# Which aircraft logged the.....



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 29, 2004)

most missions? I think there are two aircraft in contention. But what aircraft ?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

That's kind of vague. If you think about it, bomber missions were longer in duration so there were probably fewer missions. Fighters and attack aircraft typically had shorter range (although that varied wildly) so they would have fewer hours but more missions. Also are you talking about WWII only, or WWII and beyond?


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 29, 2004)

Off topic,
Ok, point taken. I'm rather new here remember.  
On topic,
Well, lets say WW2 bombing missions for starters.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

No worries, Lionel. The question seemed a bit vague and I was just trying to get a clarification. 8)


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 29, 2004)

Group Captain, if you please!...And stand up straight when you address me....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2004)

Aye, sir!!  
And to reply to your question, I haven't got a clue sir!!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

In the ETO 

P-38 = 130,000 sorties
P-51 = 214,000
P-47 = 404,000?

I'll try to confirm those if I can remember where I picked them up at.

The PTO is harder because records destruction was not uncommon.

If I were to guess though it would be the bf-109 with 36,000 +/- built and multiple sorties/day for most of the war. part of this is determined by planes produced/available ie. 

P-38s 10,000+/- over the duration of the war used simultaniously in all theaters (except Russian), 

P-51 15,000+ built from 43-45 Primarily used in the ETO. Started spreading out in late 44

P-47 16,000+ built 42-45 primarily used in the ETO but spread out earlier than the P-51.

bf-109 36,000+ from 37 to 45 primarily ETO but also MTO.

Spitfire 22,000+ from 39 to 47? (I saw these numbers in an Airforce Identification book I had in the 70's. I'd die for it now 3D pics. and up to date official specs. Priceless) PTO, ETO, MTO.

I think only 4 fighters were built the entire war P-38, bf-109, Spitfire and Zero.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 29, 2004)

Well, I reckon it must be the legendary DH Mosquito [naturally], but I'll have to go and check that out.....as there was only 7,781 of them made, and since May '43, the Benson-based PR's and 8th AF F-8's did 3,000 sorties alone by the year's end....even though PR's, they had a bomb-bay and were doing it FOR the bombers......


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> Group Captain, if you please!...And stand up straight when you address me....



Lighten up Cappy. You happen to be addressing a Colonel.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2004)

Who's just been promoted to Lt. General! Sir!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 29, 2004)

Screw authority!





I only say this because I outrank everyone on this page at this point...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Who's just been promoted to Lt. General! Sir!!



Hold on! I'm a Lt. General too! In that case, evan...  

Kidding, kidding!  
Sorry, back on topic! What was the topic?


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 30, 2004)

Most missions for an aircraft?

There's a Lancaster called S-Sugar which
completed the second highest number of operational sorties (137) for an RAF heavy bomber. 

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafwaddington/r5868.html


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 30, 2004)

What about this beauty my friend.  






Not many 'milk runs' neither. Btw, this mossie went on to complete 213 missions...I think there is an American aircraft with somthing similar...Hence the question. Again, i'm sorry for being a bit vague.

Picture credit from
http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito.html


----------



## evangilder (Dec 30, 2004)

213 is alot of missions for any single aircraft. Either serious luck or divine intervention, or both was involved. Several American bomber aircraft were sent home after surviving x number of missions for war bonds drives, like the "Memphis Belle" after 25 and "Squawkin Hawk" after 50. I would think it was most likely a B-17, but I could be wrong. So far, the highest total on a B-17 I have found on a quick look at my files shows B-17G 42-31909 "Nine O Nine" fuselage code OR-R (91st BG, 323rd BS) based at Bassingbourn. It flew 140 missions, and interestingly, never lost a crew member. I will keep digging, I think there was a higher mission count B-17, but the highest may not be a B-17.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 30, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Screw authority!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not anymore matey 



The IL2 had 36,000+ built, perhaps thats in for contention?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 30, 2004)

It's still unclear unclear whether it is most missions for a single aircraft of a type or the type as a whole.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2004)

he's got allot to answer for..............


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 30, 2004)

evangilder, your a difficult one aren't you  
So to rephrase the question again
Which *individual* aircraft completed the most bombing missions of WW2? As i said before i think there are two in the frame. One is the above Mosquito, but the other is.........?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2004)

Med, R5868 isn't the highest scoring lanc, it's in third according to a very reliable source:-

Serial No.: ED888
Total Op's: 139
Nick Name : None Traced
Service History: 103 Sqn PM-M, PM-M2, 576 Sqn UL-V2, UL-M2, 103 Sqn PM-?, 10 MU
Fate: Survived the war Scrapped 8 January 1947

Serial No.: LM274
Total Op's: 138
Nick Name : None Traced
Service History: 61 Sqn QR-F
Fate: Survived the war Scrapped 16 April 1946

Serial No.: R5868
Total Op's: 136
Nick Name : Devils of the Air
Service History: 83 Sqn OL-Q, 467 Sqn PO-S
Fate: On public display at the Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon, England

source- www.lancasterarchive.com


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 30, 2004)

> Fate: Survived the war Scrapped 8 January 1947


F******* pen pushing bureaucrats..


