# Best ship buster.....



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

In your opinions what was the best ship buster of the war? There were many effective planes; the Beaufighter and SM.79 to name a couple.

Discuss


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

swordfish.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Hmmmmm I forgot the swordfish. I need some more thinking on this one I think, as there were many that were effective


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

there were many that were used for maritime recon. such as the Fw-200, sunderland and B-24, but they didn't "ship bust"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

The Condor was used as an anti-shipping bomber actually, I think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

it occasionally bombed merchant shipping but it's primary role was to direct U-boats onto the ships, it tried to stay fay away from enemy fire or action because it had shockingly poor damage tollerance for a 4 engined plane...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

It was used to bomb ships - therefore it is classifie as a ship buster. Any plane that was used to bomb ships of any form counts in this category...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

well in that case the sunderland, cat and B-24 are up for this title, as are most planes.........

my vote goes to the Avro lancaster..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I mean ones that were used at least fairly regularly, the lancaster wasnt exactly best known for this role, as it only destroyed one ship.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 13, 2004)

I'm not sure how effective they were in this role, but didn't the RAF use a small number of B-17's for antishipping patrols?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

> It was used to bomb ships - therefore it is classifie as a ship buster



it sunk the tirpitz, as well as U-boats when in dock, as such, it's busted ships, as such, it's qualifies as a ship buster using you classification.............

my vote remains.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

And even then you think its better than busting ships than a Beaufighter or Sparviero

Ok then, change it to planes that had ship busting as their primary role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

as such it excludes the sunderland, cat and FW-200...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Yep. Im saving my vote for when the other have said theirs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

chances are it's gonna be the p.108.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

God I hope not....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Damnit lanc, how did you guess?  Im gonna have to find some decent pictures...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 13, 2004)

When you think of ship-busters, you should really look at the Pacific, as the Navy planes were doing one hell of a job doing that. I would say the TBF/TM Avenger. It was designed to carry torpedoes and bust ships.

There was also a B-25 that was developed in New Zealand by Pappy Gunn and Jack Fox that carried a 75mm cannon on board. That must have been one heck of a jolt when that gun fired! I will have to see if I can dig out the story of it's first use. Three of them attacked some Japanese warships and before the Japanese knew what hit them, a battleship was down.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

hey hey hey, the RAF and FAA sank more than their fair share of enemy shipping as well you know..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

I would have to say that more Japanese shipping was sunk by Allies in the Pacific than the European theatre.......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

yeah but we still had good ship busters.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

For sure....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

the swordfish in particular..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

I would think the Beaufighters and Blenheims sank more shipping than the "Stringbag"......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

yes but that doesn't make them the better ship busters...................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Hmmmmmm to an extent it does....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

no it means they were faster and had better range, but they were very good..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Piaggio P.108A (Best I could find - sorry. Well they pnly made one...)

The P.108A was one of many developments of the Italian heavy bomber. Equipped with a 102mm cannon (the second largest gun ever fitted to any plane ever, and the largest gun fitted to a plane during World War 2) the P.108A was designed for attacking shipping. Although the only one made was captured by the Germans, I am fairly certain it would have been extremely successful. It would have been able to hold its own against the enemy fighters as well, because it was equipped with 8MG's for defence - 2 in the wings, 1 in the nose, 2 on the top, 2 waist gunners and a ventral turret. I believe this made the P.108 the most heavily defended bomber until the B-29 came along some 3 years later 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

> 8MG's for defence





> I believe this made the P.108 the most heavily defended bomber until the B-29 came



are you forgetting the B-17 or maybe even the B-24??



> I am fairly certain it would have been extremely successful



i don't think it would have been, even a 102mm shell would assure the sinking of a ship, how many rounds could it carry??



> It would have been able to hold its own against the enemy fighters as well



wouldn't the gun the reduce the performance of the plane?? also the number and posistions of guns can't assure it would be safe from attack, look at the B-17, up to 13mgs, many in turrets, still defenceless against fighter attack when unescorted..................


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 31, 2005)

Best ship buster has to be the Beaufighter, Rocket and Cannon Beaus went in to kill the flak crews and then the torpedo aircraft came in low and did the actual sinking. A highly co-ordinated attack


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 31, 2005)

The best way to "BUST" ships is to use dive bombers because no (almost none) normal bombers can be as accurate (look how effective the Stukas attcking Allied shipping to UK in the English Channel in 1940, and the dive bombers are better than the torpedo bombers (well, what I mean by that is in case there are fighter opposition, because torpedoes cause lot more damage than bombs) and I would suggest the Helldiver as a really good dive bomber.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 31, 2005)

The Helldiver was the top ship killer of American aircraft.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 31, 2005)

thats my point


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 31, 2005)

The Mosquito with the 57mm would rank in this category as well right?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 31, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Best ship buster has to be the Beaufighter, Rocket and Cannon Beaus went in to kill the flak crews and then the torpedo aircraft came in low and did the actual sinking. A highly co-ordinated attack





Or, get two Torbeaus with rockets...


One can attack with machine guns, cannons, and rockets while the other dives in to drop the torpedo, and then reverse the combination...


First color change is drop of its assigned strike (rocket dropping rockets, torpedo dropping torpedo), second color change is drop of other ordanance (where rockets drops torpedo and torpedo drops rockets) before turning for home... 


Of course they would use more than two planes as insurance of success, but this is only to show a point.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 31, 2005)

Absolutely the Beaufighters first, and Mosquitos of the Coastal Command Strike Wings, I'm in full agreement with Dave and Mikeman........

Also the Beaufighters in the ETO and PTO, but I also agree with Evan on the B-25's in the Pacific.... didn't the one you mention have some recoil mechanism worked-out for it's 75mm.?......


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 31, 2005)

I mention the Beaufighters as they were the first at it, but definately the Tse-Tse Mk.XVIII Mosquitos, although there weren't that many of them....most of their Strike Wing ones were FBVI's..........


----------



## Cougar (Jan 31, 2005)

id say as well the mossy with the 57mm would be one of the best


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2005)

excellent suggestions. Do not forget that the Ju 88A was also used by Germany successfully.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 31, 2005)

The think is, not that many Tse-Tses were built because a FB.VI with rockets was found to be just as effective. 

And it the PTO, don't forget the A-20 which had a lot of success as a skip-bomber.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 1, 2005)

From November 1943 onwards the Mosquito was used to attack U-boats shortly after, or just before they entered a port... Warning of these opportunities was provided by code breakers......

At the moment the U-boats travelled to the surface, they were vulnerable to rockets or the 57mm shells of the FB.XVIII..... So, for safety, the U-boats usually formed small convoys, with an escort of mine sweepers or so called Sperrbrecher ships, which had hulls reinforced with concrete as a protection against mines; both types bristled with anti-aircraft guns......

For example, on 27 March 1944 six FB.VIs and two FB.XVIIIs attacked a convoy towards La Pallice, formed by U-960 with a escort of four M-class mine sweepers and two Sprerrbrecher vessels...... Three mine sweepers suffered light damage, U-960 was badly damaged, two Mosquitos returned home with serious damage, and one crash-landed...... 

U-boats sunk by the Mossie......

1944
U-976, U-821, U-998, 

1945
U-804, U-843, U-1065, U-251, U-2359 

8 U-boats lost to Mosquito aircraft.......


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 1, 2005)

The Mk XVIII Mosquito was a rare variant as only 18, including the prototype HJ732, were built. The aircraft were HX902, 904, MM424, 425, NT220, 224, 225, and PZ251, 152, 300, 301, 346, 467, 468, 469 and 470. Most served with 248 Squadron and were in use until the end of the war. The exception was PZ467 which was sent to the USA for evaluation and did not see front line service. What set all these aircraft apart was that they were all fitted with the Molins 6 pounder anti-tank gun.

The Molins anti-tank gun was produced by Molins Machine Co of Peterborough at the beginning of the war. It was intended to be mounted on small armoured vehicles for use against tanks. It held 22 or 25 rounds in batches of 4 or 5 which were fed electrically to the breech. As one batch was fired the next was moved into position. It completed trials in 1942 but the Germans then introduced the Tiger tank which was impervious to 6 pounder shells.

