of the wing mounted cannon, and wing folding required the removal and refit of the wing stabilisers each time. This was far from ideal, as it basically wrecked the spot rate for the carrier. It was impossible to use wing folding and retain the ability for scrambles with the Bf109T. 

Seafire had similar issues with wing folding, and it took some years for the RN to receive an effective wing folding system. Because of the limited height of the hangars on British Carriers, the Seafire required a double joionted wing folding system. The Germans did rather better with their Ju87Cs, which incorporated a swivel hinge that allowed the wings to be folded and then turned, but the wings could not be deployed b below decks. Forcing so much work to be done on the flight deck and slowing the spot rate down because of the wing folding issues limited the maximum strike sizes to about 25% of the CAG, or 10 plane strikes. 

Never seen an authentic photo of wings folded F-167, but I believe they used a similar system as the Ju87C

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Graf Zeppelin had so many design faults, it is unlikely she could even have fielded 40 a/c at sea.
> 
> Her power rating of over 208000 shp meant a lot of space was taken up with machinery spaces. The insistence that she be able to carry a heavy gun broadside limited her hangar space. Her catapult launching system was relatively weak and inefficient, and had aircraft of greater weight than those of the original CAG been embarked, would have required major work on the carrier, as the belated resurrection of the project in 1942 was to find.
> 
> ...



Well, it was a 250m ship, it had plenty of space for machinery...

I am not sure the 15cm battery restricted the hangar space, the carrier had large hangars with a total 5,648m2 area, slightly smaller than Ark Royal's 5.690m2, here are the plans:

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/KM_Graf_Zeppelin_1939/wasserschleier_anlage_100dpi.jpg

The catapults were the standard type the Germans had been using for years and they had plenty of experience using those to launch heavy aircraft:







It was rated to launch a 5t aircraft at 133km/h every minute, so GZ could launch one every 30s, not too bad. I am yet to see a clear description of the launch system in order to have an opinion on its efficiency.

Do you have a source for the 109T folding problems? Info is hard to come by and it is the first time I hear of it, but it seems possible. Thx in advance.

The Ju 87C had a 13,20m span, the elevators were 14m wide, I see no problem folding the wings in the hangar, or even in the trip down, with due care:






This one is not real? I have seen it around for several years now, I got it from a German magazine, cant remember the year.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> once again the Germans get to "tweak" their forces while the British stumble along fat, blind and stupid.
> 
> British might have adjusted their own carrier building program had the the Germans changed their building program to stop a battleship (which one pray tell? the Bismark?) and build a 2nd carrier in time for 1939/40.
> 
> I like the odds of the Fulmar against the 109T a whole lot better than the odds of a Fi 167 against a radar directed Fulmar.





The only way that Germany could have two carriers approaching readiness in 1939-40, was if major warship construction was commenced before the signing of the Anglo-german naval agreement in 1935. Even as it was, with the limited construction of surface warships started in Nazi Germany after 1935, the british had embarked on an ambitious naval rearmament program. by 1939, the naval program had been pushed forward and was already underway. If DKM had been so impatient as to embark on capital warship construction earlier than the agreement allowed, the likely result is that the RN would also embark on such a program to match and eclipse any accelerated building program by DKM. If carriers were favoured by DKM as their primary weapon system, the British would almost certainly have done two things, firstly to hand back control of the FAA to the fleet, and secondly, rather than slow the procurement program down by introduction of the illustrious class, would simply have repeated more Ark Royals in 1937 and 1938. Britain would have gone to war with probably 3 Ark Royals, with maybe two or three more becoming available 1940-41. Germany was never going to win a naval arms race, except in U-Boats. Moreover given the severe operating limitations affecting the Graf Zeppelin design, and the limits of the aircraft conversions they were stuck with, the chances of an upset by DKM over the RN were nearly zero. , 

Adding the new 1939 program to the previous programs, British dockyards and shipyards in the course of the year were engaged in constructing some 200 vessels, or a total of 870,000 tons. An achievement like this had never been approached before in peace-time. The British were building, in the course of the year 1939, nine battleships, six aircraft carriers, 25 cruisers, 43 destroyers, 19 submarines, and a large number of small vessels. Most were completed and expanded upon during the next 3 years. The annual tonnage output in 1940 and 1941 was even greater by no less than 30 per cent, than the annual tonnage output in those three pre-war years, 1912–14. The British planned to complete on an average, in 1940–41, 220,000 tons a year of naval tonnage. The german naval capacities simply had no hope of competing with that and therein lies the reason they would never succeed. add to that their relative inexperience in carrier based aviation and the inherent faults in their carrier design and it readily becomes apparent why they abandoned the carrier in 1940. An this takes no account of the French and US navies that in 1938-9 nobody knew would happen......

Apart from the work on new construction, the British harnessed productive effort to secure the rearmament of the 649 existing Fleet units, mainly directed to meet the increase in anti-aircraft armament by the fitting of more accurate systems of fire control (particularly radar). During the past three years the number of guns firing a shell of 2 lbs. and upwards has increased by 75 percent in the existing Fleet. Production in 1939 was running at the rate of 60 guns a month, and towards the end of the year production would reach over 80 guns a month. Productive effort of such immense proportions demanded foresight, continuous preparation, and planning years in advance. DKM had none of that in 1939. they were still largely planning their fleet expansion, and in any case were never in a position to compete with that output for naval ordinance and shipping tonnages.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 13, 2018)

"Most valuable carrier fighter" implies that the using nation got to use them as carrier fighters. Germany never had a carrier, so any discussion of the _potential _value of their incomplete carrier's aircraft is not compatible with the _actual _value of those that served on completed carriers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The only way that Germany could have two carriers approaching readiness in 1939-40, was if major warship construction was commenced before the signing of the Anglo-german naval agreement in 1935. Even as it was, with the limited construction of surface warships started in Nazi Germany after 1935, the british had embarked on an ambitious naval rearmament program. by 1939, the naval program had been pushed forward and was already underway. If DKM had been so impatient as to embark on capital warship construction earlier than the agreement allowed, the likely result is that the RN would also embark on such a program to match and eclipse any accelerated building program by DKM. If carriers were favoured by DKM as their primary weapon system, the British would almost certainly have done two things, firstly to hand back control of the FAA to the fleet, and secondly, rather than slow the procurement program down by introduction of the illustrious class, would simply have repeated more Ark Royals in 1937 and 1938. Britain would have gone to war with probably 3 Ark Royals, with maybe two or three more becoming available 1940-41. Germany was never going to win a naval arms race, except in U-Boats. Moreover given the severe operating limitations affecting the Graf Zeppelin design, and the limits of the aircraft conversions they were stuck with, the chances of an upset by DKM over the RN were nearly zero. ,



Of course the KM would never outbuild the RN, but the RN must have accounted tor KM construction in their building plans given how they were quite aware of them even before the KM provided details in 1936 as per the naval agreements (including THREE CVs), so the RN must take taken into account and anticipated such construction by doing their own. The first two of the three agreed-upon KM carriers were contracted in 1935 and the RN had already contracted one the year before and four the year after, that is five already with two more in 1938, plus, wasnt the Ark Royal meant for Pacific service? If anything, more European carriers would have meant more RN carriers designed for European operations, meaning Invincibles, with the known armor plate issues.

Now, the KM DID lay down its 2nd carrier, in 1938, did the RN react at all to it or was it already accounted for in RN building calculations? Were the Implacables in any way related to carrier B?

How would have RN control of the FAA affected aircraft design?

A CVBG is a nasty thing to have loose on the high seas, very hard to pin down, and even if any raider is expected to be lost eventually, the point is what it could achieve before then..



> Adding the new 1939 program to the previous programs, British dockyards and shipyards in the course of the year were engaged in constructing some 200 vessels, or a total of 870,000 tons. An achievement like this had never been approached before in peace-time. The British were building, in the course of the year 1939, nine battleships, six aircraft carriers, 25 cruisers, 43 destroyers, 19 submarines, and a large number of small vessels. Most were completed and expanded upon during the next 3 years. The annual tonnage output in 1940 and 1941 was even greater by no less than 30 per cent, than the annual tonnage output in those three pre-war years, 1912–14. The British planned to complete on an average, in 1940–41, 220,000 tons a year of naval tonnage. The german naval capacities simply had no hope of competing with that and therein lies the reason they would never succeed. add to that their relative inexperience in carrier based aviation and the inherent faults in their carrier design and it readily becomes apparent why they abandoned the carrier in 1940. An this takes no account of the French and US navies that in 1938-9 nobody knew would happen......



They abandoned the carrier because of politics, Göring kept messing with the aircraft, Hitler wanted BBs, the KM needed all sorts of ships and the CVs were shoved down the priority list already in 1936 with carrier B delayed to make space and wait for practical experience acquired on Carrier A, so every shortage meant the CVs suffered it worse further delaying its completion. Once the war began it became obvious Germany would either win a short war or lose, there would be no time for training and working up a completely new kind of untested vessel so the CV had some parts cannibalized for sale to the soviets and others used in Norway, sealing its fate. In that context the 1942 project was a mere curiosity...

The IJN was desperate for KM technology and offered full access to their carriers in exchange for technology, specifically dive bomber plans, but the KM construction department decided against it in spite of other departments willingness to accept...



> Apart from the work on new construction, the British harnessed productive effort to secure the rearmament of the 649 existing Fleet units, mainly directed to meet the increase in anti-aircraft armament by the fitting of more accurate systems of fire control (particularly radar). During the past three years the number of guns firing a shell of 2 lbs. and upwards has increased by 75 percent in the existing Fleet. Production in 1939 was running at the rate of 60 guns a month, and towards the end of the year production would reach over 80 guns a month. Productive effort of such immense proportions demanded foresight, continuous preparation, and planning years in advance. DKM had none of that in 1939. they were still largely planning their fleet expansion, and in any case were never in a position to compete with that output for naval ordinance and shipping tonnages.



Well, British AAA wasnt really that effective as war would demonstrate.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2018)

I just noticed the Graf Zeppelin had almost the same engine power as an Iowa class battleship and the same speed. Yet the Iowa's weighed 15,000 tons more. 

Something isn't right either the numbers are wrong or the design of the GZ was wrong.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I just noticed the Graf Zeppelin had almost the same engine power as an Iowa class battleship and the same speed. Yet the Iowa's weighed 15,000 tons more.
> 
> Something isn't right either the numbers are wrong or the design of the GZ was wrong.



As per Breyer, the projected speed was 34,5kts, faster than Iowa IIRC.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I just noticed the Graf Zeppelin had almost the same engine power as an Iowa class battleship and the same speed. Yet the Iowa's weighed 15,000 tons more.
> 
> Something isn't right either the numbers are wrong or the design of the GZ was wrong.


 Hull form has a lot to do with it. A longer ship will go faster on the same power which is one reason for the long but skinny bow on the Iowa's. 




For displacement hull 1.34 times the square root of the water line length is the best speed for power. Trying to go faster uses up power at an almost exponential rate. yes there are a few tricks that can be played with bow shapes and stern shapes but they are minor compared to this basic rule or in some cases are trying to fool the rule.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 13, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> How would have RN control of the FAA affected aircraft design?



The RN gained control of the FAA in something like 1938; it's likely that they did not have the time to develop the staff expertise to have any positive effect on aircraft design. Had the RN and RAF not had a 20 year pissing contest and had actually tried to collaborate more effectively, it's possible that the RN would have never needed to gain control the FAA.





JAG88 said:


> They abandoned the carrier because of politics, Göring kept messing with the aircraft, Hitler wanted BBs, the KM needed all sorts of ships and the CVs were shoved down the priority list already in 1936 with carrier B delayed to make space and wait for practical experience acquired on Carrier A, so every shortage meant the CVs suffered it worse further delaying its completion. Once the war began it became obvious Germany would either win a short war or lose, there would be no time for training and working up a completely new kind of untested vessel so the CV had some parts cannibalized for sale to the soviets and others used in Norway, sealing its fate. In that context the 1942 project was a mere curiosity...



*All* military procurement decisions are political, especially in a war-worshiping dictatorship like nazi Germany. The fact that Goering, Hitler, Doenitz, etc were all arguing at cross purposes is one of the flaws of an autocracy.



JAG88 said:


> Well, British AAA wasn't really that effective as war would demonstrate.




Nobody's was as effective as they had thought it would be pre-war.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The RN gained control of the FAA in something like 1938; it's likely that they did not have the time to develop the staff expertise to have any positive effect on aircraft design.



Sure, but they insisted and maintained their design philosophy afterwards, fighters burdened with un-armed observers, biplane STRs...

*



All

Click to expand...

*


> military procurement decisions are political, especially in a war-worshiping dictatorship like nazi Germany. The fact that Goering, Hitler, Doenitz, etc were all arguing at cross purposes is one of the flaws of an autocracy.



I would just point out the DKM was at the bottom of the pecking order.



> Nobody's was as effective as they had thought it would be pre-war.



Yeah, but the RN was putting a lot of faith in theirs, more than anyone else, they even relied on it (plus armored decks) to defend their carriers instead that on their FAA fighters which is a bit much.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> Yeah, but the RN was putting a lot of faith in theirs, more than anyone else, they even relied on it (plus armored decks) to defend their carriers instead that on their FAA fighters which is a bit much.



It was a lot more complicated than Duuhh why are they so dumb.

In 1930 to 1938 period there was a belief that fast high level (say 180 mph at 10 to 15,000ft) bombing was the way to defeat a naval force and it was believed that such a bomber was untouchable in the time available. 

A naval fighter of the early 30s was the Hawker Nimrod which had a climb rate of about 2,400ft per minute maximum and it didnt have constant speed props or high octane fuels so no ramming the throttle to the max at sea level unless you wanted a piston to pop out the block. 

Without Radar a lookout on a Destroyer or Cruiser using the MkI eyeball has to spot the high level bomber force, use his telephone or voice tube to inform the bridge, a message has to be sent to the Carrier a fighter has to be scrambled or a patrol aircraft has to be signalled to engage no fighter carried radios till late 30s so a light signal or a gun I dont know. Even in perfect blue skies with zero movement of the ship I am going to guess the maximum distance a bomber force could be spotted by eye was less than 20 miles.

I dont know how long it took to launch a fighter from a deck in this period but the RAF took about 3 minutes to scramble in 1940. Then the Nimrod has to climb to say 12,000 feet to attack a 10,000 feet target. All the while the bombers are closing at 3 miles a minute.

Who is going to win the race.

The fact we know level bombing of ships was not very sucessful was not known in the 30s look at the Boeing B17 it wasnt designed as a bomber to smash cities it was designed to protect the US from naval attack. Look at the SM79 tri engine bomber its initial use was to attack ships from 10,000 feet.

The RNs idea of striking all aircraft below and relying on AAA was a legitimate idea in the time of the ships design. Hindsight tells us it wasnt the right idea but it was a common misconception.

As for RN AAA it might not have been very good at shooting down aircraft but it was good at preventing ships being sunk which is the whole idea for Naval AAA. In 1939 the RN was the only navy with a proper unified air defence gunnery system, compare a modern RN Destroyers AAA with an equivalent USN Destroyer. Most USN Destroyers in September 39 were lucky to have anything more sophisticated than a man, a Browning M2 and a ring bead sight. Even in 1945 with Radar, VT fuses, mechanical loading, Mk33 computers and lots and lots of extra guns the USN struggled against the Kamikaze so much that some captains switched off the complicated Mk33 system loaded contact fuses and slaved the 5 inch guns to the relatively unsophisticated Bofors director which was a design borrowed off the British who borrowed it off the Dutch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> It was a lot more complicated than Duuhh why are they so dumb.
> 
> In 1930 to 1938 period there was a belief that fast high level (say 180 mph at 10 to 15,000ft) bombing was the way to defeat a naval force and it was believed that such a bomber was untouchable in the time available.
> 
> ...



*Sigh*

I didnt call them dumb, did I?

The US Army thought level bombers would do... the USN, RN, IJN, LW, DKM knew that you needed a dive bomber for that since ships move and change direction, radio directed target ships werent that rare and the concept was tested and rejected.

The USN and IJN went for a CAP as a means to counter the threat, the RN could have done the same, they chose differently. Same for the DKM, they went for a very German system to cold launch fighters from the hangar...

Save for the Dutch, did anyone else had their flak on triaxial stabilized, RPC mounts with tachymetric predictors like the DKM?


----------



## Glider (Aug 13, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> The USN and IJN went for a CAP as a means to counter the threat, the RN could have done the same, they chose differently. Same for the DKM, they went for a very German system to cold launch fighters from the hangar...


I don't pretend to know what the standard operating procedure for the DKM was supposed to be but its fair to point out that the USN could have one the same as I believe some of them had catapults in the Hanger.


> Save for the Dutch, did anyone else had their flak on triaxial stabilized, RPC mounts with tachymetric predictors like the DKM?


It's a mistake to believe that the DKM had cutting edge AA weapons.
The 37mm used in the first half of the war was a single shot semi automatic gun where each round was manually loaded (see below). The chances of hitting anything was at best minimal





The standard 20mm gun was a much more effective gun but even here the earlier versions were prone to jamming and only had a 20 rd magazine resulting in frequent stoppages to reload.
The problem being that the 20mm had too short a range to stop the aircraft before it dropped its weapon


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

Glider said:


> I don't pretend to know what the standard operating procedure for the DKM was supposed to be but its fair to point out that the USN could have one the same as I believe some of them had catapults in the Hanger.
> It's a mistake to believe that the DKM had cutting edge AA weapons.
> The 37mm used in the first half of the war was a single shot semi automatic gun where each round was manually loaded (see below). The chances of hitting anything was at best minimal
> View attachment 505458
> ...



Sure, but the DKM procedure involved hot-steam engine block warmers, oil and fuel warmers and a rail system to the catapults, it was complicated and I would have loved to see if it worked. Did the USN ever use the hangar cats operationally?

The Semi-auto gun was certainly a drawback, they were trying to play sniper by matching it to a triaxially-stabilized mount, but it was later replaced by full-auto weapons, as was the 20mm by the flakvierling beginning in 1940.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2018)

I found this article comparing the German carrier to the contemporary Yorktown class

http://www.nnapprentice.com/alumni/letter/GRAF_ZEPPELIN.pdf

As an aside, the British did not know the Germans were building three carriers, and neither did the Germans, until after the repudiation of the Anglo-German agreement. under the agreement, the germans were limited to a tonnage in carriers of 42000 tons, and within the earlier plan, limited themselves to laying down just one carrier, and getting materials ready for a second. There may have been some keel laying work done for this second carrier as well.

The third and fourth carriers for DKM were not even projected until the adoption of the Z plan in 1938-39, and their construction scheduled for completion some time after 1945...…

The british did not react to the knowledge of a second carrier (because the germans were allowed to build two carriers under the 1935 agreement...although they did finally cheat a bit with their tonnage admissions) , but if a third carrier had been declared, it would have served as clear evidence of Germany not intending to honour the agreement. already in several crucial planning sessions I think in 1937, people like Churchill at those committee hearings were baying for an expansion in capital ship construction.....by that I mean carriers incidentally. Without the fully rounded and balanced fleet to support their carriers, ships like the GZ really had no role. Being deployed in such limited numbers, by a nation lacking in much experience in their operation, the likely outcome should not be arguable.

There were some detail problems with the GZ,,,,,,but probably the worst was its catapult system. it had two catapults, running off a compressed air system, each catapult limited to just under 10000 lbs I believe, and good for just 9 launches (theoretically) each before a 75 minute recharge was required. There were some advantages to the compressed air system (such as being able to launch whilst the main turbines were not fired up) but these features were really more in the "nice to have" category as opposed to 'essential for operation". The hangar decks, already very narrow, suffered a great deal of cramping due to the lift positions.....it might not have been possible to range the required strike composition in a quick order and in the right mixes because of that, though we cant be sure of that. In contrast the three big navies spent a lot of time ensuring their hangar, lift and deck arrangements would allow the necessary shuffling of a/c and quick, continuous turn around of a/c so that the ships chances of being caught with a/c on the deck would be minimised. this does not appear to have even been considered by the Germans

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> The USN and IJN went for a CAP as a means to counter the threat



So did the RN the plan to strike all aircraft below was quietly dropped prewar.

Without voice to voice radios and radar a CAP can't be flexible enough to cover all heights and directions. Unless they have a lot of fighters in the air and even big carriers like Lexington and Saratoga only carried a squadron of fighters. To keep 2 fighters aloft at all times required an absolute minimum of 16 fighters and probably more than 16 pilots.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I found this article comparing the German carrier to the contemporary Yorktown class
> 
> http://www.nnapprentice.com/alumni/letter/GRAF_ZEPPELIN.pdf
> 
> As an aside, the British did not know the Germans were building three carriers, and neither did the Germans, until after the repudiation of the Anglo-German agreement. under the agreement, the germans were limited to a tonnage in carriers of 42000 tons, and within the earlier plan, limited themselves to laying down just one carrier, and getting materials ready for a second. There may have been some keel laying work done for this second carrier as well.



Well, the were limited to 35% of the RN tonnage, and until 1936 that was 135.000, so 47.250t, thereafter it would depend on what the RN built.

Here is a link to the May 1936 exchange of notes regarding ship construction, including three carriers:

Documents - Naval Arms Control Archive

Hats off to the guy who made this site, amazing stuff.

So, they might have failed to detect the contract for the second carrier, but they did know the DKM intended to build three CVs and I think it would be safe to assume the RN would take them into account in their calculations and not wait for them to be laid down or commissioned, that is why they constantly pressed for an international agreement in which the powers' navies published their intended 5-year build plans.

Btw, carrier B WAS laid down in Sept 30, 1938 (apparently) and 8.000t of steel had been used in its construction by the time the war began.



> The third and fourth carriers for DKM were not even projected until the adoption of the Z plan in 1938-39, and their construction scheduled for completion some time after 1945...…
> 
> The british did not react to the knowledge of a second carrier (because the germans were allowed to build two carriers under the 1935 agreement...although they did finally cheat a bit with their tonnage admissions) , but if a third carrier had been declared, it would have served as clear evidence of Germany not intending to honour the agreement. already in several crucial planning sessions I think in 1937, people like Churchill at those committee hearings were baying for an expansion in capital ship construction.....by that I mean carriers incidentally. Without the fully rounded and balanced fleet to support their carriers, ships like the GZ really had no role. Being deployed in such limited numbers, by a nation lacking in much experience in their operation, the likely outcome should not be arguable.



The DKM was allowed to build carriers under the AGNA, AFAIK there was no limitation in number or tonnage until the 1937 AGNA which was pretty much a copy of the 1936 London treaty, by then the DKM had committed itself to 3x15.000t carriers anyway.

A raiding CV would have been a pain in the rear...



> There were some detail problems with the GZ,,,,,,but probably the worst was its catapult system. it had two catapults, running off a compressed air system, each catapult limited to just under 10000 lbs I believe, and good for just 9 launches (theoretically) each before a 75 minute recharge was required. There were some advantages to the compressed air system (such as being able to launch whilst the main turbines were not fired up) but these features were really more in the "nice to have" category as opposed to 'essential for operation". The hangar decks, already very narrow, suffered a great deal of cramping due to the lift positions.....it might not have been possible to range the required strike composition in a quick order and in the right mixes because of that, though we cant be sure of that. In contrast the three big navies spent a lot of time ensuring their hangar, lift and deck arrangements would allow the necessary shuffling of a/c and quick, continuous turn around of a/c so that the ships chances of being caught with a/c on the deck would be minimised. this does not appear to have even been considered by the Germans



5.000Kg with no wind to 133Km/h, and no, no 9 launches, the reservoirs held a limited amount of compressed air and would expend, for example, around 43m3 to launch a 2,5t fighter at 140Km/h or 65m3 to launch a 5t aircraft at 133Km/h, there was no such thing as just "launching 9 aircraft". Recharge time was 50 minutes. And it was essential for the Germans to be able to launch with no wind or from port, that was their specification, crazy as it was.

AFAIK the GZ had enough air to launch ALL its aircraft bar the 167s, which didnt need it. That makes more sense that "it cant catapult its own aircraft", doesnt it? But that bit I think was Breyer's fault, he started that rumor.

And all aircraft could take off normally, hell, the Fi 167 couldnt even use the catapults lacking the attachments points for them, not that such a STOL aircraft would need them.

How do the lift positions affect the launch?

Well, large lifts do allow you to just send the aircraft down without having to even fold the wings...

Did you find the bit about the 109T fold? I just remembered the 109F actually had split stabilizers and flaps over the radiator area, I see no problem in using such a solution for the 109.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 13, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> So did the RN the plan to strike all aircraft below was quietly dropped prewar.
> 
> Without voice to voice radios and radar a CAP can't be flexible enough to cover all heights and directions. Unless they have a lot of fighters in the air and even big carriers like Lexington and Saratoga only carried a squadron of fighters. To keep 2 fighters aloft at all times required an absolute minimum of 16 fighters and probably more than 16 pilots.


The SBD was used as a CAP supplement and proved their worth in that capacity on many occasions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> So did the RN the plan to strike all aircraft below was quietly dropped prewar.
> 
> Without voice to voice radios and radar a CAP can't be flexible enough to cover all heights and directions. Unless they have a lot of fighters in the air and even big carriers like Lexington and Saratoga only carried a squadron of fighters. To keep 2 fighters aloft at all times required an absolute minimum of 16 fighters and probably more than 16 pilots.



Really? I seem to recall they did exactly that the first time the LW attacked the RN in open sea, when a claim of a "probable hit" by a pilot was turned into "Ark Royal sunk" by Göring and Goebbels, poor pilot was teased to no end after that.

True, it was difficult, but it was the lesser evil, trying to be objective.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The SBD was used as a CAP supplement and proved their worth in that capacity on many occasions.



It was only effective when guided by Air Controllers. Without Radio and Radar its unlikely that a 250 mph aircraft would be able to engage attackers if caught out of position. The long loiter time of the SBD (and planes like the Fulmar and Skua) was what made it a useful CAP plane


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 13, 2018)

I suspect that the IJN and USN expected a significant portion of their carrier operations would be far out of reach of land-based air, but the RN expected to operate in the Mediterranean and the North Sea, well within the range of land-based air.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> Really? I seem to recall they did exactly that the first time the LW attacked the RN in open sea, when a claim of a "probable hit" by a pilot was turned into "Ark Royal sunk" by Göring and Goebbels, poor pilot was teased to no end after that.
> 
> True, it was difficult, but it was the lesser evil, trying to be objective.




Your right I didnt know that.

From Wiki
On 25 September, _Ark Royal_ helped rescue the submarine _Spearfish_, which had been damaged by German warships off Horn Reefs, in the Kattegat.[29] While returning to port with _Spearfish_ and the battleships _Nelson_ and _Rodney_ on 26 September, the ships were located by three _Luftwaffe_ Dornier Do 18 seaplanes.[10] _Ark Royal_ launched three Blackburn Skuas to disperse them; one Dornier was shot down in the first British aerial kill of the war.[20]

The air commander aboard _Ark Royal_—aware that the surviving Dorniers would report the location of the British ships—ordered the aircraft to be secured and the anti-aircraft weapons readied.[30] Four Junkers Ju 88 bombers[31] of the _Luftwaffe_ bomber wing KG 30 soon appeared: three were driven away by anti-aircraft fire, but the fourth launched a 1,000-kilogram (2,200 lb) bomb at the carrier.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2018)

The RN did not think it possible prewar for her carriers to operate in the inshore waters around Europe.

The fleet carriers were designed and developed primarily as an adjunct to the battle fleet, and as trade protection ships, to hunt down and destroy surface raiders.

In the event that carriers were forced or found themselves in range of land based air, the RN realised that because it did not control its own air arm, and because their FAA was grossly under manned and under equipped that the best policy was to maximise the defences of her carriers....armouring, best passive defences possible, use of inert CO2 years ahead of everyone else. etc. 

Because of the limits on hull numbers, air group sizes and overlall manning levels, the RN was forced to utilise multi role aircraft like the Swordfish and Fulmar......aircraft that both had at least two roles to their name. RN mistakenly believed that to operate effectively over water (and this was perhaps true for the RN, since by 1938 they were training and preparing their carrier strike forces for night strike capability to a degree unheard of in other fleet air arms. if the GZ had been ranged against british carriers in open battle in 1940, one could expect full air complement aboard the british carriers and aircraft capable of delivering effective night strike against the DKM ship, something the Germans were not preparing dor in theor CAG prewar…..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Your right I didnt know that.
> 
> From Wiki
> On 25 September, _Ark Royal_ helped rescue the submarine _Spearfish_, which had been damaged by German warships off Horn Reefs, in the Kattegat.[29] While returning to port with _Spearfish_ and the battleships _Nelson_ and _Rodney_ on 26 September, the ships were located by three _Luftwaffe_ Dornier Do 18 seaplanes.[10] _Ark Royal_ launched three Blackburn Skuas to disperse them; one Dornier was shot down in the first British aerial kill of the war.[20]
> ...



