# Best dive-bomber of the pacific



## tbfighterpilot (Dec 15, 2011)

What was the best dive-bomber of the pacific theater in WWII, between the Val, Judy, SBD, SB2C, or anything else?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

Best in performace or what it achieved?


----------



## tbfighterpilot (Dec 15, 2011)

Both performance and what it achieved.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2011)

I voted "Other" 'cos you missed the Vengeance off the list. It did outstanding work in Burma - very accurate, carried a decent load and was reliable and rugged in combat conditions. Now I accept that Burma wasn't really "the Pacific" but it's close enough for me...and since there were no other dive bombers in CBI except, perhaps, a few A-36s, we should include it.


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 16, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> I voted "Other" 'cos you missed the Vengeance off the list. It did outstanding work in Burma - very accurate, carried a decent load and was reliable and rugged in combat conditions. Now I accept that Burma wasn't really "the Pacific" but it's close enough for me...and since there were no other dive bombers in CBI except, perhaps, a few A-36s, we should include it.



RAAF Vengeances saw action in New Guinea and over New Britain, so it definatley qualifies.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 16, 2011)

Hi Wildcat,

I thought you'd be on my side! Thanks for the additional info. I'd forgotten about those other operational areas. Hope you're proud of me, though, for not including the Wirraway's dive bombing efforts in Malaya! 

Cheers,
Bravo-November


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 17, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Hi Wildcat,Hope you're proud of me, though, for not including the Wirraway's dive bombing efforts in Malaya!


A fearsome dive bomber if there ever was one!  On the Vengeance, here is some nice footage of IAF/RAF aircraft in Burma 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4ohwlL_QhI_


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 18, 2011)

And the Vengence accomplished what in the naval role?

The war in the Pacific was primarily a naval war. Anything that sinks ships will win the land war.


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2011)

Lack of adequate fighter escort prevented this fine dive bomber from achieving it's full potential but it was probably the best CV based dive bomber of WWII.


----------



## Arossihman (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm compelled to vote helldiver here. Sure it had some issues but it had good armament,internal bombays ,and was faster than the dauntless. Itwas involved in the final push to destroy the japanese navy although the dauntless held the line in those critical early days and performed very well and was well liked by its crews.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 30, 2011)

Add the F4U to the list.


----------



## davebender (Jan 3, 2012)

Could all F4Us bomb accurately or just the Korean War AU-1 variant?


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 5, 2012)

davebender said:


> Could all F4Us bomb accurately or just the Korean War AU-1 variant?



All of them could, though in WW2 the -1D was more effective due to an increase in hardpoints. The AU-1 simply had high performance components removed from the engine, but otherwise the only difference between it and the -5 were upgraded bomb racks and increased armor on the belly. That said, I wouldn't really call it the best dive bomber of the war as it did not really dive bomb in the same way a traditional dive bomber would and could. A true dive bomber would be better at the job in question. The Corsair's strength was in its versatility, being an effective fighter while also being effective at ground support, but not almost vertical bombing. One of the issues is they did not have dive brakes, however the landing gear was often lowered to slow it down in dives.

EDIT: That being said, I'd rather replace my complement of Helldivers on a carrier with F4Us, but I'm not an admiral.


----------



## davebender (Jan 6, 2012)

IMO that makes no difference. The point of bombing is to place explosives on target. 

Ju-87Bs with average pilots could place 25% of bombs within 30 yards of the target. If the F4U could bomb with a similiar level of accuracy then it's a dive bomber as far as I'm concerned.

It's my understanding that early F4Us employed the standard Mk 8 gunsight for bombing, which was nowhere near dive bomber accuracy. At the end of WWII they got a new bombsight which turned an excellent fighter aircraft into an excellent fighter-bomber. By comparison, the USN SBD and IJN VAL had proper dive bomber sights when they first entered service.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 6, 2012)

While I do have a soft spot for "The Beast", this is why I won't vote for it. 

From Wiki...."In operational experience it was found that the U.S. Navy's F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair fighters were able to carry an equally heavy bomb load against ground targets and were vastly more capable of defending themselves against enemy fighters"

I agree with Admiral Catch  . I'd rather have the Corsair, which could do anything well, than a plane that could only do 1 or 2 things and be a liability defending itself and require Hellcats and Corsairs for cover.

So.....If I have to pick from your list, I'd pick the Dauntless. Otherwise, give me the Corsair.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> IMO that makes no difference. The point of bombing is to place explosives on target.
> 
> Ju-87Bs with average pilots could place 25% of bombs within 30 yards of the target. If the F4U could bomb with a similiar level of accuracy then it's a dive bomber as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> It's my understanding that early F4Us employed the standard Mk 8 gunsight for bombing, which was nowhere near dive bomber accuracy. At the end of WWII they got a new bombsight which turned an excellent fighter aircraft into an excellent fighter-bomber. By comparison, the USN SBD and IJN VAL had proper dive bomber sights when they first entered service.



True, and fair, but I guess that gets into naming/classification semantics more than anything. I don't disagree that it was effective of course, as like I said I'd take Corsairs over Helldivers. That said, something I didn't think of last night when I posted that, what about bombing ships? I know for the most part for actual sinkings torpedoes were more effective, but is a dive bomber diving at 90ish degrees needed to hit ships effectively without having to get too close?

Thor, I also have soft spot for "The Beast", but as you quoted, there were other planes that could do the job plus a lot of other things. I think one of the main advantages of the Helldiver over other divebombers was its speed. The only other plane with a cruising speed higher in the fleet was the F4U (or significantly higher, I read it somewhere and can't remember the exact quote). That said, its top speed of 295 MPH wouldn't do much to help it against fighters.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 6, 2012)

Hey, you forgot the Fairey Barracuda!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Hey, you forgot the Fairey Barracuda!


And rightfully so!


----------



## renrich (Jan 6, 2012)

The landing gear of the F4U was designed so it could be used as dive brakes. The Corsair could actually dive safely at a steeper angle than the SBD. 85 degrees versus 70 degrees and tests showed that the Corsair was almost as accurate in dive bombing as the Dauntless. Pages 79-80, "Corsair" by Barrett Tillman. Another interesting story about the Corsair which was scoffed at in another thread by some members is that "Operation Danny" was planned in June, 1944. To counter the German V-1 threat it was planned to rush five MAG-51 F4U squadrons to Europe where they would fly from CVEs in the North Sea and destroy buzz bomb sites with Tiny Tim rockets. When this plan was discovered by George Marshall he canceled it and said " as long as I am charge there will never be a Marine in Europe." Also in Barrett's book, page 116.


----------



## davebender (Jan 6, 2012)

Almost anything can hit a merchant vessel so I assume you mean warships.

Bombing warships requires a heavy bomb (at least 1,000 lbs) and more is better. The Val normally carried a 250kg bomb which isn't enough. HMS Prince of Wales was hit by several 250kg bombs which failed to penetrate the deck armor. The 1,000 lb bomb normally carried by SBDs was better but still marginal against large warships.