The Hawker Hurricane IID's were fitted with 40mm Rolls Royce BF or Vickers Type S anti-tank guns but it was thought that something heavier was needed such as the Molins. As the Molins weighed 1,800lbs (816kg) this would mean a bigger, preferably twin engined, aircraft and de Havilland were approached to see if the Mosquito would do. As they had already done a feasibility study on the much heavier 3.7 inch (94mm) gun they agreed it was possible.

An old FBVI fuselage was used for static firing tests but a bolt broke so another method of attaching the gun had to be found. A new FBVI Mosquito, HJ732, was selected and modified to a Mk XVIII. The 12ft 5in (3.8mm) gun was mounted at a slightly downward angle and protruding 2 feet (600mm) from the nose. It now really looked like a Mosquito with a sting.

After further ground firing tests flying tests took place and a snag was found. If the Molins gun had a force of more than 2.5g imposed on it then it would not load the shells. Modifications were made so it was capable of sustaining both negative and positive g forces. However after firing 400 rounds the under surface of the flaps tore off. After strengthening of the flaps it was decided that only the two outer .303 Browning machine guns would be retained but with a greatly increased ammunition capacity.

Another minor problem was that the gun's breech was behind the crew and the spent shell cases were ejected inside the aircraft fuselage where they rolled about with aircraft movement. It was thought that if they were ejected externally they might hit the tailplane.

To accomodate both the Molins and the Browning machine guns a different gunsight, the MkIIIa, replaced the MkII. This had different aiming marks for the Molins and the Brownings. In addition protective armour and long range fuel tanks were fitted so the aircraft could be used against U boats.

The aircraft served with 248 Squadron which was based at Predannack in Cornwall from October 1943. They proved to be a great success and the first U boat, U-123, was sunk on November 7 in the Bay of Biscay. The Molins armour piercing shell weighing 7.1lbs (3.2kg) were tipped with hardened steel and had no problems entering a submarine's pressure hull and creating great havoc inside.

248 Squadron protected Allied shipping during the D-Day landings and then was moved north to Banff in Scotland in 1944. From there it carried out many attacks on German shipping and installations in Norway.

Specification of the Molins 6 pounder Anti-tank Gun.

Bore 2.25in (57mm) 
Action Recoil 
Cyclic Rate 60 rounds per minute 
Muzzle Velocity 2,600ft/sec (792m/sec) 
Ammo feed Molins automatic 
Magazine 22 rounds (some sources say 25) 
Length 12ft 5in (3.8m) 
Height 38in (965mm) 
Weight 1,800lbs (816kg)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2005)

Not completely impervious to 6 pounder shells. The first Tiger captured by the Brit was in North Africa had been knocked out by a 6pdr. This was on the Robaa Rd on Jan 20 1943. Another Tiger was disabled in the same engagement and blown up by sappers.

There has been a book writen about this Tiger and I think it is still at Bovington.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2005)

I've seen that Tiger, it was a lucky shot as it hit between the turret and the main body of the tank. The heat of the shot welded the turret to the chassis, scaring the crew of the Tiger so they ran away.


----------



## redcoat (Feb 1, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> It completed trials in 1942 but the Germans then introduced the Tiger tank which was impervious to 6 pounder shells.


No.
Encountered by British for the first time near Pont du Fahs, Tunisia in February 1943 when the Germans launched an attack on British positions . The 2 Tigers (of Unit 501 ) that were sent into this battle, ( accompanied by 9 PzKpfw IIIs IVs), were both were knocked out by British 6 pounder guns at a range of 500 yards firing at the flanks of the Tigers.

Using normal APC shells a 6 pdr could KO a Tiger with a hit on the side or rear at close range, (ie under 500 yards.) 
The 6 pdr shell could penetrate approx 85mm of armour at 500 yards, the side and rear armour of a Tiger was 80mm.
When APDS was introduced for the 6 pdr from May 44, the 6 pdr could KO a Tiger at over a 1000 yards (penetration 134mm at 1000 yards) 



pps, When a Tiger tank met a Churchill tank for the first time ( also in the North African Theater) it was the 6 pdr armed Churchill tank of the Royal Irish which was the winner.

Sadly when the Churchill tank was 'upgunned' to take the 75mm (far better HE shell) it lost the ability to take on a Tiger


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

back on topic...................kicking your butt so hard your cheeks go vertical............ouch !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

another German ship getting raked over the coals.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 1, 2005)

Very nice pics. Whenever I see pics like that with all the lead flying around I am amazed that anyone ever survived the war.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2005)

Those pics just show the firepower of the Mossies and Beaufighters doing the damage


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

here is the last ship I will post getting the crap kicked out of it. In the northern waters....


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

though an older pic 42-1943 it does show the closeness of the big guns and the Flak. later the heavy 105mm's/150mm's were replaced by quad 2cm and single 2cm and 3.7cm's when the biggest problem was Allied a/c. More of the Kriegsmarine escort ships, cargo, mine, etc were equipped with multiple AA systems


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

last call. Beach escorts during June of 44. Possible Mossie fodder eh ??


----------



## Udet (Feb 1, 2005)

Great pics indeed.

I must say, however, that even if the shots of British planes strafing the German ships can be impressive, i seriously doubt they did anything further than moderate damage and killing and/or wonding a few guys of the crew.

I doubt the guns fitted to any aircraft in WWII could sink ships like those shown in Erich´s photos.

While of course I do not have any statistics on this issue, I do think the Stuka and Ju88 can certainly be amongst the most succesful ship destroyers of WWII.

I recall reading there was a Japanese bomber, of the Japanese Carrier Force, which was one of the most succesful ship destroyer of the entire conflict, can´t recall the model though.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

Udet I think the second pic I posted shows the smoke trails of rockets aimed towards their targets. No, normally 20mm would damage severly but not sink a heavy ship, would have to be rockets or torpedos. The rockets taking out the conning tower-communications and start fires which of course could lead to blowing up AA and heavy ammo and then ? A problem of course were the German ships armed with above deck mines, and indedd 20mm rounds could touch off several of these and the whole ship would go up.....


----------



## Udet (Feb 1, 2005)

You are correct Erich.

Rockets are a different story for sure. It would be great if any ballistic expert here could tell if the tracers shown on the pic you referr to come from rockets.

In guncamera footage I have, tracers can be seen from specific kinds of ammo fired from cannons and MG´s, so it could be the case here as well. But I can not tell for sure. 

I was strictly referring to guns fitted to aircraft in my previous comment though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 1, 2005)

Udet I believe you are referring the the D3A "Val" which sank more Allied shipping than any other Axis bomber. The Helldiver was the top killer of Japanese shipping.

I believe you would be surprised at the damage a tight group of guns (like on a Mossie, Beau, or B-25J) could do. It must be remembered that merchant shipping typically didn't have the resistance to battle damage that warships did. I image that concentrated gunfire could put quite a hole in the hull of such a ship. Of course, I do realize that these guns were used primarily to sweep the decks with fire so torps, rockets, or bombs could be employed.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2005)

Right LG. These ships, wether commercial or military did not have armour and had thin hull skins (~ 1/4", which will not stop a .50"). The ship would look like a sieve from waterline to mast top. So even if it did not sink, time, manpower and resources would have to be spent re-pairing the ship. One less ship to carry cargo or to use in convoy protection in the next several convoys.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2005)

The idea of the guns was to kill the flak crews so the rocket and torpedo armed planes, or skip bombers could come in and sink the ships


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2005)

Right LG. These ships, wether commercial or military did not have armour and had thin hull skins (~ 1/4", which will not stop a .50"). The ship would look like a sieve from waterline to mast top. So even if it did not sink, time, manpower and resources would have to be spent re-pairing the ship. One less ship to carry cargo or to use in convoy protection in the next several convoys.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 1, 2005)

No comments on this, then?


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2005)

Must have divided the flak between the 2 planes, poor gunners can't have known if they were coming or going


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 1, 2005)

Yep, though as far as I know, that's not a real tactic - I dreamt it up yesterday to show in theory how two Torbeaus could devastate a ship...



Also, both attacks would render flak fairly helpless, as the one coming in with rockets at first would also use cannons, and the rocket blasts would destroy or render the guns useless, as would the torpedo, and then the attack would be repeated, vice-versa.


It's a good system for having been dreamt up by a thirteen year old. 