Yeah, they did, imagine if they had done that in an actual carrier battle...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2018)

There is not much evidence to support the claim that german Naval AA was markedly superior to the RN, based on comparable operational results.

As a comparison, we could select two events and compare the results, to determine the relative effective of the flak defences. The two incidents I have selected were the defence of HMS Illustrious 10-24th January 1941, and compare that to operation Tungsten, the FAA attack on DKM Tirpitz 3rd April 1944

The ship was attacked some 85 miles west of Malta by 40 Stukas from the newly arrived Fliegerkorps X, in a well planned attack lasting an hour. In this attack 1.000 pound pound bombs were used. The design of Illustrious was capable of withstanding only 500 lb bombs. Before the bombing the squadron of Fulmars managed to get off. They were largely too low to affect the initial attacks, which went in largely unopposed from 10000 ft. The german attack is considered a textbook example of divebomber tactics. 

After this attack Illustrious was left steaming in circles with raging fires below. 2 enemy aircraft are believed to have been shot down by the CAP and 2 by flak, a further 12 were lost in the remaining actions in the day, 5 by aircraft, 5 by flak and 2 by non-combat related accidents. .

After the first hits, Illustrious ran up signals that said, 'I am not under control'. The 2 lifts each weighing some 300 tons were wrecked welded into different shapes by the white hot fires which raged below deck. Fires were now a main priority to extinguish before the ship which carried high octane fuel ammunition caught alight. CO2 gas was used extensively to smother the flames wherever possible.

The power at one stage failed the pumps were put out of action. The Luftwaffe returned after refueling rearming in Sicily to give the final blow. The fleet went to Illustrious' aid put up a heavy barrage (in the initial attacks, the carrier was more or less on her own) . Fulmars from Illustrious fought to save the ship before staging back to Malta to refuel and re-arm. they then returned to the continue their cover mission. In a series of fights that lasted all day. The long endurance of the fulmar….more than 4 hours airborne time was undoubtedly of great value in this defensive fight. The Fulmars are believed to have shot down at least 5 more Stukas. She was still 40 miles from Malta after the last attack. She made port later that night.

The boilers were still untouched but the stokers were working in temperatures of 130°F. A shell splinter had jammed the sprinkler system full on which was flooding the ship. For a time the sprinkler systems could not be shut down because of the out of control fires....

The last attack by the Luftwaffe saw another 1,000 pound bomb hit the ship. This bomb penetrated a damaged lift shaft reignited some of the fires.

It took the ship 5 hours from this last attack to make Grand Harbour, arriving in Malta at 10 o'clock in the evening. The fires were extinguished that night

The arrival of such an important ship brought a lot of civilian onlookers who crowded the harbour area. At a quarter past noon on the 16th January an announcement was made over loudspeakers to the civilians to make for air raid shelters on hearing the air raid sirens as a new defence strategy was to be used to protect the harbour flying shrapnel from exploding shellls falling from the sky would make the area very dangerous. Many civilians at this time would stay above ground to watch the bombing. The Luftwaffe continued to pound the ship mercilessly, but to no real avail.

RN flak was effective in keeping the attacker off aim and at arms length The flak defences are believed to have shot down at least 5 of the attackers.

At 13.55 the radar picked up a large contact - 'It was the largest that had ever been recorded in Malta till then'. The harbour guns lifted to their fixed positions - light AA, heavy AA, 4·5" guns, pom poms, even heavy guns on the fort. machine guns were not used as they could not reach high levels but a few of the more determined attackers that basically came down to deck level were hosed by the HMGs

The bombers from Fliegerkorps X were escorted by Messerschitt, Fiat Macchi fighters. Precise numbers aren’t known, but were at least 80 a/c through the day. The RAF managed to send up 4 Hurricanes, 3 Fulmars 2 Gladiators. These were instructed to stay out of the harbour area pick off stragglers. The attack comprised of 2 seperate attacks - the first by Ju 88's (shallow dive bombers) the second by Ju 87 (Stuka's). This force amounted to 70 bombers all concentrating on sinking Illustrious. No other ship, before or since has endured such a sustained, concentrated intensity of attack and survived (there were heavier attacks, such as the Yamato, but afaik, none survived).

The harbour guns opened up to a deafening noise described as 'hell let loose'. The ships in harbour including Illustrious fired their guns in protective fire.

Despite the bravery of the German airmen only one bomb hit Illustrious this being on the quarterdeck caused little damage. Despite the RAF pilots being told not to enter the harbour area a Fulmar chased a Stuka right through the barrage. After the bomber released his bombs he swept off down the harbour so low to the water he had to climb to get over the 15' breakwater. The Fulmar eventually shot it down. This returned to Hal Far where the pilot remarked - 'Don't think much of Malta's bloody barrage'.

The plane however was so badly damaged it didn't fly again. It had to be scrapped 

During this attack the merchantman Essex which was lying at the other end of the creek was hit by a heavy bomb in the engine room with the loss of 38 men. Luckily the bulkheads contained the explosion. She was loaded with 4,000 tons of ammunition torpedoes.

On the 19th January came the last bombing raid which raised up clouds of dust to 1,000 feet. This probably helped to screen the ship from accurate bombing.

Illustrious left Malta at sunset on the 23rd quickly accelerating to 20 knots on leaving harbour for a 2 day trip to Alexandria. Later she would travel to the USA for repairs later return to Malta for Operation Husky the invasion of Sicily in 1943.

The battle ive selected on the other side of the ledger is Operation Tungsten, against the DKM Tirpitz in April 1944

You can read about it in this link, but in summary no less than 15 hits were scred on the BB, for the loss of just two RN a/c and one damaged (fate unknown)

Tirpitz

There is no evidence here to support the claim that DKM flak was superior to that in the RN


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> There is not much evidence to support the claim that german Naval AA was markedly superior to the RN, based on comparable operational results.
> 
> 
> After this attack Illustrious was left steaming in circles with raging fires below. 2 enemy aircraft are believed to have been shot down by the CAP and 2 by flak, a further 12 were lost in the remaining actions in the day, 5 by aircraft, 5 by flak and 2 by non-combat related accidents. .
> ...



CLAIMS:

2+2+5+5+2=16

Actual losses?

3...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> CLAIMS:
> 
> 2+2+5+5+2=16
> 
> ...


no.they lost 2 to a/c, then 2 to flak, then a further 12 after that initial clash. that makes a total 16. 
whats the "3' in reference to. the losses Im quoting are corrected and include those recorded in the LW QM returns for FKX in that month


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> no.they lost 2 to a/c, then 2 to flak, then a further 12 after that initial clash. that makes a total 16.
> whats the "3' in reference to. the losses Im quoting are corrected and include those recorded in the LW QM returns for FKX in that month








Junkers Ju 87 Stukageschwader of North Africa and the Mediterranean

Page 10

You are talking about "beliefs", those are claims, we all know how much those are worth.

I would address the strike on an anchored Tirpitz bit but, after this, is hardly necessary...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2018)

nice try sunshine. I say "I believe" because I have not cross checked, not anything to do with claims.

Your source, incidentally IS known to be suspect. In case you didn't look, its from the osprey series, which is known to be notoriously innaccurate in most cases.

what about the ju88s, Me 110s, SM79s, Macchis and other units involved in the sustained attacks. You are quoting just the two stuka units involved.

This is actual FKX OB dated January 1941

*Order of Battle (January 1941)*
Aufklärungsgruppe 14
Aufklärungsgruppe 121
Aufklärungsgruppe 122
Aufklärungsgruppe 123
Jagdgeschwader 27
Kampfgeschwader 26
Kampfgeschwader 30
Kampfgeschwader zbV 1
Kampfgeschwader zbV 172
Kampfgruppe zbV 9
Küstenfliegergruppe 506
Lehrgeschwader 1
Seeaufklärungsgruppe 126
Sturzkampfgeschwader 1
Sturzkampfgeschwader 3
Zerstörergeschwader 26

sources;

_Cajus Bekker - Hitler's Naval War_



Then we have the RA contributions. Or are you so conceited and one eyed about German supremacy as to not give the Italians their due in this.

What other half baked sources would you like to trot out.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> View attachment 505504
> 
> 
> I would address the strike on an anchored Tirpitz bit but, after this, is hardly necessary...



Ah I think it is. you are the one making the unsubstantiated claims about how superior the german flak systems were over everybody else. bring it on sunshine. im fired up and ready to rumble.....


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> nice try sunshine. I say "I believe" because I have not cross checked, not anything to do with claims.
> 
> Your source, incidentally IS known to be suspect. In case you didn't look, its from the osprey series, which is known to be notoriously innaccurate in most cases.
> 
> ...



LOL! I am sorry, arent you the guy who is constantly changing the subject after being corrected again and again on the GZ matter? You dropped it mightily fast after you were made face the facts regarding the DKM carriers... 

Now, regarding the Italians, well, given their track record... 

And THERE IT IS! An accusation about "German supremacy" after running out of facts, it was overdue!

Where is that bit about the 109T folding wing btw?

Did you see the Fi 167 photo?

You seem to find very difficult to acknowledge receipt of information... wonder why...


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Ah I think it is. you are the one making the unsubstantiated claims about how superior the german flak systems were over everybody else. bring it on sunshine. im fired up and ready to rumble.....



Nah, this was the last day of rest after the extraction of my wisdom teeth so its back to work for me, but it is nice to see you so pumped up! 

Let me know if you have further questions on the GZ.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

Instead of squabbling in an unseemly fashin, its time to get to work and bring out the best that we can

This narrative is drawn from the following summary which drew on a wide array of sources

This Day in the War in Europe: The Beginning


Relevant bits start on Page 74


Part I
Italy’s 96 Gruppo

This bomber group detached some Ju87Rs to Sicily on January 8 after German and Italian intelligence operative reported the impending arrival of HMS ILLustrious in waters off Sicily. The Stukas were to be based in Comiso. On the same day, the first of Germany’s powerful bomber contingent would arrive on the island to support the attack.





_96 Gruppo Ju87 B2 as they appeared September 1941_

Fliegerkorps X 
This was Hitler’s gift to the embattled Mussolini. The specialist anti-shipping unit would have as its first priority the neutralisation of Malta and the British fleet. This would secure the sea lanes to Libya which would allow the embattled Italian army to be reinforced by German troops and armour.

X Fliegerkorps was sent to Italy "for a limited period only" by Adolf Hitler to assist the struggling Italians, but it was not a half hearted effort. The unit was highly trained in anti-shipping operations, with many of its pilots originally earmarked to fly on Germany's first carrier, Graf Zeppelin. At the core of the units striking power were some 42 Ju87s of StGI, StG2 and StG3 that had been assigned to an air base at Trapani, on the north-west coast of Sicily. Their role was to attack British ships passing between Sicily and North Africa. Specifically, that shipping meant HMS Illustrious and Ark Royal.

The initial deployment of FKX to the med included 50 He 111s, 70 Ju88As, 80 Ju 87s and 26 Me110s. There were at least 20 Me 109s attached. 

The order issued by Oberstleutnant Karl Christ, Kommodore of the Stukagruppen, was straight and to the point: "The Illustrious has got to be sunk!" Considerable thought had been put into how to kill a British armoured carrier, in particular by Oberst Harlinghausen and General de Flieger Geisler. It was believed four direct bomb hits would be needed to sink the ship. No other warship had ever been delivered such a blow, but, then, these armoured carriers were anticipated to be tough nuts to crack. The Stuka crews were confident they could do the job. Afterall, the 6500sq/m flight deck was an expansive target area. To make sure, the crews practiced their dive-bombing techniques over an outline of the carrier's shape marked by buoys in the sea not far from their new base.

The 43 Ju87 Stukas were made up of "B" models from II/StG 2 (led by Major Enneccerus) and "R"models from I/StG 1 (led by Hauptmann Hozzel). The "R" or long range model was capable of carrying a 1100lb (500kg) bomb - but only if it was not carrying drop tanks. If a drop tank was fitted, its bomb load was limited to a 550lb (250kg) bomb. The "B-2" could carry a 2200lb (1000kg) bomb over a very short distance - but only if the gunner was left behind. It was not capable of being fitted with drop tanks in any configuration. The attack was carefully choreographed. It was no accident that Italian torpedo-bombers attacked when they did, drawing off and down, the Fulmar CAP. And a diversionary effect of 10 Stukas attacking the battleships was expected.

When ILLUSTRIOUS was left to defend herself with her high-angle armament - and the fresh Fulmars observed to just be leaving her deck - it was the perfect outcome for a meticulously planned operation.




_St.G 2 Ju 87 B as flown by Major Walter Enneccerus for the raid on the British carrier "HMS Illustrious_

The Air Attack On Force A Operation Excess (Part II)

PRELUDE

Luck had not been with the operation from the outset.

Force A had been spotted by RA recon a/c as early as the morning of January 7. A recon bomber was sighted shortly after 0800. A section of Fulmars had been kept ready on ILLUSTRIOUS’ deck for just such an eventuality. The fighters failed to intercept. It would not be the last time their low rate of climb would fail the fleet. On January 9, convoy MC4 and Force H were also spotted by RA a/c. 10 SM79s were launched from Sardinia but were chased off by CV ARK ROYALls’ Fulmars. Two were claimed shot down. A second attack by 15 Fiat CR42s also proved unsuccessful. Force A had been strengthened by the four cruisers of Force D and HMAS SYDNEY. Their stay would be short: all would be detached to help cover the convoys before the attack on HMS ILLUSTRIOUS unfolded. That was the plan.

Force H handed responsibility for convoy MC4, which had been joined by Force B, to Force A at dusk. ILLUSTRIOUS was carrying a squadron of 12 Fulmars (806 squadron), along with a detachment of three Fulmars from 805 Squadron. This was regarded as the standard fighter complement for the fleet carriers. There also was some 20 Swordfish (in 815 and 819 squadron).

Early on January 10, two Italian torpedo boats and a submarine launched attacks on MC4. The CLA BONAVENTURE and two DDs which had been with the convoy gave chase – sinking the torpedo boat VEGA, but expending a large amount of ammunition. However, one of HMS ILLUSTRIOUS' escorts - the DD GALLANT - struck a mine at 0835. Another destroyer took her in tow, and a third DD was detached as escort along with BONAVENTURE.




_HMS ILLUSTRIOUS astern BB WARSPITE 10 January_
ILLUSTRIOUS’ radar was to play a key role in the air battle as it unfolded. The Type 79Z model she was fitted with was capable of detecting aircraft at 20,000ft up to 90 miles away. The Fulmars – of which 12 were operational - were providing the combat air patrol. Three had become unserviceable through accident or mechanical fault. The air battle began at 0930 that morning when one of HMS ILLUSTRIOUS’ Fulmars shot down a Z501 recon . Most of the early radar contacts turned out to be aircraft attempting to shadow the fleet.

Five Fulmars were on air patrol at 1120 (three in Red Section, two in White Section) when a single contact was detected at 12,000ft. It was found to be a SM79, which was promptly shot down. One Fulmar of Red Section lost its cockpit’s sliding hood during this engagement and was forced to land on ILLUSTRIOUS at 1145. This left four fighters on the air patrol. Lt Robert Henley reported:

‘_An aircraft identified as a Messerschmitt 109 attempted to join the formation, but did not attack. When it broke away, the Fulmars proved too slow to pursue it’._

Early in the morning, a strike of Swordfish had been flown off from ILLUSTRIOUS to hit an Italian convoy. These had returned and had been struck below to refuel and rearm before the German attack developed. Several pairs of Swordfish were still in the air, on armed recon.

ATTACK 1
At 1220 hours Force A detected a group of unidentified aircraft on radar some six miles from the fleet. The CAP fighters were immediately directed to intercept. Two Savoia SM79 torpedo bombers came into sight two minutes later. They had approached from below the radar horizon and raced low through the fleet towards the starboard side of the carrier, met only by light AA fire. The bombers dropped their torpedoes some 2500 yards distant from Illustrious which took urgent evasive action by swinging to port. Both torpedoes passed astern, but went on to only narrowly miss the nearby BB VALIANT.




_SM-79 delivering a similar low level torpedo attack during the Pedestal Convoys_

Lt Henley reported:
‘_The S79s made a low pass over the fleet, which drew us off at low altitude and high speed to the southeast, and this in turn allowed the Germans to make their attack._”

ILLUSTRIOUS ’ Fulmars had dived from 14,000ft to chase the low-level Savoias. Red Section engaged as the SM79s fled the fleet, expending all their ammunition in the effort. They spent too much time chasing this now unimportant target, breaking a crucial rule in Fleet defence operations.

White Section continued the chase but was unable to catch the fleeing bombers. But, as they passed over Linosa Island, they saw an SM79 standing in a field – which they promptly strafed. Red Section reported its lack of ammunition and set course to land and re-arm on ILLUSTRIOUS. They had been scheduled to land at 1245.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

*The air attack on Fce A Operation Excess Part III*

1225: Scramble and FK X Form up

When HMS ILLUSTRIOUS detected a second – much larger – raid at 1225, the Fighter Direction Officer (FDO) knew the fleet was in trouble. The air patrol was out of position and low on ammunition. The enemy formation was only 28 miles away, to the nth. The fleet was itself about 85 miles west of Malta. ILLUSTRIOUS recalled the four Fulmars as soon as the raid was detected. The FDO also ordered them to climb. But the fighters had a long way to fly, and a lot of height to regain. Precious time to the enemy to close the distance, get into attack position and begin the attacks. FKX were not to be the slow and flimsy Italian aircraft they had previously encountered. these attacks were to be delivered by a determined and well trained enemy, in aircraft ideal for the purpose of delivering pinpoint attacks, and well supported.

While ILLUSTRIOUS had an effective and innovative fighter direction crew, communications to the Flag Officer aboard HMS VALIANT was limited. The opportunity provided by the early warning was therefore squandered.

X Fliegerkorps had deployed a comprehensive strike force including:
•43 Ju87 B and R model Stuka dive bombers of I StG1 and II StG2 with a detachment from StG3. 
•18 He111s of KG26 
•10 Bf110s of ZG26 were escort
•Some sources state “a number” of Ju88s also took part.
•Some accounts also say three Italian bombers flew “as guides”.

Four Fulmars and three Swordfish were already in position on ILLUSTRIOUS’ deck for a scheduled 1235 rotation in air patrol. The FDO requested the relief flight be flown off as fast as possible. Several more Fulmars were rapidly hoisted onto the flight deck to supplement the defence. At, 1230 ILLUSTRIOUS’ CO asked permission from the CinC to turn the fleet into the wind five minutes early. The reply was slow in coming. Four minutes, to be exact. At 1234, approval was received to alter course to launch a/c. The ready Fulmars only began rolling down the deck as the German aircraft entered visual range. 

Lt Vincent-Jones, flying as Lt Bill Barnes’ Tactical Air Officer (TAO), recalled:

“_There was no CAP overhead and there were only six serviceable Fulmars in the hangar, two of which were brought up on the after lift. Barnes and I were leading the next section to take off and were on our way up to the bridge for briefing. I remember being told to get airborne as fast as possible as a huge formation was approaching from the northwards._”

At 1235, the enemy formation came into sight at 12,000ft.

By 1237, the last aircraft left the deck even as the first bombs fell.

After action report from Commanding Officer, HMS ILLUSTRIOUS to Rear Admiral, Aircraft Carriers, Mediterranean 
(26 January 1941) 

_Tactics of attacking aircraft. 
The attacking aircraft consisted of two formations of JUNKERS 87 with German markings. It was difficult to count the numbers exactly but the first formation consisted of 15 and the second of 20 to 30 aircraft. They were in a very loose and flexible formation, constantly changing their relative positions, and split when engaged by long range fire. It is estimated that the dive was started at about 12,000 feet and checked at 6000 to 8000 feet before going into the aiming dive. Bomb release varied from about 1500 feet in the first wave to 800 feet in later ones. Most aircraft continued to dive after releasing their bombs and flattened out low over the water having crossed the flight deck. At least one aircraft machine gunned the ship. The majority of the aircraft attacked ILLUSTRIOUS.

Most of the bombs dropped were large SAP bombs of about 500kg. but some smaller bombs (either direct action or with very short delay) may have been used as the damage from certain hits was appreciably less than others. 

Report on aircraft encountered
1. All those encountered bore the standard German markings. 
2. Camouflage. Black and grey mottling above, half black and half white below. General camouflage similar to a Fulmar. 
3. Tactics. 
(i) Single JU. 87 when attacked from astern will pull the nose up in order to allow the rear gunner a good downward shot. 
(ii) If attacked in formation, two of formation drop astern and use their front gun on the attacking aircraft. 
4. A Fulmar should have no difficulty in catching or outmanoeuvring a JU. 87. Being of metal construction, a JU. 87 will not burn like an Italian aircraft. JU. 87 s appear to be well protected from stern attacks. Every endeavour should be made to carry out beam and quarter attacks."


*The air attack on Fce A Operation Excess Part IV*

1238: Attack 2

The main assault lasted just 7 minutes, with a group of about 30 Stukas headed towards Illustrious, whilst another 10 went after the BBs as a diversion intended to to split the AA fire. Their actions demonstrated the value of experience, planning and training.

The approaching Stukas formed into three clover-leaf formations, with the planes continually changing height, speed and position to evade AA. Diving from 12,000ft to about 7000ft, the Stukas then positioned themselves for attack. Their dives ranged from 65 to 80 degrees. Despite having no ammunition, Red Section’s Fulmars made dummy attack runs in an effort to disrupt the enemy’s aim.

Lt Henley reported "By the time I got back, without ammunition, all I could do was to make dummy passes at them as they started their dives on the carrier." Despite these futile gestures, two Ju87s were seen to jettison their bombs early. The two remaining patrol Fulmars had been struggling to regain height and position after breaking off their chase of the Italian torpedo bombers. The four freshly launched Fulmars (two in Blue Section and two in Yellow Section) were also encumbered by their 1200ft per minute climb rate.

Denis Tribe was the observer in Fulmar Q, flown by Sub Lt Jackie Sewell.

“We were at readiness on the flight deck and took off before Illustrious was to wind. Before we were at 2000ft the first bomb from a Ju87 hit the ship. It went into the open lift well and exploded in the hangar – it was really horrific to watch as you realised how many would be blown to bits – also a very close escape. As we climbed to attack the Stukas were diving to bomb. When we reached height the air seemed full of aircraft. From the rear seat I saw one go down and another was damaged. It wasn’t long before we were out of ammunition and landed at Hal Far.”

The Fulmars put up a valiant – but ineffectual – fight. Captain Boyd later concluded “This attack came at a bad moment for the fighters. Those in the air had already been engaged in two combats and were low down, and with little ammunition remaining. Relief fighters were ready on deck, but as the whole fleet had to be turned by signal from the Commander-in-Chief before they could be flown off, valuable minutes were wasted. In any case the Fulmar has not sufficient climbing speed to ensure being able to counter this type of attack, particularly if a heavy attack is launched shortly after a minor or diversionary attack.”

The fleet claimed two Stukas shot down by AA fire. White Section arrived as the attack ended. Despite having already expended half their ammunition, the flight claimed one Ju87 shot down and two damaged. The freshly launched Blue Section reported to have shot down one Ju87 before it had dropped its bombs. Yellow Section claimed two victims after they had bombed. The claims were ambitious: X Fliegerkorps reported losing only three Stukas in that day’s fighting, though a larger number were unserviceable for the subsequent attacks.

Lt Vincent-Jones would write “Meanwhile, Barnes had no shortage of targets – he had, in fact, too many, and contented himself with pumping bursts into Stuka after Stuka as they came through his sights – and there was no question of not being able to see the whites of their eyes! I found it difficult to see what was going on up front, but I saw one Stuka go down with smoke pouring out of its engine. Despite their slow speed the Stuka did not respond easily to .303 bullets as they bounced off a sheet of armour fitted at the rear of the back seat to protect the air gunners… The next thing I remember was Bill Barnes telling me that we were out of ammunition.”

During the engagement, one Fulmar of Blue Section was shot down. Crewed by Sub Lt Lowe and observer Kensett, the Fulmar had been seen to shoot down a Ju87 as another moved on to its tail. An ensuing burst of machine-gun fire killed Kensett and wounded Lowe in the shoulder. The fighter ditched near the DD HMS NUBIAN , but Lowe was not seen to get out of the cockpit. Some 30 minutes later, HMS JAGUAR spotted Lowe bobbing in the water by pure chance. A very lucky man.....

One Swordfish also ditched. The crew was picked up by a DD. This aircraft was piloted by Lt Charles Lamb of 815 Sqn. He had been in the landing circuit after completing his ASW patrol as the attack developed. After a series of desperate aerobatics to avoid being shot-down by the swooping Stukas, Lamb circled the fleet to watch developments. With a punctured fuel tank, he eventually ditched his Swordfish alongside the DD HMS JUNO. The 7 remaining airborne Fulmars, without another carrier to land-on, were ordered to fly to Malta to refuel and rearm. 9 of ILLUSTRIOUS’ Swordfish also were in the air at the time of the attack and managed to get to Malta.

HMS ILLUSTRIOUS’ high-angle 4.5in and pom-pom batteries were restrained for up to a minute in opening fire as the Fulmars and Swordfish got airborne. it was still an impressive achievement to get that number of a/c off the deck in such a short time. With the BBs focused on evading the diversionary strike, the carrier was left virtually unsupported. The attack that unfolded was devastating by any standard. The first Stukas dropped their bombs from about 1500ft. Later waves went so low as 800ft before releasing their weapons. 13 minutes after the initial radar contact, the first bombs began to register on the carrier. One of the last Fulmar’s to leave ILLUSTRIOUS’ deck was piloted by Lt Bill Barnes with Lt Vincent-Jones as his observer “When we had reached a few hundred feet we found ourselves surrounded by Ju87s as they were pulling out of their dives. Some were very close and I could clearly see the rear gunners firing at us. I looked down and saw poor ILLUSTRIOUS passing through huge columns of water, with smoke coming from the after end of the flight deck.”

The spectacle wasn’t reserved for the Fulmar crews. The Swordfish also had prime seats. at least one a/c managed to take photos from the air of the unfolding drama. A crewman of one of the Swordfish bombers from the ILLUSTRIOUS recalled the event
“Suddenly there was a loud explosion on my right-hand side and I felt the whole plane shake as a shock wave buffeted me too – the twin 4.5inch gun turret a few feet away had opened fire, its barrels pointing vertically over the flight deck, and following their line, I looked up to see a mass of aircraft coming in fast immediately over the fleet, and they were not ours. We were frantically waved off and up the deck, even though the ship was still swinging rapidly to starboard to turn into the light breeze. By now all our 4.5inch guns and pom-poms were blazing away straight above my head. We rumbled off as the enemy, gracefully it seemed, wheeled over in succession and dived straight down, almost as if they wanted to look down the funnel. As we passed the island the first bomb exploded at the after end of the flight deck where we had been parked seconds before. The sea around Illustrious was boiling with falling shrapnel and I saw that another direct hit had been scored, this time plumb in the middle of the flight deck.”

HMS ILLUSTRIOUS was in serious trouble. She had been hit six times. For 3 hrs her fate hung in the balance. Fires were raging out of control inside her hangar – other ships in the fleet could see the flames venting out of the aft lift well. Several other compartments were also ablaze, most notably near the forward magazine. But her crew fought back with courage, skill and determination. The damage wasn't entirely one-sided. According to "Report of Air Attacks on HMS ILLUSTRIOUS during Operation MC4, 26 January, 1941" "About twenty feet of the wing of a Ju87 fell on the after lift. Aircraft assumed to have crashed. A Ju87 was seen to fall into the sea by the Chaplain and another crashed into the sea just astern of one Swordfish on A/S patrol"

At 1255, ILLUSTRIOUS’ electric steering gear failed. Her rudder was unresponsive. Captain Boyd ordered the flag signal “I AM NOT UNDER CONTROL” raised as the engines were urgently altered to keep the carrier on course. Steerage was regained by 1303 98 mins later) through use of auxiliary steam mechanisms.