The Ju-87D had the entire package - a bomb up to 1,800kg in size delivered with great accuracy. Not even a Yamato class battleship can shrug off hits of that size. The Ju-87D was also relatively well protected against ground fire. 

The SB2C could carry a heavy bomb load. However I have read plenty of comments on SB2C flying characteristics and most of them are negative. If I have a choice I wouldn't pick an aircraft that most pilots hated.

In theory the Ju-88A could dive bomb ships but I've never read of it happening. Normally the Ju-88 employed skip bombing or carried a pair of aerial torpedoes. If the Me-410 had been employed against maritime targets I assume it would operate in a manner similiar to Ju-88s.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 6, 2012)

renrich said:


> The landing gear of the F4U was designed so it could be used as dive brakes. The Corsair could actually dive safely at a steeper angle than the SBD. 85 degrees versus 70 degrees and tests showed that the Corsair was almost as accurate in dive bombing as the Dauntless. Pages 79-80, "Corsair" by Barrett Tillman. Another interesting story about the Corsair which was scoffed at in another thread by some members is that "Operation Danny" was planned in June, 1944. To counter the German V-1 threat it was planned to rush five MAG-51 F4U squadrons to Europe where they would fly from CVEs in the North Sea and destroy buzz bomb sites with Tiny Tim rockets. When this plan was discovered by George Marshall he canceled it and said " as long as I am charge there will never be a Marine in Europe." Also in Barrett's book, page 116.



Interesting stuff there. I didn't realize it could actually dive more steeply than an SBD, thanks for posting this. Also, sounds like an interesting story about MAG-51. I'll have to try and find that book.

And yes Dave, I did mean warships, my apologies. So I guess the Corsair would have no issue doing the job as it had the payload abilities.


----------



## tbfighterpilot (Jan 6, 2012)

The main reason that I did not put the F4U on the list is because I was thinking of planes meant for dive-bombing.


----------



## davebender (Jan 7, 2012)

Bombing accuracy with the Mk 8 gunsight would be a problem.

However nothing prevents the Corsair from skip bombing. If done correctly that bombing method is as accurate as dive bombing. The Luftwaffe liked skip bombing so much that even proper dive bombers such as the Ju-87 and Ju-88 often attacked using that method. It also allowed the Fw-190F fighter-bomber to effectively strike at maritime targets.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 7, 2012)

Could the F4U carry ASV radar? Could it be expected to find targets at night, or in poor visibility? 

The F4U couldn't have replaced a dedicated multi-seat DB because any DB has additional roles, and attack modes, to fulfill that a single seat aircraft just couldn't do.

The Fairey Barracuda, OTOH, was a better DB than the Val (lower bomb load) and SBD (fixed wings), and a better TB than the TBF (poor torpedo and no DB capability), and, for all its faults was a better handling aircraft than the Sb2C, especially the -1 and -2.


----------



## davebender (Jan 7, 2012)

Does it really matter? 

WWII radar required a dedicated operator. ASV radar installed on a F4U would be no more effective then AI radar installed on a F4U.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Could the F4U carry ASV radar? Could it be expected to find targets at night, or in poor visibility?



It carried radar and also operated in adverse weather and at night. the Barracuda was a marginally adequate aircraft. Using the adequacy of a torpedo is a very poor excuse to judge the performance of an aircraft and the US torpedo problem was eventually corrected. Compare the longevity of the F4U and the Barracuda. Do I see some nationalistic pride clouding the air?


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 7, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do I see some nationalistic pride clouding the air?


Even my vision ain't that clouded to have anything to do with that abortion of a machine ,


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 7, 2012)

AI radar was designed for short range interception of aircraft at roughly the same altitude as the interceptor. ASV/ASB radar required a dedicated operator and large internal volume as initial versions used long wave antennae, and were too bulky for a fighter cockpit, yet they were crucial for finding targets in poor visibility or at night. AFAIK, the TBF introduced ASB to USN carriers in late 1942, when a replacement for the fixed wing SBD was wanted by the USN.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 7, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> Even my vision ain't that clouded to have anything to do with that abortion of a machine ,



Funny, that's pretty much what Eric Brown said about the SB2C...


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 7, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do I see some nationalistic pride clouding the air?



It's just a matter of considering capability versus availability.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 7, 2012)

If the Barracuda was such a better torpedo bomber than the Avenger, why did the British use Avengers? They may not have ended up using them as much in their intended role due to the poor torpedoes but if the Barracuda was so great the British wouldn't have gotten another TB.

And I like the Barracuda, but I just think it's an interesting plane, so I have no bias against it, but to say it's better than the Avenger isn't true. You can't blame the plane for the torpedoes being poor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> Even my vision ain't that clouded to have anything to do with that abortion of a machine ,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> It's just a matter of considering capability versus availability.


And during the war the Barracuda proved neither


Catch22 said:


> If the Barracuda was such a better torpedo bomber than the Avenger, why did the British use Avengers? They may not have ended up using them as much in their intended role due to the poor torpedoes but if the Barracuda was so great the British wouldn't have gotten another TB.
> 
> And I like the Barracuda, but I just think it's an interesting plane, so I have no bias against it, but to say it's better than the Avenger isn't true. You can't blame the plane for the torpedoes being poor.



Young Corey hits the nail on the head.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

Catch22 said:


> If the Barracuda was such a better torpedo bomber than the Avenger, why did the British use Avengers? They may not have ended up using them as much in their intended role due to the poor torpedoes but if the Barracuda was so great the British wouldn't have gotten another TB.
> 
> And I like the Barracuda, but I just think it's an interesting plane, so I have no bias against it, but to say it's better than the Avenger isn't true. You can't blame the plane for the torpedoes being poor.



The RN used the TBF, not as a torpedo bomber, but as a level bomber, to bomb land targets, since that is all that remained by the time the British Pacific Fleet was formed in late 1944. However, even with reliable torpedoes the TBF could not match the Barracudas ability to deliver torpedoes by using a dive bomber attack profile, and off course, the TBF could not perform as dive bomber at all:
Flying Magazine - Google Books
They don't mention the Barracuda by name in the article above, but no other allied torpedo bomber had the ability to dive at 75degs and 385mph while carrying a torpedo.


----------



## davebender (Jan 8, 2012)

I wonder if that's because the USN aerial torpedo was unique in size.

USA Torpedoes of World War II
*USN Mk 13 Aerial Torpedo. * 
13 ft 5 in length.
22.4 in diameter.

Almost everyone else including Britain used an aerial torpedo 18 inches in diameter but longer then the USN model. TBFs carried the torpedo internally. Perhaps a normal (i.e. not USN) aerial torpedo wouldn't fit the weapons bay.

