B-25 vs. Ju-88

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

As mentioned before the storage problem exists and in fact is probably the biggest and maybe only real issue.

Wing fold etc were standard items by '43. Modifications including strengthening of the magnitude required are also standard for naval aircraft or any other aircraft in its production run. Catapult launches were accomplished by those tests so thats not an issue either.

However, the Midway and Esex classes were straight deck carriers. Storage was always problematic as there was NO spots on the deck that were not flight orientated and retrofits of the required elevators would be a major issue. Also being the size of two fighters or Avengers would reduce the aircraft available by almost half. Landing with aircraft spotted in front of the barrier, nothing more that a steel net, would be a huge problem to.

Really not effective for that time and place.

wmaxt
 
Thats why the idea was probably abandonded.

But what if you use the carriers for staging? have the planes on board for an attack, fly back and refuel and then continue on to an airbase?

Note - the B25's used by the Doolittle raiders had three .50's.
 
syscom3 said:
Thats why the idea was probably abandonded.

But what if you use the carriers for staging? have the planes on board for an attack, fly back and refuel and then continue on to an airbase?
Click to expand...
Been done with fighters exept they kept fying to their bases....


 
I mean make it a shuttle bombing concept. Planes take off from an airbase, land on the carrier to arm and refuel, and then fly to their targets. Maybe even come back for more fuel and bombs.
 
Because then you still have the problem that we just talked about up there. There is no room for all the planes on the deck while the others are landing and there is no room for the planes to land while too many are on the deck. If some stay aloft and fly around while the other refuel, then you run into the problem of planes running out of fuel and ditching into the ocean.

Still not a very good idea and would not work very well.
 
A) without modification they couldn't land.
B) Modified they probably could land (as long as the arrestor gear was modified and that isn't a job to be done in a few days. Design, build, test, install maybe 3-5 months) but cannot be struck down into the hanger
c) If they cannot be struck down into the hanger the deck cannot be used for anything else, including fighters to defend the ship
D) All the other points raised by everyone else. It wasn't going to work.

Earlier a question was asked about why the A20 or B26 were not used. My understanding was that the A20 was too small and the B26 with its higher takeoff speeds was an unnecessary risk with the B25 available.
 


You pretty much hit the nail right on the head there, but I disagree with the 3 to 5 month time frame.

The US could build Liberty Ships like they were toy boats, I am sure at full capabilities they could have built and tested one pretty quick.
 

Ok,
A) they are modified, no big deal. Theres picture proof a PBJ did land and takeoff from a carrier.
B) It could have been done in days, considering how fast the US aviation industry could work.
C) for a shuttle type operation they dont need to be struck down.
D) American industry always found ways to make something work.

And the reason the B25 was selected for use was it had a demonstrated capability for very short takeoff rolls.
 
Well, when the center point of his argument is "American industry can do anything, and do it within days," you can't really get through to him.
 
plan_D said:
Well, when the center point of his argument is "American industry can do anything, and do it within days," you can't really get through to him.
Click to expand...

Maybe in WW2 the RAF and the British aviation industry would need weeks or months to do it, but the US aviation industry didnt need that long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
B-25 Hard to Fly?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Bretoal2
B
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
611
Jerrybandit67
J
G
B-25 production and distribution
Replies
8
Views
995
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
915
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register