An amazing sequence of photos of the German attack_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

*The air attack on Fce A Operation Excess Part V*
1329: ATTACK 3 - The Italians return

The main attack had knocked out the radar on ILLUSTRIOUS, but the second wave was detected by HMS VALIANT, and the escort and fighters warned and able to take up defensive positions accordingly. Captain Boyd’s report says the raid by 7 RA SM 79s began at 1329. The bomber formation at 14,000ft was engaged before their payloads could be released accurately. Splashes were observed scattered around the fleet. But the attack had some effect. Forced to manouvre hard to evade the bombs – some of which fell near - her steam steering gear failed again. The carrier was again out of control, steaming slowly in circles to port.

ILLUSTRIOUS In Mortal Danger

The flight deck was inoperable. The damage and fires around the aft and lift were not under control and simply made landing-on operations impossible – even if the carrier could turn into the wind, which it could not. The forward lift also had been displaced. According to Swordfish pilot Charles Lamb, the hangar itself was like a scene from Dante’s Inferno:
“_(The hangar fire screens) disintegrated at once, bursting apart in masses of red hot steel splinters about three or four feet long, which tore through every obstruction setting on fire all the aircraft that were not already burning and decapitating anyone who might be standing in the way_.”

A flash report from the CinC to the admiralty immediately after the attack reported 11 Swordfish and five Fulmars stowed in the hangar had been destroyed. Others sources say nine Swordfish and four Fulmars were lost. Despite the damage, the armoured box had prevented major aviation fuel lines from being ruptured. The Avgas lines were filled with CO2 and the strict policies about volatile liquids and munitions in the hangar space were paying off. The survival of the ILLUSTRIOUS was as much about the high standards of damage control in the RN as they were to do with the ship design. Reports were reaching Captain Boyd that whilst the the fires were bad they were not uncontrollable. 

Other problems were presenting themselves, however. ILLUSTRIOUS’ speed had dropped first to 21 knots, but by 1345 she was making only 15 knots. Work to restore the steam steering succeeded at 1348. But the success was short lived, as, at 1350, it failed again.

ILLUSTRIOUS makes for Valletta
HMS ILLUSTRIOUS eventually regained steerage at 1434 through alternating the revolutions to her three screws. This was only possible once the rudder had been jammed into an amidships position. Captain Boyd later wrote “_When this very severe and brilliantly executed D/ B attack was over, the ship was on fire fore and aft, the flight deck was wrecked, and I decided to make for Malta at once, informing the Commander in Chief who detached ‘Jaguar’ and ‘Hasty’ as screen_.”

Malta was some 75 miles away. It was to be a six-hour trial by fire.

Men were trapped. Fires continued to rage. Shrapnel had jammed part of the fire sprinkler system on – contributing to the flooding of the ship, and it took some time to attend to this serious problem. At one point the power failed, and the fire-fighting pumps were put out of action. Stokers in the boiler room had to contend with extreme temperatures and a ventilation system full of thick smoke. Struggling with the heat and smoke, many would pass out from exhaustion.

The four aft HA 4.5in gun mounts were out of action. Their fire control circuits had been destroyed and ammunition conveyors hit. Fires raged around the forward magazines, but there was no explosion in the magazines or ready use ammunition lockers. Captain Boyd made a daring decision: He would not flood the magazines. This enabled the ship to continue defending itself. He would later write “_The guns crews (with about 60% of the armament) beat off the subsequent attacks._”. It was clear at this point that ILLUSTRIOUS had been hit very severely, but her engines were intact. There was still a chance to save her. At a steady 17 knots, ILLUSTRIOUS limped towards the refuge of Malta.

*The air attack on Fce A Operation Excess Part VI
*
1604: ATTACK 4

The LW and RA were determined to sink the carrier if they could, so several strikes were hastily organised and flung at HMS ILLUSTRIOUS. The battered carrier did get intermittent air cover from Malta as she struggled towards safety – three of her own Fulmars were now operating out of Hal Far along with with nine Hurricanes. HM Battleships VALIANT and WARSPITE were still in company along with the DDs HASTY and JAGUAR. She was still some 45 miles from Valetta harbour at this point. 

Late that afternoon, at 1604, another strike was reported on radar by HMS VALIANT – this time of about 15 Italian Ju87s from 237a Squadriglia with an escort of about five Italian single-seat fighters. Three Ju88s of LGI also appear to have taken part in a raid about this time, only to be chased off by Malta's Hurricanes. ILLUSTRIOUS was unable to take effective evasive manoeuvres because of her damage. Her fires were still burning out of control.
Fortunately the attack was nowhere near as well synchronised as the first, neither were the bombers delivering the attack as capable in this sort of attack as the Ju87s. It is significant that it was the Ju87s of this strike that achieved the hits. 

The first wave of six Ju87s attacked from astern shortly after coming into view at 1609. HMS ILLUSTRIOUS’ forward 4.5in mounts and four remaining pom-pom mounts contributed to the defence, despite being hampered by thick haze and smoke from the hangar fire. Only two bombs fell near the ship from this wave. A second wave of three Ju87s dove in on the starboard side a minute later. A near-miss abreast the conning-tower funnel shook the ship violently. Another burst just off the quarterdeck, killing and wounding those assembled there to tend the injured. Captain Boyd’s report does not state exactly when the final bomb hit the aft lift during this raid. He only reports six further Stukas retiring at height, with two being diverted from their attack run without dropping their bombs. But the damage was significant. Many of those tending wounded in the hangar and fighting the fires were killed. A near-miss also killed one man and wounded three aboard HMS VALIANT. 

Admiral Cunningham later commented: “_One of the staff officers who watched it hurtling over the bridge from astern told me it looked about the size of the wardroom sofa._” ILLUSTRIOUS was now listing some 5 degrees to starboard. This was from the fire-fighting water trapped in the hangar and wardroom flat – the scuppers had been blocked. Somehow the ship remained upright and afloat. 

1710: ATTACK 5

HMS VALIANT’s radar again demonstrated its worth at 1656 when enemy aircraft were detected at 52 miles. 17 aircraft came into view at 1710 and then proceeded to circle the fleet to make an approach from up-sun and astern. The combined high-level and dive-bombing attacks appear mainly to have been directed at the BBs, but none came close. Several Ju88's of LGIII reportedly took part in this raid. After refueling and rearming at Malta, several of ILLUSTRIOUS’ Fulmars returned to the scene – a little too late. A long stern chase developed. Lt Vincent-Jones described the scene: “_We soon sighted ILLUSTRIOUS on her way towards the Grand Harbour with smoke pouring out of her but still making a good 20 knots. She had parted company with the rest of the fleet. We were not in time to intercept before the attack developed but we caught up with the enemy on their way back to Sicily…_”

ILLUSTRIOUS had to nose her own way through the swept channel leading to the harbour entrance. The requested tugs were nowhere to be seen. Only two ASW PVs came out to assist. But the Axis air attacks were not over. An hour after sunset as HMS ILLUSTRIOUS limped within five miles of the entrance to Valetta harbour, yet another attack developed. Malta radioed an urgent air-raid warning. Two aircraft were at first heard and then briefly sighted off the starboard bow at 1922. The 4.5in and pom-poms fired a blind barrage as a deterrent. The aircraft withdrew. Alarmingly, HMS HASTY reported a sonar contact at 1930. DCs were fired but no torpedo tracks were seen. ILLUSTRIOUS limped into harbour that night a shattered ship. No other carrier of the war was to suffer the same number of hits as she, and survive.

It was just the beginning.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

Chris (NJACO) account of the FKX Attacks 15 January 1941

*MEDITERRANEAN*: The “Illustrious” Blitz: The Luftwaffe attacks began anew on the aircraft carrier HMS ‘_Illustrious_’ now sitting at Grand Harbour under repair. The three days grace since the last Luftwaffe attack had been put to good use by the defenders, with every available AA gun sited around the harbor. An experienced artillery officer, Brigadier Sadler, who had commanded the Dover guns during the Battle of Britain, had recently taken over and made sure a formidable box barrage would greet the Stukas. Gunners on other ships in the harbor, such as the cruiser HMAS “_Perth_”, also stood ready, as well as the gunners on the “_Illustrious_” herself. The air-raid sirens wailed at 1355 hours, and soon the hordes of bombers - 70 Ju87s and Ju88s - came into view. Ten Macchi C.202s, ten CR.42s and twenty Bf110s escorted the Ju87s. The pre-planned barrage put up was fearsome, but the first wave of some sixty-five Ju88s dove into it, shallow diving from 8,000 feet. Following them were the Ju87s, stooping from 10,000 feet, keen to finish the job they started. The defending fighters (a trio of Fulmars from “_Illustrious_” now based ashore, four Hurricanes and a pair of Gladiators, survivors of the original "Three Graces") at first circled the barrage, sniping at bombers on their entry and exit from the maelstrom, but then threw caution to the wind and followed their targets into the cauldron. One Ju87 came through the box barrage and flew down the harbor so low it had to climb over the 15-foot sea wall at the entrance. As it did so, the Fulmar that had followed it throughout its dive shot it into the sea beyond. The _Stukas_ of I./StG 1 led by Hptm. Werner Hozzel, came up against the heavy anti-aircraft fire and defending RAF Hurricane and RN Fulmar fighters. The Ju 87s succeed in gaining one hit on the HMS ‘_Illustrious’_ and damaging the supply ship HMS ‘_Essex’_. A bomb exploded in “_Essex _'s” engine room killing 15 men and wounding 23 more. But at a cost to the Luftwaffe. The entire 2 _Staffel_ of StG 1 is wiped out except for its _Staffelkapitän_. Bombs exploding in Grand Harbor killed numerous fish collected after the raid and eaten by the besieged Maltese. The remaining bombs found their mark in the Three Cities around Grand Harbour, destroying or damaging hundreds of houses and causing many civilian casualties.

My account (drawn from the RN war diary and LW daily situation reports

*Malta*
The Axis air fleets launched concentrated and ferocious attacks on Malta. Early in the afternoon cloud cover disappeared. A formation of Stuka dive-bombers screamed across the skies over Grand Harbour and _*HMS *ILLUSTRIOUS_, berthed at Parlatorio Wharf. Wave after wave of LW a/c followed in their wake – more than 70 of them, raining bombs on the Dockyard and surrounding areas.

The lull in operations for the last few days previously had allowed the AA defences of Malta to be concentrated around the harbour, and this undoubtedly assisted the defence and made the LW bombing runs intense affairs. Malta’s few defending Hurricane and Fulmar aircraft took to the air to try and repel the raiders. The valiant response succeeded in preventing all but one bomb from falling on 
_ILLUSTRIOUS_*.* The merchant ship ESSEX was hit by a heavy bomb, killing 15 crew and seven Maltese dockyard workers.

_“The show never seemed to end, but when the last plane had gone, and the thunder of guns changed into an echo and then, too, disappeared, a pall of white smoke covered the whole harbour area.”_ 

Some dozens of bombs intended for _ILLUSTRIOUS_ rained down on the surrounding ‘Three Cities’ of Senglea, Vittoriosa and Cospicua instead. There was a measurable decrease in FKX bombing accuracy compared to their previous efforts. Malta’s oldest urban communities established and fortified in the 16th century by the Knights of Malta, are now reduced to rubble. It was estimated at the time that some 200 houses were destroyed and another 500 damaged to an uninhabitable state . Casualties are reported to be high: with reported dead – men, women and children; most survivors have lost their homes and everything they own; hundreds were trapped under collapsed buildings. The sacristy of the parish church of St Lawrence, Vittoriosa, suffered a direct hit, entombing 35 people who were sheltering in the crypt. They were not rescued in time. Some have suggested it was a repeat at terror bombing as had happened in several British, Dutch, Norwegian and French cities previously during the war.





_*The devastation in the old "city" of Senglea after the LW attacks*_

AIR RAIDS DAWN 16 JANUARY TO DAWN 17 JANUARY 1941
*Weather *Heavy morning cloud; clear afternoon.

*1047-1053 hrs *Air raid alert for enemy a/c reported approaching Grand Harbour. Six Swordfish patrol across the Island in formation from NE to SW; three Fulmars are also airborne. The raiders do not cross the coast.

*1355-1530 hrs *Air raid alert for formations of LW bombers approaching the Island. 15 JU 88s approach from the north over Tigne at 8-12000 feet, wheel east and dive-bomb Grand Harbour before turning away over Ricasoli and Zonqor. The raiders are met by an extremely heavy barrage from all the heavy and light guns of the Dockyard, Luqa and Birzebbuga. Malta fighters are scrambled.

The first attack is followed in by several more large formations of JU 87 Stuka dive-bombers, totalling some 50 a/c, which swoop down singly from 14000 ft to a very low altitude to launch their bombs. Again the guns respond with a massive barrage and Malta fighters engage in dogfights with enemy a/c.

Bombs dropped from as little as a few hundred feet severely damage much civilian property and buildings across the Dockyard. No 2 boiler shop is badly damaged and part of No 2 dock destroyed. A large crater is blown in Sawmills Wharf; flying debris and splinters damage surround windows. _MV ESSEX_ is hit in the engine room by a large bomb, killing 14 or 15 men and wounding another 15. Her vital cargo of guns, ammunition, torpedoes and other service stores is undamaged. _HMS ILLUSTRIOUS_ is hit in the quarterdeck by one bomb.* HMAS PERTH *suffers a near-miss and is damaged underwater. 

Several unexploded bombs are reported in the Dockyard and creeks. Eleven raiders are confirmed shot down and another six damaged, some by fighter aircraft and the remainder by AA fire. 

*1605-1640 hrs *Air raid alert for approaching enemy aircraft. One JU88 approaches from the east and is later seen flying away from the coast to the SW, pursued by Malta fighters; the raider is believed damaged. No bombs are dropped.

*Malta
414-1423 hrs *Air raid alert for enemy aircraft spotted 21 miles north of the Island. They attempt reconnaissance in very bad weather. 
*2020-2035 hrs *Air raid alert for enemy aircraft reported off the coast. Flashes are seen in the direction of San Pietro. The aircraft do not cross the coast and no raid materialises.






*Malta*
AIR RAIDS DAWN 18 JANUARY TO DAWN 19 JANUARY 1941
*Weather *Stormy in the morning; finer later.
It is evident in the changed targetting priorities that resistance offered by the air defences on the island were effective. For the moment FKX concentrates its efforts on neutralising those defences. 
*0940-1000 hrs *Air raid alert for a single enemy a/c which crosses the Island at a great height on recon. Lt AA engage; no claims. 
*1415 hrs *Air raid alert for 80+ Bandits spotted 18 miles off and heading for the Island. Three Fulmars and five Hurricane ftrs are scrambled. A large formation of dive bombers crosses the coast and attacks Hal Far, dropping 40 HE 500kg bombs, destroying one hangar and writing off a Hurricane inside, and setting two other hangars on fire. The officers’ mess is destroyed, telephone communications are cut and water mains hit. There are several craters on the runways but the NW/SE strip remainsl serviceable.
*1458 hrs* Another large formation of enemy raiders is spotted heading inland over Delimara. The raiders dive-bomb Luqa, dropping 40 more 500kg bombs, destroying two hangars and badly damaging two more. The Signal Section, a barrack block and a decontamination centre are destroyed; other offices and the NAAFI are damaged. Several bombs cause craters on the runway and the aerodrome is rendered unserviceable. Electric power, telephone communications and water supplies are cut off. One Wellington is burned out, one Hurricane destroyed and one Maryland badly damaged. All remaining aircraft on the ground are slightly damaged by shrapnel.
*1527 hrs* Another formation of 8 enemy a/c crosses over St Thomas Bay and attacks Hal Far, damaging the aerodrome and buildings. Three Swordfish aircraft are burned out, another is a total loss; several more receive minor damage. An object is reported floating down over Marsa, possibly a mine. 
The raiders are engaged by the aerodromes’ ground defences; several hits are claimed. One enemy aircraft is reported in flames near Tarxien. Three Hurricanes and three Fulmars are airborne. One Fulmar is lost over Grand Harbour with no survivors. Another claims an enemy loss but the aircraft is hit in the dog fight and ditches in the sea off Kalafrana; one of the crew is saved. 
Minutes later five more enemy aircraft cross the coast at great height and fly over the Island. AA guns engage the raiders; no bombs are dropped. In total Malta fighters claim five enemy losses confirmed. One enemy aircraft is reported crashing into the sea off Wied Zurrieq; ten more are believed damaged. An unexploded bomb is reported in a building at Marsaxlokk.
*1610 hrs *All clear.
*1630-1645 hrs *Air raid alert for a formation of three enemy aircraft reported 18 miles off the coast. Three Hurricanes are scrambled and AAt guns open fire; no raid materializes.

*Enemy casualties *Leutnant Horst Dunkel, 7/LG1, pilot of JU 88; Unteroffizier Arthur Haner, 7/LG1, JU 88 crew member; Gefreiter Heinrich Mueller, I/StG 1, gunner of JU 87 Stuka; Unteroffizier Heinrich Schurmann, 7/LG1, JU 88 crew member; Unteroffizier Richard Zehetmair, I/StG1, pilot of JU 87 Stuka.

*Malta*
AIR RAIDS DAWN 19 JANUARY TO DAWN 20 JANUARY 1941
*Weather *Clear.
*0930-1010 hrs *Air raid alert for 43 JU 87 and JU 88s which approach the Island and dive-bomb Grand Harbour. 500kg and 1000kg bombs are dropped, severely damaging civilian property in Senglea, causing heavy casualties, and badly damaging buildings. Bombs on Bakery Wharf and near the electricity sub-station damage many buildings and put power cranes, electricity supplies and telephone communications out of action. No 3 Dock suffers a direct hit; IMPERIAL escapes without damage but bombs damage nearby buildings and a pumping station. A large bomb explodes in No 2 dock, causing a small crater. The MSW BERYL is damaged by a near miss. Carrier ILLUSTRIOUS is damaged again by a near-miss close to the engine room that pushes the carrier against the wharf . One raider crashes in the sea in flames off Delimara, two are brought down over Grand Harbour and another in the sea off Della Grazia. For this main attack the airborne defences have a peak strength of 6 Hurricanes and 3 Fulmars. 
*1024-1045 hrs *An enemy flying boat with red cross marking, accompanied by a CR 42, circles north east of the Island.
*1208-1225 hrs *Air raid alert for an Italian Cant aircraft spotted eight miles north of Grand Harbour, evidently searching for missing aircraft. Four Hurricane fighters are scrambled and the aircraft turns away. Meanwhile the flying boat continues circling 22 miles off the coast. No raid occurs.
*1242 hrs *Air raid alert for two approaching formations ten miles off, heading for the Island. Two Hurricanes are scrambled. Three more formations are then spotted between 24 and 40 miles away, heading for Malta. Raiders total forty aircraft.
*1302 hrs* 30 dive-bombers launch a fierce attack on Grand Harbour, damaging civilian and Naval property and starting a fire between Corradino and the civilian prison. 500kg and 1000kg bombs damage buildings across Senglea and the Dockyard, and cause damage to CARBINE and CROSSBOW. All electric, water and telephone lines are severed. A 500kg armour-piercing bomb lands on Hamilton Wharf but fails to explode. Two further unexploded bombs are rendered safe at Corradino. Two bombs are dropped on Luqa aerodrome, causing slight damage. Malta fighters are scrambled and engage the enemy: six Hurricanes, one Fulmar and one Gladiator are airborne at any one time.
The harbour defences send up a heavy barrage which keeps the attackers high and brings down some enemey a/c.. Many enemy aircraft are hit; several are observed losing height. Four JU 88s, five JU 87s, one CR 42 and one Cant are confirmed destroyed by Malta fighters; one JU 87, one JU 88 and one CR42 unconfirmed; two JU 88s, one JU 87 and one CR42 damaged. In addition, AA claim at least three JU 87s and three JU 88s destroyed. One raider is brought down near Luqa, another crashes near Paola and a third off Delimara. A third is spotted heading out to sea over St Thomas’ Tower, emitting smoke. A raider is reported in flames over Bir id Deheb. One raider is reported baling out near Tarxien and another near St Thomas’ Tower. Two bodies are seen floating in the sea; the high speed launch sets out from Kalafrana.
*1320 hrs* Raiders passed. 
*1454-1500 hrs *Air raid alert; raid does not materialise.
*1800 hrs *It is reported that 17 enemy aircraft were brought down during air raids today; one fighter was lost.
*Military casualties *Sergeant Eric Norman Kelsey, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, 261 Squadron; Lance Bombardier John Rowley, 10 Battery, 7 HAA Regiment, Royal Artillery.
*Enemy casualties *Franz Buczek, 2/StG 1, gunner of JU 87 Stuka; Hauptmann Wilhelm Durbeck, pilot of JU 88; Sergente Maggiore Ezio Iaconne, 70a Squadriglia, 23o Gruppo Autonomo, the Pilot of a CR.42 fighter, baled out; Obergefreiter Hans Kusters, II/StG 2, pilot of JU 87 Stuka; Unteroffizier Rudolf Vater, 1/StG 1, pilot of JU 87 Stuka; Franz Walburg; Oberfeldwebel 2/StG 1, pilot of JU 87 Stuka; pilot Fritz Nakosky; pilot Richard Zehetmanir.
*AIR HQ *_Arrivals _1 PRU Spitfire from RAF Benson in England landed at Ta Qali after a mission to photograph Genoa; he had insufficient fuel to return to base. The aircraft will be employed locally.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> Nah, this was the last day of rest after the extraction of my wisdom teeth so its back to work for me, but it is nice to see you so pumped up!
> 
> Let me know if you have further questions on the GZ.


Happy to listen if you had anything useful or factual to say about it. . have a nice day at your work


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> Where is that bit about the 109T folding wing btw?


What, you need a photo of the Bf109T-0's wings folded or somesh!t?

They were designed to fold as they were elongated over a standard Bf109's wing and wouldn't have fitted belowdecks otherwise.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 14, 2018)

Dont know how many sorties were flown against Illustrious at sea and in harbour but its amazing she survived. The fact that Illustrious was able to sail to safety must have left the German and Italian commanders frustrated and wondering how so many costly attacks had not been completely sucessful.

Hats off to all the RN, RAN, RAF, Army and Civilians invovled

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 14, 2018)

Parsifal have a whole side of Bacon.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 14, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Dont know how many sorties were flown against Illustrious at sea and in harbour but its amazing she survived. The fact that Illustrious was able to sail to safety must have left the German and Italian commanders frustrated and wondering how so many costly attacks had not been completely sucessful.
> 
> Hats off to all the RN, RAN, RAF, Army and Civilians invovled


The RN definitely got it right in building armoured carriers.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The RN definitely got it right in building armoured carriers.



Thats a very large family sized can of worms you have just opened . Prepare yourself for incoming 

I have often wondered what an Illustrious class would have turned out like if it had not been the armoured box design, probably something that looked close to the late war Centaur class Large Light fleet carriers but built to proper Naval standards with a full suite of AAA and bigger engines. The Centaurs had a hangar big enough for 42 1939 planes and with a deck park it could have carried 60 odd planes. What the RN wanted in 1936 when the designs were ordered was something like an Audacious class. These would have been formidable carriers if built instead of the Illustrious class.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 14, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Thats a very large family sized can of worms you have just opened . Prepare yourself for incoming
> 
> I have often wondered what an Illustrious class would have turned out like if it had not been the armoured box design, probably something that looked close to the late war Centaur class Large Light fleet carriers but built to proper Naval standards with a full suite of AAA and bigger engines. The Centaurs had a hangar big enough for 42 1939 planes and with a deck park it could have carried 60 odd planes. What the RN wanted in 1936 when the designs were ordered was something like an Audacious class. These would have been formidable carriers if built instead of the Illustrious class.


One's learning curve requires experience. They were built at a time when battleships could defend themselves against air attack and fighters required a navigator, strike planes too.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> What, you need a photo of the Bf109T-0's wings folded or somesh!t?
> 
> They were designed to fold as they were elongated over a standard Bf109's wing and wouldn't have fitted belowdecks otherwise.



It would be nice since no one has been able to find one ever, as a matter of fact, there is contradicting information on that regard with most sources claiming the requirements was actually dropped at some point and yes, the 109 could have been sent below since the elevators were large enough to take ALL their intended aircraft types down wings UNFOLDED as I explained earlier.

In my first post I told people it would be wise to tread carefully in German issues, lots of lost information, lots of BAD information and nonsensical specualtion as has been made very clear here...


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Happy to listen if you had anything useful or factual to say about it. . have a nice day at your work



Lol! That is rich coming from the guy who complained about "9 aircraft catapults", Ju87Cs having to fold their wings in deck being a problem when pretty much ALL carrier AC had to do that EXCEPT the German ones, a source-less and yet problematic 109T wingfold, a mighty British rage over an "unlawful" 2nd carrier when the UK was already aware of plans for THREE, some sort of unspecified hangar problem due to elevators... and some other crap too funny to remember! 

And thx!


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 14, 2018)

Hi JAG88,

Your passion for the German aircraft carrier program is quite evident and I'm sure you spent countless hours studying every aspect of it. Knowing this, can you tell me if the Stuka (or any other German aircraft for that matter) ever manage to successfully take off and land on the deck of a moving ship at sea? I'm not talking about seaplanes with floats that were lowered by hoists into the water, but an aircraft which was successfully launched and recovered on a ship while using the deck, without being damaged as a result of course.

I'm just curious because I know little to nothing about the Graf Zeppelin carrier and it's development program. Please excuse me for my ignorance here...


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hi JAG88,
> 
> Your passion for the German aircraft carrier program is quite evident and I'm sure you spent countless hours studying every aspect of it. Knowing this, can you tell me if the Stuka (or any other German aircraft for that matter) ever manage to successfully take off and land on the deck of a moving ship at sea? I'm not talking about seaplanes with floats that were lowered by hoists into the water, but an aircraft which was successfully launched and recovered on a ship while using the deck, without being damaged as a result of course.
> 
> I'm just curious because I know little to nothing about the Graf Zeppelin carrier and it's development program. Please excuse me for my ignorance here...



No problem, you are excused.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2018)

I would agree on the size of the elevators however the bad information goes both ways (not blaming you for this one)
a website on the wreck states
"
To facilitate the catapult launches, German carrier aircraft were to use a special cold-start fuel mix of oil and 87 Octane gasoline added to a separate small fuel tank in each plane.

In this way, aircraft could have been brought up from the hangars and immediately catapulted off without any need for engine warm-up prior to launch.

Once airborne, a pilot would have simply waited for his aircraft’s engine to attain normal operating temperature before switching back to the plane’s primary fuel tank."

Now this makes no sense as written. Warming up the engines has everything to do with lubrication and nothing to do with fuel supply/mixture or anything else in the intake system. Nobody I ever heard of added engine oil to the gasoline to help starting in cold weather on any kind of gasoline engine. 
Many aircraft had dilution systems where fuel was added to the engine oil just before shutdown to thin the oil out to make for easier starting, fuel would evaporate out while the engine warmed up. This sounds like a variation on that, separate oil supplies rather than diluting the entire oil supply? 

I do like the bit about _simply waited for his aircraft’s engine to attain normal operating temperature _if it was a fighter tasked with intercepting an incoming strike though. 

The catapult*s *(plural) may have been able to launch nine aircraft *each* at 30 second intervals if the carrier was sailing in calm seas. Moving the eight aircraft after the first would be difficult on a heaving, rolling deck and launches (although perhaps no more difficult than an allied carrier) often had to be timed (plane reached end of deck) for when the bow was either level or tilted upwards, leaving the deck with the the deck pointed down could lead to a very short flight, this is true for any carrier. Some of the fly off rates for allied carriers have to be looked at with that in mind, theoretical vs practical launch rates.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> ...*and fighters required a navigator*, strike planes too.


Which dedicated carrier fighter aircraft of any world navy, between WWI and WWII, had a navigator??


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> No problem, you are excused.



Hello again JAG88,

Thank you so much for the very detailed and fact-filled response. With your help I now know for certain that the Nazi regime wasn't capable of fielding any actual carrier aircraft during WWII, and that this fact further proves out the widely accepted notion concerning the technical superiority of both the Allies and Imperial Japan in the field of naval warfare.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> It would be nice since no one has been able to find one ever, as a matter of fact, there is contradicting information on that regard with most sources claiming the requirements was actually dropped at some point and yes, the 109 could have been sent below since the elevators were large enough to take ALL their intended aircraft types down wings UNFOLDED as I explained earlier.
> 
> In my first post I told people it would be wise to tread carefully in German issues, lots of lost information, lots of BAD information and nonsensical specualtion as has been made very clear here...