*RN 18" Mark XII aerial Torpedo.*
16 ft 3 in length.
18 in diameter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> The RN used the TBF, not as a torpedo bomber, but as a level bomber, to bomb land targets, since that is all that remained by the time the British Pacific Fleet was formed in late 1944. However, even with reliable torpedoes the TBF could not match the Barracudas ability to deliver torpedoes by using a dive bomber attack profile, and off course, the TBF could not perform as dive bomber at all:
> Flying Magazine - Google Books
> They don't mention the Barracuda by name in the article above, but no other allied torpedo bomber had the ability to dive at 75degs and 385mph while carrying a torpedo.



By the end of the war all combatants were relizing that the end of the 'traditional' torpedo attack over and even if your claim is true, you can't drop a WW2 torpedo into the water at 385 mph, so tell us how is that value added? Corey hit the nail on the head, an interesting aircraft but not a war winner or game changer. Liquid cooled engines add another hazardous item aboard a carrier as well, one reason why the US Navy avoided them.


----------



## davebender (Jan 8, 2012)

WWII era CVs stored aviation gasoline and aircraft bombs in a confined space. What could be more hazardous then that? Aircraft engine coolant looks pretty safe by comparison.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

davebender said:


> WWII era CVs stored aviation gasoline and aircraft bombs in a confined space. What could be more hazardous then that? Aircraft engine coolant looks pretty safe by comparison.


 You'll need another bilge or storage area for glycol. It is still hazardous and in the end takes up precious space, something needed aboard any ship. Radial engines eliminated this.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 8, 2012)

davebender said:


> I wonder if that's because the USN aerial torpedo was unique in size.
> 
> USA Torpedoes of World War II
> *USN Mk 13 Aerial Torpedo. *
> ...



Dave got it, this is exactly why it wasn't used much in the TB role. British torpedoes DIDN'T fit inside the Avenger, so they used American ones with it, which weren't very good. You'll probably call this a design limitation, but in reality it's much more modern than holding a torpedo externally on the belly of an aircraft, causing drag, therefore lowering performance, and the torpedo would be more likely to get damaged en route.

Dave, I think what Joe is getting at is just adding ANOTHER thing to that volatile mix you stated. While the difference it would make is probably small, that's the reasoning. Plus it's one less thing to carry if radial engines do the job.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> By the end of the war all combatants were relizing that the end of the 'traditional' torpedo attack over and even if your claim is true, you can't drop a WW2 torpedo into the water at 385 mph, so tell us how is that value added? Corey hit the nail on the head, an interesting aircraft but not a war winner or game changer. Liquid cooled engines add another hazardous item aboard a carrier as well, one reason why the US Navy avoided them.



RN aerial torpedoes available from about 1943 onwards had drop speeds of up to 270 knots. From the article, it would seem that the Barracuda would cruise at medium altitude, then dive vertically towards the target, pull out at a few hundred feet, bleed speed down to aprox 300mph, drop their torpedo and then hit the overboost and escape.

According to Campbell, Naval Weapons of world War Two, the RN had the mid war, Mk XII** which was capable of drop speed of 250-270 knots, but the standard mid war torpedo was the Mk XV, with a 270 knot drop speed, and the MkXVII was in production towards the end of war, and it had a 350 knot drop speed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> *RN aerial torpedoes available from about 1943 onwards had drop speeds of up to 270 knots.* From the article, it would seem that the Barracuda would cruise at medium altitude, then dive vertically towards the target, pull out at a few hundred feet, bleed speed down to aprox 300mph, drop their torpedo and then hit the overboost and escape.
> 
> According to Campbell, Naval Weapons of world War Two, the RN had the mid war, Mk XII** which was capable of drop speed of 250-270 knots, but the standard mid war torpedo was the Mk XV, with a 270 knot drop speed, and the MkXVII was in production towards the end of war, and it had a 350 knot drop speed.


Yes and thy had to do it at 2400 feet presenting a greater target despite the ability to drop at a faster speed.

So what does this have to do with the best dive bomber? If you're still trying to push the Barracuda I think you have a rather empty argument.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> RN aerial torpedoes available from about 1943 onwards had drop speeds of up to *270 knots*. From the article, it would seem that the Barracuda would cruise at medium altitude, then dive vertically towards the target, pull out at a few hundred feet, bleed speed down to *aprox 300mph*, drop their torpedo and then hit the overboost and escape.
> 
> According to Campbell, Naval Weapons of world War Two, the RN had the mid war, Mk XII** which was capable of drop speed of *250-270 knots*, but the standard mid war torpedo was the Mk XV, with a *270 knot *drop speed, and the MkXVII was in production towards the end of war, and it had a *350 knot *drop speed.


Are you meaning knots or MPH?

261 Knots = 300 MPH
270 Knots = 310 MPH
350 Knots = 402 MPH


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> Are you meaning knots or MPH?
> 
> 261 Knots = 300 MPH
> 270 Knots = 310 MPH
> 350 Knots = 402 MPH



The torpedo drop speeds are in knots.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes and thy had to do it at 2400 feet presenting a greater target despite the ability to drop at a faster speed.
> 
> So what does this have to do with the best dive bomber? If you're still trying to push the Barracuda I think you have a rather empty argument.



Do what at 2400ft?

I was replying to other posts regarding the barracuda's torpedo bombing capability, but it could have also dropped a 1600lb bomb directly onto the target, rather than a torpedo, which shows the versatility of the aircraft. Eric Brown rated the Barracuda higher than the Sb2C, and I think it is pretty obvious that it was the best allied naval dive bomber, of the war, when all it's capabilities are considered.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Do what at 2400ft?
> 
> I was replying to other posts regarding the barracuda's torpedo bombing capability, but it could have also dropped a 1600lb bomb directly onto the target, rather than a torpedo, which shows the versatility of the aircraft. Eric Brown rated the Barracuda higher than the Sb2C, and I think it is pretty obvious that it was the best allied naval dive bomber, of the war, when all it's capabilities are considered.


Drop

According to Torpedoes of World War II put out by the USN (Navweaps.com) the later aerial torpedoes of the war had to be dropped at higher altitudes due to the higher release airspeeds enabled by aircraft being developed at the time. Although the higher speed and altitude seems like a safety net, it also presented a better firing solution for anti aircraft defences, another reason why after WW2 the traditional deployment of aerial torpedoes went away.

So the Barracuda could carry a 1600 pound bomb? How many of those bombs were put on target? Compare the combat record of the Barracuda to the other dive bombers of the period and its performance is mediocre at best.

And I think we know that Eric Brown was HIGHLY biased based on his other evaluations. On paper the Barracuda "should have" been a war winner, its operational record proved to show a different story.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Drop
> 
> According to Torpedoes of World War II put out by the USN
> 
> ...



I haven't read anything that says that RN torpedoes had to be dropped from such high altitudes.

On 3 April 1944, 42 Barracudas scored 14 bomb hits on the Tirpitz, including 4 of 10 1600lb bombs dropped.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> I haven't read anything that says that RN torpedoes had to be dropped from such high altitudes.
> 
> On 3 April 1944, 42 Barracudas scored 14 bomb hits on the Tirpitz, including 4 of 10 1600lb bombs dropped.