If anyone brings up escorts, I have mentioned that two loaded down planes wouldnt go in alone, simply that this would work, even more so with Mustang I escorts, as the RAF liked to use for the Med and N. Europe, since Spits lacked the range...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2005)

Even the escorts could bring their guns to bear on the ships to supress the flak or to attract it, leaving the bombers a clear run-in.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

no actually it was like 3-6 Mossies or Beus attacking a single ship or ships and no protective escorts in 44-45. would attack in one direction but when over flying would split up to make target difficulty for the light Fla on the ships.

do wonder how effective the KM was against RAF coastal command in this regard ? As many of the cargo type Sperrbrecher's made it through the war as well as Minenschiffe.

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

wow that pic made very little sence to me.............


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 2, 2005)

A book worth reading is * Canadian Squadrons in Coastal Command* by Andrew Hendrie. ISBN 1-55125-038-1


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> No comments on this, then?



Nice idea....


----------



## Andrew (Feb 4, 2005)

I am sure that the Fairey Swordfish sunk more tonnage than any other aircraft during the 2nd World War, so that would make it the ultimate ship buster.

The Teste Mosquito could carry either 4 X Rocket Launcers and 2 long range fuel tanks, or 8 x Rocket Launchers, this would make it a very effective submarine hunter.

Also I read in "They Gave me a Seafire" that several Seafires were strafing a Japanese Destroyer, which promplty blew up.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 4, 2005)

In the PTO the P-38 was quit effective but the B-25 was great! I've never seen tonnage sunk records but I have seen many accounts of both planes together and seperately sinking large numbers of ships.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 4, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > No comments on this, then?
> ...




Fuck yer!


I might have to make a mission like this in PF, only there will only be one strike per weapon type, since you can't select rockets and torpedo, only one choice...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

My PF doesnt work any more...I click on start FB+AEP+PF and the picture of the Avenger comes up, goes off and then it doesnt load...


----------



## redcoat (Feb 4, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Udet I believe you are referring the the D3A "Val" which sank more Allied shipping than any other Axis bomber. The Helldiver was the top killer of Japanese shipping.


What was the tonnage total sunk for the D3A 'Val'
 
I have a figure of over 363,000 tons for the Fw 200 Condor

For the Allies I have a figure of 500,000 tons just for the Fairey Swordfish operating out of Malta ( not including the various battleships, submarines and the like )


----------



## Erich (Feb 4, 2005)

Red, what is your source(s) for the Fw 200 Kondor figure ?

thank you

E ~


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 5, 2005)

The B-25's were pretty good in the Pacific, especially versions with all the 50 calibers in the nose. Go to www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com and check out "Winged Artillery". Its currently on the front page, watch the video. It has some great shots of 75mm cannon armed B-25's doing some good work on land based targets. I know its not ship busting but it is a lot of fun to watch!!

Personally I'd rather have all the 50s over 2 50s and one 75mm. All the firepower certainly would help with suppressing return fire from the ship your about to skip bomb.

What about mines? Does this conversation consider aircraft dropping mines?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

i would think so.............


----------



## Erich (Feb 5, 2005)

got a wmv file coming showing FW 200 Kondor action. buty for now this off ebay.de, some stills showing Kondor attacks on merchant shipping. sadly the owner has put his release through the center of the pics....

also concerning some talk on another thread about the best bomber: U-boots ceased the carrying of the 88 and 105mm forward guns come late 43 for use was nil agasint shipping. the fact that increasing amount of aerial acctivity was coming into play forward and rearward turms became standard. Twin 2cm, two of them installed and a reaward 2cm Flakvierling or single 3,7cm weapon. some U-boots also had a forward 3.7cm weapon as well and these were standard U-boots and not Flak boots. also during late 44 refits, select boots were retrofitted with the new twin 3.7cm Fla weapon replacing the slower firing 3.7cm single. Also although for short range only MG 34's were also brought up, several in fact per boot.............why ? ok here are the Kondor pics as promised.....


----------



## redcoat (Feb 5, 2005)

Erich said:


> Red, what is your source(s) for the Fw 200 Kondor figure ?


The excellent web-site, U-boat net.
http://www.uboat.net/technical/fw200.htm



> thank you
> 
> E ~


No problem


----------



## redcoat (Feb 5, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> What about mines? Does this conversation consider aircraft dropping mines?


The problem with this, is its often impossible to identify what mines were air-dropped, and those planted by naval forces.

But having said that, here's some more figures to play with.

According to Stephen Roskill's, The Navy at War, a history of the RN in WW2.
Some of the losses and the causes of the losses suffered by the German Merchant Fleet in NW Europe in WW2 were as follows;

604 ships of 660,000 tons to mines

289 ships of 574,000 tons to direct air attacks on shipping.

104 ships of 318,000 tons to RN submarines

86 ships of 303,000 tons to RN surface warships.


The losses of Allied shipping to mines (in all theaters) is 534 ships of 1,406,037 tons


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2005)

here is an interesting figure given by FAGr 5 archival notes in the Freiburg RM files

The Ju 290's of the two staffeln operating the craft helped monitor Allied shipping operations directing Fw 200's to their targets and U-boots.

A interesting development happened here: from November 15, 1943 to 15 December 1943, Ju 290's reported through 29 op missions sosme 6 convoys, totally 238 ships-merchant, a battleship, 10 destroyers, 9 corvettes and 20 patrol boats/ships. Estimated tonnage was some 1.7 to 2 million BRT. Out of this Fw 200 Kondors from II./KG 40 were directed by FAGr 5 and the Kondors sank an estimated 18,000 BRT. U-boots were directed by Ju 290's to the areas and sank a big 0.

E ~


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 6, 2005)

A battleship, eh? Interesting. Nice figures, and a good pic too. 8)


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2005)

non:

the sig of mine is in rememberance of these guys actually in the Ju 290 staffels. Recon clasp. the unit was totally stealth really.........

the resistance that was put up to intercept these sleek 4 engine jobs was Hurricanes with 20mm's. I have a break down of losses I may share on a new thread about the unit. I expect in the enxt 5 years that thenliving members from FAGr 5 will hae their book out. the unit did some wild operations, testing out guided bombs, buoy's and even a trip up to Greenland under Allied noses to rescue a weather ship crew stranded there on ice.

E Horrido ! one of my favorite pics of the Ju 290


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 6, 2005)

I'd love to learn more about this.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 6, 2005)

me too


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2005)

ok will dig out materials soon and post a seperate thread.....

here is an interesting pic of one of the nasty German aerial bombs. Hs 293 under pressure testing


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 6, 2005)

Didn't one of those sink the Italian battleship Roma?


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2005)

I believe you are correct or a Fritz-X. have the info somewhere buried....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 6, 2005)

Two Fritz-Xs launched from He-111's (Might have been He-177s, I don't remember) split the bugger in half while it was trying to flee to allied lines!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

That Ju-290 pic up there Is brilliant 8)


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2005)

III./KG 100 supplied Do 217's for the mission and the first 5 Do 217's missed their targets the second group of dorniers did not and the Romas was hit twice the second Fritz X went into the ammo supply and the ship blew up in two. Dropped by Unteroffizier Degan the bomb hit between the starboard extension armoring between the 15 inch gun B turrer and the bridge, disabling the ships turbines and stopping the ship. due to the high angle of the impact the bomb exploded near the forward magazine starting fires and damaging the ships hold, raging fires ensued with the fires going towards the magazine consuming the ship in a monstrous expl;osion breaking the ship in two. Over 1300 of the 1800 crew were lost. 

Also the Italia and the Vittorio were severly hit and kept them out of therest of the war.

Now due to the success's of III./KG 100 and their Do 217's Allied shipping was attacked in ernest, most notably in September of 43 during Operation Saalerno landings code-named " Operation Avalanche"


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2005)

small pic but quite unique. gives the overall size. More testing


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 6, 2005)

Very impressive pics and research, Erich.....
Must have made quite a considerable bang, when compared to the Allied RP's....the Germans must have put alot of effort into developing this style of anti-vessel offensive.....


