Best 1943 Carrier Bomber (non-TB)

What was the best carrier bomber in 1943?

  • Total voters
    29

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

great post mr Leonard....I will see if I can find any information about dive angles for the Firefly, though I think you are correct, I think it was more a steep glide angle rather than a divebombing angle.

I have seen footage showing Fireflies attacking up to angles of about 75 to 80 degrees angle of attack. Where does that place the Firefly. I do know it could effectively control its rate of descent using its combat flaps as defacto dive brakes. Its ability to slow the ratg of descent if required did improve its accuracy measuarably compared to other FBs
 
Cool. So no radar for 1943 Fireflies.
 
Whatever plane is better, this is important:
All this talk about carrier planes really got me doing a lot of research, so my knowledge about Fulmars, Fireflies, SB2Cs, Barracudas etc is much better then two weeks ago.
 
tomo pauk said:
Cool. So no radar for 1943 Fireflies.
Click to expand...

ah no, the refernce to production of the APS-6 in 1944, refers to the APS-6. The Fireflies were equipped with the APS-4, which was known also as ASH radar. The characteristics were the same except that the ASH radar required a second operator due to the size of the scope.


APS-6 was the set fitted to night fighting Corsairs and Hellcats.

Fireflies carried the ASH radar into battle from the very beginning. They were not fitted with AI Mk X (which had greater airborne detection ranges....out to approximately 100 miles under ideal conditions, and was the same gear as fitted to the Mosquitoes by then flying over Germany until the latter half of 1944
 
Methinks that this settles the score (no radars for F Mk.I, but the FR Mk.I, first used in 1945):
 

Attachments

  • Firefly FR1.jpg
    24.7 KB · Views: 106
Ah not so. Most Mk1s were upgraded to Mk1A standard which carried the radar in underwing pods. It was simply found that locating the APs-4 array in the nose was more efficient. The first Mk1As were converted in 1943.

Nearly all RN carrier borne strike aircraft had carried some form of ASV radar since mid 1941. Because the RN emphasised the importance of night attack at this time, and also needed to counter u-Boats, the development of an effective high resolution ASV radar was a high priority.

What set the APS-4/6 assembly apart was that it could undertake aerial interception as well as ground strikes. The RN still preferred AI MkX for dedicated NF units because it was better at aerial combat
 
Ah not so. Most Mk1s were upgraded to Mk1A standard which carried the radar in underwing pods. It was simply found that locating the APs-4 array in the nose was more efficient. The first Mk1As were converted in 1943.
Click to expand...
And the source is?
 


Mercy-buckets

Not sure how dive versus glide bombing was defined on the RN side of the pond. The USN spelled out their definition at the time, amongst other places, I am sure, in Chapter IX "Tactics and Flight Operations" of OPNAV 33-NY-85, "Introduction to Naval Aviation". In this document is Section 4, "Bombing Tactics" which defines the differences in the attack profiles:

"Naval bombing takes the following forms:
1. Dive bombing, a high-angle attack of 60° to 90°
2. Glide bombing, at an attack angle of 30° to 55°
3. Low-level bombing, at minimum altitudes
4. Horizontal bombing, at level flight and usually from high altitude employing radar or an optical sight."

If Fireflies were going in at angles greater than 60° on a regular basis then by this definition one of those "multiple roles" would be dive bomber. Certainly works for me.

Rich
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
Whatever plane is better, this is important:
All this talk about carrier planes really got me doing a lot of research, so my knowledge about Fulmars, Fireflies, SB2Cs, Barracudas etc is much better then two weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, most interesting information


Yes I would agree with you on all points.

If this had been "Best DB in 1942" (or 1941 for that matter) the Dauntless would be hands down winner.

The fact that it was key in the Midway victory, the failure of the SB2C as a replacement (until late '44 at least), the fact most of Japan's Naval Air capability was lost within 6 months of Pearl, and the fact that DB's were not much used in the ETO, all helped to put the Dauntless as runaway favorite.
 
The picture of SB2D-1 (early, with 4 x .50 cals and 3-blade prop - the 1700 HP engine). Note the yagi antennas of two planes attached to the underside of outer wing pannels, a part of ASB radar.
 

Attachments

  • SB2Cradar.jpg
    25 KB · Views: 125
tomo pauk said:
And the source is?
Click to expand...

