Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians (1 Viewer)

[EwenS]

Geez! They needed the Marines.
On 11 Dec 1941, CPT "Hammerin' Hank" Elrod flying a VMF-211 F4F-3 sank the Japanese destroyer Kisaragi with just a pair of 100 lb bombs.

But did he? From the Nihon Kaigun site.

Due to air attack and the shore batteries, Invasion Commander Kaijioka ordered the landings suspended and surface forces to retire. While thus engaged, KISARAGI came under air attack. About 0537 a bomb struck which blew off most of her bridge. At 0542 she upended sharply and sank so swiftly that all hands, including Lt.Cdr.Ogawa and 156 men were lost.[2]

2] There is notabe discrepancy in accounts of Kisaragi's loss. Another version says an initial bomb hit started fires that then reportedly led to explosion of depth charges (eyewitnesses dispute this, saying fatal blast originated amidships). Crew apparently fought a losing battle against internal fires for some time – Kisaragi's attackers had time to land back at Wake, refuel and re-arm, and return to find her still smoking and wallowing – before she suddenly blew up and sank before their eyes. Other accounts say strafing fire set off the volatile Type-95 charges on the stern, but the observed circumstances make this less likely. U.S. sources allege this was due to 100-lb bomb dropped by Captain Henry T. Elrod, USMC of VMF-211.

 

[Greg Boeser]

USN did use fighters as fighter bombers during the early island raids in the first few months of 1942, notably the Marshall Islands raid (1 Feb 42) and the Lea/Salamaua raid (10 Mar 42). But the practice was discontinued due to the need to provide escorts and CAP with the limited number of shipboard fighters.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

[

 

[Shortround6]

There is quite a bit of controversy about the sinking of the Kisaragi.
My own opinion is that CPT Elrod either hit something with his .50 cal guns or one of his 100lb bombs started a fire which lead to something aboard the ship detonating.

The first class to use 24in torpedoes (but not the long lance) There are few areas were there wasn't something to explode. Triple torpedo launcher in front of the Bridge, 3 spare torpedoes either under the bridge or below the 4.7in gun. 4.7in gun ammo where? 4.7in gun between the funnels with ammo storage??? triple torpedo launcher on the deck after the 2nd funnel and spare torpedoes stored in the deck house just aft of the funnel (Or along side it? or in the after deck house? ). Magazine for the two 4.7in guns in/under the aft deckhouse with depth charges aft.
Sister ship

On Dec 7th most of the this class had a single 7.7mm machine gun (Lewis gun) on each side of the bridge for AA work.
They soon got a twin 13mm forward of the Bridge and a twin 13mm aft of the 2nd funnel. This is pretty pathetic in Dec 1941/early 1942.
The 4.7in guns had a low rate of fire (shell and cartridge were loaded separately) and were pretty much worthless as AA guns.

Very few destroyers are going to survive a magazine explosion or a torpedo warhead explosion.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Kisaragi was one of those 1920s designs, obsolete by WW2, they were the type used as fast transport ships in the "Tokyo Express".

Many nations had the equivalent though these were particularly weak on AAA

 

[Shortround6]

Kisaragi was one of those 1920s designs, obsolete by WW2, they were the type used as fast transport ships in the "Tokyo Express".

Many nations had the equivalent though these were particularly weak on AAA

The weak AA is true although some were weaker than others. British were using two 2pdr pom-pom guns (one one each side of the ship) in their late WW I and 1920s destroyers.
Later they swapped out the 2pdr pom poms for quad .5in guns but that choice may have been questionable.
US skated. They had so many four pipers they didn't bother to build any new destroyers until the earl 1930s (1933-34) and since they started with the 5in/38 they had a head start in the AA sweepstakes. For most of the 1930s the US used four .50 cal MGs as the light AA. Which might have been OK facing small numbers of fabric covered biplanes. The US .50 cal cartridge was about 2500fps and was not that much more powerful than anybody else's 12.7-13.2mm guns. But the gun itself was in the 1st rank