----------



## evangilder (Feb 7, 2005)

This clip comes to us courtesy of Erich. The FW-200 ship busting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2005)

Great clip! 8) Thanks for that


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 7, 2005)

Nice! 8)


----------



## Grampa (Feb 7, 2005)

I guess that you have never heard or find it this in the net. In my country Sweden SAAB also developed a potentially great ship killer, It was the SAAB T 18B. During the War SAAB and the Flygvapnet studied the War doctrine whit warplane against ship and they realized that they needed a airborne ship killer. So then SAAB developed The T 18B which was a former twin engine bomber. during the development they had some problems whit torpeddropping. It was because those torpedo's we had wasn't sturdy enough to be dropped from a fast flying airplane. To solve that problem they mounted a 57mm automatic Boforscannon m/41A whit a magazine of 40 rounds, the cannon had a firinrate of 3 rounds per second and it shout targets far as 2 km. additional it also had 2 20mm hispaniolcannon whit 120 rounds each and a single 13 mm macinegun pointing forward. Secondary it also carried 1000 kg of bombs or else 8 British 8 cm rockets or Bofors 10,3 cm, 14,5 cm, and 15 cm, plus 2 18 cm rockets under the chin. The T 18 B had also a very advance bomb-aiming-device that allowed the plane to dive bombing its target whit an angel of between 30 0r 45 degrees. A system that exist now in all modern attack airplane. The T 18B come in service 1947, ma-by a little to late have in this discussion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2005)

wow that sounds like an incredable plane, any pics??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2005)

Is this what you mean Gramp?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

Looks like a Bf-110 crossed with a Do-17, or just with a big fat nose.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2005)

I thought more Ju-188 when I saw it.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

The cockpit and twin tail pointed me towards Bf-110, and the skinny fuselage said Do-17. Maybe they just got bits of German twin engined aircraft together...

A bit a Ju-88...there...then hmm...Do-17..some Bf-110 sprinkled in there...and WAL-LAH! Swedish aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2005)




----------



## wmaxt (Feb 8, 2005)

The last year of the war B-25s were set up for ship killing missions to the Japan/China Sea. They had fuel cells in the bomb bay, glass noses, pilot guns, tail guns but no turret. For the ships they had a remotely controled rocket (may have been a pulse jet like the V-1) under each wing (an early cruise missle). these were night missions and sometimes lasted 14hrs. I read this many years ago so it may not be perfect but that is the essence of the missions.


----------



## Grampa (Feb 8, 2005)

Yepp thats the one cheddar cheese. And its the commond type and its the B-version. The Main difference of A anb B is that the A have lincencebuild 1065 hk Twin Wasp engine and B have 1475 hk Daimler Benz 605. To bad its not a picture of the T-version whit the jucy 57mm cannon.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

How about this ship killer??? Is it or isn't it the best ship buster??? It must have been... This kind of ship busting took a great deal of lifes and boats to the bottom of the sea... Though tragic...it was quite efective... Not even today's missiles aren't so deadly...


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

High loss rate...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

They were quite effective at taking out ships but at high prices. 2000 of them died to sink 32 ships and damage 368 during Okinawa. Quite a price to pay especially since it did not stop the allied advance or change the outcome of the war.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

Indeed...High price to pay for this... But think at this... It had the most advanced guiding system at that time... and it wasn't a realy easy job to shoot one down... so... once a Kamikaze started it's dive there wasn't much to do...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

Question...why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 22, 2005)

Beaufighter or B-25 both good at their job. Although the Kamakazi where properly the most effective their loss rate was to high compared to return to qualify them in my view as 'the best'.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Answer: so that they didn't loose their head...


----------



## trackend (Mar 23, 2005)

I agree Alder that the Kamikaze was not as effective as it was costly to Japan and in the case of carriers, with the armoured flight decks employed by the RN they had ( many instances) a relatively hard time causing damage sufficient to prevent operations from stopping for more than a few hours although obviously the brunt of attacks where made against the USN. 
So as for best ship buster
For weapon I would go with the Japanese type 93 (long lance) torpedo with a top range 40,000 metres a formidable device for aircraft i'm quite fond of the old Beaufighter.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

I seccond that... Japan was USA's biggest threat... And because most of their battles took place at sea the japs must have developed a way to damage the USN Ships... My guess is they were the most advansed(along-side the USN) in Naval Battle Strategy and Weapons... They had to be in order to try winning against a superpower...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Question...why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?



Because the radio headsets were in the helmet. In order to speak to other pilots and hear from other pilots you had to have a helmet on. This way they could also get the latest guidance of where the enemy ships were located at.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

and i suppose it would offer protection if the windscreen was hit, splinters of glass would often break of if the glass was hit...........


----------



## Andrew (Mar 24, 2005)

Certainly one of the best ship busters had to have been the Torbeau , with 4 X 20mm Cannon 6 x .303 Machine Guns 1 21" Torpedo 8 X 25lb Rockets, although a better ship buster would have been a Torbeau with 2 X 40mm Guns. *The 4th prototype R2055 was fitted experimentally with both the Rolls Royce Vickers 40mm Guns, although I have only seen a photgraph to show 1 X 40mm Gun fitted to the Beaufighter, the book does state Rolls Royce Vickers Guns*. 

*Source of Info Bristol Beaufighter by Jerry Scutts*


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 24, 2005)

How about this intaresting thing ?, Its not a plane, Its a Germen Anti-Shiping missle.
The "Henschel Hs 293 A-1 Anti-Shipping Missle" 

Over-All Length: 381.9cm
Span Of Wing: 310.0cm
Span Of Horizontal Stabilizer: 113.6 cm
Span Of Vertical Stabilizer: 98.0 cm
Diameter Of Fuselage: 47.0 cm
Diameter Of Power Unit: 33.0 cm
Over-All Height (Approx.): 109.0 cm
Average Chord (Approx.): 79.3 cm
Wing Area (Total): 2.4 Sq. Meters
Wing Loading (Launch): 441.0 kg/sq. m.
Wing Loading (Target): 390.0 kg/sq. m.
Maximum Velocity: 260 m/sec
Average Velocity: 230 m/sec
Maximum Range At:
2.2 km alt.: 4.0 km
4.0 km alt.: 5.5 km
5.0 km alt.: 8.5 km


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radius Of Turn: 800.0 meters
Max. "G" Load: 3.0 g
Weight Of Warhead: 500.0 kg.
Weight Of Launching: 1045.0 kg.
Weight At Target: 967.0 kg.
Weight Of Fuel: 78.0 kg.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

they offered few advantages to normall unguided rockets used at short range...............


----------



## Mosin (Mar 26, 2005)

I think there should be two classes of ship busters 
one for convoy duty and one for anti-battleship duty. 
My pick is 
ANTI-BATTLESHIP---B6N JILL 
The later japanese torpedoe bomber.
It had everything, good speed, maneuverability,heavy load 
,and longe range 
For convoy protection my pick is the B-24 LIBERATOR


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

or for convoy protection the swordfish.........


----------



## Erich (Mar 26, 2005)

Hs 293, Hs 294 and the Fritz-X yes ! thanks for including those nasties as ship killers. Kondor was excellent as well as the too little used Ju 290 though the latter was primarily used for Luftwaffe air recon with U-booten flottilles

E ~


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Liberator for convoy protection, Beaus or Mossies for strikes


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 27, 2005)

Yeah, I second that.....


----------



## Erich (Mar 27, 2005)

guys we probably should of made this into an Allied, Axis best ship buster.

gotta say besides the Fw 200, Ju 290 the Ju 88A was also quite outstanding granted with no Allied protective fighters on duty.

E ~


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

LOL - it has to be the TBF/M Avenger hands down. It probably sunk more shipping than any other aircraft type.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## F4Uftw (Apr 6, 2009)

How about B-25's 'skip-bombing' attacks in the PTO? I remember reading an interview with Japanese sailors after the war where they were wondering how we got our air launched torpedoes to jump out of the water before striking their ships.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 6, 2009)

F4Uftw said:


> How about B-25's 'skip-bombing' attacks in the PTO? I remember reading an interview with Japanese sailors after the war where they were wondering how we got our air launched torpedoes to jump out of the water before striking their ships.


 
Unexpected also to have a B-25 appear skimming the waves coming straight at you.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2009)

If the metric is number of ships sunk, I suspect you have to give the nod to the TBF.

virtually all the others mentioned above were designed for something else and pressed into sea strike duty 'just because' they were versatile enough to do it.

If you separate the concept land based vs carrier based you have another dimension to consider including range and payloads.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 6, 2009)

Sentimental favorite goes to the Dauntless.

My most feared would be the Condor (it would suck being on the deck of a straggling liberty ship and watching a FW200 swoop in)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuF4wGkHA5g_

Coolest B-25H

I've seen it written that the helldiver sunk the most tonnage but this is probably due to the Yamamoto and Musashi which the Avenger could claim too.