I was being sarcastic - fact of the matter is, the elevators of the Graf Zepplin and Peter Strasser (as well as the intended other two carriers in the class) were large enough to accomodate the Bf109T without folding wings.
Only the Fi167 and Ju87C had folding wings.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Which dedicated carrier fighter aircraft of any world navy, between WWI and WWII, had a navigator??


The Dauntless and Skua, both Scout / Dive bombers so they performed CAP successfully; Fulmar too, although that was simply an all weather day, later night, fighter. The navigational aids at the beginning of WW2 simply weren't adequate for operating single seat fighters outside visual distance of the carriers.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would agree on the size of the elevators however the bad information goes both ways (not blaming you for this one)
> a website on the wreck states



We can all make mistakes, the point is how you handle it.




> To facilitate the catapult launches, German carrier aircraft were to use a special cold-start fuel mix of oil and 87 Octane gasoline added to a separate small fuel tank in each plane.
> 
> In this way, aircraft could have been brought up from the hangars and immediately catapulted off without any need for engine warm-up prior to launch.
> 
> ...



I agree, it seems to be backwards. Often information comes filtered through people without a technical background (like me, tbh) which is why we have messy references to both the cold start and catapult launch procedures.



> I do like the bit about _simply waited for his aircraft’s engine to attain normal operating temperature _if it was a fighter tasked with intercepting an incoming strike though.



Holding back during the climb would certainly defeat the purpose of the cold-start procedure, wouldnt?



> The catapult*s *(plural) may have been able to launch nine aircraft *each* at 30 second intervals if the carrier was sailing in calm seas. Moving the eight aircraft after the first would be difficult on a heaving, rolling deck and launches (although perhaps no more difficult than an allied carrier) often had to be timed (plane reached end of deck) for when the bow was either level or tilted upwards, leaving the deck with the the deck pointed down could lead to a very short flight, this is true for any carrier. Some of the fly off rates for allied carriers have to be looked at with that in mind, theoretical vs practical launch rates.



IIRC it was 1 per minute per cat, so 1 every 30s for GZ. In that context the rails might have helped with the aircraft movement in addition to try to speed up the launch.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hello again JAG88,
> 
> Thank you so much for the very detailed and fact-filled response. With your help I now know for certain that the Nazi regime wasn't capable of fielding any actual carrier aircraft during WWII, and that this fact further proves out the widely accepted notion concerning the technical superiority of both the Allies and Imperial Japan in the field of naval warfare.



It was my pleasure!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Dauntless and Skua, both Scout / Dive bombers so they performed CAP successfully; Fulmar too, although that was simply an all weather day, later night, fighter. The navigational aids at the beginning of WW2 simply weren't adequate for operating single seat fighters outside visual distance of the carriers.


But they weren't dedicated fighters.

Naval fighters, that operated from aircraft carriers during the interwar years, up to and through WWII, were single-seat types: French, British, Japanese, American and so on.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I was being sarcastic - fact of the matter is, the elevators of the Graf Zepplin and Peter Strasser (as well as the intended other two carriers in the class) were large enough to accomodate the Bf109T without folding wings.
> Only the Fi167 and Ju87C had folding wings.



Oops, I must have missed the sarcasm.

Peter Strasser is a made up name, pure speculation by some author, the DKM named its ships at launch, until then it was Carrier B, Battleship J and the like.

Funny thing, most sources claim the 109T did not have folding wings, but delcyros went to the archive and found a document on the T2 indicating that the folding mechanism had been welded shut, so...

Hope I didnt miss any sarcasm.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> It was my pleasure!



Mine too.....


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> But they weren't dedicated fighters.
> 
> Naval fighters, that operated from aircraft carriers during the interwar years, up to and through WWII, were single-seat types: French, British, Japanese, American and so on.


So long as you're flying in clear weather then you're okay. How many Lightnings never returned to base in the Aleutians? Lots. What twin engine fighter did the RAF use in great numbers? It wasn't the Whirlwind, it was the Beaufighter. Bad weather loses single seat planes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> So long as you're flying in clear weather then you're okay. How many Lightnings never returned to base in the Aleutians? Lots. What twin engine fighter did the RAF use in great numbers? It wasn't the Whirlwind, it was the Beaufighter. Bad weather loses single seat planes.


Regardless, world navies still had single-seat fighters from the advent of the carrier on through WWII.

Part of pilot training involves a great deal navigation instruction, even today.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> Oops, I must have missed the sarcasm.
> 
> Peter Strasser is a made up name, pure speculation by some author, the DKM named its ships at launch, until then it was Carrier B, Battleship J and the like.
> 
> ...


According to documents, carrier "B" was to be named Peter Strasser, so I'm not sure where the alledged speculation comes in at. There is no record of intended named for "C" or "D", as they never left the drawing board.
Both carrier "A" and carrier "B" had three elevators each, measuring 43 feet by 46 feet, easily able to handle the Bf109 (and other types) without benefit of folding wings.

In regards to the Bf109T-1, they were a collection of about seven various 109 types, modified to a naval standard. Only the T-2 was a dedicated production type, and numbered only seven built out of an original request of seventy. It has been noted that the T-2 series had a detachment point mid-wing (just outboard of the MG) to facilitate transport and storage, but this is far from the ability to fold.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2018)

We have been over the British use of two seat fighters before.
The term "navigator" was, in part, a security measure. The idea that an enlisted man in the back seat was going to tell the pilot, often an officer but at least a higher ranking enlisted man, where to steer the airplane doesn't seem to hold up very well. 
What the British had was a homing beacon on the carrier and a radio receiver that the rear seater operated to home in on the carrier. This required a bit more work than simply talking on a microphone, keying switch. If you didn't know what to listen for or how the system worked just random listening on the radio even if on the right frequency, wasn't going to lead you back to the carrier. 
There are old threads on this that explain it better.
The British did this, in part, due to the crappier weather around Britain, the North Sea and North Atlantic and the dual use of the "fighters" as search aircraft put single aircraft (instead of a formation with an experienced leader) at greater distances from the carrier.
One might also look at the practice of making long range formation flights of naval fighters either in company with the bombers/strike aircraft they are escorting or having one/two bombers/strike aircraft assigned to provide navigational assistance. 
The late 30s and early 40s were period of rapid advancement in radio equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2018)

The German naming "system" was bit strange to other countries, often a proposed name would be common knowledge several years before the ship was finished but "officially" it was called Cruiser "C" or some such depending on if it was new construction or a replacement. If replacing an existing ship it would be known as 
(I forget the German term) "replacement for ship XXXXXXXX" which doesn't mean it actually gets that name when launched/commissioned. This means* a* ship _could _be called 3 different things during the planning/financing/initial building stages. 

There is plenty of room for confusion for people not familiar with the German system (which also may have changed from the Imperial Navy to the German Navy of the 30s). 

As long as we all know what ship we are referring to, I don't think it matters that much.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The German naming "system" was bit strange to other countries, often a proposed name would be common knowledge several years before the ship was finished but "officially" it was called Cruiser "C" or some such depending on if it was new construction or a replacement. If replacing an existing ship it would be known as
> (I forget the German term) "replacement for ship XXXXXXXX" which doesn't mean it actually gets that name when launched/commissioned. This means* a* ship _could _be called 3 different things during the planning/financing/initial building stages.
> 
> There is plenty of room for confusion for people not familiar with the German system (which also may have changed from the Imperial Navy to the German Navy of the 30s).
> ...



True, but Hitler had one Strasser killed and a second managed to barely escape when he decided that National Socialist Party of the German Workers was too long a name and got rid of the Socialist part, might not want to remind people of that.

Breyer does mention that the name was pure speculation.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> According to documents, carrier "B" was to be named Peter Strasser, so I'm not sure where the alledged speculation comes in at. There is no record of intended named for "C" or "D", as they never left the drawing board.
> Both carrier "A" and carrier "B" had three elevators each, measuring 43 feet by 46 feet, easily able to handle the Bf109 (and other types) without benefit of folding wings.
> 
> In regards to the Bf109T-1, they were a collection of about seven various 109 types, modified to a naval standard. Only the T-2 was a dedicated production type, and numbered only seven built out of an original request of seventy. It has been noted that the T-2 series had a detachment point mid-wing (just outboard of the MG) to facilitate transport and storage, but this is far from the ability to fold.



The T1s were the production carrier planes, not modified types, those were the T0s. T2s was the designation the T1s got once de-navalized, either after completion or while under construction.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The term "navigator" was, in part, a security measure. The idea that an enlisted man in the back seat was going to tell the pilot, often an officer but at least a higher ranking enlisted man, where to steer the airplane doesn't seem to hold up very well.



While I agree with the general thrust of your post, I'm afraid you're off-target with the above comment. It was entirely accepted that a more junior navigator could tell a more senior pilot "where to go" because each member of the crew was entrusting his life to the professionalism of the other members. Thus rank was subordinated to the task of actually getting the job done. 

Bomber Command often had interesting mixes of rank within a crew. Put the boot on the other foot and consider an officer navigator and a sergeant pilot. Does the pilot follow exactly what the officer navigator says? A good pilot in a crewed aircraft respected and trusted the other members of his team, and took their advice and recommendations when merited. Bottom line, though, is that the pilot was always the captain of the aircraft, regardless of rank. The only time that has ever been different in the RAF is in more modern times with the Nimrod maritime fleet where it was possible for a Navigator to be the captain...but that's the exception to the rule.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> The T1s were the production carrier planes



Ah yes, the infamous "production carrier plane" that never actually launched from a carrier (holding back the laughter)....

The topic of the thread is "Most Valuable Carrier Fighter of WWII". How could anyone label an aircraft like the 109T a serious "carrier fighter" when it never took off or landed on one? Using this logic the P-51 and P-47 should be considered first, seeing that they both at the very minimum took off from a flat top at one time or other during their careers (unlike Onkel Willy's contribution).

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> But they weren't dedicated fighters.
> 
> Naval fighters, that operated from aircraft carriers during the interwar years, up to and through WWII, were single-seat types: French, British, Japanese, American and so on.



Not strictly true there were a few small production two seat fighters. Hawker Osprey, Vought VE7, Curtiss Falcon and if you stretch the definition of fighter the Douglas O2. I would call them Reconnaissance Fighters rather than fighters though.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Ah yes, the infamous "production carrier plane" that never actually launched from a carrier (holding back the laughter)....
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Most Valuable Carrier Aircraft of WWII". How could anyone label an aircraft like the 109T a serious "carrier plane" when it never took off or landed on one? Using this logic the P-51 and P-47 should be considered first, seeing that they both at the very minimum took off from a flat top at one time or other during their careers (unlike Onkle Willy's contribution).



You sound kind of salty friend, here, have a hug...

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The term "navigator" was, in part, a security measure. The idea that an enlisted man in the back seat was going to tell the pilot, often an officer but at least a higher ranking enlisted man, where to steer the airplane doesn't seem to hold up very well.



Not unusual at all in Naval ships. A ships Captain or the Watch Officer took directions from the Navigator no matter what the difference in rank. There was a case in the Royal Navy pre WWI iirc when the Captain of a Battleship overrode his Navigator and took a channel that was meant only for Destroyers and Light Cruisers and put his ship aground in full view of Portsmouth Harbour.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> You sound kind of salty friend, here, have a hug...



No, just a realist. But it's all good natured fun so please don't get offended. Thankfully in a free society people are able to openly share their own views. I'm sure you agree, right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)




----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

Ahh, I see where this is going...ok.

In the spirit of a serious discussion, I was referring to largely accepted aircraft, not "one offs" or prototypes, but instead, widely accepted types that were single seat, not with a navigator amd had nothing to do with the Bf109T.

I know it may comes as surprise to some, but there were aircraft carriers before WWII and there were single-seat fighters designed for use aboard those carriers, some carriers being employed in the last part of WWI.
HMS Argus and HMS Furious being two examples.

What was the fighter compliment aboard those two ships in 1917? Single seat fighters: the Sopwith Pup and Beardmore W.B.III - both types were produced in large numbers (moreso for the Pup).

Then there's the Misubishi 1MF, Naval Aircraft Factory TS-1, Sopwith 2F.1 and so on and so on.

So in regards to this:


DarrenW said:


> The topic of the thread is "Most Valuable Carrier Aircraft of WWII". How could anyone label an aircraft like the 109T a serious "carrier plane" when it never took off or landed on one? Using this logic the P-51 and P-47 should be considered first, seeing that they both at the very minimum took off from a flat top at one time or other during their careers (unlike Onkel Willy's contribution).


There was a naval P-39 prototype and several navalised P-51 types, so...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2018)

you also had 20 years for things to change, A Sopwith Pup could stay in the 3 hours if it was lucky and at at 112mph top speed it wasn't going to get all that that from the carrier. Not to mention trying to get airborne or land with 2 seat airplanes on the "decks" of the time. A few mph in stalling speed could be all the difference. Not to mention size, A Pup had a wingspan of 26 1/2 ft. 
Policies changed, aircraft capabilities changed, aircraft roles changed. Until 1940 there was no way to really test Policies and roles and more than a few navies (and there weren't much more than few that even had carriers) took a while to figure out how to use carriers, The British losing 2 of them due to stupidity(poor deployment and poor operating procedure) before the war was more than 9 month old. 
If the British couldn't figure out how to properly use aircraft carriers after having them for 20 years (some officers did but obviously it was far from a universal skill) what are the chances of the Germans figuring it out on their first or second cruise?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Until 1940 there was no way to really test Policies and roles and more than a few navies (and there weren't much more than few that even had carriers) took a while to figure out how to use carriers, The British losing 2 of them due to stupidity(poor deployment and poor operating procedure) before the war was more than 9 month old.



Honest question, what was the problem with deploying Ark Royal and Courageous as ASW groups? I have seen the criticisms but it seems it wasnt that much different from later war hunter/killer groups. Beyond the escort not following them during flight operations that is...



> If the British couldn't figure out how to properly use aircraft carriers after having them for 20 years (some officers did but obviously it was far from a universal skill) what are the chances of the Germans figuring it out on their first or second cruise?



Copy the IJN and take it from there, only chance. The IJN was certainly game, for a price.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2018)

I believe the two carriers were not in the same group, could be wrong on that.

Courageous had 4 destroyers as her escort/killer group. WHich might be OK for a cheap converted freighter type carrier. Risking a fast fleet carrier with such a small escort seems to be playing with fire.
Then they detach to 2 of the destroyers to investigate a sinking/rescue survivors. All very noble and in the best traditions of the service but that leaves the Courageous with what kind of escort? 
Next big blooper. And perhaps I have the story wrong but according to one account they had launched 15 Swordfish to hunt for subs, When they got low on fuel they landed all of them to service them and there was about a 2 hour "window" with no planes in the air (waiting for another mass launch?) and the Courageous was torpedoed near the end of that 2 hour window. Obviously the German sub commander didn't know what was or wasn't in the air or how many destroyers were within a few miles or 20 miles. But using a major fleet asset in such an exposed situation and not even keeping up a constant close in air patrol (1 or 2 planes constantly circling the carrier at a few miles out?) doesn't seem like much in the way of precautions were being used. 

Glorious was short of aircraft but German units were know to be at sea. keeping one or two of the Gladiators recovered from Norway in the air during daylight hours to search even 30-40 miles ahead of the carriers course also doesn't seem like that big a price to pay even if you lost few compared to losing the carrier.

one of the first jobs of Naval aviation was to find the enemy (that dated back to airships/zeppelins) Hopefully it could also keep the enemy from finding the friendly forces. Once the recon/deny recon roles were handled then they could worry about strike forces and counter strike forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> .
> Copy the IJN and take it from there, only chance. The IJN was certainly game, for a price.



The IJN had two years to study the RN and see what they did right and what they did wrong. 

Not saying the Japanese didn't bring a few things of their own to the table but Japanese expertise in 1938/9, early 1940 was in shooting up the Chinese which is hardly the same thing. None of the planes the Japanese used at Pearl Harbor were in service in 1939.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe the two carriers were not in the same group, could be wrong on that.



No, separate.



> Courageous had 4 destroyers as her escort/killer group. WHich might be OK for a cheap converted freighter type carrier. Risking a fast fleet carrier with such a small escort seems to be playing with fire.
> Then they detach to 2 of the destroyers to investigate a sinking/rescue survivors. All very noble and in the best traditions of the service but that leaves the Courageous with what kind of escort?



Good point, 4 DDs seems like the minimum escort leaving no room for detachment.



> Next big blooper. And perhaps I have the story wrong but according to one account they had launched 15 Swordfish to hunt for subs, When they got low on fuel they landed all of them to service them and there was about a 2 hour "window" with no planes in the air (waiting for another mass launch?) and the Courageous was torpedoed near the end of that 2 hour window. Obviously the German sub commander didn't know what was or wasn't in the air or how many destroyers were within a few miles or 20 miles. But using a major fleet asset in such an exposed situation and not even keeping up a constant close in air patrol (1 or 2 planes constantly circling the carrier at a few miles out?) doesn't seem like much in the way of precautions were being used.



Yeah, that was... first week of a war stuff.

The concept wasnt wrong, the implementation was faulty... and proper bombs, two Skuas shot themselves down when trying to attack a Uboat.



> Glorious was short of aircraft but German units were know to be at sea. keeping one or two of the Gladiators recovered from Norway in the air during daylight hours to search even 30-40 miles ahead of the carriers course also doesn't seem like that big a price to pay even if you lost few compared to losing the carrier.
> 
> one of the first jobs of Naval aviation was to find the enemy (that dated back to airships/zeppelins) Hopefully it could also keep the enemy from finding the friendly forces. Once the recon/deny recon roles were handled then they could worry about strike forces and counter strike forces.



There is no justification for the Glorious affair.

Regarding the DKM, this is what was proposed at one time:

_"A very different trend, however, was evident in a shift by Fleet Commander Carls. As already noted, Carls had clearly differentiated between ocean-raiding Panzerschiffe and battleships based in the North Sea in his 1934-35 memoranda. But in September 1938 he abruptly changed his mind in submitting a visionary blueprint for the future employment of surface forces against British commerce with four task forces on rotating station in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. For each task force he proposed the inclusion of one battle cruiser (specifying the Gneisenau-class vessels for this function, despite their steam propulsion), one heavy cruiser, four destroyers, an aircraft carrier, five U-boats and accompanying tankers."_

Dragging the tankers along is a bad idea, the Uboats would never keep pace, the DDs range would make a joke of the whole thing and the Hippers, well...

GZ+Gneisenau might work, anything beyond that and you need a ridiculous number of tankers.


----------



## JAG88 (Aug 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The IJN had two years to study the RN and see what they did right and what they did wrong.
> 
> Not saying the Japanese didn't bring a few things of their own to the table but Japanese expertise in 1938/9, early 1940 was in shooting up the Chinese which is hardly the same thing. None of the planes the Japanese used at Pearl Harbor were in service in 1939.



True, but I am talking about the hard yet invisible stuff, deck handling, landing patterns, hangar arrangements, strike preparations, launch sequences, the proper business of aeronaval aviation, the things you learn by doing it for a long time. AFAIK the DKM did get a good look, even had pilots land on IJN carriers, but only briefly. I doubt they really learned everything they could have in such short visits and yet the possibility clearly war there, they chose not to take it.

So I pose this question to you, what could be the worst case scenario for a DKM carrier force in the historical context, nothing crazy, construction can begin in 1935, contacts with Japan including full access to carriers and designs in 1933, how much damage can you do if you are in charge of the DKM and willing to prioritize carriers over the rest bar BBs?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Ah yes, the infamous "production carrier plane" that never actually launched from a carrier (holding back the laughter)....
> 
> The topic of the thread is "Most Valuable Carrier Fighter of WWII". How could anyone label an aircraft like the 109T a serious "carrier fighter" when it never took off or landed on one? Using this logic the P-51 and P-47 should be considered first, seeing that they both at the very minimum took off from a flat top at one time or other during their careers (unlike Onkel Willy's contribution).


Id give it a run, and judge it on its merits and potential. It was tested aboard a number of catapult equipped barges in the Baltic, and some training was undertaken from a small island in the Baltic, which the germans mocked up to resemble their carrier.

My beef stems from the claim that the GZ was potentially more than it could be, and underestimates the issues and problems DKM would have encountered had it continued with its carrier development programs. The carrier had some serious design flaws, and the aircraft slated to form its CAG were not ready design wise and production wise (and to an extent even manning wise) to operate effectively from the carrier. The fact that hardly any of the the carrier capable versions were even built is of course telling of DKMs problems in getting their carrier up and running.

The final nail in the coffin of the german carrier program is that it could only realistically be extrapolated that a second carrier would be added in 1942 or 1943. trying to run a war with just one available carrier, fulfilling both the training and the operational aspirations of DKM would have been exceptionally difficult. I can say that from experience. Having served in a 1 carrier navy, we basically knew that in wartime our time would need to be split in exactly that manner.

The other long term difficulty facing the Germans was the inexperience would have come home to roost even if they managed to bring a second carrier into the mix. All of the big three navies spent a lot of time preparing and training their carriers to operate as task Groups.....working together for mutual benefit. Polmar expresses the opinion in one of his books that whilst it was likely that both the germans and the Italians could probably be expected to field a carrier, with just a moderate increase in effort and resources, neither navy had the expertise to operate those carriers as part of a group in combined operations.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

There is also the issue of where. British carriers are usually decried for having too small airgroups in European operations. The air group capacities of the pacific/temperate navies are often held up as proof of the weaknesses of British carrier design. British carriers favoured increased defences (like armoured decking and closed hangars), and this penalized the air group capacity to the tune of 50 or so a/c, so the argument runs. Partly true, but mostly untrue. The opinion fails to include in its consideration that in the Pacific, there was an almost universal practice of having 50% of aircraft in permanent deckparks. This was not, and mostly, could not be considered in European waters. Once British carriers arrived in the Pacific they too had 50% deck parks, and HMS Indomitable for instance, with a hangar area 85% of that of USS Yorktown, operated 72 aircraft in the Pacific compared to the Yorktown’s 80 odd. The Illustrious could operate nearly 60 aircraft in the pacific, to the usual air group of 40 in the ETO. Which means that British carriers could have operated bigger air groups in Europe, if anyone had considered that wise. No one did.


It possibly explains why DKM in its projections for a carrier the size of an Essex class CV, only projected a CAG the same size as the illustrious. Illustrious, however was only 67% GZs final displacement

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2018)

Not all deck parks are created equal.






Granted this was an escort carrier.

Deck handling was sometimes slower than the book called for.





Carrier off Korea





Parsifal is correct, sometimes you need a hanger and not a deck park.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2018)

Why German AA at sea was a failure
(At least on the Bismarck)


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTO3JagV8gE_


The story of the GZ failure....as seen from the german POV


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC6bqeOkzjQ_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2018)

JAG88 said:


> True, but Hitler had one Strasser killed and a second managed to barely escape when he decided that National Socialist Party of the German Workers was too long a name and got rid of the Socialist part, might not want to remind people of that.
> 
> Breyer does mention that the name was pure speculation.


Kapitan zur See (Captain) Peter Strasser, for whom carrier "B" was to be named, was the Fuhrer der LuftSchiffe for Imperial Germany's Airship division (Marine LuftSchiffe Abteilung) during WWI.
Under his direction, Germany's airships became a vital weapon during WWI and he was an advocate of long-range bombing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2018)

I'm sure that some of you would already have seen this book. it really is the go to source for a discussion on AA effectiveness

Naval Anti-Aircraft Guns and Gunnery

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2018)

I would note that for the German 20mm AA guns that there _may_ be a mistake in some of the published accounts. Older sources seem to make no mention of a 40 round magazine while more modern ones do. A quick search of the internet comes up with no pictures of a 40 round magazine. This may not prove anything on it's own. Numerous pictures of a "transit" or transportation box can be found however that housed two 20 round magazines. Confused translation? 
40 round box magazine would be rather large and should be noticeable in any photo showing that area of the gun/s. 

One also wonders about the spring needed to feed 40 rounds and the effect of trying to strip the first few rounds out of the magazine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Madelman (Sep 5, 2018)

Poll closed

I would vote for the F4F for her contribution in the dark times, it was decisive to fight the IJN in 41-42.

Special mention to the Fairey Fulmar for the similar reasons in the MTO.

Curious about the combat performance of the Fairey Firefly at the end of the war

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2018)

F6F is the winner, by a mile. From the perspectives of technological excellence, numbers and just plain effectiveness it is deserving to win

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 5, 2018)

Madelman said:


> Poll closed
> 
> I would vote for the F4F for her contribution in the dark times, it was decisive to fight the IJN in 41-42.
> 
> ...


The performance of the Firefly F1 series was no better than a F4F-4/5 although it was all weather, could do recce and night fighting. Pretty good rocketeer or fighter bomber. Superior to the Wildcat in those respects. The F4/5 series had a performance equivalent to the Hellcat, but they did serve until post-war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Sep 5, 2018)

Missed the poll would vote for the SDB for it's important contributions in the early Pacific war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 5, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> Missed the poll would vote for the SDB for it's important contributions in the early Pacific war.



Errr...that's not a carrier fighter.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 5, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Errr...that's not a carrier fighter.


The SBD was a Scout fighter as well as a dive bomber. The FAA had the Skua in a slightly earlier time frame. They're from the end of an era when primitive navigational aids meant that having a two seat aircraft ensured your fighter returned safely to base in foul weather. Lots of Lightnings were lost in the Aleutian Campaign after failing to return in bad weather. The British contemporary of the Lightning is of course the Beaufighter which was built as a twin with a navigator.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 5, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The SBD was a Scout fighter as well as a dive bomber. The FAA had the Skua in a slightly earlier time frame. They're from the end of an era when primitive navigational aids meant that having a two seat aircraft ensured your fighter returned safely to base in foul weather. Lots of Lightnings were lost in the Aleutian Campaign after failing to return in bad weather. The British contemporary of the Lightning is of course the Beaufighter which was built as a twin with a navigator.



Sorry but SBD stands for "Scout Bomber Douglas". Scouting is not acting as a fighter, it's a scout...otherwise, why would the USN make a distinction between VS and VF squadrons?


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 5, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The SBD was a Scout fighter as well as a dive bomber. The FAA had the Skua in a slightly earlier time frame. They're from the end of an era when primitive navigational aids meant that having a two seat aircraft ensured your fighter returned safely to base in foul weather. Lots of Lightnings were lost in the Aleutian Campaign after failing to return in bad weather. The British contemporary of the Lightning is of course the Beaufighter which was built as a twin with a navigator.


I think there's kind of a grey area here. The SBD( my favorite plane by the way) as I understand was pressed into service as a fighter on quite a few occasions and even as an interceptor( as unlikely as that sounds) a few times but wasn't intended for the fighter role. So I don't know if it would qualify as a carrier fighter for the purposes of this pole or not.
It would surely be a good pick as a valuable carrier plane in general though as in my opinion at least, it had more to do with the defeat of the IJN than any other plane save maybe the Hellcat.........maybe.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 5, 2018)

Being pressed into a fighter role is different from having that role built-in from the beginning. Bear in mind the first SBDs only had 2 30cal machine guns in the nose which is half the armament of the Skua. Hardly the kind of gun fit that one would associate with even a second-line fighter in late 1940/early 1941 when the SBD entered service (that's 2 years after the Skua). 

SBD was absolutely vital to the successes of the Pacific Campaign but it's not a fighter and doesn't belong in this line-up (IMHO)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2018)

Earlier in the thread, I provided an honorable mention for the SBD because it has the highest kill ratio of any dive-bomber made.

However, it is not a fighter and was not designed to be a fighter. It's primary mission was dive-bombing with scouting as a secondary role.

The fact that it was well-built with excellent performance for an aircraft of it's time, coupled with a determined and savvy pilot did make it very capable of standing it's ground when challenged.

But in the end, it was still a dive-bomber.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2018)

I should creat another thread I think....most valuable carrier based strike aircraft......

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 5, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I should creat another thread I think....most valuable carrier based strike aircraft......


Sounds good. You know where my vote is going to go.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 5, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Earlier in the thread, I provided an honorable mention for the SBD because it has the highest kill ratio of any dive-bomber made.
> 
> However, it is not a fighter and was not designed to be a fighter. It's primary mission was dive-bombing with scouting as a secondary role.
> 
> ...