And between June 5 and 6 1942 about 40 SBDs sunk 4 aircraft carriers and a heavy crusier. What's your point?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And between June 5 and 6 1942 about 40 SBDs sunk 4 aircraft carriers and a heavy crusier. What's your point?



According to Navweaps The three USN carriers had 103 operational SBDs at Midway, but my point is that the Barracuda had relatively few opportunities to attack naval targets, but it did so successfully when it had the chance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> According to Navweaps The three USN carriers had 103 operational SBDs at Midway, but my point is that the *Barracuda had relatively few opportunities to attack naval targets, but it did so successfully when it had the chance*.


And it did, but in the over all picture did it have anything that set it above any of the aircraft listed on here and previously discussed? No. It seems even the Vengeance had a better operational and combat record than the Barracuda.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 8, 2012)

Now for the next topic the T6/Harvard vs Miles Master


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And it did, but in the over all picture did it have anything that set it above any of the aircraft listed on here and previously discussed? No. It seems even the Vengeance had a better operational and combat record than the Barracuda.





In the overall picture:

The SBD had fixed wings.
The SB2C had terrible handling characteristics, and was rejected for RN service, and nearly so for the USN, so the RN rated the Barracuda above all the other available naval divebombers.

The Vengeance was a fixed wing aircraft that was not designed for naval service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> In the overall picture:
> 
> The SBD had fixed wings.
> The SB2C had terrible handling characteristics, and was rejected for RN service, and nearly so for the USN, so the RN rated the Barracuda above all the other available naval divebombers.
> ...


Lets see - the title of this thread...


*"What was the best dive-bomber in the pacific theater"?*

I don't see the word "Naval" in the title.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

From wikipedia for what its worth. The bolded statementsare from me...

_The first Barracudas entered service on 10 January 1943 with 827 Squadron and were deployed in the North Atlantic. Barracudas would eventually equip 24 front line squadrons. From 1944 onwards, the Mk IIs were accompanied in service by radar-equipped (but otherwise similar) Mk III, which were used for anti-submarine work.

The Barracuda first saw action with 810 Squadron aboard HMS Illustrious off the coast of Norway in July 1943 before deploying to the Mediterranean to support the Salerno landings.[8] The following year they entered service in the Pacific Theatre.

The Royal Air Force used the Barracuda Mk II, initially in 1943 with No. 567 Sqn. at RAF Detling. In 1944, similar models went to 667 Sqn. (RAF Gosport), 679 Sqn. (RAF Ipswich) and 691 Sqn. (RAF Roborough). All the aircraft were withdrawn between March and July 1945.[9][10]

Barracudas were used as dive bombers and played a part in a major attack on the German battleship Tirpitz. On 3 April 1944, 42 aircraft from British carriers HMS Victorious and Furious scored 14 direct hits on Tirpitz with 1,600 lb (730 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) bombs at the cost of one bomber.[11][12] The attack disabled Tirpitz for over two months.

From April 1944, Barracudas of No 827 Squadron aboard Illustrious started operations against Japanese forces, taking part in raids against Sabang in Sumatra (Operation Cockpit).[13] *The Barracuda's performance was reduced by the high temperatures[N 1] of the Pacific, with its combat radius being reduced by as much as 30%, and the torpedo bomber squadrons of the fleet carriers of the British Pacific Fleet were re-equipped with Grumman Avengers.[15]* 

*The Barracuda's primary problem in the Pacific was the need to fly over Indonesian mountain ranges to strike at targets on the eastern side of Java, and this necessitated a high altitude performance which the Barracuda's low altitude rated Merlin 32 engine, and its single stage supercharger, could not provide. [N 2] Additionally, carrying maximum underwing bomb loads caused extra drag which further reduced performance over a torpedo equipped Barracuda.[*17] However the Light Fleet Carriers of the 11th ACS which joined the BPF in June 1945 were all equipped with a single Barracuda and single Corsair squadron, so by VJ day the BPF had five Avenger and four Barracuda squadrons embarked on its carriers.[18]

Barracudas were used to test several innovations including RATOG rockets for takeoff and a braking propeller which slowed the aircraft by reversing the blade pitch.

The Barracuda continued in Fleet Air Arm service until the mid 1950s, by which time *they were all replaced by Avengers.*_

Hmmmmmm...............


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lets see - the title of this thread...
> 
> 
> *"What was the best dive-bomber in the pacific theater"?*
> ...



Any aircraft that cannot operate from a carrier, will be pretty marginal in the Pacific, IMHO, and hardly worth mentioning.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Any aircraft that cannot operate from a carrier, will be pretty marginal in the Pacific, IMHO, and hardly worth mentioning.


Right - Including the B-29...


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 8, 2012)

Or the P-38?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From wikipedia for what its worth. The bolded statementsare from me...
> 
> [



As I said, the TBF was a better level bomber, and the RN used it to attack land based targets:

The notes from the wiki article:
[n1] *All aircraft are adversely effected by increased temperature and humidity.* The effect is to lower engine output and increase the takeoff run. Additionally, windless conditions are common very near the equator, further increasing the takeoff run for carrier aircraft.[14]
[n2] Illustrious then exchanged her Barracudas for the Avengers of 832 and 851 before the next operation, an attack on the oil refineries at Soerbaya, Java. For this strike, the aircraft would have to fly across the breadth of Java. The mountainous spine of the island averages 10,000 ft in height, and this minimum height, coupled with the distance to be flown, about 240 miles, prohibited the use of the essentially low altitude Barracuda."[16]

These strikes in question were made right on the equator. The TBF had a two speed supercharger which gave it better high altitude performance, however the Barracuda could probably have flown the mission with a reduced bomb load. In a naval strike, the Barracuda would fly low for some time, and then climb as the fuel was burned to attack altitude, but the special circumstance of attacking across a mountain chain prevented the use of these tactics.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Right - Including the B-29...



The refinery that the RN knocked out had been previously attacked by B-29s, with less than spectacular results, and, AFAIK, the B-29 couldn't dive bomb...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> As I said, the TBF was a better level bomber, and the RN used it to attack land based targets:
> 
> The notes from the wiki article:
> [n1] *All aircraft are adversely effected by increased temperature and humidity.*



I know - I fly airplanes at 5,600 feet in the summertime and it does get humid where I live.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> The refinery that the RN knocked out had been previously attacked by B-29s, with less than spectacular results, and, AFAIK, the B-29 couldn't dive bomb...


AFAIK the Barracuda couldn't carry the atomic bomb...


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> AFAIK the Barracuda couldn't carry the atomic bomb...



I'm happy to concede that point...but it still doesn't make the B-29 a dive bomber!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> I'm happy to concede that point...but it still doesn't make the B-29 a dive bomber!


Yep, the same way the Barracuda was no way the best Dive Bomber in the Pacific - land or carrier based....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> Now for the next topic the T6/Harvard vs Miles Master


----------



## renrich (Jan 11, 2012)

There is a big difference in bombing an anchored Tirpitz with little or no CAP and Japanese CVs at flank speed with a CAP. The liquid cooled engine of the Barracuda and Seafire and the Firefly is much more vulnerable to battle damage which is why the USN wanted nothing to do with them.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jan 11, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> The refinery that the RN knocked out had been previously attacked by B-29s, with less than spectacular results, and, AFAIK, the B-29 couldn't dive bomb...