.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 6, 2009)

I just read a good book about Torpedo squadron 8; a fairly new written book. A mix of Avengers, Dauntless's and Wildcats was the recipe for killing ships of the line. The Japanese Type 91 Torpedo was very good though. Too bad the U.S. could not issue a fish as effective for the Avenger.


----------



## imalko (Apr 6, 2009)

I believe that Heinkel He-111 was also used against the ships as a torpedo bomber,most notably with KG 26 both against the Arctic konvoys and in the Mediterranian. KG 40 also operated the type in the Atlantic for a while.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 6, 2009)

The Fw200 was the bane of Atlantic shipping until the CVEs became commonplace in the later stages of the war. Serious bombload, huge range and skies almost devoid of defensive fighters allowed Kondors to rack up a huge number of merchantmen sunk. 

Of course, if the Germans had managed to get their anti-ship missiles into more general service, the results for the allies could have been disastrous. Can you imagine the carnage on D-Day if even a few bombers had broken loose as they did during the Italian landings the previous year? 

Another Axis type which deserves mention is the SM.79 Sparviero. This type inflicted grievous casualties on the RN in the Med, crippling or sinking a number of destroyers, cruisers and merchantmen. While the SM.79s eventually succumbed to superior Allied fighters, in the early stages of the Mediterranean war, they actually outperformed the Skuas and Gladiators of the FAA, as well as contemporary Axis aircraft!


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2009)

Some people would disagree that Sparviero could outperform the fighters of the FAA in 1939-41 era, at least in the latest FAA thread here*  


*but not me


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2009)

> Of course, if the Germans had managed to get their anti-ship missiles into more general service, the results for the allies could have been disastrous. Can you imagine the carnage on D-Day if even a few bombers had broken loose as they did during the Italian landings the previous year?


It's my understanding that some Allied ships were sunk off Normandy by radio guided weapons. The History Channel had an episode about an American destroyer that sank after being attacked by such a weapon.

But generally speaking I agree with your argument. Attacks by a handful of aircraft, even if successful, were just pin pricks vs the thousands of Allied ships. The German navy in France needed a full strength KG equipped with the Hs293 guided glide bomb and escorted by a full strength JG.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2009)

davebender said:


> It's my understanding that some Allied ships were sunk off Normandy by radio guided weapons. .....



I think that was off of Italy. Anzio maybe?

Even so, The B25 was still the premier shipbuster of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2009)

Yeap Italy not Normandy. I do not believe that any ships were sunk by missiles off of Normandy. It was during Operation Avalanche during the landings at Solerno. They were also used throughout the mediterranean and Italy campains including Anzio.

During the Normandy Invasion, the Hs 293 was used to destroy bridges however.

Here is a list of confirmed ships sunk or damaged by the Hs 293 during the war:

* Banff class sloop HMS Landguard (slightly damaged with Bideford in Bay of Biscay 25 August 1943)
* HMS Bideford (damaged 25 August 1943 in Bay of Biscay)
* HMCS Athabaskan (heavily damaged by confirmed hit with Egret in Bay of Biscay 27 August 1943)
* HMS Egre (sunk 27 August 1943 in Bay of Biscay)
* HMHS Newfoundland (heavily damaged and later sunk by Allied gunfire)
* SS Bushrod Washington (sunk 14 September 1943 during Operation Avalanche (World War II))[3]
* SS James W. Marshall (damaged 15 September 1943 during Operation Avalanche (World War II) and used for Mulberry harbour -- possibly due to a "Fritz X")[3]
* HMS LST-79 (sunk)
* SS Samite (damaged)
* SS Hiram S. Maxim (damaged)
* SS Selvik (damaged)
* USS Tillman (possibly slightly damaged 6 November 1943 while escorting Mediterranean convoy KMF-25A)[3] though more likely a torpedo was the cause[4])
* HMS Rockwood (damaged slightly, later written off)
* HMS Dulverton (heavily damaged and scuttled)
* MV Marsa (sunk)
* SS Delius (damaged)
* HMT Rohna (sunk north of Algeria on 26 November 1943)
* HMS Jervis (damaged off Anzio during Operation Shingle 23 January 1944)[3]
* HMS Janus (damaged -- possibly from Hs 293, or a torpedo)
* USS Prevail (damaged -- possibly from Hs 293)
* USS Mayo (damaged -- possibly from Hs 293 or a mine)
* SS John Banvard (damaged)
* SS Samuel Huntington (sunk off Anzio during Operation Shingle 29 January 1944)[3]
* HMS Spartan (sunk off Anzio during Operation Shingle 29 January 1944)[3]
* USS Herbert C. Jones (damaged off Anzio during Operation Shingle 15 February 1944)[3]
* SS Elihu Yale (sunk off Anzio during Operation Shingle 16 February 1944 -- LCT 35 alongside is also destroyed)[3]
* HMS Inglefield
* HMS Lawford (sunk -- probably from Hs 293, official report states "aerial torpedo")
* USS Meredith (sunk -- possibly from Hs 293 or other causes)
* HMCS Matane (damaged)
* USS LST-282 (sunk)


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 7, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Even so, The B25 was still the premier shipbuster of the war.



with the 75mm?

It was certainly impressive and a beautifully fearsome thing but I've read a few items that say the B-25s with the 75mm weren't very effective. (I'm too lazy to find them now but there are more detractors than accolades)

Great for destroying Japanese resupply barges between islands but that's not my definition of "ship busting"... barge busting.. YES

I love the b-25 but I believe a lot more aircraft were more effective.

.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 7, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Some people would disagree that Sparviero could outperform the fighters of the FAA in 1939-41 era, at least in the latest FAA thread here*
> 
> 
> *but not me



If we're talking Sea Gladiators and Skuas, the Sparviero had an edge - in it's earliest days with the Condor Legion, the SM.79 even outran it's own escorts (specifically CR.32s). There is no doubt that later in the war Allied air superiority made it impossible for the Axis powers to mount effective anti-shipping strikes, but things were quite different in the early days of the war...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2009)

The B25's even without the 75mm cannon were more than capable of sinking Japanese merchantmen, frigates and destroyers.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 7, 2009)

A B-25 with 10-12 forward firing .50's would give anyone a bad hairday!


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 7, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> A B-25 with 10-12 forward firing .50's would give anyone a bad hairday!



Awesome but unfortunately, I dont believe it was as effective as it looks.

.


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2009)

What will those machineguns do besides scratch the paint? They certainly cannot penetrate warship armor. Could they even penetrate the hull of an ocean going merchant vessel when fired from an angle?


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 7, 2009)

I have seen several members here claim that .50cal would penetrate destroyer hulls - it would certainly make a mess of exposed or lightly shielded AA gun mounts and the like. You won't sink a cruiser with that battery, but I think a barge or small merchantman would certainly suffer some damage.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I have seen several members here claim that .50cal would penetrate destroyer hulls - it would certainly make a mess of exposed or lightly shielded AA gun mounts and the like. You won't sink a cruiser with that battery, but I think a barge or small merchantman would certainly suffer some damage.




The .50's could sink a barge or small merchant ship (like a lugger). But for the larger ships, it was perfect for sweeping the decks of light AA. And that it did with a fury.

Then the 500 or 1000 pund bombs did the rest.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2009)

The Battle of Bisamrck sea realy places B-25 high at the ship-busters list:

Battle of the Bismarck Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If one dont trust the Wiki on this, just follow the links.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 7, 2009)

.50 Caliber Mg's are used to strafe anti aircraft positions and the bridge. By doing this it allows for a better chance that a bomb will get through to the ship. You would be surprised at the effectiveness of .50 cals in battling ships. The USN used their MG's numerous times and places to turn ships and even drive them away from capturing downed pilots. One could also study the Battle off Samar and see the effectiveness and damage against capital ships as well as their screens by desperate Wildcat and Avenger pilots who had no ordinance.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 7, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> The Battle of Bisamrck sea realy places B-25 high at the ship-busters list:
> 
> Battle of the Bismarck Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If one dont trust the Wiki on this, just follow the links.



Cool post! I havent heard about that for a long time... That would make a great video game or "Battlefield 360" episode.

.