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 30, 2004)

The most I know of was a B-26B named "Flak Bait" with 202 missions. The nose section of this aircraft is owned by the Smithsonian and now is probably located in their new Udvar-Hazy museum at Dulles.

http://flak-bait.com/


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 30, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > Screw authority!
> ...




I said *up to that point*!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 30, 2004)

I've heard of a few B-17s that topped the century mark I am fairly certain Flak Bait holds the records for the USAAF during the war.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 30, 2004)

Good catch, Dave! According to the NASM site:
_The NASM B-26B-25-MA nicknamed Flak Bait (AAF serial number 41-31173) survived 207 operational missions over Europe, more than any other American aircraft during World War II (A de Havilland Mosquito B. Mk. IX bomber completed 213 missions but this aircraft was destroyed in a crash at Calgary Airport in Canada, two days after V-E Day, see NASM D. H. 98 Mosquito). Workers at the Baltimore factory completed Flak Bait in April 1943 and a crew flew it to England. The AAF assigned it to the 449th Bombardment Squadron, 322nd Bombardment Group (nicknamed the 'Annihilators'), and gave the bomber the fuselage identification codes "PN-O." Lt. James J. Farrell of Greenwich, Connecticut, flew more missions in Flak Bait than any other pilot. He named the bomber after Flea Bait, his brother's nickname for the family dog. 

This Marauder earned its nickname after just a few missions. Other bombers returned unscathed but Flak Bait invariably returned full of holes. "It was hit plenty of times, hit all the time," recalls Farrell. "I guess it was hit more than any other plane in the group._

So there is your answer, Lionel. I was meticulous with my questions to clarify what it was you were looking for. Now you have your answer. 8)

BTW, I am really a Colonel in the CAF.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 31, 2004)

Thanks for the input gents. To be honest, i did kinda know..It's just some time back i'd pick up some info (as you do) that claimed the B-26 did more missions. I just wanted some clarification. Btw, 'good on' the crew 'Flak Bait '. 8) 


> BTW, I am really a Colonel in the CAF.


Thanks for letting me know. My respects to you sir.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 31, 2004)

No worries. The way I see it, any airplane that goes beyond 100 missions is really defying the odds, that is during wartime. But especially a bomber over Europe. Between fighters and flak, your chances of making it back weren't the greatest. You had a better chance of survival as a Marine in any theater than an air crew member is Europe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

but 139 for a lanc is extremely impressive!!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 2, 2005)

Here's a B-26 nicknamed "Flak Bait" with 200 sorties. There is a site here with more information.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2005)

nice pic........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

200...fuck me...put that in yer lanc and drop it


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

The B-26 did prove to be a remarkably safe bomber by the end of the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

You mean B-25? Yes it did. It was a very good plane and effective in its role.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

No, I meant the B-26. But the end of the war it had the lowest loss rate of any American bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Oh sorry that was my bad. I read the initial photo as it being the B-25, I thought it looked a little strange 

I thought the B-26 was a little late in the war to achieve that number or sorties?


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 3, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> No, I meant the B-26. But the end of the war it had the lowest loss rate of any American bomber.



When you first read that line, you think wow, impressive. But is it? Did the B-26 do deep penetration raids in to Germany like the B-17 or B-24......I don't know, but comments like that need to be put in perspective.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 3, 2005)

I don't think deep penetration raids into Germany proves an aircrafts worthiness or durability. Any time you fly into bad guy territory, it's dangerous, period. The B-26 was a medium bomber, so it would not necessarily be the best for a mission deep into Germany because it had a smaller bomb-load. It's primary role was close tactical ground support, which in some instance was more dangerous than high altitude bombing missions.

If flew with the 9th AF in Europe, also in the Mediterranean and the Pacific by both the USAAF and the RAF. When used in the Pacific, they attacked the Japanese installations at LAE without fighter escort. 84 sorties were flown, losing only 3 Marauders.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

The B-26s flew an aweful lot of sorties. And they were seeing action very shortly after the American entry into the war. As an example, 4 USAAF B-26s took part in the defense of Midway (though admittidly with very poor results).


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

The flights to the Lae area were in April-July of 1942. They flew unescorted and were often faced with Zeroes. They fared pretty well. They also started flying in North Africa in December of 1942, just after Operation Torch. So they were involved not too long after America entered the war for the USAAF.

The RAF started using the in October of 1942, mainly for reconnaissance during the battle of El Alamein, followed by anti-shipping sweeps and bombing enemy installations.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 4, 2005)

> I don't think deep penetration raids into Germany proves an aircrafts worthiness or durability. Any time you fly into bad guy territory, it's dangerous, period.



That's my point. Usaaf raids over France were uncontested by the Luftwaffe...Over Germany a total different ball game...Btw, that's why the term 'milk run' was coined.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

Did you read the rest of my post, or just stop after the first sentence and respond? I made no mention of raids over France, did I? Not ALL raids over France were uncontested by the Luftwaffe, some were some were not. The record stands as the lowest loss rate of any American bomber for a reason. How you wish to interpret that is up to you.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

He tends to misread a lot of posts, evan. I like the B-26, it's part of one the most famous D-Day footage as well...you know the bombing raid one with Marauders? You'll know it if you see it..