That's pretty much what I was trying to say but was also trying to conceded that I could understand how Kevin might want to include the SBD in the pole even though it was not a fighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That's pretty much what I was trying to say but was also trying to conceded that I could understand how Kevin might want to include the SBD in the pole even though it was not a fighter.


Considering that the SBD accounted for 138 kills during it's time in the PTO, that's quite an impressive feat beyond several other dedicated fighter types in the Pacific theater.

The fact that the SBD actually squared off against the A6M on many occasions and bested it, is even more noteworthy.

However, the poll specified fighter and the SBD is disqualified due to the fact that it was acting as a fighter "pro-tem", which is beyond it's mission profile.

For example: a Bv222 encountered a PB4Y, attacked it and shot it down but this does not make the Bv222 a fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 6, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that the SBD accounted for 138 kills during it's time in the PTO, that's quite an impressive feat beyond several other dedicated fighter types in the Pacific theater.
> 
> The fact that the SBD actually squared off against the A6M on many occasions and bested it, is even more noteworthy.
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Barrett (Sep 6, 2018)

I adore SBDs (two histories, a novel and restored/flew one) but do not believe the 138 victories. Have looked for an air-air loss figure but still ain't found it. However, the fact that it survived the worst year of the war in good shape says a lot, especially in context of Vals when our VF snacked on 'em.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2018)

Barrett said:


> I adore SBDs (two histories, a novel and restored/flew one) but do not believe the 138 victories. Have looked for an air-air loss figure but still ain't found it. However, the fact that it survived the worst year of the war in good shape says a lot, especially in context of Vals when our VF snacked on 'em.


The SBD operated in a target rich environment at a time when the USN was struggling for survival, the 138 has been authenticated from several sources and I understand it's on the conservative side, too.

These victories would have not only have been accrued while on attack sorties, but also on armed recon and fleet CAP duties.

The 138 pales when compared to the F6F's 5,000+, of course, but if we go back to the valiant defense of the Lexington at the Battle of Coral Sea as an example, Ens. Leppla and his gunner had accounted for 7 Japanese victories that day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2018)

The SBD was great plane and a valuable asset to the forces that used it.

However claiming it was a substitute fighter plane of any great ability is pushing things. Until you get to the SBD-5 you don't even have the engine used in the F2A-3 Brewster Buffalo. SBD-3 & 4s used an engine good for 1000hp for take-off and 800hp over 11,000ft in high supercharger gear. You have a plane with about 25% bigger wing than a Wildcat and that weighs around 1000lbs more than a Wildcat (depending on fuel load and other items? if no rear gunner you need to carry ballast) Now maybe (depending on load) you can out turn a Wildcat (briefly) but you can't out run one, you can't outclimb one. You may not be able to out dive one. 

I know they were used as fighters at times (or anti-torpedo bomber planes which may not be quite the same thing) but the chances of the SBD against actual fighters flown by equal pilots and without some sort of advantage (height, cloud, fighter/s are concentrating on another target) are pretty slim.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2018)

Regardless of their shortcomings, the SBD proved itself against the Japanese.
Lt. "Swede" Vejtesa and Ens. Leffla stand out the tallest among the SBD pilots and special mention goes to AO2C Jones, who nearly killed Saburo Sakai, too.

Another SBD pilot, Lt. Cleland attacked a G4M near Mili atoll. As he commenced his attack, his foreward MG froze but not before setting the bomber's port engine on fire. He then decided to pull alongside so his gunner, RO Hisler could work them over with his twin .30s, but aggressive defensive fire made Cleland decide to get ahead of the bomber. As the SBD cleared the G4M, Hisler opened up, sweeping the cockpit and the bomber nosed down into the sea.

Again, none of this is indicating that the Dauntless was a fighter. It wasn't. In the right hands, it could stand it's ground and make a showing of itself above and beyond it's intended mission profile.

So it boils down to being the right machine in the right place at the right time.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 7, 2018)

Interesting how it has a very storied career as the SBD, but I hardly ever hear anything about the A-24....maybe the Army just didn't implement it as much as the Navy did?






Elvis


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The SBD was great plane and a valuable asset to the forces that used it.
> 
> However claiming it was a substitute fighter plane of any great ability is pushing things. Until you get to the SBD-5 you don't even have the engine used in the F2A-3 Brewster Buffalo. SBD-3 & 4s used an engine good for 1000hp for take-off and 800hp over 11,000ft in high supercharger gear. You have a plane with about 25% bigger wing than a Wildcat and that weighs around 1000lbs more than a Wildcat (depending on fuel load and other items? if no rear gunner you need to carry ballast) Now maybe (depending on load) you can out turn a Wildcat (briefly) but you can't out run one, you can't outclimb one. You may not be able to out dive one.
> 
> I know they were used as fighters at times (or anti-torpedo bomber planes which may not be quite the same thing) but the chances of the SBD against actual fighters flown by equal pilots and without some sort of advantage (height, cloud, fighter/s are concentrating on another target) are pretty slim.


I would concurre with most of that except for the verry last word" slim". 
The SBD seems to have been unique among ww2 bomber types in that it had a positive kill ratio.( there may be another one im not aware of) The misquito perhaps?
In my mind at least there's no way to get from a positive kill ratio, mostly against fighters, to saying the SBD had a slim chance against fighters. Even if one wants to knock say 30 or 40 percent off for some kind of inaccuracy such as overclaiming for example, you would still have about a 0.7 to 1 kill ratio. Not outstanding by fighter standards but a long way this side of a plane that had only a slim chance against fighter opposition.
Consider that much of this time the SBD would have been laden with ordinance while it's opposition wasn't and I this becomes even more impressive. Imho.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 7, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Interesting how it has a very storied career as the SBD, but I hardly ever hear anything about the A-24....maybe the Army just didn't implement it as much as the Navy did?
> View attachment 508828
> 
> 
> Elvis


I also have read that it was used by the free french air force right up until VE day but details on this seem to be hard to come by.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Sep 7, 2018)

A little side note here, those .30 cal on the SBD were ANM2s, i.e. stingers, specially design for high rate of fire. A dual set up was capable of 2400 rpm, quite some firepower. Famous Japanese pilot Sakai attacked a flight of American planes, thinking they were F4Fs and was surprised to find out they were SBDs. Realizing his mistake too late to avoid, he barely survived the encounter.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 8, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> The SBD seems to have been unique among ww2 bomber types in that it had a positive kill ratio.



Blackburn Skua had a positive kill ratio when operating as a fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 8, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Blackburn Skua had a positive kill ratio when operating as a fighter.


Cool thanks! I thought there might be one or two others out there I was not aware of.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 8, 2018)

I think the Aichi Val also did okay as a fighter but I don't know much about Japanese Naval aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 8, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I think the Aichi Val also did okay as a fighter but I don't know much about Japanese Naval aircraft


In the indian ocean the Vals were occasionally used as fighter and enjoyed some success. After the raid on Trincomallee in April, CarDivs 1 and 2 were attacked by a force of 11 Blenheims, losing 7 of their number to a mixed Zero/ Val defending force. One Val was damaged in these attacks. Vals were lightly armed and unarmoured, but from accounts ive read were more manouverable than an SBD. When bombed up and attacked by SBDs acting as fighters which was the usual scenario the Vals were obviously at a disadvantage. Im not aware of any situations where this was the reverse.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 9, 2018)

Once again,

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDPyvyt-MQ_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 9, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Once again,
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDPyvyt-MQ_



Thanks for posting that. Really enjoyed it.
Used to watch that show when it was on but never caught that episode.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 9, 2018)

OK then,
I just finished doing a complete work up on the SBD-5 & -6,
great stuff. They could not in any sense of the word be considered
front line fighters, but if consideration is given to their roles of
scout/interceptors, then they did their jobs admirably.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 9, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> OK then,
> I just finished doing a complete work up on the SBD-5 & -6,
> great stuff. They could not in any sense of the word be considered
> front line fighters, but if consideration is given to their roles of
> scout/interceptors, then they did their jobs admirably.


Ive always loved the SBD. My grandfather who, along with my grandmother, largly raised me worked at Douglas all his adult life and the Dauntless was one of the many planes he worked on. I remember being about 6 or 7 and being fascinated by hearing him extole its virtues.
I really soaked that up and it got me started with a general interest in ww2 aviation.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 9, 2018)

The SBD/A-24 and the B-25...very versatile aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Interesting how it has a very storied career as the SBD, but I hardly ever hear anything about the A-24....maybe the Army just didn't implement it as much as the Navy did?
> Elvis


No, unfortunately, the Army didn't use the A-24 to it's fullest abilities.

They did, however, use the A-36 to it's fullest extent, so perhaps the A-24's failures were a lesson learned and that was passed on to the A-36's SOP.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 10, 2018)

You can't fail if you're not used.
Korea showed just how poor an dive bomber / ground attack plane the P-51 / A-36 turned out to be.


Dean


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2018)

Actually, very few A-36s survived the war - and the P-51 that saw service in Korea were latewar models, being very much different in performance and design.

The ground attack champion in Korea was the Douglas A-1 (itself rooted in WWII) which did use ground attack doctrine learned during WWII.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 10, 2018)

I don't know how relevant this may be, but in Korea, the RANs chief strike a/c was the Fairey Firefly AS5 which carried a 2000lb bombload and developed methods for true divebombing as well as using her patented Youngman flaps to "float" over the targets at relatively low speed and thereby markedly improve bomb aiming accuracy. Ive read accounts that the fireflies were considered the most effective and most accurate carrier borne strike aircraft of the war.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 10, 2018)

I thought the Fireflies carried more than 2000lbs. I have seen photos of them carrying 2 x 1000 lbers and 8 x 3inch rockets.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2018)

The Army A-24s that saw combat in the Java/ New Guinea area were equivalent to SBD-3s. They had the 1000hp engines (take-off rating). They had problems operating over the Owen Stanley mountains. The pilots had little training in dive bombing and coordination with fighter units was often not up to par (read they were not getting fighter escorts). This may have soured the Army on dive bombers. Single engine bombers operating in that theater may not have returned much target effect for the investment needed in logistics. A squadron of A-20s may not have required that many more ground crew than a squadron of A-24s and the A-20s could carry several times the bomb load further. SBD-3s were only supposed to have 140-150 gallons of fuel when carrying a 500lb bomb and only 100 gallons when carrying a 1000lb bomb.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 10, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I thought the Fireflies carried more than 2000lbs. I have seen photos of them carrying 2 x 1000 lbers and 8 x 3inch rockets.


Yes they could but most often they carried just the two bombs. The sea furies were usually the rocket carriers which they usually combined with 20mm suppression fire covering for the fireflies

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Army A-24s that saw combat in the Java/ New Guinea area were equivalent to SBD-3s. They had the 1000hp engines (take-off rating). They had problems operating over the Owen Stanley mountains. The pilots had little training in dive bombing and coordination with fighter units was often not up to par (read they were not getting fighter escorts). This may have soured the Army on dive bombers. Single engine bombers operating in that theater may not have returned much target effect for the investment needed in logistics. A squadron of A-20s may not have required that many more ground crew than a squadron of A-24s and the A-20s could carry several times the bomb load further. SBD-3s were only supposed to have 140-150 gallons of fuel when carrying a 500lb bomb and only 100 gallons when carrying a 1000lb bomb.


You make a good point. When you look at it that way, it makes more sense to use a "light bomber" or a "heavy fighter" in the ground attack role, rather than a dedicated dive bomber.
Good post, Shortround! =)


----------



## Elvis (Sep 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, very few A-36s survived the war - and the P-51 that saw service in Korea were latewar models, being very much different in performance and design.
> 
> The ground attack champion in Korea was the Douglas A-1 (itself rooted in WWII) which did use ground attack doctrine learned during WWII.


...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for _Sandy_.


Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 10, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
> The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
> Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for _Sandy_.
> 
> ...



Weak and a failure in what way? I'd say it was easily as effective as the F4U, and losses were within about 1% of each other. Please explain how the P-51 failed at ground attack.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 10, 2018)

...please allow me to show you...








...water cooled powerplant. Where is the radiator located?
Susceptible to small arms fire and "splash back" caused by exploding ordinance. My dad, who was a Korea-era vet, told me this was a well-known problem and the plane was not used very much in that role, because of that.
Picture courtesy of Aircorps Aviation.com



Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2018)

Elvis said:


> You make a good point. When you look at it that way, it makes more sense to use a "light bomber" or a "heavy fighter" in the ground attack role, rather than a dedicated dive bomber.
> Good post, Shortround! =)



The range issue might not have been as important to other theaters. The Early Ju 87s didn't have much range but they were operating close to the front. 
For dive bombers to be effective against tactical targets they need good target marking and/or good direction. The Germans used luftwaffe officers imbedded in the ground units with radios that could talk to the attack planes. In dessert much less direction was needed as targets tended to stand out more from the terrain. 
The US had considerable trouble in the jungles of Vietnam with getting ordnance on target. You can't hit what you can't see and planes carrying a single bomb per plane , no matter how close to the aiming point they can hit, have a problem if they have no aiming point.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 10, 2018)

In the "No shit Sherlock" category regarding the Mustang radiator, it's a shame no one told the Air Force about that back in '42 or else they could have made the massive mistake of using it for ground attack from WWII through the early '50s, i.e. Korea.

How many thousands of ground attack missions did it fly in Korea again? Weak and a Failure it certainly was not. Why does the Mustang get busted on for it's "delicate" design and the F4U get's a pass for being tough? Loss rates don't exactly back up that mantra.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Sep 10, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...please allow me to show you...
> 
> 
> View attachment 509198
> ...



So I guess the P-51's airframe must have been remarkably resistant to battle damage, given that even though it was saddled with an engine that used WATER, it still managed to have a loss rate in the same role almost identical to that of the F4U.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
> The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
> Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for _Sandy_.
> 
> ...


The A-36 (of which only 500 were built), which was a dedicated dive-bomber, was very effective in it's role.
It's only short-coming, which was not a hinderance to it's mission profile, was that it had the carbeurated Allison, like the P-51 and P-51A. This did not hamper it's performance in Europe, but did pose a problem in the CBI.

The later, RR Merlin types, the last of which saw service in Korea (F-51D/F-51K) were faster, better climbers, had good performance at low, medium amd high altitudes, better armed and were no more vulnerable than the F-80, F-84, F-86, F2H, F9F and Meteor, who's engines would not tolerate any damage whatsoever.

And let's keep in mind that the P-51D conducted ground attack missions in Europe and weren't falling in droves, despite the fact that the Germans had fairly accurate ground defense weapons and flak concentrations. And neither was the P-38, Spitfire, Typhoon, Mosquito and Tempest - all of whom had water-cooled engines.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 10, 2018)

First, a warning: this is an anecdote to an event to which I was not a witness.

Some USAF observers brought some VIPs (politicians? journalists? generals?) to observe its air support in action. A few (four?) Mustangs came in, went in one right after another, each dropping a 500 lb bomb. By a coincidence (?), a USMC unit called in air support. A similar number of Corsairs came in, each with 2 x 1000 lb bombs, dove in, in formation, dropped their loads, and left. The observers were less impressed by the USAF than planned.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2018)

Why does that not surprise me that the Marines "accidently" showed up the Air Force!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 11, 2018)

...if the P/F-51 was such a stellar ground attack aircraft, then why was it pulled from that duty before the end of the Korean conflict...


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 11, 2018)

Hi guys, I am out of time tonight so I do not have time to elaborate all
that I would like to, but if anyone still doubts (or challenges) the SBD's
capabilities, well then compare it to a UK's flattop fighter of 1940-1943,
The Fairey Fulmar and tell me what you think.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 11, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...if the P/F-51 was such a stellar ground attack aircraft, then why was it pulled from that duty before the end of the Korean conflict...



Would you like the one word answer?








Jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 11, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Would you like the one word answer?
> 
> Jets.



Yep, that pretty much says it all.

However, different time, different era. Totally off topic here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 11, 2018)

The RAAFs experience mirrors that exactly. We went into Korea equipped with P-51s, but upgraded to Meteor F-8s. We had wanted F-86s, but these were not available at the time they were needed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 11, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...if the P/F-51 was such a stellar ground attack aircraft, then why was it pulled from that duty before the end of the Korean conflict...


The P-51's days were numbered, though, as advances in aircraft technology were quickly changing the playing field..
We've seen clear examples of this in WWII, as Biplanes gave way to Jets.
Korea was no exception and we shouldn't be surprised by this.

The F-51, F-80 and F-82 gave way to the F-84, F-86 and F-94.

The Navy had the A-1, F4U and the F7F, which saw limited service. Otherwise, they had the F9F and F2H.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 11, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Hi guys, I am out of time tonight so I do not have time to elaborate all
> that I would like to, but if anyone still doubts (or challenges) the SBD's
> capabilities, well then compare it to a UK's flattop fighter of 1940-1943,
> The Fairey Fulmar and tell me what you think.



A fairer comparison would be to the Skua II. 

The SBD-3 was a 9400lb aircraft with 950hp (at 5000ft) available and no WEP rating. The Fulmar II was a 9800lb aircraft with 1360hp (WEP at 6800ft) and after Jan 1942 boost was increased to 16lb and HP to about 1500 at ~4000ft.

The SBD 3 had 2 x .5in BMGs (and twin .3mgs with 1000rpg) and 180rpg while the Fulmar II had 8 x .303 BMGs and 1000rpg or 4 x .5in BMGs and 370rpg.

So if the SBD 3 was a big bad Zero killer then the Fulmar would be King of the Pacfic...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 11, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> A fairer comparison would be to the Skua II.
> 
> The SBD-3 was a 9400lb aircraft with 950hp (at 5000ft) available and no WEP rating. The Fulmar II was a 9800lb aircraft with 1360hp (WEP at 6800ft) and after Jan 1942 boost was increased to 16lb and HP to about 1500 at ~4000ft.
> 
> ...


Well with a positive kill ratio against mostly fighters I think the numbers say that the SBD was a zero killer. As much so as a the F6F or other later fighter designs? No of course not but more so than some of its contemporaries that were designed as fighters. When you consider that killing Zeros was a side gig for the SBD( it was designed as and its main mission was as a dive bomber) seems like thats pretty impressive to me..
Also I think, at least from what I've read, the SBDs strengths in areal combat did not rest uppon a power to wieght ratio but more in excellent handling caracteristics and a sturdy air frame able to withstand 9 g moaenuvers or better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 11, 2018)

Might help to put out some acurate specs on the Dauntless:
*SBD-3* (from March '41 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-52 - 1,000hp.
Empty weight: 6,345 lbs.
Max. weight: 10,400 lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 250mph.
Cruise speed: 152mph.

*SBD-5* (from May '43 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-60 - 1,200hp.
Empty weight: 6,533lbs.
Max. weight: 10,700lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 252mph.
Cruise speed: 139mph.

It's interesting how some people seem to play down the fact that the SBD did what it did. But there had to be one type that sits at the top and the SBD happens to be it - every class of aircraft has one that rises to the top - for example: the Bv222 happens to be the largest aircraft of the war to engage and down an enemy aircraft. Everyone can run to the books and hunt for an altenative champion or start saying "but it didn't have this or it was lacking that", but in the end, the Bv222 is the champ of it's class.

By the way, the closest the TBF/TBM did, was 98 and most of those kills were by defensive fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 11, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The most produced SBD was the SBD-5, weighing 6,400 pounds empty with a 1,200hp Wright R-1820-60 (improved from the SBD-3's 1,000hp Wright R-1820-52).
> 
> Might help to put out some acturate specs:
> *SBD-3* (from March '41 onward)
> ...


Dave do you know if the 252 mph top speed is loaded with bombs or without? 
The reason I ask is twofold. One I've read in a couple articles over the years that the top speed of the SBD without bombload was 288 mph.( this may be also without rear gunner and associated ammo as they may have been configured on those few occasions they were intentionally used as fighters) not sure the articles just said i think unlaiden or something like that.
The other reason I ask is in the SBD-5 you've got a aproxamitly 6000 lb plane empty with 1200 hp. The same hp as the F4f and only slightly heavier(500 lbs or so I think). Admittedly the Dauntless was not the most aerodynamic design but niether was the F4F so with similar empty wieght,(save 500 lbs),the same power, and at least from eyeballing it not to dissimilar drag caracteristics it's hard to see an 80 mph top speed differential unless one is carrying bombs and one is not but maybe thats the case. Just always wondered about this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2018)

I believe that the max. speed is with a loadout (pilot & RO, ammunition stores, full fuel, etc.) but I'm not sure at what altitude this was rated at.
Another thing that has to be taken into consideration, is the draggy design of the SBD, it was certainly not a streamlined machine, with the radial up front, the greenhouse canopy and even the "basketball" holes in the flaps (retracted) creating turbulence. 

The speed of the SBD would certainly increase if it were "clean", meaning no warload, limited fuel and favorable conditions.

In the world of WWII debates, you always see people coming to the discussion with stacks of figures, numbers and so on, but what's always missed, is what was the condition of the adversaries?
Was one (or the other) previously damaged? How much fuel remaining did each have? What was the weather like (i.e.: tailwinds, cross winds, etc.), What was the air temp at the altitude of the engagement? What was the skill level of the aggressor versus the defender (or visa-versa)? And so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I believe that the max. speed is with a loadout (pilot & RO, ammunition stores, full fuel, etc.) but I'm not sure at what altitude this was rated at.
> Another thing that has to be taken into consideration, is the draggy design of the SBD, it was certainly not a streamlined machine, with the radial up front, the greenhouse canopy and even the "basketball" holes in the flaps (retracted) creating turbulence.
> 
> The speed of the SBD would certainly increase if it were "clean", meaning no warload, limited fuel and favorable conditions.
> ...





GrauGeist said:


> Might help to put out some acurate specs on the Dauntless:
> *SBD-3* (from March '41 onward)
> Engine: Wright R-1820-52 - 1,000hp.
> Empty weight: 6,345 lbs.
> ...


Lundstrom's First Team books, looked closely at SBD kill claims during 1942 and couldn't verify very many of them.

SBD-3/SBD5/Skua II (SBD3/5 = No bombs and 260/254usg internal fuel - 2 crew). 9407lb/9352lb/8228lb (7700lb with no bomb)
Altitude - VMAX
0 - 231/229 (~250 with military rating) / 204 (with 500lb bomb + standard engine rating).
5000 - 243 
6700 - / / / 225 (with 500lb bomb)
9600 - 235
16000 - 250/255 (ACA)

Skua II 905hp at 6500ft (military), 199usg, 4 x .303BMG and 600rpg and 1 x .303 Lewis and 600rpg.
Data from USN Standard Aircraft Characteristics and Friedman, British Carrier Aviation.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Lundstrom's First Team books, looked closely at SBD kill claims during 1942 and couldn't verify very many of them.


Yet most of the claims occurred within sight of every ship in the Fleet that the SBDs were defending...


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Well with a positive kill ratio against mostly fighters I think the numbers say that the SBD was a zero killer. As much so as a the F6F or other later fighter designs? No of course not but more so than some of its contemporaries that were designed as fighters. When you consider that killing Zeros was a side gig for the SBD( it was designed as and its main mission was as a dive bomber) seems like thats pretty impressive to me..
> Also I think, at least from what I've read, the SBDs strengths in areal combat did not rest uppon a power to wieght ratio but more in excellent handling caracteristics and a sturdy air frame able to withstand 9 g moaenuvers or better.


You jest, surely


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> You jest, surely


Ok I'll bite. What part of that is wrong?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2018)

Performance of the SBD-3 can be found here.

Pilots Handbook SBD-3.pdf

speeds/perfrormance are given for 1000lb bomb, 180 gallon scout and 310 gallon scout.
However both the last two are for planes without self sealing tanks. 
The inner 90 gallon tanks were changed to 75 gallon self-sealing and the out 65 gallon tanks became 55 gallon self sealing. Weights for both non combat planes (no armor and no self-sealing tanks) and combat planes are given. 
Lots of other range/performance charts are included.

A lot of the success of the dual purpose (or dive bombers acting as fighter) depended on the opposition. And it also depended on pilot quality. The US and Japanese Navy flyers were mostly long term pilots in 1942. Japanese Vals with pilots of number of years experience could be successful against a number of recon planes, float planes/flying boats, torpedo planes and the like flown by less experienced pilots despite using two Vickers guns for armament. 
Dauntlesses could likewise be successful against similar aircraft of the Japanese forces. ANd consider that the Dauntless did have protection and the Japanese aircraft did not (especially in 1942) and the Japanese defensive guns were ussually single guns firing much slower than the American .30 cals protecting the rear of the Dauntless. 

SOmebody has mentioned the Dauntless vs Zero kill ratio of 0.7 to 1? 
Basically means you lose 3 Dauntlesses for every two zeros? 
Better than many dive or torpedo bombers could do but hardly "Zero killer"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 12, 2018)

The DBD-5 being used as a scout (clean condition) could
reach 260 mph or more at 13,800 ft. Wind resistance kept
it from flying faster on 1,000 hp. It was a very maneuverable aircraft.

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive
scroll down to the SBD.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Performance of the SBD-3 can be found here.
> 
> Pilots Handbook SBD-3.pdf
> 
> ...


No the ratio I have read is either 1.3 to1 or 1.1 to 1 depending on which articles/book one believes. I was grantiing the other poster that even if one were to knock of 30 or 40 % for overclaiming that is still pretty impressive foe a dive bomber but then to be fair you would have to knock of the same amount off all types for the same reason( overclaiming) so you would still be bback at a positive kill ratio and if your killing more of them than they are of you I think you've been successful.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Performance of the SBD-3 can be found here.
> 
> Pilots Handbook SBD-3.pdf
> 
> ...



*Interesting, you got me thinking Shortround.
If I was in a top of the line front line fighter feared by all at the time, and I
was intercepting a bomber that was known to be able to take out 2 fighters for
every three knocked down, I believe I would be just a little edgy. I would damn
well give that aircraft respect*.

*Didn't Saburo Sakai get shot up by an SBD pretty bad once?*


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> SOmebody has mentioned the Dauntless vs Zero kill ratio of 0.7 to 1?
> Basically means you lose 3 Dauntlesses for every two zeros?
> Better than many dive or torpedo bombers could do but hardly "Zero killer"



It is infinitely better than the Spitfire V/Zero kill ratio over Australia of 27-4. 

(Digging slit trench as Spitfire fans form up for attack)


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *Interesting, you got me thinking Shortround.
> If I was in a top of the line front line fighter feared by all at the time, and I
> was intercepting a bomber that was known to be able to take out 2 fighters for
> every three knocked down, I believe I would be just a little edgy. I would damn
> ...


Verry good point and all the more so that the SDBs kill/ loss ratio was actually slightly positive. The 0.7 to number was something I said to point out that even if the other poster(whos name escapes me at the moment) wanted to discount a huge portion of the claims for the SBD ,say 30 or 40%, it would still have quite the impressive record for a dive bomber.
And in actuality I believe those are verified claims, certainly total claims were much higher.
Aditionally if we are going to compare evenly here we would have to compare kill/ loss ratios from the time on each mission after theSBD had droped its bombload and when it was being used as a fighter to contemporary fighters. What would happen to the ratio then? Obviously it would go up in favor of the SBD. How much is probably unknowable at this point but its going to be be way into positive territory for sure.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *Interesting, you got me thinking Shortround.
> If I was in a top of the line front line fighter feared by all at the time, and I
> was intercepting a bomber that was known to be able to take out 2 fighters for
> every three knocked down, I believe I would be just a little edgy. I would damn
> ...



Sakai attacked a formation of SBDs and got tagged by a rear gunner.

SBD front gun kills are far and few between.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> It is infinitely better than the Spitfire V/Zero kill ratio over Australia of 27-4.
> 
> (Digging slit trench as Spitfire fans form up for attack)


I apreciate the humor but nobody, certainly not me iis making the case that the SBD was a premier fighter. Only that for a dive bomber or any kind of bomber for that matter it was exceptional even outscoring many of its contemporary fighter designs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Sakai attacked a formation of SBDs and got tagged by a rear gunner.
> 
> SBD front gun kills are far and few between.


What do you base that last sentence on. All I have read indicates otherwise. I dont mean this to be confrontational. I am honestly interested in perhaps a few other books I should read.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Sakai attacked a formation of SBDs and got tagged by a rear gunner.
> 
> SBD front gun kills are far and few between.