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2009)

> Desperate Wildcat and Avenger pilots who had no ordinance


That sounds odd to me. The 14 CVEs and 450 aircraft of the USN 7th Fleet were providing air support for the amphibious landings on Leyte. You cannot provide air support without ordinance. I'd hazard a guess that the CVEs were stocked to the gunwales with 500 lb bombs. Something a lot more lethal then .50cal MG bullets.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 7, 2009)

davebender said:


> That sounds odd to me. The 14 CVEs and 450 aircraft of the USN 7th Fleet were providing air support for the amphibious landings on Leyte. You cannot provide air support without ordinance. I'd hazard a guess that the CVEs were stocked to the gunwales with 500 lb bombs. Something a lot more lethal then .50cal MG bullets.



Guess you will have to study the Battle off Samar. Nothing odd about it at all in the days before good radar. The Japanese Center Fleet surprises a squadron of Jeep Carriers and Destroyers. Steaming at twenty knots through the narrow strait between Luzon and Samar islands, Japans Center Force steamed into the Philippine Sea at thirty-five minutes past midnight. In addition to the battleships Yamato, Haruna, Kongo, and Nagato, there were the heavy cruisers Chikuma, Chokai, Haguro, Kumano, Suzuya, and Tone, the smaller-gunned light cruisers Noshiro and Yahagi, and eleven destroyers. It is one of the most heart wrenching sea battles in American history. CVE's are stocked up with bombs for sure. But CVE's were not meant to be 20 miles from the biggest battleships in history.
Obviously not all aircraft could be loaded with bombs in such an emergency and definantly no one is landing to rearm on the CVE's.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 7, 2009)

> “In no engagement of its entire history,” Samuel Eliot Morison has written, “has the United States Navy shown more gallantry, guts and gumption than in those two morning hours between 0730 and 0930 off Samar.”
> 
> Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague had his own observation on the battle: “The failure of the enemy … to completely wipe out all vessels of this task unit can be attributed to our successful smoke screen, our torpedo counterattack, continuous harassment of enemy by bomb, torpedo and strafing air attacks, timely maneuvers, and the definite partiality of Almighty God.”


.


----------



## Macchi (Apr 7, 2009)

The PBY Catalina and PBM Mariner deserve mention.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2009)

Macchi said:


> The and PBM Mariner deserve mention.



As ship busters?


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 8, 2009)

TBM Avenger is what i would vote for.


----------



## Watanbe (Apr 8, 2009)

Bristol Beaufighter, however I am slightly bias, its probably my favourite plane!


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2009)

Time for a reality check concerning the Battle off Samar. The USN had an overwhelming amount of naval strike aircraft available. That is why the Japanese commander broke off the attack.

Battle off Samar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TAFFY 3 was the only CVE group to come under Japanese attack. The CVEs of TAFFY 1 and TAFFY 2 were free to operate aircraft as fast as they could land, be re-armed and take off. 

Order of Battle - Battle off Samar - 25 October 1944
No Japanese aircraft were involved in the attack. So 7th Fleet has the luxury of operating only strike aircraft. Let's add them up.
*TAFFY 1.*
9 x TBM. CVE26.
9 x TBM. CVE27.
0 x TBM. CVE28. Absent from the fight.
9 x TBF TBM. CVE29.
10 x TBM. CVE80.
.....37 x torpedo bombers total

*TAFFY 2.*
12 x TBM. CVE62.
12 x TBM. CVE61.
11 x TBM. CVE77.
11 x TBM. CVE76.
12 x TBM. CVE78.
11 x TBM. CVE79.
.....69 x torpedo bombers total.

*TAFFY3. * These re-arm on the other two TAFFYs.
12 x TBM. CVE70.
12 x TBM. CVE63.
12 x TBM. CVE66.
12 x TBF TBM. CVE68.
12 x TBM. CVE71.
12 x TBM. CVE73.
.....72 x torpedo bombers total.

107 x torpedo bombers in TAFFY 1 and TAFFY 2.
72 x torpedo bombers in TAFFY3.
.....179 torpedo bombers total.

Order of Battle - Pearl Harbor - 7 December 1941
For comparison purposes, the Japanese CVs had a total of 144 torpedo bombers available for the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Midway order of battle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For comparison purposes, the Japanese CV striking force at Midway had a total of 81 torpedo bombers.

Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For comparison purposes, Japan used 34 torpedo bombers to sink the two RN dreadnoughts of TF Z on 10 Dec 1941. (the 54 IJN level bombers were ineffective).

Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For comparison purposes, the RN used 11 Swordfish torpedo bombers to attack Taranto during November 1940 (plus 10 Swordfish level bombers).


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 8, 2009)

PBY "Black Cats" are some of favorite maschines in ship busting etc. "Flip" Anderson (VP-33) sank two Japanese DE's on the night 5th September '44 at Zamboanga.....


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

davebender said:


> Time for a reality check concerning the Battle off Samar. The USN had an overwhelming amount of naval strike aircraft available. That is why the Japanese commander broke off the attack.
> ).


Your numbers are right but those are just numbers. Maybe I did not make myself clear enough; and I apologize for that. The Japanese commander broke off his attack due to American air superiority as well as his assumption that the USN heavies were close by to Taffy 3. 

According to a huge amount of pilots reports during the key times of battle; while the IJN heavies were in pursuit of Taffy 3, theu USN pilots of Taffy 3 and 4 were not armed with ordinance for an attack. Some had ordinance already on their a/c for daily missions but the ordinance was used up quickly and did not stop the attack of course. A Japanese commander even stated that the Wildcats and Avengers were resorting to strafing runs and even dry runs when their dud torpedos didn't effect any damage. This same Japanese commander was shot in the leg by .50 caliber rounds when the Wildcats repeatedly strafed the bridge of his heavy cruiser. 

Will elaborate more later because I am at work. Again I would encourage a in depth look at the first few hours of the attack to get a better gist of the battle.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2009)

Looking at the Battle off Samar I would disagree. Because of the short flight distance the USN CVEs were able to launch hundreds of TBM sorties. They got some hits but the overall hit percentage was pretty low compared to British, German, Italian and Japanese torpedo bombers.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

I would vote for the Avenger as well as the Dauntless, though the Dauntless seemed to be better in tandem with the Avenger. And vice versa.

The CVE's of Taffy 3 could not be used to trap planes due to them being under intense shellfire and one evn being sunk. The USN pilots had to land at an USAAF base and essentially take it over so they wouldn't have to ditch due to lack of fuel. As a matter of fact the first Avenger pilot that landed at that field had to get fuel and bombs at pistol point due to lack of cooperation at first ( the same pilot who was going inverted and shooting his pistol at the bridge when he ran out of .50 cal.). After they got things worked out then the rest of Taffy 3 and 4 could land at the unfinished field, some crash landing due to being an unfinished field. In the meantime Taffy 3 was getting run down by Kurita's Center Force with only three Destroyers and a Destroyer Escort to screen. During the initial air attack on the Center Force the pilots dropped ordinance and then made dry runs and strafed the ships damaging and exploding torpedos, destroying gunsights and mantles, starting fires and shooting personal(including command on bridge) with .50 caliber fire. Not as effective as bombs or torpedos but it worked to slow down the pursuers from sinking every Jeep Carrier in Taffy 3.


----------



## mikamee14 (Apr 8, 2009)

TBM Avenger is my favorite, GREAT PLANE!


----------



## renrich (Apr 8, 2009)

Unless you are going to call a sub a boat instead of a ship, the B24 deserves mention. I don't know the exact number but the B24s (and Sunderland and B17s) sank many u boats in the Atlantic. The B24 was the most effective.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 8, 2009)

range aside, which was more effective the PB4Y-2 Privateer or B-24?


----------



## renrich (Apr 8, 2009)

I don't believe the Privateer got into the war until late but they were virtually the same AC.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2009)

Taffy 2 official report.
HyperWar: Battle Experience: Battle for Leyte Gulf

*Sorties for strikes 1 to 4.* 
Armed with SAP bombs and aerial torpedoes.
80 x VT
55 x VF.

*Strike # 5.* 
Armed with GP bombs and rockets.
11 x VT.
8 x VF.

*Strike # 6. * 
26 x VT. Armed with 500 lb GP bombs.
24 x VF. Armed with 250 lb GP bombs.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 8, 2009)

renrich said:


> Unless you are going to call a sub a boat instead of a ship, the B24 deserves mention. I don't know the exact number but the B24s (and Sunderland and B17s) sank many u boats in the Atlantic. The B24 was the most effective.