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah, I think I have seen that. There is also a shot of the beaches taken from the air that I believe was taken by a B-26 crew.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2005)

i always link D-Day with the B-26..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

I link it with Mossies and Mustangs, funnily enough


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

The B-26 played a key part in the airwar, especially against Germany. It was also primarly for the devestation inflicted upon Monte Cassino. 

And if anyone thinks the raids against France were unopposed, take a look at the records of the raids against the U-boat bases on the French coast. Or better yet, check out the 2nd B-26 mission over France. All 12 bombers were shot down. Despite that, by the end of the war the B-26 had the lowest loss rate of all American bombers. And it certainly proves that raids over France were very heavily opposed.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

I forgot it was involved in the Monte Cassino raid. It was indeed an impoirtant and impressive aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

Don't try and credit anything with the Monte Cassino raid, dumb high command should have never ordered that. The Germans weren't even in the Cathedral until it was bombed, rubble makes good sniper positions.


----------



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

what bombs did they use on the U-Boat pens?? (if you guys can't see what's coming you really don't know me )


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

They dropped hand grenades from the waist gun positions.


----------



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

wow, no wonder they had to use the greatest bomber of the war (that's the Hampden to you...) with tallboys to finally crack them..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 5, 2005)

evangilder said:


> They dropped hand grenades from the waist gun positions.



Bloody big hand grenades


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 5, 2005)

> They dropped hand grenades from the waist gun positions





> Bloody big hand grenades


Would of had to have been with the amount of reinforced concrete in the U-boat pens!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

Yeah, you should have seen the guys that tossed them!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Dirty buggers...

No wait, ignore that 

Would they chuck a Flashbang down there first to disorientate them?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

i still wanna know what bombs they used??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

What planes are we talking about here?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

Not sure, I will have to look it up when I get home. I think it is in one of my books.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

we're talking about the B-26 against U-boat pens...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Ah...maybe 1500lbs?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

they wouldn't do anything anything unless they were specially designed??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Ok then...3000lbs? I dont know what the Marauder could carry so im making legible gusses for its type...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

thing is most bombs would stand a chance against 15ft of reinforced concrete...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Maybe they kamikazed it


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

The Marauder could carry a 2000lb bomb and that was what was used on the majority of raids against the U-boat pens.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I did find this, but it is talking about the B-17 and B-24:

_The AAF's strategic bombardment of enemy ports and harbors also contributed to the destruction of the German U-boat fleet, although such operations were not part of the official Antisubmarine Command. From October 1942 through July 1943, U.S. strategic forces bombed German submarine pens in France with little effect. From March 1944 to April 1945, they proved far more successful in destroying U-boats anchored in harbors on the Mediterranean, North, and Baltic Seas.

After the fall of France in 1940, Germany built facilities at five ports--Brest, Lorient, St. Nazaire, La Pallice (or La Rochelle), and Bordeaux--to accommodate its submarine fleet. U-boats returning to port were serviced within bombproof concrete pens. The surrounding towns provided workers, hotels, and recreation for the crews. Until the Allied landing on the continent in 1944, those facilities berthed most of the U-boat fleet.

In early 1942, when the Allies gave top priority to the war against the German submarines, they targeted the submarine manufacturing plants in Germany and the submarine pens in France for strategic bombardment. A successful intensive bombing effort would decrease the production rate for submarines, reduce the number of U-boats at sea, and disrupt the refitting of operational submarines. In a directive issued on October 20, the Allied commander-in-chief, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, gave the submarine pens and production facilites first and second priority, respectively. Over the next ten months, the Eighth Air Force, the AAF's strategic bombing organization in Great Britain, concentrated on bombing submarine bases in France. 

Ninety bombers--B-17s and B-24s--attacked the U-boat base at Lorient on October 21. Because of bad weather, only fifteen aircraft managed to drop thirty high-explosive, one-ton bombs. Five bombs reportedly hit the submarine pen, but failed to penetrate its reinforced concrete. The rest fell in the general area, damaging two submarines not in the pen and destroying several buildings, docks, and other facilities. The raid inflicted about 150 civilian casualties, mostly among German workers. The AAF bombers encountered very little antiaircraft fire, but lost three aircraft to enemy fighters.

The Lorient mission foreshadowed the difficulties that the Eighth Air Force would have in attacking submarine pens. Protecting not only the submarines but most necessary repair and maintenance facilities, the pens were virtually impervious to all but the heaviest bombs. Destroying nearby structures had little effect on the enemy's ability to

refit operational submarines. Unfortunately, the AAF raids caused only some temporary dislocations and harassed the enemy by destroying auxiliary facilities and neighboring railway yards. Even the final AAF raid by 158 heavy bombers against the St. Nazaire submarine pens on June 28, 1943, failed to yield significant results. U-boat operation continued from the French ports as Allied forces overran France. Four months after D-Day, on September 23, 1944, the last U-boat sailed from St. Nazaire and marked the end of German operations from protected submarine pens. 
_


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

St. Nazaire dry docks got blown to pieces by Royal Commandos in 1942. I don't think they touched the Sub-pens though but it stopped the Tirpitz leaving Norway. St. Nazaire was the only place big enough to accomadate the Tirpitz on the Altantic ocean. It wasn't repaired until 1946.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 7, 2005)

In retrospect (and certainly taking NOTHING away from the bravery of the Commonwealth commandoes), it probably would have been more effective to destroy the U-Boat pens.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2005)

Hmmm....