Only because the Germans didn't insist that it do duty as a dive bomber (a la the He177).


tom


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 12, 2012)

renrich said:


> There is a big difference in bombing an anchored Tirpitz with little or no CAP and Japanese CVs at flank speed with a CAP. The liquid cooled engine of the Barracuda and Seafire and the Firefly is much more vulnerable to battle damage which is why the USN wanted nothing to do with them.




Tirpitz wasn't anchored when first attacked, but was in a very strongly defended base. Over Midway, the IJN CAP didn't engage the USN SBDs.

As for liquid cooling, yes, that's why the P-51 was such a failure.


----------



## davebender (Jan 12, 2012)

The Soviet Il-2 and German Ju-87D were powered by liquid cooled engines. Both aircraft developed a reputation for survivability against ground fire.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 12, 2012)

I think it has less to do with actual capability and more to do with perceived capability at the time. Nobody can argue that inline engines were more rugged than radial, but inline engines still probably could have done the job alright with US carrier planes. The US Navy stuck with radials because a) they knew them, they knew they were tough, and they worked and b) because they didn't have to carry extra supplies. We can look back now and decide what could have/what would have worked, but they don't have the benefit of that, and they still got the job done with radials.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Tirpitz wasn't anchored when first attacked, but was in a very strongly defended base. Over Midway, the IJN CAP didn't engage the USN SBDs.
> 
> *As for liquid cooling, yes, that's why the P-51 was such a failure*.



The P-51 was not designed as a dedicated ground attack or dive bomber aircraft as a matter of fact there were times during its career where it suffered high losses due to being operated in a ground support role. Col Mike Alba 338th FS told me that he did not strafing in the P-51 because of the coolant system being shot up and actually prefered the P-38 in some situations. I was also told by Col Alba that the majority of losses in his squadron were due to aircraft being shot down while attacking ground targets.

Alba Michael Capt

North American P-51 Mustang during the Korean War

_"The F-51 was also not an ideal aircraft to use in this role – *the liquid cooled Merlin engines were vulnerable to ground fire*, but the USAAF had already scrapped its P-47 Thunderbolts, which would have been more suited to the role (the US Navy used the Corsair for the same duties over Korea, where its radial engine made it rather more survivable). The F-51 performed a valuable role in Korea, where the rocket armed aircraft were able to inflict significant damage on North Korean ground forces, despite suffering heavy losses themselves, mostly from ground fire."_

_At the start of the Korean War, the Mustang once again proved its usefulness. With the availability of F-51Ds in service and in storage, a substantial number were shipped via aircraft carriers to the combat zone for use initially by both the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) and USAF. Rather than employing them as interceptors or "pure" fighters, the F-51 was given the task of ground attack, fitted with rockets and bombs. After the initial invasion from North Korea, USAF units were forced to fly from bases in Japan, and F-51Ds could hit targets in Korea that short-ranged F-80 jet fighters could not. *A major concern over the vulnerability of the cooling system was realized in heavy losses due to ground fire.* Mustangs continued flying with USAF and ROKAF fighter-bomber units on close support and interdiction missions in Korea until they were largely replaced by Republic F-84 and Grumman Panther jet fighter-bombers in 1953. No. 77 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) operated Australian-built Mustangs as part of British Commonwealth Forces Korea, replacing them with Gloster Meteor F8s in 1951. No. 2 Squadron South African Air Force (SAAF) operated US-built Mustangs as part of the US 18th Fighter Bomber Wing, *suffering heavy losses *by 1953, when it converted to the F-86 Sabre._

P-51 Mustang - American Flyers

Bottom line - if you're going to attack a ground target with a recip aircraft, its engine better be round!

http://www.korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 12, 2012)

Liquid vs Air cooled 
would the aircooled engine not provide a much larger aining point and might not make the difference in vuneralbility a wash


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 12, 2012)

Table 8 of American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner. 
This data includes the ETO and MTO

The Loss/Sortie rates are:

*P-47 0.7%*
*P-51 1.2%*
P-38 1.4%
P-40 0.8%
*P-39 0.4%*
Spitfire 0.7%
*A-36 0.8%*

The A36 was used as a dedicated ground attack aircraft, and its sortie loss rate was insignificantly higher than the P47, while the liquid cooled P39 had the lowest loss rate. The example of the IL2 has already been given, and it was an outstandingly sturdy ground attack aircraft. The P51 had higher sortie loss rate than the P-47, but the fact that the P51 was making very deep penetration missions over enemy territory undoubtedly led to its' higher sortie loss rate, as it spent much more time per sortie exposed to enemy air defenses. The P51 had a much higher kill loss ratio than the P47, *and actually destroyed about 3 times as many Luftwaffe aircraft, on the ground, where it met intense flak from prepared defences*, to say nothing about aerial combat.

A comparison of the P51/P47/F6F suggests that a purpose designed Merlin/Allison powered USN naval fighter would have been lighter, had longer range, and better performance, than the F6F, leading to a better sortie kill/loss ratio.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Table 8 of American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner.
> This data includes the ETO and MTO
> 
> The Loss/Sortie rates are:
> ...



Agree with the numbers but your last comment is speculative. You would have to look at the losses and compare them based on a ground support mission to make the real comparison. You would also have to look at the construction of the aircraft itself. The Il2 was armored excellent - the P-51 carried no armor protection around some of its vital parts. Comparing those two scenarios would certainly support your point but putting the additional armor around a liquid cooled engine would come at what cost to performance?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 12, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> Liquid vs Air cooled
> would the aircooled engine not provide a much larger aining point and might not make the difference in vuneralbility a wash


The radial engine could take damage and remain functional where a liquid-cooled engine would overheat and seize...an good example would be the P-47: there's many cases where a large portion of the engine was shot away and the Jug still made it home...


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 12, 2012)

But the loss/sortie rates provided by RCAFSon suggest that the P-47 didn't suffer significantly fewer losses per sortie than its in-line contemporaries. So are we talking about the "survivability" of the radial and the "fragility" of the in-line being more urban myth than operational reality? And yes, I'm asking a question not making a statement. Perhaps we need a separate thread on this one (assuming it hasn't been done to death many times over already...which I suspect it has!).


----------



## davebender (Jan 13, 2012)

Give the P-51 an annular radiator plus machinegun resistant armor around the pilot and you would have a much tougher aircraft. Those same changes would lower aircraft combat radius.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2012)

davebender said:


> Give the P-51 an annular radiator plus machinegun resistant armor around the pilot and you would have a much tougher aircraft. *Those same changes would lower aircraft combat radius*.


Raise the gross weight, affect maneuverability, raise the stall speed, etc., etc., etc....