Navy gun was just about identical. Large belt box beat the heck out of 30 round box magazines and the water cooling meant the guns crews didn't have to swap barrels in the middle of an air raid
The US never went for the controlling elevation and traverse by geared handwheels for machine guns. Maybe not as precise but the mounts were cheaper and lighter.
This was the standard for the US Destroyers until the first Benson/Gleaves ships with six .50 cal guns. Later Benson/Gleaves swapped one 5in/38 and one set of tubes for two twin 40mm Bofors and seven 20mm Oerlikons and more depth charges and throwers. There were some intermediate AA fits as 40mm production geared up.
British learned real quick in 1940 that neither the pair of pom-poms or the two quad .5" were good enough. However that was the "old" standard as the British rarely (never?) built a new destroyer with out a quad 2pdr pom-pom in a powered mount after 1937. They swapped a twin 40mm Bofors for the quad 2pdr when Bofors production allowed which didn't occur until the end of 1942.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The weak AA is true although some were weaker than others. British were using two 2pdr pom-pom guns (one one each side of the ship) in their late WW I and 1920s destroyers.
Later they swapped out the 2pdr pom poms for quad .5in guns but that choice may have been questionable.
US skated. They had so many four pipers they didn't bother to build any new destroyers until the earl 1930s (1933-34) and since they started with the 5in/38 they had a head start in the AA sweepstakes. For most of the 1930s the US used four .50 cal MGs as the light AA. Which might have been OK facing small numbers of fabric covered biplanes. The US .50 cal cartridge was about 2500fps and was not that much more powerful than anybody else's 12.7-13.2mm guns. But the gun itself was in the 1st rank
View attachment 854720
Navy gun was just about identical. Large belt box beat the heck out of 30 round box magazines and the water cooling meant the guns crews didn't have to swap barrels in the middle of an air raid

Water cooled .50 cal is on my list of very scary and underrated things.

The US never went for the controlling elevation and traverse by geared handwheels for machine guns. Maybe not as precise but the mounts were cheaper and lighter.
This was the standard for the US Destroyers until the first Benson/Gleaves ships with six .50 cal guns. Later Benson/Gleaves swapped one 5in/38 and one set of tubes for two twin 40mm Bofors and seven 20mm Oerlikons and more depth charges and throwers. There were some intermediate AA fits as 40mm production geared up.
British learned real quick in 1940 that neither the pair of pom-poms or the two quad .5" were good enough. However that was the "old" standard as the British rarely (never?) built a new destroyer with out a quad 2pdr pom-pom in a powered mount after 1937. They swapped a twin 40mm Bofors for the quad 2pdr when Bofors production allowed which didn't occur until the end of 1942.

Realization of the true threat of air power was lagging all around until the first big naval air battles, and even after for a bit.

 

[Greg Boeser]

There is quite a bit of controversy about the sinking of the Kisaragi.
My own opinion is that CPT Elrod either hit something with his .50 cal guns or one of his 100lb bombs started a fire which lead to something aboard the ship detonating.
View attachment 854710
The first class to use 24in torpedoes (but not the long lance) There are few areas were there wasn't something to explode. Triple torpedo launcher in front of the Bridge, 3 spare torpedoes either under the bridge or below the 4.7in gun. 4.7in gun ammo where? 4.7in gun between the funnels with ammo storage??? triple torpedo launcher on the deck after the 2nd funnel and spare torpedoes stored in the deck house just aft of the funnel (Or along side it? or in the after deck house? ). Magazine for the two 4.7in guns in/under the aft deckhouse with depth charges aft.
Sister ship
View attachment 854711
On Dec 7th most of the this class had a single 7.7mm machine gun (Lewis gun) on each side of the bridge for AA work.
They soon got a twin 13mm forward of the Bridge and a twin 13mm aft of the 2nd funnel. This is pretty pathetic in Dec 1941/early 1942.
The 4.7in guns had a low rate of fire (shell and cartridge were loaded separately) and were pretty much worthless as AA guns.

Very few destroyers are going to survive a magazine explosion or a torpedo warhead explosion.

Hayate suffered a similar fate when struck by Wake's shore guns.

 

[Shortround6]

Realization of the true threat of air power was lagging all around until the first big naval air battles, and even after for a bit.

Sometimes even if they knew what they wanted they couldn't get it for several years.

British mount based on the Dutch mount that showed up in England in the Summer of 1940 after Holland fell. Very sophisticated (too sophisticated) with the cross leveling, built in range finders, power elevation and traverse. British added radar. It took until the end of 1942 to get on a British ship. Please note that many British and American 40mm Bofors guns used water cooled barrels. Manufacture was always behind the desired numbers. Many smaller US and British ships used the air cooled land guns.

Please note that many of the ranges given for light AA guns are the product of wishful thinking and strong drink (or illegal substances). Getting aiming systems that would allow firing at fast moving targets 2-3000yds away was a problem that was not solved before getting small radars and directors that were coupled to the actual 40mm mounts.

 

[Pale Runner]

Water cooled .50 cal is on my list of very scary and underrated things.

And totally ineffective as AA weapon in 1940.