For bomber/attack planes I'd probably have to go with the IL2, ~36000 produced and they fought throughout the war. Often they flew multiple sorties in a single day.

For fighers I'd have to go with the Bf109, ~33000 produced and again, they fought through the entire war often flying multiple sorties per day.

For heavy bombers, it is probably the B-17 which flew 291,508 combat sorties.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

They weren't told to blow up the U-Boat pens though. The only reason they did that mission was to stop Tirpitz leaving the North Sea. I imagine if they were told to U-Boat pens, they would have done it.


----------



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

as it was it was a the tallboy that destroyed both u-boat pens and the tirpitz


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

Not A tallboy, three.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I am sure they would have. I was just pointing out that the U-boats were actually a much greater menance than the Tirpitz. The Tirpitz was something of a White Elephant that Hitler was unwilling to risk and the RN was unwilling to ignore.


----------



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

yes but we didn't know hitler wasn't willing to risk her, as long as she was afloat, she was a threat, her destruction would change the naval situation all over the world, even in the PTO..............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2005)

Had the Tirpitz been harrassing convoys in 1942, the USA would have sent the USS Washington or another SD class BB (or maybe two) to support the British in sinking her and it would all have been over in a matter of a few weeks.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

Or even a single Carrier. The Atlantic fleet maintained a minimum of 2-3 carriers during that point in the war. The Wasp and her airwing would have easily handled the Tirpitz.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Or even a single Carrier. The Atlantic fleet maintained a minimum of 2-3 carriers during that point in the war. The Wasp and her airwing would have easily handled the Tirpitz.



That is true!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

but we could have stopped her if she had sailed out, we would have had the first attempt, and if that's the case with the american situation, where were you with the Bismark??


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but we could have stopped her if she had sailed out, we would have had the first attempt, and if that's the case with the american situation, where were you with the Bismark??



??? where were you with the Yamato or the rest of the Japanese fleet?

I mean, I usually try to avoid such "country bashing", but since you brought it up, what about the British refusal when asked to deploy their carrier to help the USA at Midway?

 

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

yes but this different and that's a different topic, they're saying that if the tirpiz had sailed into the atlantic it'd be the americans that had the power to stop it, i'm saying we would have had the first shot, and due to the american's confidence and cirtainty that they'd go for her, i asked where were they when we were attacking the bismark?? but yes i know that was earlier in the war...........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

The USA was not "in the war" for the Bismark. My point is the Bismark and Tirpitz are made out to be wonder ships, when in fact they were decent but certainly not up to fighting the first class BB's of either the USA or Japan. It might have won against a pre-1943 SD class BB, but it would have taken some luck. Against a 1943 SD class BB, it would have taken a huge amount of luck, and against a mid '44 SD class BB, it would have taken a near miracle.

I'm not sure that, had the USA been in the war and had the right ships in the area, the British would have taken "first crack" at the Tiriptz. It would just have made more sense all around to let the USA do it, or to do it as a joint operation (most likely).

My point about the British not helping with Midway is they refused to because they didn't want to leave Madagascar undefended. This makes me laugh, if the Japanese had gone after Madagascar instead of Midway, what was one British Carrier (Arc Royal) going to do to stop them? On the otherhand, if Midway had been lost, Madagascar was ripe for the picking.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

dude you make the royal navy sound useless, we had several BBs sitting in the atlantic just waiting for the tirpitz, she WAS a wondership, to fact for the ships that could destryer her and the ships that could catch her couldn't destroy her, but give the RN some credit man...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 9, 2005)

Plus, the Germans had some of the best guns, ammo, and optics...


Remember H.M.S. Hood?


Four shots fired from Bismarck, a direct hit on the ammo/fuel compartments, on the third shot in foggy weather with near-none visibility, or something similar... (Not that sure of the details, but they're similar)


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Plus, the Germans had some of the best guns, ammo, and optics...
> 
> Remember H.M.S. Hood?
> 
> Four shots fired from Bismarck, a direct hit on the ammo/fuel compartments, on the third shot in foggy weather with near-none visibility, or something similar... (Not that sure of the details, but they're similar)



But that was against a British BB.