----------



## renrich (Jan 14, 2012)

The IJN CAP did engage the SBDs at Midway but their ability to interfere was lessened somewhat by the fact that they were at low altitude dealing with the VTs and had to climb to try to reach the VBs before they went into their dives. They could not disrupt the attack until the VBs were already in it but did try to defend while the VBs were diving, a difficult propositon and of course they attacked while the VBs were egressing.

One only needs a little common sense and a cutaway drawing of a radial engined fighter and a liquid cooled engined fighter to determine that there are many more areas on the liquid cooled fighter which are vulnerable to even rifle caliber hits. It is foolish to argue otherwise. An engine seizing up because it overheats is a serious problem anytime but especially over water. Aside from battle damage, coolant leaks were a constant problem and a cause for Spitfires and Hurricanes to become U/S as was pointed out by Shores in "Bloody Shambles.
The USN was correct in only being interested in air cooled engines for it's airplanes.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 14, 2012)

renrich said:


> The IJN CAP did engage the SBDs at Midway but their ability to interfere was lessened somewhat by the fact that they were at low altitude dealing with the VTs and had to climb to try to reach the VBs before they went into their dives. They could not disrupt the attack until the VBs were already in it but did try to defend while the VBs were diving, a difficult propositon and of course they attacked while the VBs were egressing.
> 
> One only needs a little common sense and a cutaway drawing of a radial engined fighter and a liquid cooled engined fighter to determine that there are many more areas on the liquid cooled fighter which are vulnerable to even rifle caliber hits. It is foolish to argue otherwise. An engine seizing up because it overheats is a serious problem anytime but especially over water. Aside from battle damage, coolant leaks were a constant problem and a cause for Spitfires and Hurricanes to become U/S as was pointed out by Shores in "Bloody Shambles.
> The USN was correct in only being interested in air cooled engines for it's airplanes.






> _Antiaircraft fire was light and *there was no fighter opposition until after bombs had been dropped* because of the preceding torpedo attack, which had drawn down the enemy fighters..._
> The Battle of Midway



I can only point to the sortie loss rate stats that I posted earlier.


One must also remember that combat losses occur from a variety of causes, and engine coolant loss is only one possible cause. If the design team can take advantage of the smaller frontal area, better power to weight ratio and lower specific fuel consumption of an in-line liquid cooled engine, they should be able to create a higher performing and more survivable aircraft. However, it is also the kill/loss ratio that becomes paramount since a higher performing aircraft with longer range will be engaging the enemy more often, potentially leading to a higher sortie loss rate, but with more kills overall and a better kill/loss ratio.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> If the design team can take advantage of the smaller frontal area, better power to weight ratio and lower specific fuel consumption of an in-line liquid cooled engine, they should be able to create a higher performing and more survivable aircraft. However, it is also the kill/loss ratio that becomes paramount since a higher performing aircraft with longer range will be engaging the enemy more often, potentially leading to a higher sortie loss rate, but with more kills overall and a better kill/loss ratio.


Would have, should have could have, a lot of loose speculation there... Amazing how in line engines despite some of their advantages, disappeared after the war with some rare exceptions (Shackleton).

I have worked on radials and have limited experience with liquid cooled inlines and I can say first hand the radial, if properly maintained and operated is twice as reliable as the inline, speculate and theorize all you want, I'd bet dollars to donuts that 9 out of 10 mechanics would agree with me in a heartbeat.


----------



## renrich (Jan 15, 2012)

The source quoted, The Battle of Midway, to begin with is outdated. "The Shattered Sword" debunks a lot of myths about Midway. One of those myths is that the IJN carrier decks were packed with AC ready to take off. That is not true. Page 362 of "The First Team" by John Lundstrom states that "it appears that only about one third of the Enterprise SBDs were intercepted by the Japanese CAP." The battle records on both sides of this stage of the Battle of Midway are somewhat sketchy but regardless of whether the Zekes hit the VBs before or after they went into their dives the pilots of the SBDs were aware that they were in great danger from the CAP, unlike the bombing of the Tirpitz.

As far as playing the statistics game, P47s flew 423435 sorties in the ETO and had 3077 losses which comes out to be a loss every 138 sorties.
P51s flew 213873 sorties and had 2520 losses for a loss every 85 sorties.
That strongly suggests that the radial engined P47 was more survivable than the P51 with the liquid cooled engine but it does not prove it because there are too many variables.
At the 1944 Fighter Conference, the pilots including of course some from the UK were asked to name the power plant which inspired the most confidence. 81% of the attendees responded.
79% chose the R2800.
7% chose the Merlin. 
I will still go with common sense as to the air cooled radial being more reliable just as the WW2 pilots did.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 15, 2012)

Renrich for the Statistical digest WW II all effective combat sorties flown from fighter in ETO from 8/42 to 5/45 is 527314 so P-47 and P-51 can not flown over 637000


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 15, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Amazing how in line engines despite some of their advantages, disappeared after the war with some rare exceptions (Shackleton).



Joe,

I suspect that has as much to do with service traditions and evolving technologies than anything else. For example, the USN never operated in-line pistons and continued that model throughout. The USAF consolidated onto P-51 derivatives until replaced by jet-powered airframes. The RN maintained a mix, just as they had throughout WWII, with radial engined Sea Fury, Avenger and AD-4W but piston engined Firebrand (ok, not much of an aircraft), Sea Hornet and Firefly until, again, jet-engined aircraft became more prevalent. The RAF continued with its wartime piston engines, again a mix of radial and in-line, but piston propulsion was pretty much a dead-end for anything other than derivative types (such as the Shackleton and Hornet).

Just a thought...

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2012)

renrich said:


> The IJN CAP did engage the SBDs at Midway but their ability to interfere was lessened somewhat by the fact that they were at low altitude dealing with the VTs and had to climb to try to reach the VBs before they went into their dives.



At Midway, the Zero's had trouble with the retreating SBD's because they had run out of their 20mm ammo and were relying on the small MG's.

Plus the CAP had plenty of time to get up to the altitude of the dive bombers as there was plenty of time between the VT and VB strikes. The Zero was a fast climber. The main problem wasn't so much the altitude of the two planes, it was the Zero's were completely out of their assigned sectors, horizontally speaking, for patrolling.