I don't think all that many Fortresses saw service over the Atlantic, but the Liberator, Catalina and Sunderland did sterling service, as did the Wellington and Whitley after their usefulness as night bombers was exhausted.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

> In the meantime, the first desperate strikes by the U.S. carrier planes had been made on the pursuing enemy. Dropping the small bombs and depth charges with which they had been loaded in expectation of routine missions, the Navy planes harassed the Japanese ships for twenty minutes. Bombs soon gone, they strafed with machine-gun fire. And even when their ammunition was exhausted, the pilots continued to buzz the enemy, hoping to bluff the Nipponese ships off course and give Taffy 3 a chance to escape. Only when their fuel ran low did they leave. Unable to land on their own carriers because the ships were heading downwind, the Taffy 3 planes were forced to rearm and refuel at an airstrip on the Leyte beachhead to the west, and on the flattops of Taffy 2 to the southeast. Joined by other Wildcat fighters and Avenger torpedo bombers from Taffy 2, they soon returned to the attack.


By WILFRED P. DEAC

You and me are talking about the same battle but different times. You are talking about the end of the battle and I am talking of the harrowing beginning.


----------



## Glider (Apr 9, 2009)

Nice link on the Battle for Leyte Gulf, thanks


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2009)

I suspect that USN torpedo bombers were better then what battle statistics indicate. They were fatally handicapped by the Mk13 aerial torpedo. When only 31% of aerial torpedoes run properly no torpedo bomber can be successful. If the USN had used Japanese Type 91 or Italian F200 aerial torpedoes then the IJN fleet at Samar would likely have been wiped out.
USA Torpedoes of World War II


> In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 9, 2009)

davebender said:


> I suspect that USN torpedo bombers were better then what battle statistics indicate. They were fatally handicapped by the Mk13 aerial torpedo. When only 31% of aerial torpedoes run properly no torpedo bomber can be successful.


But those statistics were from 1943, and wouldn't have been relevant to Leyte Gulf in late 1944. By then the USN used completely re-engineered versions of the Mk 13, with ring tail for better water entry stabilit, 'pickle barrel' shock absorbing head, and many detailed internal changes ruggedizing various components found to have cause most failures. This was the result of a systematic effort at Cal Tech to root out Mk 13 problems. Those torpeodes reached the fleet earlier in 1944. The late war Mk 13's had much higher allowable speed and height of release, and were reliable.

Of the 80 TBM's in the first 4 strikes from Taffy 2, 47 carried torpedoes (15/15, 16/16, 5/12 and 11/37 respectively). 42 were actually claimed to be dropped, plus 19 known by Taffy 1 (Santee's number unknown) and at least 7 by Taffy 3 (Kitkun Bay and Fasnshaw Bay unknown), 68 known total for the day. See "The Little Giants" by William Y'Blood.

The major Japanese casualties in these attacks were, sunk:
Chikuma: hit 3 times by TBM torpedoes
Chokai: seriously damaged by own torpedo explosion from US 5" fire, finished off by 500# bombs
Suzuya: lost a propeller from near miss by 500#, then another 500# hear miss detonated own torpedoes
damaged included:
Haguro: hit by 500#
Nagato: hit by 2*500#
Kongo: main rangefinder knocked out by Wildcat strafing

That wasn't by overall WWII standards a bad performance for those CVE a/c. Factors in the relatively low torpedo hit rate were series of small strikes which were easier to dodge. Heavy losses to aerial torpedo attacks usually occurred when relatively large formations attacked in coordination off from both sides at once, making the ships expose their broadside to one set of torpedoes if trying to comb the others. Also the CVE TBM crews were not well practiced in torpedo attack; their main roles were ASW patrol, close support of landings, attacking small ships with bombs, etc.

Joe


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2009)

This is the incident I was thinking of. Makes me wonder how many other Hs-293 hits may have been officially credited to another type weapon.
Sinkings of USS Corry (DD-463) and USS Meredith (DD-726)


> FINAL OFFICIAL REPORTS CHANGE THE CAUSE OF THE SINKINGS:
> 
> USS Meredith reported multiple times being hit by a bomb. (8 June 1944).
> But afterward, the "official" cause of the Meredith's sinking was a mine.
> ...


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2009)

I think the Halifax did some good work on anti sub patrol also but the Lib was the star because of range and overall performance.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2015)

I think the Ju 87 sank a lot of shipping possibly most was moored in port and maybe not many fighting ships but I believe it was a large tonnage.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 5, 2015)

Nearly 10 years, 12 pages, and, as usual, nobody has mentioned the Beaufort; one of them put a torpedo into Gneisenau, which put paid to Hitler's idea of her and Scharnhorst accompanying Bismarck. The damage done by Beauforts, against Rommel in the Mediterranean, is always forgotten, and I recommend reading "The Ship-Busters" by Ralph Barker.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2015)

It is because many people only count "kills" and not cripples/damaged. 

And like the Japanese, some seem to think that only warships count. And large ones at that. Cruiser or battleship sinkings make head lines. 6th or 7th merchant ship in week doesn't make page one. 

He 111s and Ju 88s did a fair number on some arctic convoys.


----------



## stona (Feb 5, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> He 111s and Ju 88s did a fair number on some arctic convoys.



I just read this thread and was surprised that the Ju 88 was ignored...until your post.

I love the old Swordfish, but how much shipping did it really sink? I can't imagine it's really a contender.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2015)

It depends on how or what you measure. 

Battleship at 30-45,000tons or frighters at 500 tons to 10,000 tons. 

Sunk in deep water or harbors and salvaged/repaired? 

British torpedo planes had some good success in crippling/knocking out of action a number of large ships but let's face it. The axis and allies had some rather different target sets for a good part of the war. The British had to hunt harder for targets than the Germans and Italians did.


----------



## redcoat (Feb 5, 2015)

Nonskimmer said:


> I'm not sure how effective they were in this role, but didn't the RAF use a small number of B-17's for antishipping patrols?


It was used in the anti-submarine warfare role, but not in the maritime strike role.


----------



## redcoat (Feb 5, 2015)

stona said:


> I love the old Swordfish, but how much shipping did it really sink? I can't imagine it's really a contender.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Operating out of Malta in the night torpedo bomber role it sank an impressive amount of Axis shipping, at it's height it was credited with sinking 50,000 tons a month operating from the island.

In total the Swordfish is credited with sinking over 300,000 tons of Axis shipping


----------



## stona (Feb 6, 2015)

I note that the Swordfish also sank, or assisted in the sinking of, 22.5 U Boats. Better than I thought.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## merlin (Feb 23, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Nearly 10 years, 12 pages, and, as usual, nobody has mentioned the Beaufort; one of them put a torpedo into Gneisenau, which put paid to Hitler's idea of her and Scharnhorst accompanying Bismarck. The damage done by Beauforts, against Rommel in the Mediterranean, is always forgotten, and I recommend reading "The Ship-Busters" by Ralph Barker.



Yes, very good book - I got mine at an antiques centre! It was staggering what they had to endure - all too often cut short!


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2015)

If we can't get Highball to work, then maybe the Mosquito with a torpedo should be a contender. A picture of the Mossie of the air-force of the former brotherly republics with Letor-2 (light electric torpedo).
The Americans and Germans should stick with bombs IMO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2015)

The A-20 with torpedo also looks nifty, mostly used by Soviets. The single torpedo was suspended under right wing, the rack being in the same time attached to the fuselage side so the torp would stay in it's place even during maneuvers (picture, more pictures - click on the thumbnails). The 'side' rack was rated up to 1000 kg (~2200 lb) bomb. Leaves the bomb bay for plenty of fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 23, 2015)

Aside from being "KoooL" just what would either of these two aircraft have done that the Beaufighter couldn't do?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2015)

Not sure that I'm trying to bash Beaufighter, more of trying to contribute to the discussion.

With that said - compared with Beaufighter, Mosquito will have an easier time in a contested airspace. The A-20 was much more available for the Americans, let alone for Soviets; not that is Beaufighter's fault, of course.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 25, 2015)




----------



## bowfin (Mar 5, 2015)

The four B-25 squadrons of the 345th Bomb Group of the 5th Air Force were credited with 260 vessels destroyed and 275 damaged. How many of these "vessels" were actually ships, I don't know. I do know that the B-25s did sink dozens of destroyers, destroyer esctorts, corvettes and similar type vessels.