> Armor Protection
> GENERAL COMMENTS: This was the most complex category in terms of trying to quantify and simplify a rating. After all, each of these vessels was designed to operate in a different anticipated threat environment than the others. Bismarck, for instance, was designed for combat in the North Atlantic. Her designers anticipated weather and visibility conditions such as had prevailed at Jutland in WWI. As a result, she was optimized for short-range, flat-trajectory combats. Her armor scheme reflects this, with an armor layout that makes it fantastically difficult to put a shell into her vitals at short range, but which is vulnerable to long-range fire, and which reduces the total amount of protected volume in the vessel by carrying her armor deck lower in the ship than her contemporaries. By the same token, Yamato was simply built to stand up to and utterly outclass any conceivable American or British opponent by sheer weight of gunfire, and elephant-like armor. As such, hers is a sort of 'brute force' approach to protection. Her armor layout isn't the most efficient, but she has a lot of armor, so it doesn't really matter. American and French battleships were designed to do less with more, with the South Dakota, for instance, being perhaps the best protected warship, pound for pound, ever built. One reason the Americans in particular came out with such good designs is that they could afford to. America poured tons of money into making the propulsion plants of their vessels more efficient, meaning that the resulting ships were relatively smaller and armor box correspondingly small. This, in turn, led to the ability to use the armor more heavily in the protected region. By the same token, American BBs, alone of contemporary battleship designs, had hull plating and interior works which were constructed entirely of Special Treatment Steel (STS), a very tough light armor steel, whereas contemporary designs usually reserved such steels for important splinter-proofing locales. The United States alone was capabe of affording such extravagances.
> 
> I based my ratings extensively upon the work of Nathan Okun. From his paper detailing the usage of Bismarck's 15"/47 gun to shoot at all seven of 'The Contenduh's', I extracted a quantification of the total zones of vulnerability, for both deck and belt armor, of each of the seven ships. If you want the really gory details on how I did this, click here. Suffice it to say that I am surprised as you that Iowa has the most effective belt armor of the lot; I would have bet on Yamato any day. But Iowa's combination of an inclined belt, and a highly effective STS-steel shell plate outboard of the belt (which has just enough resistance to strip the AP cap off of an incoming shell) tips the score in her favor. Richelieu also had this same design, and very good protection as a result. Bismarck, despite the reputation of her side armor, fares very poorly in this category. From a deck armor perspective, Yamato comes out on top, followed closely again by Richelieu and Iowa. Vittorio Veneto is very vulnerable to high-angle fire, and Bismarck is as well. Yamato thus emerges as the best armored of the lot, followed closely by Iowa and Richelieu. This makes perfect sense to me, as Yamato also had the distinction of carrying the only armor plates which were completely impervious to any battleship weapon ever mounted afloat -- her 660mm turret faceplates. She was, indeed, an awesome beast. It makes the American and French feats of achieving protection within a hair as good, on much smaller displacements (particularly the South Dakota, which has the second smallest displacement of the seven warships detailed here), a very impressive feat as well. On the bottom of the heap, Vittorio Veneto and Bismarck were both penalized for their inability to cope with a long-range gun duel. Bismarck also suffered from the poorest belt armor of the lot.
> http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm





> Fire Control
> GENERAL COMMENTS: The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.6
> 
> Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.
> ...



Lanc,

I'm not trying to knock the RN, but you have to admit their top of the line ships did not stack up in WWII. Yes they had some good BB's, but these were outclassed by the Bismark, the Yamato, and the US South Dakota and Iowa class ships.

The 14/45 guns of the King George class BB's put it at a rather severe disadvangate. These were a few hundred pounds lighter than the 15/45 rounds of the Bismark, and were a couple of hundred fps lower in velocity. The US SD (and Iowa) class BB's mounted 16/55 guns, weighing about 1100 lbs more than the 14/45's, that's 50% greater weight, which is a huge difference. The Nelson class had 16 inch guns, but it was... old.

As you can see from above, the Armor quality of the US BB's was also much superior, and above all, the Fire Control system after the start of 1943 was far far superior to those of any other nation. The SD (or Iowa) class BB's could have destroyed the Bismark from over 30,000 feet with the Bismark never even getting off a shot! And in bad weather (common in the area) or at night the advantage is even more significant, as the US BB's would be able to fire for effect where the Bismark would be firing blind.

Finally, the USA could afford to risk a BB, where Britain could do so much less easily. Let's say the Bismark had survived and the Tirpitz and Bismark had continued raiding convoys. And lets assume no CV's or CVA's could manage to stop them (a big assumption). After the USA entered the war. Once the US Pacific fleet was relatively secure, about the start of 1943, it would have been relatively easy for the USA to deploy a couple of SD class BB's to corner and kill them with British help. Or alternatively, a single Iowa class BB could have been sent out to simply run them down and dispatch them both.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

Germans have good ammo? Maybe you should re-read the account of the Hood. While that ship was sunk, the Prince of Wales was hit by numerous shells that failed to explode. Had the Germans had a half-way decent sheel, the RN would have been out two capital ships instead of one (not that it did PoW any good in the long run).

I think the basic point is that a disproportion number of units were deployed to keep an eye on the Tirpitz that was (granted, in hind sight) justified. It would have been a close fight with the KGV class (because of the small 14" guns and iffy turret situation) but the Tirpitz would have faired poorly against a SoDak and have had no chance with a Iowa.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Germans have good ammo? Maybe you should re-read the account of the Hood. While that ship was sunk, the Prince of Wales was hit by numerous shells that failed to explode. Had the Germans had a half-way decent sheel, the RN would have been out two capital ships instead of one (not that it did PoW any good in the long run).
> 
> I think the basic point is that a disproportion number of units were deployed to keep an eye on the Tirpitz that was (granted, in hind sight) justified. It would have been a close fight with the KGV class (because of the small 14" guns and iffy turret situation) but the Tirpitz would have faired poorly against a SoDak and have had no chance with a Iowa.