----------



## renrich (Jan 16, 2012)

Thanks Sys, for your clarification. If memory serves, you are the one who made me aware of "The Shattered Sword" which was a very good read. Wish I owned the book for my library.
Vincenzo, I addressed the huge number of sorties by the P47 and P51 compared to the action sorties of Navy fighters in another thread. I copied down the info on sorties in the ETO from a reliable source a number of years ago but can't remember where they came from. I can only conclude those sorties included every flight made by those fighters in the ETO which probably included training, familiarization, testing after maintenance, etc. One could say that the sortie versus losses of the P47 V P51 proves even more strongly the reliability of the air cooled radial V liquid cooled engines.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 16, 2012)

Not if the P-47s were involved in fewer engagements, and suffered concomitantly fewer combat losses, because of their shorter range. This state of affairs, at least as far as the range issue goes, was certainly the case for 8th AF escort missions. You're extrapolating a statement from a very broad data set that simply cannot be justified from the available information.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2012)

Renrich; one more thing about Midway. The IJN had a very primitive system for central fighter control. Granted that the USN still had a *LOT* to learn, but the IJN simply was not able to handle multiple threats coming in at different altitudes and distances. You might say that the lack of an effective doctrine and radio control put the fleet defenses into a position it could not handle nor recover from.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Joe,
> 
> I suspect that has as much to do with service traditions and evolving technologies than anything else. For example, the USN never operated in-line pistons and continued that model throughout. The USAF consolidated onto P-51 derivatives until replaced by jet-powered airframes. The RN maintained a mix, just as they had throughout WWII, with radial engined Sea Fury, Avenger and AD-4W but piston engined Firebrand (ok, not much of an aircraft), Sea Hornet and Firefly until, again, jet-engined aircraft became more prevalent. The RAF continued with its wartime piston engines, again a mix of radial and in-line, but piston propulsion was pretty much a dead-end for anything other than derivative types (such as the Shackleton and Hornet).
> 
> ...



Agree to a point. Perhaps I should have been more specific and brought in civilian operators as well. Even today, you still have newer designs (past 20 years) that have used radials. The only "modern" reciprocating engines that use coolant that I'm aware of are Rotax.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 16, 2012)

True enough, but then the primary benefit of in-line engines was streamlining to obtain faster speeds. Most post-war designs using piston engines had other performance drivers (endurance, fuel efficiency, ease of maintenance etc) with outright speed being a much lower priority. Therefore it makes sense that radials were more popular.


----------



## renrich (Jan 16, 2012)

Buffnut, if you look at my earlier statements about statistics I am not claiming that the stats prove anything. I understand and have stated that there are too many variables. I said, " one could say" but I realise what you say is true. I will stick with common sense and the pilot's judgment at the Fighter Conference and the USN's judgment. I don't understand though how anyone could look at a cutaway of say a P47 or Corsair and compare it to a Spit or P51 (I have all of those) and not understand that the liquid cooled engine's cooling system creates a lot more places a single bullet can cause a shutdown of the engine. One other point is that Lindberg chose an air cooled engine at least partly because it was more reliable than a liquid cooled engine.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 16, 2012)

Renrich,

What you stated was "One could say that the sortie versus losses of the P47 V P51 proves even more strongly the reliability of the air cooled radial V liquid cooled engines." Yes, one could say that but it would be unproven and unprovable based on the info provided. Now, I don't disagree with your overall concept that there are more things to go wrong in a liquid cooled engine, nor that liquid cooling might be more vulnerable (depending on the layout of the coolant pipes relative to armour plating etc) but we need to see more comprehensive and detailed stats to prove that for sure (and, to be honest, I don't think those stats exist).

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## renrich (Jan 17, 2012)

I am looking at the coolant system in a P51 in AHT as well as the armor. The cooling system has a header tank mounted just above and behind the spinner. It has a vent line to the radiator, the radiator behind and below the pilot,, the return line, the pump and a supercharger cooler line. That meant that there were two separate cooling systems both connected to the same radiator. A hit to any of the supercharger system means the supercharger does not work and a hit to the engine cooling system means the engines quits at best and at worst the engine catches on fire. The armor consists of armor behind the pilot seat, armor in the firewall in front of the pilot and armor in front of the header tank. So the header tank is protected from the front but vulnerable to rounds from above or the side,. The radiator is vulnerable from below, above and from the side and rear and the lines are vulnerable from the side and below and above except at angles where the pilot armor, firewall and header tank might protect them. If armor protected all or most of the cooling and supercharger system, the plane would have it's performance seriously degraded. Just as I can deduce that an AFV powered by a gasoline engine will burn easier than one powered by diesel. I can deduce without stats the liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable and less reliable than than the air cooled engine. To boot I have had enough old cars with liquid cooled engines to be familiar with their problems.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm not arguing that air-cooled radials are less complex than liquid-cooled in-lines, nor that in theory the coolant system might have been a point of weakness (depending on the installation etc). What I'm saying is your assertion that radials are less resistant to damage based on bland stats across all sorties is an extrapolation too far.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 17, 2012)

While I cannot provide links (I'm sure someone can), I've heard stories of cylinders being shot off of radial engines yet they still bring the pilot home.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 17, 2012)

Catch22 said:


> While I cannot provide links (I'm sure someone can), I've heard stories of cylinders being shot off of radial engines yet they still bring the pilot home.


I've also read of guys having the cooling system damaged and needles in the red and staying airborne for another 20 minutes IU believe much of this would have to do with the skill if the pilot and his ability to diagnose and act upon his specific damage, the US Navy possibly opted for aircooled engines because the Allison wasn#t up to snuff


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2012)

The US Navy went for air cooled engines in the late 20s and never changed their minds after that (except for airship engines).


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 17, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The US Navy went for air cooled engines in the late 20s and never changed their minds after that (except for airship engines).


I guess I`m correct then


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 19, 2012)

The only way the Allison wasn't up to "snuff" was that it went against navy "policy" and even then the Navy did experiment with liquid cooled engines. The only way to make sure the "policy" was a good one was to test other options to make sure they weren't giving up much in the way of performance to achieve their other goal/s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2012)

There was nothing wrong with the Allison engine, it was the "installation" of that engine in certain aircraft that gave it a bad reputation. In some cases it was superior to the Merlin and this has been pointed out on other threads.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There was nothing wrong with the Allison engine, it was the "installation" of that engine in certain aircraft that gave it a bad reputation. In some cases it was superior to the Merlin and this has been pointed out on other threads.


I'm really not smart enough to say one is better then another but as for radials being easier to work on I can point out some guys that would dispute that after working on the Wright 3350 Turbo Compound
nice sound of 4 of them on take off as soon as you to website
New Page 1


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2012)

Catch22 said:


> While I cannot provide links (I'm sure someone can), I've heard stories of cylinders being shot off of radial engines yet they still bring the pilot home.



A blown off cylinder would entail the loss of lubricating oil. If the top of a cylinder is blown off, that's probably a fire hazard right there (raw fuel being dumped onto the engine).

Perhaps the story's that have made the rounds, pertain to cooling fin damage or cracked cylinders that aren't leaking oil to any degree.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 19, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> A blown off cylinder would entail the loss of lubricating oil. If the top of a cylinder is blown off, that's probably a fire hazard right there (raw fuel being dumped onto the engine).
> 
> Perhaps the story's that have made the rounds, pertain to cooling fin damage or cracked cylinders that aren't leaking oil to any degree.