As for the 75mm cannon carried in the B-25G and B-25H models, they were not very well liked by the crews. First and foremost, the copilot's seat was given over to the 75mm gunner. Crews didn't like not having a "spare" pilot in case the other one was killed or wounded (many times a co-pilot still flew on the B-25H models in a jump seat). Second, after three shots of the 75mm gun, the whole plane was filled with smoke and fumes. The crew member in charge of loading the gun wasn't issued any gloves, and after several shots the empty cases were hot enough to cause burns on bare hands and fingers. Lastly, on at least one occasion during the ditching, the gunner was trapped when the gun sight and/or related equipment came loose in the impact and pinned him.

I have no "written" references to back this up, as it came from a B-25 crewman who served in the 500th Bomb Group. He also stated that he witnessed from a life raft a Japanese patrol boat being shot literally to pieces by a B-25 strafer, so he didn't feel that a B-25 with a nose full of .50 caliber machine guns was to be scoffed at by any ship smaller than a cruiser.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bowfin (Mar 5, 2015)

Having said my piece about the B-25, I will now say that my choice for "best ship buster" would have to go to the Avenger, with one reservation. Being an aircraft that could land or take off of carriers (as the norm) gave the Avenger an inherent advantage over land based aircraft, because it made it less problematic to get the "ship buster" close enough to the ships that needed "busting." The Avenger could also carry either bombs, rockets, or torpedoes, which gave it flexibility not enjoyed by some of the other aircraft mentioned. It's drawback was that the Avenger didn't carry much in the way of guns, which leads us to my one reservation: The F6F Hellcat. I have never seen or heard of a Hellcat actually carrying a torpedo, but most of the specifications for the F6F list that ability. It could certainly carry an adequate bomb or rocket load, had 6 .50 caliber machine guns for strafing, and once shed of its external ordnance, could take care of itself with any interceptors.

I have heard that in the latter stages of World War II, many carriers were taking more Hellcats to sea in place of Helldivers and Avengers, since the Hellcat was more versatile and just a competent of a bomber as the Avenger or Hellcat, with the added expertise in knocking down kamikazes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2015)

I will readily accept the B-25 was a powerful ship buster, provided the enemy does not have any worthwhile fighter force around, and bombs are used (not torps). The Avenger won't work well if a country lacks a good number of decent carriers. Avenger was able to carry only the US-made torpedo (fat short) due to dimensions of the bomb bay. The A-20, B-25 or Beaufighter can display both 'warhead' and gun firepower, the Avenger was a bit lacking on later.
The data sheet for the F6F-3, dated Oct 1945, indeed lists the Mk-13-2 as possible weapon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2015)

The Hellcat had a problem with strike radius. _IF_ you slung a torpedo under it you couldn't carry drop tank/s. 

US carrier targets changed as the war went on. Late war the threat of the Japanese Navy diminished considerably and the target/mission for the aircraft was often ground support of amphibious forces. Carriers could stay closer to the Island being attacked than they would to an enemy task force. 

It also _may be_ that in a US task force with multiple carriers some carriers were tasked with anti-ship duties first with secondary ground/support mission and other carriers were tasked with primary ground/support missions and were back-up for anti-ship stikes. 

I could be way off on that but at the battle for the Philippines the US could muster 8 fleet carriers, 8 light carriers and 18 escort carriers.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 5, 2015)

stona said:


> I just read this thread and was surprised that the Ju 88 was ignored...until your post.
> 
> I love the old Swordfish, but how much shipping did it really sink? I can't imagine it's really a contender.
> 
> ...



Swordfish is actually the winner. It sank more tonnage of shipping than any other aircraft.

"Swordfish MKII 

The Swordfish flew with distinction during the Second World War, destroying a greater tonnage of enemy shipping (including 20 U-boats) than any other Allied torpedo bomber. 

One of the keys to its success was its superb handling, another was the ability to turn tightly at such a slow pace at sea level, making it a hard target for enemy fighters."

Limits on Torpedo release height and speed put the Swordfish at no disadvantage compared to faster torpedo bombers in the first half of the war.

I believe much of its success was at night, the aircraft could carry radar for instance.


----------



## bowfin (Mar 7, 2015)

> I will readily accept the B-25 was a powerful ship buster, provided the enemy does not have any worthwhile fighter force around



A B-25D named "Tondelayo" acquitted herself rather well against a swarm of Zeros...while flying on one engine, no less:

"The 500th Bomb Squadron Association Home Page"

However, luck was definitely on the side of the crew of the Tondelayo that day. A 20mm API shell hit one of Murphy's guns, went between his legs, and spent itself on a bulkhead without igniting...which was lucky, because a crewman was inches below the impact, holding a rag tied around a leaking fuel line that had previously been holed by another 20mm shell. He got some chemical burns on his face from the incendiary mixture that failed to ignite. The crew chief (last name Isler) had to cut through the bulkhead with a fire ax to get at the leak. The crew chief and radioman also had to steal ammunition from the guns up front and pass them up to Murphy in a timely manner. Murphy would only shoot between 5-10 rounds at each Zero as it came into range.

However, the two B-25s that throttled back to give cover to the "Tondelayo" were both shot down, with only two of the 12 crew members from those planes surviving.

Still, I would rather be in a Hellcat or Corsair while trying to sink a ship with enemy fighters buzzing around.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bowfin (Mar 7, 2015)

> Swordfish is actually the winner. It sank more tonnage of shipping than any other aircraft.



I am not sure raw tonnage in and of itself is a good measurement. There is tonnage "accrued" from blowing up Italian freighters tied up alongside a dock in Libya, and other tonnage "accrued" by sinking Japanese carriers twisting and turning at high speed and sporting dozens of AA guns with a couple of dozens Zeros protecting them. 

The Swordfish had a comparable "Battle of Midway type" sortie against several warships maneuvering at speed with cover from fighters and that was the Channel Dash. No hits were scored and none of the six Swordfish returned.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2015)

In the similar type of scenario, the Avengers were destroyed by Zeroes, with no hits to show for.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 7, 2015)

The Swordfish is the No1 tonnage killer you cant start saying "Oh but" that simply doesnt wash. The old girl sank everything from Battleships to Fishing boats during the day during the night and in all weathers. If you start trying to slice and dice the figures then you get into the same sort of argument over figures that we have had many times on here about Fighter Ace totals. 

Just because many of Hartmans kills were against less experienced Soviet pilots flying lesser aircraft doesnt detract from his numbers. Equally just because a large proportion of Swordfish numbers were against Merchantmen some of which were in harbour means nothing. Which would you rather attack a well defended harbour or a ship at sea. Equally much of the Avengers tonnage was against Merchantmen and was during a time when the USN was dominant in the air.

Which counts for more an Avenger sinking a freighter but covered by swarms of Hellcats or a Swordfish sinking a Freighter at night but on its own.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 7, 2015)

Does the tonnage sank by the German merchant raiders count for less?
How about the merchant ships sunk by submarines (of all nations)?

It's an interesting point to consider and gets subjective.
I can see it both ways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 7, 2015)

The value of tonnage sunk depends on the situation. Sinking the Bismark was vital, if she broke free she could have wreaked havoc in a convoy. By the time the Tirpitz was sunk after being damaged many times she was a side show taking up a lot of men of the German navy and a lot of ships in the RN to maintain a "status quo". Hard to argue against the Swordfish Taranto and the Bismark had significant effects on the war, removing up to 20 U Boats is significant however you cannot discount freight vessels as unimportant, the Battle of Malta for example at times hinged on one or two freighters/tankers making it through the blockade. I am sure Rommel would much rather see 100,000 tons of freight shipping putting into port than the same tonnage of Battleships.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 7, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Does the tonnage sank by the German merchant raiders count for less?
> How about the merchant ships sunk by submarines (of all nations)?
> 
> It's an interesting point to consider and gets subjective.
> I can see it both ways.



So can I see it both ways but you can spend a year going through each sinking and comparing it, you can take into account the weather, the economic value of the ship sunk, whether a damaged ship also counts but it all comes down to tonnage when comparing different anti ship aircraft and circumstances. 

Theres no doubt the Avenger was the better, bigger, more comfortable aircraft (though a lot of crews thought the engine was missing 4 cylinders and about 300hp). However the the Stringbags and the FAA, RAF and RCAF crews that flew them were pretty damn good value


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 7, 2015)

In the discussion of best ship buster, have we considered mines?


----------