I was not making a statement about the shells, just the relative throw weights.

I agree. I think prior to 1943 the Bismark might have had a chance against the SD class BB, but the superior belt armor and deck armor of the SD, along with its much bigger guns, would have given it the edge. After 1943, with the fire control radar and tracking computer, I don't think the Bismark/Tripitz would have stood much of a chance. In fact, I don't think any BB could stand up it. The advantage of being able to fire accurately while engaging in hard evasive manuvers is just too huge to overcome. Every time the enemy straitens out to prepare a shot, it's would take hits. The only way they'd have a chance would be if they managed a lucky hit early on and took out the radar, otherwise, they're toast.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

It's nice that you are both saying that the Bismarck couldn't stand up to the post-1943 US BBs (which is true) but the Bismarck sailed in 1941. To stop the Bismarck in 1941, the US would have had to do the same as the Royal Navy did. 

You certainly are making the Royal Navy out to be useless. I'm sorry you fail to see that it had been spread from the across almost every ocean in the world. 
And where was the USN in the Indian ocean, Dec 1941? Licking their wounds. See, we can all point fingers to say someone wasn't helping the other, so stop it. 

How could the Ark Royal help during Midway? Battle of Midway - June 1942. H.M.S Ark Royal SUNK - 13th November 1941 while escorting Malta Conoys. 

It'd have a job helping when it was at the bottom of the Med!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

and where were the americans in the med??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

I believe a few USN ships supported the Torch landings. Mostly the Med was a RN affair, destroying the French, Italian and German fleets in the area. As well as surviving the beating from the Luftwaffe and Regina Aeronautica. 
The Royal Navy lost over 200 ships in the Med but still deprived the Afrika Korps of vital supplies.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

and took out a large force when they were in herbour, the americans couldn't even defend themselfs from such an attack............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

You're talking of Taranto, with 21 unescorted Swordfish - only losing 2? You know the Yamamoto's chief of staff was in Taranto at the time of the attack. The Royal Navys attack on Taranto was where the IJN got the idea for Pearl Harbour, the effectiveness of torps in low water levels of a harbour.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

yes i was aware of that

hehe wo so screwed america over...........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Indirectly blame Britain for Pearl Harbour.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

so we destryed the offensive abilities of a navy protecting the entire pacific, cool!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Not really, the IJN didn't get the Carriers. The USN still sat licking its wounds for a few months while the IJN (Nagumo with 5 of the 6 Carriers used on Pearl Harbour) gave the Royal Navy hell in the Indian Ocean. Sinking several ships, only taking slight damage on Nagumos flagship, Akagi, from 11 Sqn. Blenheims.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I believe a few USN ships supported the Torch landings.



It was quite a bit more than a few. You might want to read up on the battle that brewed in Casablanca during the operation. The US Navy not only supported the landings, but a majority of the American invasion force came all the way across the Atlantic before invading!

A couple of sites to look at:
http://www.internet-esq.com/ussaugusta/torch/

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2194206-2.htm


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Few doesn't actually mean a small amount when I say it.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

AH, I see, a question of symantics.  I only knew because I had to present about it once. It was actually operation torch that paved the way for future battles for communications and command and control for combined forces (US and UK).


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Well, the 120,000 Vichy French didn't put much opposition up to the US landings.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

French and opposition aren't words that fit together! I heard the Champs Elysee was lined with trees because the Germans like to march in the shade. 

There was some oppostiton, but it was pretty weak and quelled relataively quickly. I have an interesting story about a couple of USAAF officers going inland to secure a cease fire with the French during Torch. I will find it and post it in the stories section.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It's nice that you are both saying that the Bismarck couldn't stand up to the post-1943 US BBs (which is true) but the Bismarck sailed in 1941. To stop the Bismarck in 1941, the US would have had to do the same as the Royal Navy did.
> 
> You certainly are making the Royal Navy out to be useless. I'm sorry you fail to see that it had been spread from the across almost every ocean in the world.
> And where was the USN in the Indian ocean, Dec 1941? Licking their wounds. See, we can all point fingers to say someone wasn't helping the other, so stop it.
> ...



I said I _thought _it was the Arc Royal, apparently I was mistaken on that detail. In any case the British did have 1 carrier defending Madagascar, and the USA asked that it help with the battle of Midway after decoding the Japanese plan, but the British refused. I can look up which carrier if you like?

In Dec. 1941 the USA was just barely in the war after suffering a devestating sneak attack, that is an unfair comment to make. At Midway, Britain and the USA were both at war with Japan, so it is an entirely different situation.

The North Carolina class BB's were available in 1941. For ship-ship combat these were about equal to the South Dakota class (they lacked the AA capability until refit). Without the advanced fire control, it would have been a closer matchup, but the tougher armor and much bigger guns would still give the NC the advantage. While it lacked the computer aimed firing system, it still had radar ranging and aiming capability (though this was much improved when it was refit in 1943).