Could very well be. I was just going by a vague memory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> I'm really not smart enough to say one is better then another but as for radials being easier to work on I can point out some guys that would dispute that after working on the Wright 3350 Turbo Compound
> nice sound of 4 of them on take off as soon as you to website
> New Page 1



A very long time ago I worked briefly (thank god) on a P2V7 and the 3350 Turbo Compound is a beast. With that said I can't imagine having a larger in line engine with a coolant system being any more maintainer friendly, especially when it was used in a military application. On a radial you can pull cylinder heads off while the engine is still on the airframe, I doubt you're going to be doing that with an inline


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 20, 2012)

your correct , Although a reality show Ice Pilots they have on several occasions blown a cylnder away from base and amazingly enough most times carry one as a spare


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2012)

Yep - an opposed engine offers the same benifit.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 22, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> Plus the CAP had plenty of time to get up to the altitude of the dive bombers as there was plenty of time between the VT and VB strikes. The Zero was a fast climber. The main problem wasn't so much the altitude of the two planes, it was the Zero's were completely out of their assigned sectors, horizontally speaking, for patrolling.



If I recall, VT-3 made its escorted attack at about the same time that VB-3 hit the Soryu and VB/VS-6 made attacks on the Akagi and Kaga. It is very possible the real problem with the IJN CAP was that the CAP-vs-escort battle soaked up many of the 47 or so defending Zeroes. Both Navy's regarded the VT (torpedo threat as the real ship killer. The USN based that in part on their Coral Sea experience and the IJN based in part on their ignorance on how bad the USN's Mark 13 really was). Thus, early in the war, the two navies shared a bias toward a lower altitude deployment of CAP aircraft. In the USN this altitude was frequently around 10,000 feet which put the slow climbing F4F at a disadvantage since the IJN pilots usually came in higher. The high flying, relatively speedy Kate came as a real shock to the USN. 



syscom3 said:


> Renrich; one more thing about Midway. The IJN had a very primitive system for central fighter control. Granted that the USN still had a *LOT* to learn, but the IJN simply was not able to handle multiple threats coming in at different altitudes and distances. You might say that the lack of an effective doctrine and radio control put the fleet defenses into a position it could not handle nor recover from.



Very true. A story partly related in Lundstrom's First Team describes Jim Gray's 10 VF-6 escort F4F-4's arriving over the IJN Carriers during the VT-8 attack (who according to one unremembered source, he misidentified as VT-6). He remained at altitude because he didn't hear the prearranged call for help from his Enterprise ship mates of whom he had lost track. Supposedly, his aircraft were misidentified as high level bombers and were essentially ignored by the IJN CAP. Without RADAR, decent radios and no fighter direction system (USN's of course courtesy of the Brits) they couldn't organize their CAP with any efficiency. It is my understanding, they never really solved this deficiency and US Dive Bombers inevitably got through. In contrast, the IJN dive bombers suffered massive losses at Midway when the RADAR fighter direction worked if not perfectly, at least effectively. Unfortunately the Hiryu Dive Bombers that got through were the IJN's first team and the 7 of 18 that survived the CAP intercept (and retained their bombs) got 3 hits.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 22, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> According to Navweaps The three USN carriers had 103 operational SBDs at Midway, but my point is that the Barracuda had relatively few opportunities to attack naval targets, but it did so successfully when it had the chance.



On June 4, Only 27 of the Yorktown's 33 operational SBDs participated in the battle. The Enterprise contributed another 32. Thus only a total 59 SBDs from those two carriers participated in the battle on the 4rth. The Hornet, with 34 SBDs on hand, only _*saw*_ the burning Hiryu after she had been fatally hit by a previous combined (Yorktown/Enterpise) strike. Airwing training of the newly commissioned Hornet had suffered due to its participation in the Doolittle raid and she was essentially a bystander until the 5TH 6th during the Pursuit of the limping IJN cruisers. Lacking an armor peircing bomb, the 60 or so remaining SBDs on the surviving 2 CVs had difficulty putting the two CAs down even though they scored many hits on the slow moving targets which had collided earlier. They eventually sank one (actually I think the IJN finally scuttled her) but only managed to seriously maim the other. Thus there were never more than 60 SBDs attacking IJN ships at any one time during the battle.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And between June 5 and 6 1942 about 40 SBDs sunk 4 aircraft carriers and a heavy crusier.


 
Very close to the mark. In the morning, 47 SBD's attacked three IJN carriers, but only 43-44 carried bombs, as some had been inadvertantly jettisoned due to an electrical glitch. 

The 13 bomb toting SBDs of VB-3 attacked the Soryu from around the compass similar to the Hiryu's divebomber attack on the Yorktown to allow optimal geometry on the manuevering carrier. They obtained 3 sure hits and an unknown number of near misses. That's almost 25% accuracy but unknown precision. 

The 3 SBDs of Dick Bests section hit the Akagi in a difficult cross-deck attack scoring one sure hit and two damaging near misses. Hard to do much better than 30% accuracy and near perfect precision. 

Finally, the remaining 27 SBDs of VB and VS-6 hit the Kaga achieving about 5 hits and an equal number of near misses. That's nearly 20% accuracy and awfully good precision.

On successive days, about 40 cummulative SBDs attacked IJN crusiers and destroyers. The 60 or so surviving SBDs also were tasked with fulfilling ASW patrols and search duties in addition to their strike activities. 

For me, the dump truck is the best dedicated dive bomber of WW2 by a wide margin including considerations of performance, handling, survivability and accuracy of bombing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Very close to the mark. In the morning, 47 SBD's attacked three IJN carriers, but only 43-44 carried bombs, as some had been inadvertantly jettisoned due to an electrical glitch.
> 
> The 13 bomb toting SBDs of VB-3 attacked the Soryu from around the compass similar to the Hiryu's divebomber attack on the Yorktown to allow optimal geometry on the manuevering carrier. They obtained 3 sure hits and an unknown number of near misses. That's almost 25% accuracy but unknown precision.
> 
> ...



Great info!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> The 3 SBDs of Dick Bests section hit the Akagi in a difficult cross-deck attack scoring one sure hit and two damaging near misses. Hard to do much better than 30% accuracy and near perfect precision.



One of the near misses wrecked one of the rudders of the Soryu. The fickle finger of fate decided that this hit effectively took this carrier out of the fight even before the fires started by Dick Bests bomb got out of control.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 26, 2012)

I guess it's fair to call that particular near miss as good as a hit if not a damaging near miss. I won't debate which carrier Best (VB-6) and Leslie's VB-3 hit. I appreciate the evidence in each case with my opinion posted above. All I think we can know for certain is that each got one. Somebody got the Akagi and somebody hit the Soryu. 8)


----------



## parsifal (Jul 29, 2016)

Id suggest the IJNs B7A Grace. Had no impact on the war, but as an aircraft it had few equals and none superior


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2016)

parsifal said:


> Id suggest the IJNs B7A Grace. Had no impact on the war, but as an aircraft it had few equals and none superior


But it did nothing.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2016)

syscom3 said:


> But it did nothing.


Yeah I know, but was that the fault of the aircraft or the circumstances it found itself in .

the logic is warped. its a bit like saying the SBD was the worst aircraft because more of that type were lost than any other divebomber in the pacific......


----------