Does it matter which end of the plane got the kill?

In Lundstrums 2nd volume of The First Team, Dauntless’s shot down so many Japanese 4 engine flying boat scouts that wildcat squadron was getting mad. In the attacks that damaged Enterprise and crippled Hornet, the returning SBD’s piled right into the fight and picked off a good number of enemy aircraft, several after they had dropped their bombs so they weren’t exactly picking off bombed up sitting ducks. The only aircraft that seemed to have a chance around an SBD was in fact a Zero, anything else was in serious trouble.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 12, 2018)

It just hit me, the SBD is not on the list!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> It just hit me, the SBD is not on the list!


lol...nope, because it's not a fighter!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> It just hit me, the SBD is not on the list!



The Most Valuable Carrier Fighter of WW2: I’m going with either the SBD (a dive bomber) the B29 or the ME262.....

I love when we stray off topic like this (actually, some of the best info comes from straying off subject)

Carry on gentlemen


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> What do you base that last sentence on. All I have read indicates otherwise. I dont mean this to be confrontational. I am honestly interested in perhaps a few other books I should read.



It's based upon Sakai's own account of what happened. 

Read First Team vol 1 and 2. Volume 2, page 56 recounts Sakai's near fatal encounter with SBDs. He and his wingman and just tangled with another formation of SBDs and scattered it into broken cloud:


> caught unaware, he looked back to spot an audacious carrier bomber off his port quarter. After evading Tokushige, Dudley Adams of VS-71 had run across Sakai’s flight and actually stalked the four Zeros ascending through the clouds. Swiftly Sakai and his three friends climbed above and easily drew away from their much slower opponent. Now safe, Sakai turned the tables with a high-side run, and his first bursts forced the SBD to stall and fall away toward the water. Gunfire killed Harry Elliott and painfully wounded Adams. At 1337 he ditched 71-S-10 astern of the Screening Group. The _Dewey_ left the X-RAY transports and rescued him eight minutes later.
> 
> Following the rude interruption, Sakai resumed his flight toward the 4th Air Group. Ahead at 7,800 feet he noticed what appeared to be eight Grumman fighters in tight formation almost begging to be ambushed. Unfortunately for him the targets proved to be Lt. Carl H. Horenburger’s eight VB-6 and VS-5 SBDs still toting their 500-pound bombs. They observed Zeros and closed formation even more to meet their attack. Too late did Sakai realize his disastrous mistake, but he had committed to a low-deflection stern attack into the muzzles of sixteen .30-caliber machine guns. With no other choice, he pressed his run to the limit against the right side of the shallow Vee. Kakimoto followed closely, but the other two broke off in time. The radiomen caught the lead Zero in a wicked cross fire. One bullet shattered the windscreen, tore into Sakai’s head, and temporarily blinded him. Thrown into inverted flight, his smoking Zero passed up over the formation and rolled into a straight dive toward the water. Kakimoto dipped beneath for a pass against the left side, but broke off when the eight SBDs flew into a cloud bank.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I apreciate the humor but nobody, certainly not me iis making the case that the SBD was a premier fighter. Only that for a dive bomber or any kind of bomber for that matter it was exceptional even outscoring many of its contemporary fighter designs.



Your thoughts mirror my own. It wasn’t a fighter, but like the Wildcat, it performed far better than it should have done based on its paper statistics.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Does it matter which end of the plane got the kill?
> 
> In Lundstrums 2nd volume of The First Team, Dauntless’s shot down so many Japanese 4 engine flying boat scouts that wildcat squadron was getting mad. In the attacks that damaged Enterprise and crippled Hornet, the returning SBD’s piled right into the fight and picked off a good number of enemy aircraft, several after they had dropped their bombs so they weren’t exactly picking off bombed up sitting ducks. The only aircraft that seemed to have a chance around an SBD was in fact a Zero, anything else was in serious trouble.



If you've read Lundstrom then you'll know that SBD's massively overclaimed IJ fighter kills, and not by 30 or 40% but by 4 and 5 to 1. There's no particular reason why an SBD-3 would do better than a Skua II when engaging slower attack aircraft, but it could not meet fighters on anything like equal terms.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> It's based upon Sakai's own account of what happened.
> 
> Read First Team vol 1 and 2. Volume 2, page 56 recounts Sakai's near fatal encounter with SBDs. He and his wingman and just tangled with another formation of SBDs and scattered it into broken cloud:


Ok that's one instance out of over a hundred. Doesnt seem to have anything to do with your assertion that front kills for the SBD were few and far between. Imho.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ok that's one instance out of over a hundred. Doesnt seem to have anything to do with your assertion that front kills for the SBD were few and far between. Imho.



The most famous SBD front gun kill claim is by Swede Vejtasa on 8 May 1942 but it never happened:


> A minute after Sellstrom’s furious attack, it was the turn of Scouting Five on anti–torpedo-plane patrol to feel the sting of _Zuikaku_ fighters. Deployed loosely in pairs, the eight SBDs turned up between the two groups of _Zuikaku_ torpedo planes, but in position to intercept neither. There was no way the SBDs, cruising at 1,500 feet, could overhaul faster-moving torpedo planes with altitude advantage. The _kankō_ were past before the SBDs could react. Some of the VS-5 pilots never even saw them. Suddenly there was trouble. Birney Strong glanced up to behold the sickening sight of three Zeros peeling off into an overhead attack on his dispersed SBDs. They were the three fighters of Lieut. Tsukamoto’s _Zuikaku_ 14th _Shōtai_, surprised to find nine “Curtiss bombers” (as the Japanese called the Dauntlesses) flying in their area. Their amazement brief, they tore into Strong’s division. On the first pass, Tsukamoto and his wingmen shot off the tail of Ens. Kendall C. Campbell’s SBD, then blasted a second Dauntless from the sky. They kept the surviving SBDs too busy to join forces for their mutual defense. Joining in the fight were PO1c Kanō’s three _Zuikaku_ Zeros, and they went after Woodhull’s four SBDs as well. For the next several minutes, the _Zuikaku_ Zeros made life miserable or impossible for Scouting Five, eventually accounting for four SBDs, flown by Lieut. (jg) Earl V. Johnson, Ens. Samuel J. Underhill, Ens. Edward B. Kinzer, and Ens. Campbell. In return Scouting Five claimed four Zeros shot down, one to Lieut. (jg) Stanley W. Vejtasa (later a renowned ace with Flatley’s Fighting Ten). The Japanese, however, lost no fighters in this combat. (First Team Vol. 1, p250)


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> If you've read Lundstrom then you'll know that SBD's massively overclaimed IJ fighter kills, and not by 30 or 40% but by 4 and 5 to 1. There's no particular reason why an SBD-3 would do better than a Skua II when engaging slower attack aircraft, but it could not meet fighters on anything like equal terms.



There’s no particular reason why a Wildcat should do better against a Zero than a Spitfire V, but it did. About 1 to 1 for Wildcat and 7-1 for Spit V. 

Not sure why you keep mentioning the Skua, how many Skua/Zero matchups were there? The specs show a Skua top speed of 225 with 4 303’s firing forward and 1 Lewis gun in the back. The Dauntless -5 had 2 forward 50’s, 2 belt fed 30’s in the back, 25-35 mph faster, better climb and probably turned better. 

I doubt a Skua could catch a Kate unless it had a lot of altitude advantage and I’d take 2 50’s over 4 303’s everyday of the week and twice on Sunday

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

What about Midway, Japanese attack on Yorktown. On the way there the Zero escort saw 4 SBD’s returning and jumped them. I believe 1 Zero was downed, at least one other was so damaged he had to return to Hiryu, no SBD’s were downed (although the flight was lost and never heard from again).

Name another dive bomber that could survive against enemy fighters in that situation. A Skua? Doubtful. A Stuka? Stuka parties got their name for a reason. Could 4 Hurricanes survive that situation? 4 Spitfires? 4 P39’s? 4 P40’s? I seriously doubt it. 

SBD wasn’t a fighter, but it was tough, very maneuverable without a bomb and had a record that much exceeded its paper performance stats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> There’s no particular reason why a Wildcat should do better against a Zero than a Spitfire V, but it did. About 1 to 1 for Wildcat and 7-1 for Spit V.
> 
> Not sure why you keep mentioning the Skua, how many Skua/Zero matchups were there? The specs show a Skua top speed of 225 with 4 303’s firing forward and 1 Lewis gun in the back. The Dauntless -5 had 2 forward 50’s, 2 belt fed 30’s in the back, 25-35 mph faster, better climb and probably turned better.
> 
> I doubt a Skua could catch a Kate unless it had a lot of altitude advantage and I’d take 2 50’s over 4 303’s everyday of the week and twice on Sunday



I gave you the stats earlier. The Skua II was a 7700lb (clean) aircraft with 905hp at 6700ft for 225mph but speed was measured at 8200lb while carryng a 500lb bomb. The SBD-3 was a 9400lb (clean) aircraft with 950hp at 5000ft and 243 mph so maximum low altitude speed clean for both aircraft must have been similar. The SBD-3 had a two speed blower but this was only useful at higher altitude and this gave the SBD-3 250 mph but at 16000ft.

At low altitude, under 8000ft, the two aircraft had very similar performance with the Skua II having a somewhat better power to weight ratio. The SBD-3 only had ~15 seconds of ammo for it's front guns versus 30 seconds for the Skua. The Skua racked up lots of kills against Luftwaffe attack aircraft but it was no match for a 109.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

Things get strange when you look at stats. An ME109 and Spitfire were near pears for the entire war. Spitfires and Hurricanes downed JU87’s at will. Spitfire and Hurricanes faired poorly against the Zero even through 1943. SBD’s did well against Zero’s (fighting through to target without fighter escort) Wildcats were about 1 to 1 vs Zero’s

Sometime stuff doesn’t make sense


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The most famous SBD front gun kill claim is by Swede Vejtasa on 8 May 1942 but it never happened:


Interesting...and what is the source for this?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting...and what is the source for this?



The First Team Vol 1 page 250 (it was at the bottom of his paragraph)


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> What about Midway, Japanese attack on Yorktown. On the way there the Zero escort saw 4 SBD’s returning and jumped them. I believe 1 Zero was downed, at least one other was so damaged he had to return to Hiryu, no SBD’s were downed (although the flight was lost and never heard from again).
> 
> Name another dive bomber that could survive against enemy fighters in that situation. A Skua? Doubtful. A Stuka? Stuka parties got their name for a reason. Could 4 Hurricanes survive that situation? 4 Spitfires? 4 P39’s? 4 P40’s? I seriously doubt it.
> 
> SBD wasn’t a fighter, but it was tough, very maneuverable without a bomb and had a record that much exceeded its paper performance stats.



None of the SBD's did survive, but the exact reasons for that are unknown, so it is quite possible that the Zero's inflicted enough damage to force them all to ditch. This is what Lundstrom has to say about it:


> Kobayashi proceeded out at low level and only gradually gained height. Visibility seemed better close to the water. About a half hour after departure, the Japanese stumbled upon a formation of six American planes which they thought were torpedo planes involved in the strike on the _Kidō Butai_. Shigematsu’s six Zeros peeled off to ambush the enemy cruising low over the water. The Americans proved tougher than they looked. In an extended fight, the Japanese shot down no bombers outright, but the American gunners pared the little escort to four Zeros. Both W.O. Minegishi Yoshijirō (2nd _Shōtai_ leader) and wingman PO1c Sasaki Hitoshi had their fighters badly shot up, so badly that they had to abort the mission and head back. When they made it home around 1230, Minegishi landed safely on board the _Hiryū_, but Sasaki had to ditch. No doubt highly irritated, the tough Shigematsu gathered his three Zeros and set off after the _kanbaku_, hopefully to catch up before Kobayashi spotted the enemy.
> 
> Shigematsu’s fight is unsung from the American point of view, although his opponents had to be _Enterprise_ dive bombers looking for their carrier. No surviving SBD crews reported fighting Zeros under these circumstances, and it appears none of Shigematsu’s tormentors were rescued. Lieut. Charles R. Ware, VS-6 flight officer, had led most of his 3rd Division back to Point Option where the SBDs were seen by other pilots. Thereafter Ware’s little group disappeared. It seems likely that Ware’s division, perhaps reinforced by a few other SBDs gathered on the way, encountered the Japanese strike group and put up a stout defense against the six Zeros. Then from battle damage or fuel starvation, the SBDs ditched, and their crews were not recovered.



Defensive gun damage whilst engaging strike aircraft is not news. The unarmoured Zero with it's non self-sealing fuel tanks was particularly vulnerable.

The SBD was a good plane, but not spectacular - Iet's not claim it was something that it wasn't. The USAAF was not impressed with the land based A24.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Spitfire and Hurricanes faired poorly against the Zero even through 1943



In 1943 Hurricanes were fighting over Burma/India which was a Japanese Army campaign. How often did they meet Naval Zeros. Spitfires fought Zeros over Darwin but that was combats measured in the tens.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> You know, if some idiot comes along 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 100 years later
> and calls a veteran that put his life on the line several times a liar, well, I guess
> that idiot can just kiss my ass.



Hey bud, I don’t think that it’s RCAFson intention to disparage any particular person, and he did in fact provide a reference for what he typed. I know what your saying, but whether it’s fog of war or an individual lying (there are certainly cases of both) but when ‘Tom’ engages squadron xyz on a specific date and claims x many shot down and in fact enemy records say that all of those aircraft were recorded as returning from that mission then there is a problem somewhere. 

Respectfully Pinsog

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> In 1943 Hurricanes were fighting over Burma/India which was a Japanese Army campaign. How often did they meet Naval Zeros. Spitfires fought Zeros over Darwin but that was combats measured in the tens.



Your correct that the Spitfire V/Zero engagements over Australia were in the couple of dozen in numbers over 4 or 5 months (not in a position to confirm exactly) But in those raids, the Spitfires never, not 1 time, came out on top. 28-4, only planes downed by gunfire, that doesn’t include all the ones that were run out of fuel over their own country (I think 10 on one raid) by Zeros that flew 500 miles 1 way. 3 Zeros and 1 KI43 were, as I understand, total fighter losses for the Japanese. I’m not sure that the Devastator vs Zero record was that bad.

You are correct, the Hurricane fought the KI43 in China, but it suffered badly as well. (I believe the KI43 is one of the most underrated fighters of the war) Hurricane vs Zero only happened a few times that I recall, lie the carrier raid in the Indian Ocean. But as I recall they were out numbered, caught low etc. and nothing would have faired well in that setting.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 12, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> The DBD-5 being used as a scout (clean condition) could
> reach 260 mph or more at 13,800 ft. Wind resistance kept
> it from flying faster on 1,000 hp. It was a very maneuverable aircraft.
> 
> ...


Actually that was the _Ferry_ speed @ 14K ft. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SBD-5_PD_-_August_6_1942.pdf
In the Scout role, it seems the best an SBD-5 could muster was 255 mph.
Most other variations are listed between 238 and 252 mph.
Nice reference site, though. New to me. Thanks for the heads up Corsning! 


Elvis


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Hey bud, I don’t think that it’s RCAFson intention to disparage any particular person, and he did in fact provide a reference for what he typed. I know what your saying, but whether it’s fog of war or an individual lying (there are certainly cases of both) but when ‘Tom’ engages squadron xyz on a specific date and claims x many shot down and in fact enemy records say that all of those aircraft were recorded as returning from that mission then there is a problem somewhere.
> 
> Respectfully Pinsog


Yes something's wrong somewhere but that doesn't mean it's the pilot that's incorrect. God knows record keeping to was often subject to the fog of war.
I am no expert myself but have read that Japanese records in particular were often subject to optimistic outlooks shall we say. I read an article about a year ago about a Japanese army unit later in the war that had basically ceased to exist but those at the top of the command food chain continued to make decisions on the asumption that they were more or less full strength as no one up the chain of command wanted to loose face and admit defete to his superiors.
Also I think its fair to say that many of the Japanese records years later are incomplete.
Also when Swede Vejtasa returned he had wing damage from the third and final A6m that went down in that fight from the colision that not surprisingly the SBD survived and the Zero did not. If he made the whole thing up that would be quite a trick to pull off. Aslo lets not forget the witness in the back seat.
Aslo kinda hard to believe that a guy who would later prove to have superlative skills as a fighter pilot beyond any question would feel the need to fabricate such an event. 
Is it posible the Zeros were badly shot up and managed to limp back to there carrier except for the last one involved with the colision and were not therefore technically "lost" maybe but I'm not buyin that Swede made the whole thing up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 12, 2018)

There's a world of difference between making stuff up and making a genuine, but mistaken, assessment in the heat of combat. Given the rampant overclaiming by all sides during WW2, it would not be surprising if Swede incorrectly assessed that the Japanese fighters had been shot down.

As to the Japanese fabricating information about their own losses, that's a trope that's been used for many years to justify, for example, the kill ratio of the AVG. Dan Ford effectively debunked the AVG's list of kills by examining the list of Japanese losses from their own records. Those who failed to accept Ford's analysis had to do something to make up the difference, and so was born the concept that Japanese units lied about their losses in their reports up the command chain. Apart from being blatantly racist, this explanation fails to account for how "losing face" about reporting losses stacks up against the same impact resulting from a complete inability to prosecute operations. It also fails to account for the impacts all the way up the command chain, particularly logistics and supplies. If the Japanese lied about so many losses, their airfields would have been awash in avgas because there were no aircraft to refuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Hey bud, I don’t think that it’s RCAFson intention to disparage any particular person, and he did in fact provide a reference for what he typed. I know what your saying, but whether it’s fog of war or an individual lying (there are certainly cases of both) but when ‘Tom’ engages squadron xyz on a specific date and claims x many shot down and in fact enemy records say that all of those aircraft were recorded as returning from that mission then there is a problem somewhere.
> 
> Respectfully Pinsog


Yes that would indicate there's a problem somewhere but that doesn't nescesarily mean its the pilot thats incorrect. God knows that record keeping was also subject to the fog of war at times and I'm no expert but from what I've read Japanese records in particular were subject to optimistic outlooks shall we say.
About a year ago I rear an article about a Japanese army unit that had pretty much ceased to exist but those at the top of the comand food chain were unaware of this and still making decisions as if the were full strength because no one on up the chain of comand wanted to lose face and admit defete to his superiors.
Also when Swede Vejtasa returned he had damage to his wingtip from the 3rd and final Zero that went down in that fight. That would be quites a trick to pull off if he had made the whole thing up.
Also lets not forget the witness in the back seat. Furthermore its pretty hard to believe that a guy who would go on to prove beyond any doubt that he possessed superlative combat skills would feel the need to make something like this up.
Is it posible that two of the three Zeros( barring the one that did not survive the colision) were just badly shot up and made it back to there carrier so were not technically "lost' ya maybe but im not buying that Swede made the whole thing up.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

Sorry about the double post guys. On my phone the first one didn't show up until after i posted the 2nd one. I thought it had just disappeared onto the ether.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> There's a world of difference between making stuff up and making a genuine, but mistaken, assessment in the heat of combat. Given the rampant overclaiming by all sides during WW2, it would not be surprising if Swede incorrectly assessed that the Japanese fighters had been shot down.
> 
> As to the Japanese fabricating information about their own losses, that's a trope that's been used for many years to justify, for example, the kill ratio of the AVG. Dan Ford effectively debunked the AVG's list of kills by examining the list of Japanese losses from their own records. Those who failed to accept Ford's analysis had to do something to make up the difference, and so was born the concept that Japanese units lied about their losses in their reports up the command chain. Apart from being blatantly racist, this explanation fails to account for how "losing face" about reporting losses stacks up against the same impact resulting from a complete inability to prosecute operations. It also fails to account for the impacts all the way up the command chain, particularly logistics and supplies. If the Japanese lied about so many losses, their airfields would have been awash in avgas because there were no aircraft to refuel.


Ok brother I don't know if you need tu pull out the racism card. I have nothing but respect for the bravery of Japanese pilots.
As far as the assertion that optimistic reports are racist we the, US , had quite a few optimistic reports ourselves especially durring Viet Nam for example. So its not posible the Japanese suffered from the same malidy? And to sugest they did is racist..? Don't mean to sound confrontational but man thats a tuff one to swallow.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ok brother I don't know if you need tu pull out the racism card. I have nothing but respect for the bravery of Japanese pilots.
> As far as the assertion that optimistic reports are racist we the, US , had quite a few optimistic reports ourselves especially durring Viet Nam for example. So its not posible the Japanese suffered from the same malidy? And to sugest they did is racist..? Don't mean to sound confrontational but man thats a tuff one to swallow.



I'm not saying you're racist. I'm saying that the excuse made by some that the Japanese falsified their own loss returns is racist. It's one thing for a combatant to make mistaken claims about their own side's kills; all sides did that. It's another thing altogether to suggest that a combatant deliberately falsifies reporting of its own losses. That just doesn't stack up against the reality of warfare. The claim that the Japanese, exclusively, falsified upwards reporting of their own losses is bogus. As noted, if they did that then their airfields would have had spare parts and POL coming out of their ears. The reality is that the Japanese were running out of everything at the end of the war. It's frankly ludicrous to suggest that pervasive, systemic fabrication of loss reporting would not have been noticed given the dire straits the Japanese were in. So, yes, that specific claim is racist because it's only ever applied to the Japanese and, in the case of the AVG, it's used purely to justify provably inaccurate Allied kill claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> There's a world of difference between making stuff up and making a genuine, but mistaken, assessment in the heat of combat. Given the rampant overclaiming by all sides during WW2, it would not be surprising if Swede incorrectly assessed that the Japanese fighters had been shot down.
> 
> As to the Japanese fabricating information about their own losses, that's a trope that's been used for many years to justify, for example, the kill ratio of the AVG. Dan Ford effectively debunked the AVG's list of kills by examining the list of Japanese losses from their own records. Those who failed to accept Ford's analysis had to do something to make up the difference, and so was born the concept that Japanese units lied about their losses in their reports up the command chain. Apart from being blatantly racist, this explanation fails to account for how "losing face" about reporting losses stacks up against the same impact resulting from a complete inability to prosecute operations. It also fails to account for the impacts all the way up the command chain, particularly logistics and supplies. If the Japanese lied about so many losses, their airfields would have been awash in avgas because there were no aircraft to refuel.


Also how about addressing the other 6 points in my post instead of just the one you feel is the weakest.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Also how about addressing the other 6 points in my post instead of just the one you feel is the weakest.



I have no problem with the assertion that many Japanese records were lost. As to a gunner somehow making claims more reliable, if that were the case then every 8th AF gunner's kill would be absolutely definite because of the number of crew in each B-17 or B-24. As to the rest, it's just conjecture.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not saying you're racist. I'm saying that the excuse made by some that the Japanese falsified their own loss returns is racist. It's one thing for a combatant to make mistaken claims about their own side's kills; all sides did that. It's another thing altogether to suggest that a combatant deliberately falsifies reporting of its own losses. That just doesn't stack up against the reality of warfare. The claim that the Japanese, exclusively, falsified upwards reporting of their own losses is bogus. As noted, if they did that then their airfields would have had spare parts and POL coming out of their ears. The reality is that the Japanese were running out of everything at the end of the war. It's frankly ludicrous to suggest that pervasive, systemic fabrication of loss reporting would not have been noticed given the dire straits the Japanese were in. So, yes, that specific claim is racist because it's only ever applied to the Japanese and, in the case of the AVG, it's used purely to justify provably inaccurate Allied kill claims.


Ok never in my life have I heard the assertion that optamistic reporting and record keeping was exclusively a Japanese thing. Certainly we have had some ourselves. I said its just one more log on a stack of logs that indicate that just because Japanese records which may or may not even be complete dont show those particular loses does not mean they did not happen. Particularly with a witness, corabarating battle damage, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ok never in my life have I heard the assertion that optamistic reporting and record keeping was exclusively a Japanese thing. Certainly we have had some ourselves. I said its just one more log on a stack of logs that indicate that just because Japanese records which may or may not even be complete dont show those particular loses does not mean they did not happen. Particularly with a witness, corabarating battle damage, etc.



Please show me one single historic account which claims that the USAAF or RAF falsified their *own losses*. You need to read what I'm writing. All sides overclaimed kills. I'm not arguing that. However, military units do NOT consistently under-report losses. Doing so would completely undermine military effectiveness. It would ultimately lead to the total annihilation of the unit...and no amount of "saving face" efforts would make up for that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> I have no problem with the assertion that many Japanese records were lost. As to a gunner somehow making claims more reliable, if that were the case then every 8th AF gunner's kill would be absolutely definite because of the number of crew in each B-17 or B-24. As to the rest, it's just conjecture.


Ok a couple of points jump out at me here. First the corabarating damage to the wing tip is conjecture?
2nd you completely missed the point about the gunner /witness. Of course one witness does not absolutely prove anything.That wasnt the point. Someone made the assertion that since Japanese records which may or may nor even be complete dont show these losses that proves they didn't happen. I gave more than a half dozen reasons why this is not nescesarily the case and counterbalancing evedence that it did the gunner/witness was only one of these.
Also the situation with 8th air force bomber gunners is not comparative here because in that situation you had multiple gunners shooting at an attacker and if the attacking aircraft was hit everybody would in good faith claim it as they were shooting at it resulting in multiples of overclaiming. In this instance we have one plane with one gunner/ witness. No possibility for such an error. If a zero went down that gunner knew 100% for sure who shot it down.
Also just occurred to me, with the damage to the wing tip i think we can pretty much count on that last " kill" even though it was just a colision. And if so, if Swede didn't shoot down the other two zeros what happened to them? They just decided to take off and leave there budy to fight this SBD alone? That doesn't seem plausible.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2018)

Let's all calm the eff down before the Mods lock this thread.

There's always going to be some people who want to play down accomplishments of any type - this forum is full of that sort of thing.

In regards to the SBD, it was the right type at the right time. Period. It's exploits bear that out, regardless of anyone's opinion.

As for Lundstrom, he claims that Vejtasa had 1 victory prior to going to VF-10 yet Tillman claims Vejtasa had 3 prior to his F4F time.

So we have to ask why then, did the USN award Vejtasa a Navy Cross and transfer him immediately to fighters if he wasn't good at shooting anything down? Hell of a question, really.

And Leppla, who also took a toll on IJN aircraft with his Dauntless during the Battle of Coral Sea, including an A6M, was also transferred to VF-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 12, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Please show me one single historic account which claims that the USAAF or RAF falsified their *own losses*. You need to read what I'm writing. All sides overclaimed kills. I'm not arguing that. However, military units do NOT consistently under-report losses. Doing so would completely undermine military effectiveness. It would ultimately lead to the total annihilation of the unit...and no amount of "saving face" efforts would make up for that.


I didn't mean to suggest that any side routinely and deliberately falsified records just that in the fog of war sometimes what happened isnt clear and in some cases the more optimistic view is recorded. It isnt only pilots claims that are subject to the fog of war was my point. 
Anyway that was just part of my overall point that just because one author says that because the Japanese records we have dont record this does not nescesarily mean it didn't happen thats all. IMHO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2018)

Ok, everyone...

Relax

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 13, 2018)

...can I still cast a vote for the B-25?











… just kidding. =D

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2018)

Then I put my vote in for the P-38!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Then I put my vote in for the P-38!
> 
> View attachment 509426


Cool pic. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out exactly whats going on there though.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2018)

The Navy scratch-built a transport out of a couple of DUKWs to ferry some P-38s for the Army in the PTO.
I recall that an airstrip wasn't ready on one of the islands, so they offloaded the P-38s at a deepwater spot and transported them the rest of the way by this "micro carrier".

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2018)

pinsog said:


> It is infinitely better than the Spitfire V/Zero kill ratio over Australia of 27-4.
> 
> (Digging slit trench as Spitfire fans form up for attack)


And what about the 60+ other aircraft the spitfire wing inflicted at the same time

yes you had better take cover I think

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Sep 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> And what about the 60+ other aircraft the spitfire wing inflicted at the same time



That's the claims, actual recorded Japanese losses were 30; incliuding 4 Zeros, a A6M2 -N floatplane fighter and a Ki-43.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=2-raaf-air-combats-in-nwa


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 13, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ok a couple of points jump out at me here. First the corabarating damage to the wing tip is conjecture?
> 2nd you completely missed the point about the gunner /witness. Of course one witness does not absolutely prove anything.That wasnt the point. Someone made the assertion that since Japanese records which may or may nor even be complete dont show these losses that proves they didn't happen. I gave more than a half dozen reasons why this is not nescesarily the case and counterbalancing evedence that it did the gunner/witness was only one of these.
> Also the situation with 8th air force bomber gunners is not comparative here because in that situation you had multiple gunners shooting at an attacker and if the attacking aircraft was hit everybody would in good faith claim it as they were shooting at it resulting in multiples of overclaiming. In this instance we have one plane with one gunner/ witness. No possibility for such an error. If a zero went down that gunner knew 100% for sure who shot it down.
> Also just occurred to me, with the damage to the wing tip i think we can pretty much count on that last " kill" even though it was just a colision. And if so, if Swede didn't shoot down the other two zeros what happened to them? They just decided to take off and leave there budy to fight this SBD alone? That doesn't seem plausible.