I knew you were going to ask me that....and i dont have an accessible source that you can read about this in a single document. Most of my information about the Firefly i obtained in visits to the RANs avaition museum, based in a town called Nowra here in Australia, located about 200 km from where i live. The place has a fantastic database on most of the aircraft on display, including the firefly that served in the RAN until 1955.

However, some inling of why I say what i say can be found from this reasonable single page resource...


Fairey Firefly

Relevantly it says:

"the first production Firefly F.Mk 1 aircraft were delivered in March 1943. A total of 459 of this version was built, 327 by Fairey and 132 by General Aircraft under sub-contract. The addition of ASH radar beneath the engine identified the Firefly FR.Mk 1, of which 236 were built, and a number of Firefly F.Mk Is modified to Firefly FR.MK 1 standard had the designation Firefly F.Mk IA. A Firefly NF.Mk 11 night-fighter version was developed, but when it was realised that its AI Mk 10 radar could be pod mounted beneath the engine, as with the ASH radar of the Firefly FR.MK 1, the planned 328 aircraft programme was cancelled. Instead, 140 Firefly FR.MK Is were modified on the production line to Firefly NF.Mk 1 configuration, the 37 Firefly NF.Mk IIs that had been built being converted back to Mk 1 standard."

What is not stated here is that nearly 380 of the 430 Mk1 were converted to Mk1A standard, and that this conversion pre-dated the introduction of the FRMk-1. This numvber of conversions is stated on the Fleet air arm site, if you want to get verification.

So the critical piece of information you are asking for i dont have, but i have seen, namely that the Mk-1A conversions predated the FR-Mk-1 purpose built aircraft. I can tell you that the barracuda, as built, and predating the firefly, were fitted with ASH radars from the beginning. Perhaps the Mk-1A conversions stemmed from the experiences of the radar equipped Barras....but that is just speculation

If ever you are in Australia, I would be happy to take you to the museum to view the resources for yourself.
 
Lucky13 said:
Remember the Captain of USS Yorktown CV-10 that had his Helldivers swapped for SBD-3 Dauntless', because, as he put it, wouldn't use them as anchors!

SBD for me all the way!
Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:
Throw the Helldivers over the side right away (it only saves time) and check the other two planes again.
Click to expand...

OK, so it would seen that the SB2C is "Not ready for prime time" in the spring of '43. From what Syscom Lucky have posted, it seems the Helldiver wasn't really viable until late 44/45. (Tailhooks ripped off parts falling off your aircraft pretty much rules it out for me. ) Sounds like the Judy has too many problems in the spring of '43 also.

parsifal said:
IMO the SBD was the best daytime D/B of the war. It was the ideal mix of stability, accuracy, range, firepower and defensive capability.
Click to expand...

My question: How does the SBD-5 compare with the Firefly? Would the Firefly be inferior in any of the DB's imprtant categories?

In addition to payload, I'll add the items from Parsifal's list:

1.) payload - Firefly 2,000 lbs vs 1,200 for the SBD

2.) stability - The Dauntless performed well aboard carriers AFAIK, but the Firefly was very manouverable at low speeds, due to the F-Y flaps

3.) accuracy - The Dauntless performed well, I haven't heard of any problems with the Firefly... Anyone have any data on the Firefly's DB accuracy?

4.) range - about the same: 1,364 Firefly vs 1,345 Dauntless

5.) firepower - Firefly 4 x 20mm, Dauntless 4 x MG

6.) defensive capability.- The Dauntless had 2 MG's in the rear, but the Firefly had the 4 x 20mm cannon, and was very agile at low levels. The Firefly was also far faster, at 319 mph it was almost as fast as the A6M2 (330 mph) compared to ~250 mph for the SBD-5
 
Problem with the Judy was its inadequate protection. Its hard to gauge how the Judy would have fared if it had been in USN service. It had good range and good performance, but was lightweight and vulnerable
 
For the whole war, USN TBF,TBM delivered more than 24000 tons of bombs.USN SBD delivered more than 2500 tons of bombs. The TBF first got into action at Midway in 1942 so my guess is that in 1943 TBFs dropped a lot more bombs than any of the other contenders. One question I have always had about the Avenger is why it had only one forward firing pea shooter, a 30 cal. SBD3s and later had two fifties which would make a head on run hazardous.
 
TP, I looked it up and according to wiki you are correct. The Avenger at some point was equipped with 2-50 cals after the pilots complained about the single 30 cal. I don't blame them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
1K
Vahe Demirjian
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
3K
Admiral Beez
A
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
39K
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register