I'm not saying the RN was useless. Rather, they were slightly obsolete, and as you say they were spread thin. Also, their primary focus had to be on maintaining the capacity to repel a German invasion, so they could not afford to take too big a gamble to go hunt down one ship.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

North Carolina lacked the armor of the SoDak. Therefore, they weren't the equal in ship-to-ship combat. As an example, North Carolina had absolutely no immunity against their own 16in fire.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> North Carolina lacked the armor of the SoDak. Therefore, they weren't the equal in ship-to-ship combat. As an example, North Carolina had absolutely no immunity against their own 16in fire.



The NC class was not quite as good as the SD class:

USS North Carolina (BB55)
Displacement: 35,000 tons
Length: 728'9"
Beam: 108'4"
Draft: 26'8"
Speed: 27 knots
Complement: 1,880
Armament: Nine 16" guns; twenty 5" guns; sixteen 1.1" machine guns; twelve .50-cal machine guns (refit to much better AA in 1942)
Armor -
Armor Belt: 12 - 6in / 304 - 152mm, sloped 15° 
Deck: 4.1 - 3.6in / 104 - 91mm 
Barbettes: 16 - 14.7in / 406 - 373mm 
Gunhouses: 16 - 9.8in / 406 - 24.9mm 
Conning Tower: 16 - 14.7in / 406 - 373mm 

USS South Dakota (BB57)
Displacement: 35,000 tons
Length: 680'10"
Beam: 108'2"
Draft: 36'4"
Speed: 27.8 knots
Complement: 2,354
Armament: Nine 16" guns; sixteen 5" guns; twelve 1.1 inch; twelve .50-cal machine guns. (refit to much better AA in 1942)
Armor -
Belt: 12.2 - 1in / 310 - 25mm, sloped 19°, attaching to underwater protection 
Deck: 5.3 - 5in / 135 - 127mm 
Barbettes: 17.3 - 11.5in / 440 - 292mm 
Gunhouses: 18 - 9.5in / 457 - 241mm 
Conning Tower: 15 - 7.25in / 380 - 184mm

Even so, it's better than the Bismark.

No ship had immunity to 16 inch fire. Only the turret faces of the Yamato could withstand a 16/55 shell, theoretically.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

The Royal Navys focus was on the Med and Atlantic, rather than the Pacific. 

And yes, look up the carrier. Most of the RN carriers were sunk or badly damaged by June 1942, I want to know which one it was. And what could a carrier with Swordfish and, if lucky, Sea Hurricanes do in Midway? Provide a target?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2005)

thats a big part of the reason our carrier born aircraft weren't as good as the americans, because they didn't have to be, they were very unlikely to run into a german carrier in the middle of the atlantic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

And it's Ark Royal, not Arc Royal.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 11, 2005)

And that's part of the reason the IJN ran the RN out of the Indian Ocean Lanc.

And providing a target wouldn't have been so bad. Maybe the Yorktown would have survived the battle then.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Royal Navys focus was on the Med and Atlantic, rather than the Pacific.
> 
> And yes, look up the carrier. Most of the RN carriers were sunk or badly damaged by June 1942, I want to know which one it was. And what could a carrier with Swordfish and, if lucky, Sea Hurricanes do in Midway? Provide a target?



I cannot find the info on the denied request to the British, I didn't annotate the link  

However, a little research shows that both the HMS Illustrious and Indomitable were in position near Madagascar in 1942, which the British had taken from the Vichy in May.

I suppose you are correct. British naval aircraft of 1942 probably would not have been of much use at Midway, but who can tell. Also there were support ships that were sorely needed, or at least so it was thought at that time (it turned out that BB's were of little real use by that point as we all know).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

The IJN didn't run the Royal Navy out of the Indian ocean. Nagumo got bored and went to bother the USN some more. The British aren't going to waste lives of their own people for American lives. America wouldn't do the same.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The IJN didn't run the Royal Navy out of the Indian ocean. Nagumo got bored and went to bother the USN some more. The British aren't going to waste lives of their own people for American lives. America wouldn't do the same.



Where did I say the RN was run out of the Indian ocean?

Tell that to the US merchant marines. Or the families of Americans who died on the beaches of Normandy. Or those who died in France in WWI.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Where did I say the RN was run out of the Indian ocean?



I think he was responding to Lightning Guy's last post.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

Yes, I was responding to LG. 

And your brain is severely muddled, RG. Those American men that laid down their lives in World War 2 did not do so knowing they were just targets to waste ammo on like a RN Carrier crew would be in Midway! 
I have NO idea where you got the stupid idea that Europeans, more importantly the British, aren't grateful but you better start to rethink because the British are extremely grateful of the US aid and help during both world wars! What is your problem, huh!?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

The comment about using a RN carrier to save the Yorktown was a joke. I should have added a smilie to clear it up but just didn't feel like it for some reason.

I don't think the presence of a RN carrier at Midway would have meant much anway. As poorly as the TBDs and TBFs faired, unescorted Stringbags would have been even worse.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Okay. See, a man with reason.  