Gents,

Please understand I'm not suggesting that Swede wasn't a great pilot. Nor am I suggesting that his claims were incorrect. However, if contemporary Japanese sources indicate that 2 or 3 aircraft did return, then we shouldn't discount that.

As to the wingtip damage to Swede's aircraft, all that shows is that the SBD was damaged and suggests that the Japanese aircraft was also damaged. It does not necessarily prove that the Japanese aircraft was destroyed. Take a look at the image below. Any reasonable person seeing that amount of damage inflicted in combat would claim it as destroyed:






This is the Mitsubishi A5M of IJN pilot Kashimura Kan'ichi which collided with a P-36 over China in on 9 December 1937. Kashimura returned to base where this photo was taken as he came in to complete a successful landing. 

The world of aerial combat is messy and aircrew are making snap-judgments in split seconds. There were literally thousands of kill claims made for aircraft that issued a puff of smoke and dived away "out of control" when, in reality, those aircraft successfully returned to base. Very few crews watched their supposed kill dive into the ground/sea because that takes the eyes away from the battle and greatly increases the risk of being shot down themselves. 

At the end of the day, we may never know whether or not Swede really did shoot down 3 A6Ms. Frankly, it's an irrelevant argument to his skill as a pilot which is unquestioned. I just wanted to point out that we can't keep relying on the same old tired excuses about "lack of records" or "the Japanese didn't report their own losses to save face" or "Japanese aircraft were fragile" to explain every questionable claim by Allied airmen.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 13, 2018)

^^^ Couldn't agree more.

Also I'm outraged at this whole sham of a poll/thread... I don't see the mighty Buffalo listed ergo I declare this poll null and void.

Also also, I may kid from time to time about hijacking any thread to talk about the P-51 but that was not my intention earlier and it seems to have come close to derailing this fine thread, which still has a sham of a poll considering what's NOT on it...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 13, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Please understand I'm not suggesting that Swede wasn't a great pilot. Nor am I suggesting that his claims were incorrect. However, if contemporary Japanese sources indicate that 2 or 3 aircraft did return, then we shouldn't discount that.
> 
> ...


Good points. No well never know 100% for sure. I was trying to adress a claim by another poster that because one author said we dont have Japanese records corabarating these claims they did not happen as if that was the end of that if I can quote" they did not happen" and by extension that the record of the SBD was somehow uniquely to a much larger degree than other aircraft suspect.
If i can quote again " not overclaiming by 30 or 40 % but by a magnatude of 4 or 5 times" . So if we take that factor of overclaiming by 5 fold and work out the numbers outside of Swedes 3 claims, the Zero shot up and then colided with at Pearl harbor by an SBD witnesed by dozens that would leave a grand total of about 15 aircraft shot down by SBDs in the rest of the intire war. 
I dont think anybody's( or at least verry verry few) are buying that.
Have more to say on the subject but have to run off to work. 
Cheers

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2018)

The over claiming percentages or "factors" only work on large scale (hundreds if not thousands of claims) and trying to apply them to small scale actions gets absurd. For instance in a given action one side claims 6 aircraft shot down but actually only shot down 4, they over claimed by 50% or 1.5 to 1. If they claimed 6 but 3 made it back to base ( damaged/written off is another argument) then they over claimed by 100% or 2 to 1. with only 1 aircraft shifting from one column to the other, and so on, out of 6, 2 are shot down and 2 damaged but make it back now the they are overclaiming 200% or 3 to 1. 
Overclaiming was sometimes for propaganda reasons (at a higher level than the pilots). see claims that Colin Kelly sank the battleship Haruna or that the British carrier Ark Royal was sunk about 4 times by the Germans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Also I'm outraged at this whole sham of a poll/thread... I don't see the mighty Buffalo listed ergo I declare this poll null and void.



as a technicality, the _mighty Buffalo _never flew into air combat from the deck of a carrier. It may have been designed as a carrier plane, It may have served on several US carriers when the US was not at war, It was on two carriers on Dec 7th but VMF-211 (?) is only on the Saratoga (in San Diego) for transport to Wake Island. VF-2 is on the Lexington. The Planes on the Saratoga wind up at Midway by Dec 25th. 
VF-2 attacked a submarine on early Jan 1942 but by Jan 27th they are landed in Hawaii and replaced by F4F-3A Wildcats. And that is pretty much the career of the _mighty Buffalo _as a *carrier* fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 13, 2018)

Almost every aircraft built during the war was shot down at least once.

Wether it was Bob Cheeseburger from Bedford Falls or Hans Von Duellingscar from Schwartzburg or (insert national stereotype here) nationality has no bearing on over claiming.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> as a technicality, the _mighty Buffalo _never flew into air combat from the deck of a carrier. It may have been designed as a carrier plane, It may have served on several US carriers when the US was not at war, It was on two carriers on Dec 7th but VMF-211 (?) is only on the Saratoga (in San Diego) for transport to Wake Island. VF-2 is on the Lexington. The Planes on the Saratoga wind up at Midway by Dec 25th.
> VF-2 attacked a submarine on early Jan 1942 but by Jan 27th they are landed in Hawaii and replaced by F4F-3A Wildcats. And that is pretty much the career of the _mighty Buffalo _as a *carrier* fighter



Pfftt...

Details details...


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 13, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> ^^^ Couldn't agree more.
> 
> Also I'm outraged at this whole sham of a poll/thread... I don't see the mighty Buffalo listed ergo I declare this poll null and void.
> 
> Also also, I may kid from time to time about hijacking any thread to talk about the P-51 but that was not my intention earlier and it seems to have come close to derailing this fine thread, which still has a sham of a poll considering what's NOT on it...





Shortround6 said:


> as a technicality, the _mighty Buffalo _never flew into air combat from the deck of a carrier. It may have been designed as a carrier plane, It may have served on several US carriers when the US was not at war, It was on two carriers on Dec 7th but VMF-211 (?) is only on the Saratoga (in San Diego) for transport to Wake Island. VF-2 is on the Lexington. The Planes on the Saratoga wind up at Midway by Dec 25th.
> VF-2 attacked a submarine on early Jan 1942 but by Jan 27th they are landed in Hawaii and replaced by F4F-3A Wildcats. And that is pretty much the career of the _mighty Buffalo _as a *carrier* fighter



In fairness, I did suggest inclusion of the Buffalo (mighty or otherwise) in this list, but solely from the perspective of the impact it had on pushing Grumman to develop a better monoplane F4F. Without the Buffalo, it's entirely likely that the USN would have been saddled with another (slight) evolution to the F3F family with consequent later operational fielding of a modern monoplane fighter.

I freely admit that my suggestion was made ever-so-slightly tongue-in-cheek...but I've seen worse points made on this forum before now!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Sep 13, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Also I'm outraged at this whole sham of a poll/thread... I don't see the mighty Buffalo listed ergo I declare this poll null and void.



Seriously, if the Bf 109T made the list than why not the Buffalo??????

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Seriously, if the Bf 109T made the list than why not the Buffalo??????



Here Here!!! A man truly blessed with infinite wisdom.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 13, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Here Here!!! A man truly blessed with infinite wisdom.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 13, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Good points. No well never know 100% for sure. I was trying to adress a claim by another poster that because one author said we dont have Japanese records corabarating these claims they did not happen as if that was the end of that if I can quote" they did not happen" and by extension that the record of the SBD was somehow uniquely to a much larger degree than other aircraft suspect.
> If i can quote again " not overclaiming by 30 or 40 % but by a magnatude of 4 or 5 times" . So if we take that factor of overclaiming by 5 fold and work out the numbers outside of Swedes 3 claims, the Zero shot up and then colided with at Pearl harbor by an SBD witnesed by dozens that would leave a grand total of about 15 aircraft shot down by SBDs in the rest of the intire war.
> I dont think anybody's( or at least verry verry few) are buying that.
> Have more to say on the subject but have to run off to work.
> Cheers



I was discussing SBD kill claims against IJN fighters. Here's another example:
1 Feb 1942:


> Fighting Six claimed five enemy aircraft shot down and a sixth destroyed on the ground: three fighters, one floatplane, and two twin-engine bombers. One twin-engine bomber was damaged and another probably destroyed. The squadron lost no F4Fs in combat, but seven returned with battle damage. One F4F and pilot were lost on takeoff, and two others damaged in flight accidents. The two dive bombing squadrons together claimed a total of six enemy fighters shot down over Roi and Taroa, for the loss of five SBDs (three to fighter attack). The total _Enterprise_ plane losses, therefore, were six aircraft. The next day the group counted available for flight operations a total of fifty-six airplanes (fifteen fighters, twenty-three dive bombers, and all eighteen torpedo planes)...(p.76)
> 
> ...Strangely, the Fighter Unit of the Chitose Air Group did not feel chastened at all. Although not pleased about the nasty surprise attack, they were celebrating too. The unit reported the destruction of seventeen American aircraft (including three probables) for the loss (at Taroa) of one fighter shot down and another badly damaged. At Roi, ten Type 96 fighters engaged the SBDs and claimed five shot down without any loss. During VF-6’s strike on Taroa, ten Type 96 fighters were on CAP or managed to get aloft in time to fight. No Chitose pilots were killed, as Lieut. Kurakane survived his abrupt parachute descent and swim as a result of Rawie’s ambush. Atake was much admired for his fighting spirit in ramming the Grumman. Against the second Taroa raid, five fighters intercepted, claiming one dive bomber without any loss in return, and on the third raid, three Chitose fighters were engaged, claiming five American planes, again without loss. Big scorer at Taroa was W.O. Wajima Yoshio, with three kills to his credit. (p.77)
> (First Team Vol 1, p.76-77)



And this was SBDs versus A5M4s. The only IJN fighter shot down was by an F4F-3.

If we go by kill claims then the Spitfires crushed the IJNAF over Darwin and the Hurricanes did the same in Burma and Ceylon...

Overclaiming doesn't imply deceit on the part of the pilot, if just means that they made mistakes in the heat of combat. Often they made firing passes and observed what they thought were strikes and/or smoke from the targeted aircraft which then appeared to fall away, but the supposed strikes were probably just exhaust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 13, 2018)

OK, I owe everyone an apology. As pinsog pointed out in his post #257
my language was out of line. Thank you for that pinsog. And RCAFson
I undid my DISLIKE rating on post #248. You were just trying to add
facts to the situation. So OK, lets think of it this way, if Swede managed
to keep three Zeros dancing in an SBD until they all broke off, that was
an amazing feat, PERIOD..and his aircraft deserves its due.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 13, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Actually that was the _Ferry_ speed @ 14K ft. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SBD-5_PD_-_August_6_1942.pdf
> In the Scout role, it seems the best an SBD-5 could muster was 255 mph.
> Most other variations are listed between 238 and 252 mph.
> Nice reference site, though. New to me. Thanks for the heads up Corsning!
> ...



Elvis,
If you look closer at the complete report you will see that the Scout version
is posted using NORMAL power which would be 900 hp. at 13,800 ft. The
scout version of the SBD-5 was fully capable of using military power at that
altitude, 1,000 hp. If you look closely at the speed curves on the graph, which
I have very carefully calculated, you will understand the true maximum speed
of the SBD-5 scout was over 260 mph using military power. The Ferry version's
260 mph. was at normal power.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2018)

Somebody must have been doing something right during the battle of the Coral Sea, because even with surviving aircraft from the Shoho (sunk) and Shokaku (damaged, unable to launch or recover aircraft), the Zuikaku's air compliment was so depleted, she was not able to participate in the attack on Midway a month later.

Zuikaku's air compliment was comprised of 18 A6M2, 27 D3A1 and 27 B5N2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Sep 13, 2018)

Although just discovering this thread minutes ago, a couple of trivial comments please. Posts 18 and 19 comment of Martlet vs 109 near Norway. Wouldn't it be a surprise if it were
bf-109 T s involved? Posts 275-7 appear to be the work of Seabees. As for the lack of data for Japanese loss data, it appears even in China, loss identity is a mystery as one book on AVG shows a photo of a fighter which crashed on AVG field, AVG personnel onlookers, and the fin/rudder markings evident and the caption says " this aircraft from a unit not known here". The pilot I.D unknown post war. Finally, a member of our model airplane club was a rear gunner on SBD-s from the Enterprise. He often told us how maneuverable the bird was but never told of any aerial combat, however when not flying he manned a 20mm flexible along the carrier edge with other sailors and got time firing during Kamakazi attacks. His comments were any aircraft downed was impossible to attribute but he got plenty of practice leading the target which made him more confident in the air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Somebody must have been doing something right during the battle of the Coral Sea, because even with surviving aircraft from the Shoho (sunk) and Shokaku (damaged, unable to launch or recover aircraft), the Zuikaku's air compliment was so depleted, she was not able to participate in the attack on Midway a month later.
> 
> Zuikaku's air compliment was comprised of 18 A6M2, 27 D3A1 and 27 B5N2.



Same thing happened during the Guadalcanal campaign when they damaged Enterprise and crippled Hornet. Even though Hornet was crippled (and eventually sunk by destroyers), there weren’t a whole lot of Japanese aircrew left to celebrate. A hollow victory I would say.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> as a technicality, the _mighty Buffalo _never flew into air combat from the deck of a carrier. It may have been designed as a carrier plane, It may have served on several US carriers when the US was not at war, It was on two carriers on Dec 7th but VMF-211 (?) is only on the Saratoga (in San Diego) for transport to Wake Island. VF-2 is on the Lexington. The Planes on the Saratoga wind up at Midway by Dec 25th.
> VF-2 attacked a submarine on early Jan 1942 but by Jan 27th they are landed in Hawaii and replaced by F4F-3A Wildcats. And that is pretty much the career of the _mighty Buffalo _as a *carrier* fighter


...but wasn't the proverbial _straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back_ and caused the Buffalo's (F2A-3's by that time, I believe) to be permanently side-lined, was when they participated in The Battle of Midway (...or maybe it was The Coral Sea) and were absolutely _decimated_?

Elvis


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 13, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Please understand I'm not suggesting that Swede wasn't a great pilot. Nor am I suggesting that his claims were incorrect. However, if contemporary Japanese sources indicate that 2 or 3 aircraft did return, then we shouldn't discount that.
> 
> ...


I certainly agree with that. No, we'll never know 100% for sure.
Ultimately I think one can't discount 80% of the SBDs war record as was asserted( not by you, I know). That was my overriding point. Not sure how it ended up in this culdisac over Swede Vejtasas record other than questions over it being used by some to discount the SBDs record in general.
Yes, I do however, certainly agree that Japanese records, or anybodys records for that matter should not be just rejected out of hand only that, like claims, especially decades later, and considering the fog of war, they also, should be tacken with a grain of salt.
Respectfully, Michael Rauls


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2018)

It wouldn't have mattered if the Buffaloes shot down Japanese aircraft at the rate of 3 to 1 at Midway. 
The US only had 43 F2A-2 and 108 F2A3s. All but 1 of the F2A-2 had been delivered by the end of Nov 1940. Production of the F2A3s started in July of 1941 and finished in Dec 1941. Export orders filled the factory between those times. 
The only reason the Navy even ordered the 108 F2A-3s in Jan of 1941 was because of slow deliveries of the F4F. In Dec of 1941 some F2A-3s (only 9 built that month) went straight to training units. 

The Navy had not used an F2A in a combat squadron since Feb of 1942 and the Marines had 3 squadrons/units equipped with them. One unit was at Palmyra Island which is around 800-1000 miles south south west of Hawaii. 

It is fairly safe to say that had the Japanese not attacked when they did The Marines at midway would have seen the replacement of their F2A-3 in fairly short order, they were already flying a mixed squadron.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2018)

, underpinning much of this argument is some basic arithmetic. Japan lost less than 35000 a/c to all causes to the western allies and about 5000 a/c to the Russians in the final days of the war. Within that 35000 are about 7000 captured after the ceasefire with the Americans, but still captured or destroyed because fighting was still occurring in other TOs that the western powers were not involved in. In total, the Japanese lots no more than 19000 a/c to operational causes, however more than half these were destroyed whilst on the ground, and a sizable chunk simply failed to return, presumed lost. Many were expended as Kamikazes and this usually meant unused Kamikazes simply dove into the sea.

Againt those cold facts, the US claims, even the corrected postwar ones are completely unreliable. They just don't add up. Cant add up.


At the end of the war the IJN submitted a memo to the compilers of the USSBS on known losses. it was disregarded, because the data that memo contained did not align with the claims data on which the USSBS eventually was based. And it is the USSBS on which much of the numbers being thrown around now as gospel are based. US members of this forum are unshakeable and immovable on this issue, no matter what level of disproving evidence is presented to them. ive done this so many times, before, its a waste of time to argue.

An example of the mathematical absurdity:

Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 14, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Elvis,
> If you look closer at the complete report you will see that the Scout version
> is posted using NORMAL power which would be 900 hp. at 13,800 ft. The
> scout version of the SBD-5 was fully capable of using military power at that
> ...


I looked over that whole page and the other SBD-5 page listed at that site.
The only reference to the 260 mph speed you mentioned was for the plane in "Ferry mode", as listed at the link I posted.
Where did you find this other info?
I did not see it.


Elvis


----------



## Doug Fairall (Sep 14, 2018)

Hi all. I would like to add something that has been a part of my whole life. The Bismark story was me. I read every story, watched every movie. Now what if that one Fairey Swordfish from the Arc Royal had not damaged her steering gear so that the Allied force could finish her off. The Bismark story could have been a lot longer with so much more loss of life. I love that plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 14, 2018)

I am a massive fan of the Swordfish and believe it to be the most valuable carrier based strike aircraft of the war. but conjecturing what might have happened had the bismark escaped........a redoubled an intensified effort to contain her in Brest, repeated BC strikes on the port of Brest, massive minelaying efforts. Formation of hunter killer groups in case she got lucky and broke out again.

bismark was a marked ship and wasn't going anywhere after her first foray. She may well have joined the two BCs in their retreat that looked like a victory at the end of the year. She may have survived the attentions of BC that knocked the Gneisenau out of the war later in the month. She may have escaped again to the far north, and escaped the attentions of the carrier strikes directed against her sister the Tirpitz. She may have survived Hitlers insane orders to scrap the capital ships after the disasters in the Barents sea in December. She may have survived the X-craft attacks that crippled her sister for 6 months in 1943 with more or less the same damage. She may have escaped the further attentions of the Home Fleet in april and July 1944 that saw yet more damage and more effort lavished on the pointless repair of her sister. and finally, she may have survived Heavy bomber attacks that destroyed her sister.

But how likely is it that she would survive all this? And for what? So that DKM could maintain a "fleet in being" with even less fuel allocations and even more "useless mouths" to feed, clothe and pay whilst doing nothing and achieving nothing except give the british a reason to keep their battleships?.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 14, 2018)

parsifal said:


> , underpinning much of this argument is some basic arithmetic. Japan lost less than 35000 a/c to all causes to the western allies and about 5000 a/c to the Russians in the final days of the war. Within that 35000 are about 7000 captured after the ceasefire with the Americans, but still captured or destroyed because fighting was still occurring in other TOs that the western powers were not involved in. In total, the Japanese lots no more than 19000 a/c to operational causes, however more than half these were destroyed whilst on the ground, and a sizable chunk simply failed to return, presumed lost. Many were expended as Kamikazes and this usually meant unused Kamikazes simply dove into the sea.
> 
> Againt those cold facts, the US claims, even the corrected postwar ones are completely unreliable. They just don't add up. Cant add up.
> 
> ...


The figures that I have are 1267 fighter victories in the CBI and 12529 in the PTO, nothing for victories by non fighters or our Commonwealth forces. So they don't seem too implausible, although an over claimed ratio of 2 or 3 to 1 in the ETO or MTO wasn't unusual for both sides in the conflict. Also, if you have a damaged beyond repair aircraft on an airfield, surely the operators will leave them out as bait for attacking fighters?


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 14, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I am a massive fan of the Swordfish and believe it to be the most valuable carrier based strike aircraft of the war. but conjecturing what might have happened had the bismark escaped........a redoubled an intensified effort to contain her in Brest, repeated BC strikes on the port of Brest, massive minelaying efforts. Formation of hunter killer groups in case she got lucky and broke out again.
> 
> bismark was a marked ship and wasn't going anywhere after her first foray. She may well have joined the two BCs in their retreat that looked like a victory at the end of the year. She may have survived the attentions of BC that knocked the Gneisenau out of the war later in the month. She may have escaped again to the far north, and escaped the attentions of the carrier strikes directed against her sister the Tirpitz. She may have survived Hitlers insane orders to scrap the capital ships after the disasters in the Barents sea in December. She may have survived the X-craft attacks that crippled her sister for 6 months in 1943 with more or less the same damage. She may have escaped the further attentions of the Home Fleet in april and July 1944 that saw yet more damage and more effort lavished on the pointless repair of her sister. and finally, she may have survived Heavy bomber attacks that destroyed her sister.
> 
> But how likely is it that she would survive all this? And for what? So that DKM could maintain a "fleet in being" with even less fuel allocations and even more "useless mouths" to feed, clothe and pay whilst doing nothing and achieving nothing except give the british a reason to keep their battleships?.


Everyone seems to have forgotten that only the Swordfish could carry the rather bulky ASW radars that were introduced in 1943, FAA Avengers being initially used for visual ASW only. More compact radars arrived later that could be fitted to Avengers, Barracudas and Fireflies. Without the defeat of the U-Boat menace in 1943 there would have been no Normandy invasion in 1944. Also lets not forget the FAA Wildcat that had better deck landing characteristics than the Swordfish, and these Wildcats could and did carry rockets under their wings. Our Swordfish couldn't carry both the radar and the rockets, it was an either / or situation. For the Wildcats, you just removed some of the guns so that you could carry some rockets.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 14, 2018)

parsifal said:


> , underpinning much of this argument is some basic arithmetic. Japan lost less than 35000 a/c to all causes to the western allies and about 5000 a/c to the Russians in the final days of the war. Within that 35000 are about 7000 captured after the ceasefire with the Americans, but still captured or destroyed because fighting was still occurring in other TOs that the western powers were not involved in. In total, the Japanese lots no more than 19000 a/c to operational causes, however more than half these were destroyed whilst on the ground, and a sizable chunk simply failed to return, presumed lost. Many were expended as Kamikazes and this usually meant unused Kamikazes simply dove into the sea.
> 
> Againt those cold facts, the US claims, even the corrected postwar ones are completely unreliable. They just don't add up. Cant add up.
> 
> ...



Hi Parsifal,

I'm a little hazy on what you're saying about the link you included, are you saying those are inflated figures?

Adding them up I get 12,666 claims for the PTO and 1,504 for CBI for total of 14,170 so is that too many? Citing Japanese losses of 19,000 a/c I'm somewhat confused (not an unnatural state for me). Are you saying there were less than half of the 19,000 were air to air? Or even less than that?

Not being argumentative just trying to understand the situation, my knowledge of the Pacific war is pretty good but *not* on the subject at hand and would like to learn more.

I have my own theory about the air war over the Pacific so would like some reliable numbers to test it against.

Thanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2018)

There may be a discrepancy between aircraft "shot down" and aircraft destroyed/damaged on the ground. The Japanese lost a lot of planes to airfield attacks. 














Somebody with more knowledge than I have may be able to shed more light on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There may be a discrepancy between aircraft "shot down" and aircraft destroyed/damaged on the ground. The Japanese lost a lot of planes to airfield attacks.
> View attachment 509587
> 
> View attachment 509588
> ...



SR6,

Is that a crewman climbing into the cockpit of the middle picture? If so his day is getting/ got worse in short order.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 14, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> SR6,
> 
> Is that a crewman climbing into the cockpit of the middle picture? If so his day is getting/ got worse in short order.
> 
> ...



Wow. Great spot Biff. I think everyone missed that. I would say that was terrible timing on his part. How is he not running in terror for the nearest ditch or tree line???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Wow. Great spot Biff. I think everyone missed that. I would say that was terrible timing on his part. How is he not running in terror for the nearest ditch or tree line???


He probably doesn't see it coming which at that point is probably for the best.
And ya great eye Biff I totally missed that also.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There may be a discrepancy between aircraft "shot down" and aircraft destroyed/damaged on the ground. The Japanese lost a lot of planes to airfield attacks.
> View attachment 509587
> 
> View attachment 509588
> ...


Those are some of the most incredible pics I have ever seen.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2018)

Not sure why there's a person climbing into the cockpit of the KI-21-II, as it looks like it's out of service.

Note the starboard engine has been removed and the tailcone is gone.

Perhaps they were going to try and man the upper turret?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 14, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> SR6,
> 
> Is that a crewman climbing into the cockpit of the middle picture? If so his day is getting/ got worse in short order.
> 
> ...



Gentlemen, I give you the eagle eye of an US military fighter pilot.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure why there's a person climbing into the cockpit of the KI-21-II, as it looks like it's out of service.
> 
> Note the starboard engine has been removed and the tailcone is gone.
> 
> ...



You are correct that 1 engine is missing, but it appears to me that he is in full flight gear. Perhaps he is preparing to take off and he didn’t notice the missing engine during his rather rushed preflight inspection?


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> You are correct that 1 engine is missing, but it appears to me that he is in full flight gear. Perhaps he is preparing to take off and he didn’t notice the missing engine during his rather rushed preflight inspection?


Or he's retrieving his lucky charm he left in there on a previous mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Our Swordfish couldn't carry both the radar and the rockets, it was an either / or situation.








Swordfish could carry Rockets and early ASV mkIII. I know its a picture of a model but it was the clearest I could find. On the outer forward inter wing struts there were Yagi aerials (TV type aerials)






A bit blurry but this shows the Yagi aerials


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure why there's a person climbing into the cockpit of the KI-21-II, as it looks like it's out of service.
> 
> Note the starboard engine has been removed and the tailcone is gone.
> 
> ...



I cant see anyone climbing into the cockpit. What looks like the head is part of the windscreen in my eyes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2018)

Even in a chaotic scramble, the ground crew would be needed to get the ship squared away to get up.

This Sally is not only missing it's engine and several other components, it's also covered in camouflaging that needs to be removed.

My only guess is one that I stated earlier, he's climbing aboard to man the upper turret.



fastmongrel said:


> I cant see anyone climbing into the cockpit. What looks like the head is part of the windscreen in my eyes.


Here's a zoom. You can see him just about to climb into the cockpit and he's wearing what appears to be flight gear for moderate to upper altitudes.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 14, 2018)

Elvis said:


> I looked over that whole page and the other SBD-5 page listed at that site.
> The only reference to the 260 mph speed you mentioned was for the plane in "Ferry mode", as listed at the link I posted.
> Where did you find this other info?
> I did not see it.
> Elvis



Hi Elvis,
Look pages 1 and 2 over closely. Figures are given for 8 different loadouts or
performance settings. Slowly now, line eight gives the ENGINE POWER USED
FOR PERFORMANCE. Column 1 is the only column using MILITARY power. All
the rest are using NORMAL power. True, column 6 depicting the SCOUT's top
speed is 255 mph. at 15,700 ft., however that is at NORMAL power. Well, it just
seems to me that if the scout SBD was attacked it would quickly kick into military
power. (Screw that, I'd kick it into warp drive). That would put its FULL THROTTLE
HEIGHT to 13,800 ft. Now look at the graph depicting speeds. 1 and 2 performance
speed graphs show the bomber carrying a 1000 lbs. bomb using military (column 1)
and normal (column 2). Their speed difference at full throttle military power height
is 12 mph. For 6 on the graph at normal power its speed is 251 mph. I was being
very conservative at 260 mph. for military rating for the scout.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 14, 2018)

Swordfish and Dauntless, two aircraft that definitely had
God on their side. They both did amazing feats for the
performance they had.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 14, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I cant see anyone climbing into the cockpit. What looks like the head is part of the windscreen in my eyes.