 

[Shortround6]

And totally ineffective as AA weapon in 1940.

Which really leaves us wondering about the Japanese 13.2mm gun

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's a reason why Oerlikons and Bofors proliferated in 1942 and beyond. Machine guns couldn't deliver defense range as offensive platforms and weapons gained speed and range.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Looks like the first use of P-40s as bombers in North Africa was on 16 May in 1942, six Kittyhawk I (P-40D) of 112 Sqn to attack Timimi each with a single 500 lb bomb. They did not lose any aircraft in this strike though other British units lost 8 that day (5 Kittyhawks, 1 Tomahawk, and 2 Hurricanes from multiple different squadrons). 112 Sqn did another raid on the 18th and lost 2 (one shot down by flak, one hitting it's prop on the ground) plus one crash-landed back at base, and another damaged.

View attachment 853557
This photograph is a 112 Sqn Kittyhawk I (P-40D) GA-Y. AK772 "London Pride", from Libya, before May 30 1942 as this aircraft was lost on that date near Bir Hakeim. I believe that is a British 250 lb bomb visible.

View attachment 853553
450 Sqn RAF pilot with 500 lb bomb on Kittyhawk.

View attachment 853344
Field modified 450 RAAF Kittyhawk with two 250 lb bombs

"Kittybombers" played a significant role at Gazala on Jun 6, attacking German armor with 500 lb and 250 lb bombs with 112, 250, and 260 RAF and 3 RAAF involved. Original armament reported was two to six 250 lb bombs, or one 500 and two 250 lb bombs. By 2nd El Alamein November 1942 450 Sqn RAAF Kittyhawks were routinely carrying two or three 500 lb bombs. So by this point, up to 1,500 lbs.

A pilot flying a P-40F from the US 324th FG sank the Italian destroyer Leone Pancaldo off of Cape Bon on 29 April 1943, using 1,000 lb bombs.

First strike with P-40s in New Guinea was by 9 or 10 Kittyhawk Ia (P-40E) of 75 RAAF sqn in New Guinea on March 22, 1942, an airstrike on Lae, credited with destroying 12 aircraft on the ground and 2 in the air. 2 Kittyhawks were lost on the raid. I can't be sure though they were carrying any bombs, this may have just been strafing.

View attachment 853343
This is New Guinea, I'm not sure what size bombs those are, either 300 lb or 500 lb.

76 Sqn RAAF led a strike in New Guinea with P-40s carrying 300 lb bombs against Gona on 22 July 1942. After that clearly bombing was routine, with ever increasing loads. As US 500 and 1,000 lb bombs became available they started using those, though I don't know the exact date. Both against ground targets and a few times against shipping.

On 7 May 1942 AVG P-40Es led by "Tex" Hill led raids on the Salween river gorge, armorers having modified the planes to carry Soviet made 570 lb bombs. 23rd Fighter Group modified P-40s to carry US made 1,000 lb bombs from July 1942.

View attachment 853352
Standard bomb load for the Blenheim IV at this time was four 250 lb bombs, for a total of 1,000 lbs.

We will compare performance like range, cruising speed, max speed etc. later. I'm out of time alas.

Very interesting the 3rd photo with the extended bomb fuses

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Very interesting the 3rd photo with the extended bomb fuses

I think that was typical with the British 250 lb bombs (when used for dive bombing)

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

I think that was typical with the British 250 lb bombs (when used for dive bombing)

First time I see It. I had seen It for german bombs but not for Allies

 

[Greg Boeser]

Daisy cutter extension. Detonates the bomb above the ground for a wider fragmentation dispersal.

 

[Pale Runner]

Which really leaves us wondering about the Japanese 13.2mm gun
View attachment 854847

Not any better than a 50cal. Pretty useless as AA weapon. Replaced with 25m guns when ever possible. Even though the 25mm was a crappy weapon it was far better than any heavy mg.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Almost all the Japanese crew served weapons seem to be described as terrible, and yet they seem to have made a lot of them work regardless

 

[Pale Runner]

View attachment 855578

Almost all the Japanese crew served weapons seem to be described as terrible, and yet they seem to have made a lot of them work regardless

Considering how many weapons they had and how target rich environment they operated in - results were not impressive.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

View attachment 855578

Almost all the Japanese crew served weapons seem to be described as terrible, and yet they seem to have made a lot of them work regardless

A lot of them were terrible, but when it's your ass on the line, you will go to lengths. A lot of them were really good, too. You still go to lengths when folks are shooting at you. There's a Churchill quote about "concentrating the mind" that explains a bit of it.