Although, the IJN might have noticed it was a British carrier and laughed. Knowing that it only had Swordfish they might have left it, then cried when SOMEHOW 20 unescorted Swordfish slammed torps into their hull.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

the swordfish's low speed was actually one of it's biggest assests  it made it extremely had for attacking fighter pilots to shoot at because they closed in so quickly, i read in a book of how some FW-190s were flying escort for a ship attacked by swordfish, with their gear and flaps down at their slowest speed before stalling pretty much they were still to quick 





RG_Lunatic said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > The IJN didn't run the Royal Navy out of the Indian ocean. Nagumo got bored and went to bother the USN some more. The British aren't going to waste lives of their own people for American lives. America wouldn't do the same.
> ...



so you think that the americans fighting then were only doing it for us?? it was just a favour to help us out, as such we, and the rest of the world it would seem, owe you big time?? sorry, just checking i got that right because i always thought it was to otherthrow the nazi occupation and to beat back the japs............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Good point there, lanc. Well done...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

wow thanks, coming from you that means allot to me


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Cheap, ungrateful BASTARD!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

no there's the Plan_D i know...............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Ah, did that other plan_D twat come in again?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

yeah he's rather annoying, not like you at all............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm gonna go over there and kick his ass. I should kick his ass, someone should kick his ass.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

make sure you do that, but the bastard in intensive care!!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I didn't plan on using my but to PUT him in intensive care, but thanks for back-up idea.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

LMAO


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

well that's the way i'd do it.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Yep...any excuse to bum someone, eh lanc....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2005)

hell yeah


----------



## plan_D (Jan 15, 2005)

That should really say Little Queen, for your case.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

Oh man.. Another can to open.... 

PD u have the honors....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2005)

Been seeing that can a lot lately.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 15, 2005)

Is there a whole truck load of that stuff?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

Been a whole lotta whoop-ass bein dished out lately......

I got a whole case of it PD...... Ill open a can now and then when one is deserved.....

Just like now....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 15, 2005)

You know, there actually IS an energy drink that comes in aluminum cans called "Wup Ass!"


----------



## plan_D (Jan 15, 2005)

I did not know that. Sweet...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2005)

Where can I get me some?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

U can come down to the Mississippi Coast Collosieum, put on a pair of hockey skates, and Ill give u all the Wup Ass u could ever desire.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2005)

Great! Then can I have some of that drink GRG was talking about?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

Hehe...... U may have to drink it from a straw with ur jaw wired shut, but Im sure itll taste good just the same....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2005)

C'maaawwwn! Ya wouldn't mess up this pretty mug now, would ya?  

Christ, look who I'm asking!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

Hehe..... All part of the game brother......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2005)

Oh, I know. I've had my nose broken so many times, it's a wonder I can breathe.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2005)

I think I would pass on hockey with Les. I had a policy, when I could still skate; There is no such thing as a friendly game of hockey with a goon! I prefer to keep my teeth in my mouth, as opposed to retrieving them from the Zamboni!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

> Oh, I know. I've had my nose broken so many times, it's a wonder I can breathe.


I can only breath outta my left nostril... The right ones been closed for a long time, due to the same reason....



> There is no such thing as a friendly game of hockey with a goon! I prefer to keep my teeth in my mouth


Man all u small little guys gotta do is skate right around us big goon-types.... We're slow asses...... Those speedy little fast guys piss me off..... Cant catch em.... 

Well.... Sometimes I do. Hehe.....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2005)

It's the "Sometimes I do" that is what hurts like hell! I usually was able to duck or dodge, but I can remember a few times getting tagged seeing stars, comets, planets, novae...you get the idea!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

Yup, but its not like Ive never seen those little visions as well......


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2005)

True, probably way more than I have. I was never really big enought to throw a big check on anyone. I have seen what happens when someone misses and hits the glass at full speed. Ouch!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

LMAO. I did that this past weekend.. I missed a check against the bench and flipped over the boards.. More embarrasing than painful.....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2005)

Bruised egoes are painful as well, especially if you are the visiting team!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2005)

And God knows i have a big ego......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 15, 2005)

Really? :-"


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2005)

Then it is all the more eaily bruised!  hehe I have known a number of former SEALs in my life and they usually have some amount of ego. But the way I see it, they've earned it. You can;t stay on the tip of the spear by being timid.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 16, 2005)




----------



## Marauderman26 (Jan 12, 2012)

evangilder said:


> Good catch, Dave! According to the NASM site:
> _The NASM B-26B-25-MA nicknamed Flak Bait (AAF serial number 41-31173) survived 207 operational missions over Europe, more than any other American aircraft during World War II (A de Havilland Mosquito B. Mk. IX bomber completed 213 missions but this aircraft was destroyed in a crash at Calgary Airport in Canada, two days after V-E Day, see NASM D. H. 98 Mosquito). Workers at the Baltimore factory completed Flak Bait in April 1943 and a crew flew it to England. The AAF assigned it to the 449th Bombardment Squadron, 322nd Bombardment Group (nicknamed the 'Annihilators'), and gave the bomber the fuselage identification codes "PN-O." Lt. James J. Farrell of Greenwich, Connecticut, flew more missions in Flak Bait than any other pilot. He named the bomber after Flea Bait, his brother's nickname for the family dog.
> 
> This Marauder earned its nickname after just a few missions. Other bombers returned unscathed but Flak Bait invariably returned full of holes. "It was hit plenty of times, hit all the time," recalls Farrell. "I guess it was hit more than any other plane in the group._
> ...



Martins Magnificent Marauder!


----------