I'm with you. I'm not seeing a person in that shot.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 14, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Gentlemen, I give you the eagle eye of an US military fighter pilot.



Biff, I am so glad that you see some humor in my statement sir. We both know
that it is an absolute truth and necessity in your past field. May God shed great
blessings on you and your family for protecting our country.

, Jeff......Thank you son.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 14, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Biff, I am so glad that you see some humor in my statement sir. We both know
> that it is an absolute truth and necessity in your past field. May God shed great
> blessings on you and your family for protecting our country.
> 
> , Jeff......Thank you son.



Thanks Jeff!


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 14, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> View attachment 509600
> 
> 
> Swordfish could carry Rockets and early ASV mkIII. I know its a picture of a model but it was the clearest I could find. On the outer forward inter wing struts there were Yagi aerials (TV type aerials)
> ...


The early version radars were huge and were under the fuselage. It was an either / or situation. No idea what Yagi aerials are, I've never seen those before. Maybe Yagi is surface only and not underwater?


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The early version radars were huge and were under the fuselage. It was an either / or situation.



No the large radome under the fuselage was for the ASV mkXI centimetric radar the early ASV mkIII metric radar was the small Yagi aerial receivers on the struts and the transmitter aerial on the top wing above the fuselage.



> No idea what Yagi aerials are, I've never seen those before. Maybe Yagi is surface only and not underwater?



A Televison aerial is a Yagi antenna. Its a directional receiver with a reflector to boost the signal Yagi-Uda antenna
Radar is surface only it cannot work underwater.

Very good page on UK ASV radars British ASV Radars - Technical pages - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The early version radars were huge and were under the fuselage. It was an either / or situation. No idea what Yagi aerials are, I've never seen those before. Maybe Yagi is surface only and not underwater?



Yagi = old style VHF TV antannae. It was used for ASV MkII as used in the hunt for the Bismarck.

The Swordfish III with ASV Mk X could still carry a full underwing weapons load. Eric Brown was involved in testing the Swordfish and Wings of the Navy shows lots of photos of Swordfish III with rocket rails. 

This is from The Secret Years:


> V4689/G, identified at A&A in October 1943 as a
> Mk III, had a 'Pumpkin' searchlight under the starboard
> wing* and could carry a range of loads bringing maximum
> weight to 9,250 Ib with corresponding reduction in
> ...



*In addition to ASV X and rocket launcher rails and/or hard points for bombs. A Swordfish III with ASV X weighed about 6000lb clean with crew and full internal fuel.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 14, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not saying you're racist. I'm saying that the excuse made by some that the Japanese falsified their own loss returns is racist. It's one thing for a combatant to make mistaken claims about their own side's kills; all sides did that. It's another thing altogether to suggest that a combatant deliberately falsifies reporting of its own losses. That just doesn't stack up against the reality of warfare. The claim that the Japanese, exclusively, falsified upwards reporting of their own losses is bogus. As noted, if they did that then their airfields would have had spare parts and POL coming out of their ears. The reality is that the Japanese were running out of everything at the end of the war. It's frankly ludicrous to suggest that pervasive, systemic fabrication of loss reporting would not have been noticed given the dire straits the Japanese were in. So, yes, that specific claim is racist because it's only ever applied to the Japanese and, in the case of the AVG, it's used purely to justify provably inaccurate Allied kill claims.


Hey I think I owe you an apology. I should have asked for clarification instead of jumping to the conclusion that it was me you were calling racist. My bad. I apologize for that.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Hey I think I owe you an apology. I should have asked for clarification instead of jumping to the conclusion that it was me you were calling racist. My bad. I apologize for that.



I did ask that you read what I wrote. No worries, it's all good, and I appreciate your gracious response. 

In truth, the Japanese weren't the only combatant to be accused of falsifying loss returns but it's the only that still has such allegations swirling. Back in 1940, American journalists in London started asking questions about why RAF claims were so much higher than the losses admitted by the Luftwaffe. At the time, and for many years after, it was taken as fact that the Luftwaffe falsified its upward reporting because junior staff feared the consequences for reporting bad news within the dictatorship. We now know, based largely on contemporary German quartermaster reports, that the Luftwaffe's reported losses were actually pretty accurate. Today, nobody with any serious interest in military history would claim that the Luftwaffe falsified loss returns...which is, in part, why it bugs me so much that some "historians" are still willing to trot out the same sort of accusation against the Japanese. I'd really like to see some convincing evidence to illustrate such claims but that never seems to be forthcoming...just "I heard from a guy..." kind of rumours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 15, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> I did ask that you read what I wrote. No worries, it's all good, and I appreciate your gracious response.
> 
> In truth, the Japanese weren't the only combatant to be accused of falsifying loss returns but it's the only that still has such allegations swirling. Back in 1940, American journalists in London started asking questions about why RAF claims were so much higher than the losses admitted by the Luftwaffe. At the time, and for many years after, it was taken as fact that the Luftwaffe falsified its upward reporting because junior staff feared the consequences for reporting bad news within the dictatorship. We now know, based largely on contemporary German quartermaster reports, that the Luftwaffe's reported losses were actually pretty accurate. Today, nobody with any serious interest in military history would claim that the Luftwaffe falsified loss returns...which is, in part, why it bugs me so much that some "historians" are still willing to trot out the same sort of accusation against the Japanese. I'd really like to see some convincing evidence to illustrate such claims but that never seems to be forthcoming...just "I heard from a guy..." kind of rumours.


Your right that when you think about it it really doesn't make much sense. It's something I've read from time to time over the years so tended to believe it but more and more im learning you cant always believed everything you read especially in articles on the internet.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Yagi = old style VHF TV antannae. It was used for ASV MkII as used in the hunt for the Bismarck.
> 
> The Swordfish III with ASV Mk X could still carry a full underwing weapons load. Eric Brown was involved in testing the Swordfish and Wings of the Navy shows lots of photos of Swordfish III with rocket rails.
> 
> ...


There are some images of the installation I'm thinking of here
Google Image Result for http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/fairey_swordfish_iii/images/fairey_swordfish_iii_03_of_36.jpg
On the British ASV radars site see ASV Mk.XI paragraph where it states that the radar equipped Swordfish would be accompanied by other aircraft without radar to perform anti-shipping strikes. See http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-VI-ads.jpg.
IIRC, it couldn't be fitted underneath the belly of an Albacore.
So yes, my memory on seeing submarines under water is clearly incorrect but it could detect a snorkel at short distances in calm seas.
I'm still sure that a strike performed by a Swordfish would be slow enough to enable a U-Boat to crash-dive, so you'd need something faster like Wildcats. Can't find anything on this, so yes, radar plus rockets for ASW.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 15, 2018)

I cant reconcile US air to air claims no matter what I do. That link I posted is pretty typical. Its purports to tabulate air to air victories....not all losses from all causes. we know that about 60% of aircraft were destroyed on the ground either captured or bombed to scrap. We can safely assume that 10-20% of losses were "failed to return" categories. A percentage were scrapped due to obsolescence and/or damage. I don't know precisely the numbers of Japanese aircraft that never left then home islands, and were never used in anger....the so called reserves. but it would be at least 50% of the total production.
For comparison purposes, over 60% of the aircraft produced in the US never left the US and were never attached to front line units. now US reserves were lavish, for sure, but none of the other airforces operated without huge reserves. For example, the VVS had an operating reserve of 20000 a/c in june 1941, and a frontline air force of 3500 a/c. The RA is often quoted as having 3500 aircraft in June 1940, and while is definitely a stretch, they certainly possessed a active reserve larger than the 1200 or so a/c they could put into frontline service. the service with the smallest operating reserve was the LW, but even it, at the end of the war surrendered nearly 10000 a/c.

So no way under the sun can the claims made by US forces as to the number of shoot downs they achieved, even come close to being right. The Japanese certainly lost a lot of aircraft, especially once the fronts became fluid, but its the number of claimed air victories that is utterly busted for me.

On a different issue I find it ironic, to be honest that 1 TFW is so often berated for its so called poor exchange with this 27:4 exchange rate often quoted. What isn't mentioned is that whereas the Spitfire wing is a tally of losses to all causes, the losses on the Japanese side are only those lost on the battlefield. if Japanese losses to all causes are included , that is, comparing apples to apples, 1 TFW goes from one of the worst exchange rates, to one of the best in the SoPac TO. By comparison, in the period April to September 1942, over Moresby, the two FGs engaged managed to shoot down just 7 Zekes in total, with the Zekes losing somewhere in the order of 20 a/c overall, whilst Allied losses from those two fighter groups, plus the odds and sods also committed, amounted to well over 100 a/c. Yet we never hear anything about the poor exchange rate there...…...The hypocrisy and downright baloney knows no boundaries......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2018)

Just an interesting note:

Fairey Fulmar Mk.II: 1,320 hp., 9,672 lb. (combat weight),
Wing loading: 28.28 lb./sq. ft., Power loading: 7.112 lb./hp.

The Fairey Fulmar Mk.II N.F. last mission was on 8 February 1945.
The Mk.II was capable or 265 mph./1,750 ft., 272 mph./7,150 ft.,
260 mph./9,000 ft. and had an initial climb rate of 1320 fpm.

Douglas SBD-5: 1,200 hp., 9,352 lb. (Scout)
Wing loading: 28.78 lb./sq. ft., Power loading: 7.793 lb./hp.

The SBD-5 was capable of 247+ mph./S.L., 250 mph./3,281 ft.,
248 mph./7,150 ft., 249 mph./9,000 ft., 260-265 mph./13,800 ft.
and had an initial rate of climb of 1700-1950 fpm. depending on
its weight (with rear gunner, guns and ammo or without).

Fighter vs Scout dive bomber.

Just an FYI,

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 15, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Just an interesting note:
> 
> Fairey Fulmar Mk.II: 1,320 hp., 9,672 lb. (combat weight),
> Wing loading: 28.28 lb./sq. ft., Power loading: 7.112 lb./hp.
> ...


The Fulmar was an all weather RN fighter that entered service at the same time as the USN F4F-3 Wildcat day fighter which lacked armour and self sealing fuel tanks. It was only slightly slower than the Wildcat at the altitudes that it was expected to intercept German and Italian torpedo bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 15, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> The SBD-5 was capable of 247+ mph./S.L., 250 mph./3,281 ft.,
> 248 mph./7,150 ft., 249 mph./9,000 ft., 260-265 mph./13,800 ft.
> and had an initial rate of climb of 1700-1950 fpm. depending on
> its weight (with rear gunner, guns and ammo *or without*).
> ...



Don't know about the SBD-5 but the pilot's manual for the SBD-3 says that if the rear gunner is not carried 200lbs of ballast should be put in his seat and fastened down. 

Just a FYI

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Fulmar was an all weather RN fighter that entered service at the same time as the USN F4F-3 Wildcat day fighter which lacked armour and self sealing fuel tanks.* It was only slightly slower than the Wildcat at the altitudes that it was expected to intercept German and Italian torpedo bombers.*


*
Fulmar I / F4F-3*
246 / 290 @ Sea Level
255 / 295 @ 3,281 ft.
250 / 303 @ 6,562 ft.
245 / 312 @ 9,843 ft.
240 / 314 @ 13,123 ft.
233 / 315 @ 16,404 ft.
221 / 325 @ 19,685 ft.

This is the way it was on 4 December 1940.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Don't know about the SBD-5 but the pilot's manual for the SBD-3 says that if the rear gunner is not carried 200lbs of ballast should be put in his seat and fastened down.
> 
> Just a FYI



Thank you sir, great information.
, Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *Really?
> Fulmar I / F4F-3*
> 246 / 290 @ Sea Level
> 255 / 295 @ 3,281 ft.
> ...



Kevin, I am sorry that you did not like this post. It was intended to be
an informative post. The truth is son, I cannot change the facts.

, Jeff

Kevin, I looked at my post closer and decided I was too harsh.
Sorry sir, I changed my post a little.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 15, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *Really?
> Fulmar I / F4F-3*
> 246 / 290 @ Sea Level
> 255 / 295 @ 3,281 ft.
> ...


You should be comparing the Fulmar II against the Martlet II with folding wings, 20 mph top speed difference at 1000m / 2000m is no big deal. Maybe you should be comparing an Martlet I, land based only & no folding wings, against a Fulmar I?


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> You should be comparing the Fulmar II against the Martlet II with folding wings, 20 mph top speed difference at 1000m / 2000m is no big deal. Maybe you should be comparing an Martlet I, land based only & no folding wings, against a Fulmar I?




Kevin,
The Fulmar II began deliveries somewhere in 1942. The Martlet II October 1940, The F4F-3
4 December 1940. The USN VF-6 receives the first F4F-3As (Martlet III) in May 1941.

FYI: The Martlet II / Wilcat II

Maximum speed at Sea Level: 292 mph.
Maximum speed at 14,000 ft.: 317 mph.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 15, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Kevin,
> The Fulmar II began deliveries somewhere in 1942. The Martlet II October 1940, The F4F-3
> 4 December 1940. The USN VF-6 receives the first F4F-3As (Martlet III) in May 1941.
> 
> ...


The Fairey Fulmar II entered operational service in March 1941, a handful of the non-folding wing Martlet II entered service in September 1941, with speeds as quoted by you, the folding wing variant was first delivered in August 1941, 54 being sent to the Far East and 36 retained in the UK. Top speed was slower, 292 at 6000 feet, 300 mph at 14000 feet and first saw service in the Far East in the invasion of Madagascar.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 15, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Kevin,
> The Fulmar II began deliveries somewhere in 1942. The Martlet II October 1940, The F4F-3
> 4 December 1940. The USN VF-6 receives the first F4F-3As (Martlet III) in May 1941.
> 
> ...



Fulmar II production began in Dec 1940. Deliveries in early 1941.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Fulmar II production began in Dec 1940. Deliveries in early 1941.
> The Martlet I entered service in August 1940 from land bases.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 15, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Just an interesting note:
> 
> Fairey Fulmar Mk.II: 1,320 hp., 9,672 lb. (combat weight),
> Wing loading: 28.28 lb./sq. ft., Power loading: 7.112 lb./hp.
> ...



The Fulmar II was retired from frontline carrier service in late 1942. The night fighter was used longer but in tiny numbers. There was only 600 Fulmars built.

Rated power for the Merlin 30 was 1360hp at 6500ft @ 12.75lb boost. After Jan 1942 Merlin 30 combat boost was increased to 16lb.

Max climb rate at 9lb boost and 2800rpm was 1440fps at 7200ft. Combat rating boost would increase climb rate to ~2000fps.

BWOC here's the measured climb rate of an F4F-4 using full military power:







The SAC data for both the F4F-3 and -4 doesn't match actual performance as measured in individual aircraft. For what ever reason the USN seems to have "sexed up" the SAC data:


> On 3 April with the _Enterprise_ back in port, Fighting Six shifted back to NAS Pearl Harbor to install new gear and commission the factory-fresh planes. Three days later Gray shot off a rocket to Halsey offering his opinion of the Grumman F4F-4 fighter. The performance of the folding wing Wildcat was “exceedingly unsatisfactory.” The weight, he felt, simply was too much for the available horsepower, a fact most detrimental to the aircraft’s climb and maneuverability. He noted that the F4F-4 had the “feel of a fully loaded torpedo plane.” In tests, VF-6 pilots discovered that the climb rate of a fully loaded F4F-4 was only 1,500 feet per minute up to 15,000 feet. Thereafter even that anemic climb rate fell off drastically to 600 feet per minute at 22,000 feet of altitude. Gray found it took almost forty minutes and nearly half of the fuel supply to coax an F4F-4 up to 32,000 feet. Certainly, he added, the fighter would be fine against unescorted bombers and other “cold meat,” but what about the seemingly magical Zero in light of claims for the climb rate, speed, and maneuverability of the vaunted Mitsubishi product? Gray requested swift replacement of the F4F-4 with a version sporting a more powerful engine.
> 
> The _Enterprise_’s veteran skipper George Murray fully agreed with the opinions of VF-6. He contributed an endorsement to Gray’s letter that stated flatly: “The F4F-4 is greatly inferior to the latest Japanese fighters.” Murray further delineated what was the dominant idea among U.S. naval fighter tacticians:
> 
> ...



After the F4F-3 was fitted with full armour and self-sealing tanks, it was only 420lb lighter than the F4F-4 at 7556 to 7975lb.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 15, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> You should be comparing the Fulmar II against the Martlet II with folding wings, 20 mph top speed difference at 1000m / 2000m is no big deal. Maybe you should be comparing an Martlet I, land based only & no folding wings, against a Fulmar I?



The Hawker Sea Hurricane 1B was the fixed wing equivalent to the F4F-3

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The Fulmar II was retired from frontline carrier service in late 1942. The night fighter was used longer but in tiny numbers. There was only 600 Fulmars built.
> 
> Rated power for the Merlin 30 was 1360hp at 6500ft @ 12.75lb boost. After Jan 1942 Merlin 30 combat boost was increased to 16lb.
> 
> ...


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> ^^^ Couldn't agree more.
> 
> Also I'm outraged at this whole sham of a poll/thread... I don't see the mighty Buffalo listed ergo I declare this poll null and void.
> 
> Also also, I may kid from time to time about hijacking any thread to talk about the P-51 but that was not my intention earlier and it seems to have come close to derailing this fine thread, which still has a sham of a poll considering what's NOT on it...




I'm still trying to figure out how three aircraft from two countries that *never had a carrier* got onto the list.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 16, 2018)

If you're referring to the Re 2000 & 2001........






A Reggiane Re.2000 Catapultabile just started from the catapult of the battle ship _Vittorio Veneto_ .





from da web

Rejected by the Regia Aeronautica, the Italian navy acquired 12 Re.2000 Serie II fighters especially strengthened for catapult launching, followed by 24 Re.2000 Serie III aircraft with increased fuel capacity for deployment as long-range fighters​Technically not operating from carriers but the thought was there

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how three aircraft from two countries that *never had a carrier* got onto the list.


The two countries, Italy amd Germany, did have carriers and while not operational, had intentions to put them into service.
Poor planning, poor timing and a lack of defined leadership doomed the respective programs from the start.

Even the French lacked a clear goal in their carrier program, the WWI era Béarn being their only operational carrier during the war.

What I find interesting, is that the Netherlands did better with their two Merchant carriers (Gadila and Macoma) than Germany, Italy and France put together!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The two countries, Italy amd Germany, did have carriers and while not operational, had intentions to put them into service.
> Poor planning, poor timing and a lack of defined leadership doomed the respective programs from the start.
> 
> Even the French lacked a clear goal in their carrier program, the WWI era Béarn being their only operational carrier during the war.
> ...


The French laid down five Normandie class battleships in WWI and completed one as an aircraft carrier, the Bearn. The rest were scrapped and their guns used for the Maginot line.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 16, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The French laid down five Normandie class battleships in WWI and completed one as an aircraft carrier, the Bearn. The rest were scrapped and their guns used for the Maginot line.


I forgot to add that the French Navy wanted five carriers at the time but only got one.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I forgot to add that the French Navy wanted five carriers at the time but only got one.


The French were in the process of building 2 new carriers by the middle 30's, the Joffre was the first, the Painlevé was the second. The class was intended to carry a compliment of 15 D.790 fighters and 25 B.810 bomber-scouts.

As it stands, the Joffre was the only one laid down and partially completed at the time the Germans defeated France. Herein lies the shortcomings of the Germans, too...they had several carriers at their disposal, had the projects been completed. The French Joffre and moreso, the Italian Aquila (which was nearly operational) were opportunities that the Germans didn't take advantage of.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 16, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 509783
> 
> from da web
> 
> Rejected by the Regia Aeronautica, the Italian navy acquired 12 Re.2000 Serie II fighters especially strengthened for catapult launching, followed by 24 Re.2000 Serie III aircraft with increased fuel capacity for deployment as long-range fighters​Technically not operating from carriers but the thought was there


...what I'd like to know is why is there an arresting hook attached to a plane that's launched by seaborne catapult?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...what I'd like to know is why is there an arresting hook attached to a plane that's launched by seaborne catapult?


Because the Italians were preparing to put their carrier Aquila into service and the Regienne Re.2001-OR Serie II (the illustration in Geo's post) was the intended fighter compliment aboard the Aquila.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 16, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...what I'd like to know is why is there an arresting hook attached to a plane that's launched by seaborne catapult?



I don't know if the Italians were aware of Hurricanes operating from CAM(Catapult Armed Merchant) ships which were unable to be recovered owing to the lack of arresting hooks. They either made landfall if close enough or ditched

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2018)

The only two Italian fighters that were navalized, were the Fiat G.50B/N and the Regienne Re.2001-OR Serie II.

These were the two types that were considered for service aboard the Aquila. The other type that was looked at and dismissed, was a biplane.

The photo of the Re.2000 in post #347, seen being catapaulted from the Vittorio Veneto, did not have an arresting hook. 

Here is the Fiat G.50B/N - the arrestor hook can be seen between the tailwheel and the horizontal stabilizer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Because the Italians were preparing to put their carrier Aquila into service and the Regienne Re.2001-OR Serie II (the illustration in Geo's post) was the intended fighter compliment aboard the Aquila.


Ok, now that makes sense!
Thank you.

Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 16, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> I don't know if the Italians were aware of Hurricanes operating from CAM(Catapult Armed Merchant) ships which were unable to be recovered owing to the lack of arresting hooks. They either made landfall if close enough or ditched
> 
> View attachment 509826​


There's something new I haven't seen before. I'm guessing the idea was to launch the Hurricanes to fend off incoming attackers then as you say they would try to make it to the nearest allied airbase or ditch.
Wonder if that was ever done successfuly.
I mean catapult, intercept, then head for land.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 16, 2018)

Wasn't that the original intention of both the Kingfisher and The Duck?
To pluck catapulted pilots out of the drink after ditching their planes.....seems like I've heard/read that a few times in the past.


Elvis


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The two countries, Italy amd Germany, did have carriers and while not operational, had intentions to put them into service.
> Poor planning, poor timing and a lack of defined leadership doomed the respective programs from the start.
> 
> Even the French lacked a clear goal in their carrier program, the WWI era Béarn being their only operational carrier during the war.
> ...



Neither Germany nor Italy actually got carriers into service, so they didn't have carrier aircraft, only want-to-be carrier aircraft. The Blackburn Skua was,generously, a miserable fighter but at least it was flying off of a real carrier, not a paper one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Ok, now that makes sense!
> Thank you.
> 
> Elvis


You're welcome!



Elvis said:


> Wasn't that the original intention of both the Kingfisher and The Duck?
> To pluck catapulted pilots out of the drink after ditching their planes.....seems like I've heard/read that a few times in the past.
> 
> Elvis


The Grumman J2F was a mid-30's design that was to be a jack of all trades. Scouting, mapping, air-sea rescue and even ASW.
They operated from Battleships, Cruisers and land (or sea) bases but they were nearing the end of their service life when the U.S. entered WWII.

The Vought OS2U was a little more recent than the Grumman and also saw service aboard Battleships and Cruisers. Thier duties would have been similar to the Duck's.

In regards to plucking a CAM Hurricane from the water, the pilot would have coordinated with an escorting Destroyer or other Navy ship who were on standby, directing him to ditch in a certain area so he could be recovered quickly. CAM ships operated mostly in the North Atlantic and his window of survival was literally just a few minutes, tops. There would have been no chance of survival for the pilot to ditch and then wait for an aircraft to get him.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Sep 16, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> unable to be recovered owing to the lack of arresting hooks


And due to the lack of an aircraft carrier.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Neither Germany nor Italy actually got carriers into service, so they didn't have carrier aircraft, only want-to-be carrier aircraft. The Blackburn Skua was,generously, a miserable fighter but at least it was flying off of a real carrier, not a paper one.


Sorry to correct you, but the Aquila was close to operational service, having already gone through static testing prior to finalization and sea trials.

All work stopped when Italy capitulated to the Allies in 1943 and the Germans just let her sit untouched.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The two countries, Italy amd Germany, did have carriers and while not operational, had intentions to put them into service.
> Poor planning, poor timing and a lack of defined leadership doomed the respective programs from the start.
> 
> Even the French lacked a clear goal in their carrier program, the WWI era Béarn being their only operational carrier during the war.
> ...



The Bearn, if I remember my naval history correctly, was used as an aircraft transport, not a carrier, at least after the fall of France. I suspect that the Dewoitine D376 would have been overmatched by the Skua, but that may be just my prejudice agains pre-WW2 naval aviation, which had about as much priority as advanced development of chocolate watches.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> As it stands, the Joffre was the only one laid down and partially completed at the time the Germans defeated France. Herein lies the shortcomings of the Germans, too...they had several carriers at their disposal, had the projects been completed. The French Joffre and moreso, the Italian Aquila (which was nearly operational) were opportunities that the Germans didn't take advantage of.



There was no opportunity for the Germans, only sinkholes to pour resources into for little or no return. The Joffre was only about 20% complete according to some sources and would have required several more years of work by several thousand workmen to bring to a finished state. The Moreso was never started ( perhaps some materials were assembled near the building site/dock?) 

The Aquila, while 'complete' offered little more than a target. There was nothing her 50 or so planes could do to the allied fleet/s in the Mediterranean that could not be done by land based aircraft in the summer and fall of 1943. The days of the Italian fleet, with or without German aid/direction doing anything more than a few hours from base were over.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Sorry to correct you, but the Aquila was close to operational service, having already gone through static testing prior to finalization and sea trials.
> 
> All work stopped when Italy capitulated to the Allies in 1943 and the Germans just let her sit untouched.



The US was closer to getting the F8F into operation service. It doesn't count, either, as it didn't actually make it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2018)

Be that as it may, the carriers were planned on, they were being built and for various reasons, did not make it to completion. I can also honestly say that I have never heard of a carrier being built first and then a suitable type of aircraft is decided on afterwards.

In regards to the F8F, it's fairly well known that it arrived as the war was coming to a close. Had it arrived a little sooner or the Allies decided on a conventional end to the Pacific war, it would have seen action.

But unlike the F8F, which followed typical development, debugging and then production, the Axis carriers were plagued with terminal indecision, critical delays and flip-flopping by high command. And even when the Germans had the opportunity to actually finish the Aquila, they did nothing and it ended up being damaged by Allied air raids in '44 and eventually scuttled by the Italians themselves.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> And even when the Germans had the opportunity to actually finish the Aquila, they did nothing and it ended up being damaged by Allied air raids in '44 and eventually scuttled by the Italians themselves.



Just what chance would the Aquila have had in the summer or fall of 1943 against the British/American fleet in the Med plus the British/American land based air operating from Sicily, southern Italy and North Africa? 

I am sorry but the time for the Aquila had long since passed. 

"British" includes all commonwealth forces for the sake of brevity.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2018)

The Germans still had plenty of fight through 1943 - the disaster of the Dodecanese campaign is one example. In a situation of flagging fortunes, working any option is still an option.

The IJN didn't throw their hands in the air and say "ah well, were screwed, let's just stop building these things".
They had quite a few carriers under construction by war's end, even though their fortunes had shifted long since.
For example:
Unryū class: Kasagi - 84% complete, Aso - 60% complete, Ikoma - 60% complete
Shimane class: Ōtakisan - incomplete, Daiju - incomplete
Yamashio class: Chigusa - incomplete, Zuiun - incomplete

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 17, 2018)

The difference is geography. 
The Aquila was at Genoa. It's area of operations once the NA coast was in allied hands would be the western Med. and a large part of that was in easy reach of allied land based air. With more area being dominated the more time goes by. 50 aircraft are just not enough to swing the balance of power in a region where hundreds if not thousands of aircraft are deplyed.

For the Japanese, the invasion force/s of the allies have to cross many hundreds of miles of ocean and the japanese Islands are hundreds of miles long so a force of carriers might have more opportunity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 17, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> The IJN didn't throw their hands in the air and say "ah well, were screwed, let's just stop building these things".
> 
> *SNIP*



Really?

Caption: Japanese Naval militia voicing their opinion to the Navy Department "we're screwed, stop building carriers" circa 1944
Source - Library of the Illuminati

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Sep 17, 2018)

If I may be allowed to agitate the situation, the Bf-109T actually saw combat although not from a carrier and certainly not the most valuable. The Fi-167 and Ju-87C while not fighters were reconverted and reassigned to combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

