Best anti-shipping aircraft?

[Jabberwocky]

The Hs-293 was countered by Allied developments in jamming and spoofing

"The Allies also introduced electronic countermeasures against the Kehl-Strassburg control system. One system was a broadband jamming transmitter that simply disrupted the control transmission with radio noise. Another system was more subtle, "spoofing" the bomb by sending false control signals to the Strassburg controller that slammed the weapon's control surfaces to an extreme position, causing it to stall and tumble, or descend in an aimless spiral. When the Luftwaffe attempted to attack the Allied fleet during the Normandy landings in June 1944, they were unable to overcome Allied fighter defenses. What few glide bombs they dropped were ineffective due to jamming and spoofing. The Hs-293A and Fritz-X were no longer useful weapons."

That said, they did hit and sink a number of Allied (and Italian) ship during the war.

The Allies also developed standoff and precision guided weaponry. The ASM-2 BAT comes to mind, it was a S-band active radar guided glide bomb.

 

[Gnomey]

Nice info DerAlder.
It was Taranto and not Toronto though.

 

[quayhog]

The USN's unsung hero of the PTO. The Lockheed PV-1 Ventura. With the turret locked forward they had up to 8 fwd firing .50 caliber BMGs. Squadrons perfected glide bombing techniques and if good they could place a 500lb HE at the waterline on axis shipping. Good at ASW too.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Mosquito, Beaufighter, B-25 Mitchell and A-20G Havoc. For the Axis, the Focke Wulf 200 Condor devastated shipping in the north Atlantic.

Got any data on the number of ships the Fw200 sunk? Ju88s and He111s were more successful.

........

The Mosquito has to be in there. It was a remarkable machine and was able to deal with almost any vessel it came across. The FB.XVIII 'Tse-tse' was equipped with the Molins 6pdr (57mm) cannon in the nose. And the wooden construction of the Mosquito could survive the SW-Pacific. How do I know that? Because it did serve in the SW-Pacific!

Just barely did the Mossie survive in the SWP.

Only a reletive few Tse-tse were made. Not worth the effort as cannons and rockets proved more successful.

 

[syscom3]

Can someone briefly explain to me why the US didnt adapt the 20mm Oerlikon cannons to the medium bombers? The B25/A20 had an airframe stout enough to handle it.

This cannon worked wonderfully for shipboard air defense, and it could have been a great addition to the strafer planes

 

[evangilder]

When they did the initial testing for the 75mm on the B-25, the first test was done with a 20mm. Which 20mm, I am not sure. I once heard that when they tested the 20mm versus the .50 caliber on the P-47, they found the damage differential was slight. I don't have all the details on the test nor what the targets tested were.

 

[SM79Sparviero]

Got any data on the number of ships the Fw200 sunk? Ju88s and He111s were more successful

I think another aircraft was still more successful, much more successful in particular if we remember that it was born as passenger and mail carrier, that it attacked merchant or warships in small groups of no more than 2-3 aircrafts by day or by night it didn't matter, that it had no fighter protection in most of its war actions.

As example, Captain Carlo Emanuele Buscaglia flying this ugly wooden-made bomber made 29 war actions up to November 11 1942 ( when he launched his last torpedo from his burning bomber), with 24 torpedos at target!
He sunk two cruisers, two auxiliary merchant cruisers, one net support ship, 5 merchant carriers ; he severely damaged two battleships, one aircraft carrier, 6 cruisers, two destroyers, three merchant carriers.

I would give a comparable tribute, for the same reasons, to another ugly wooden-made aircraft: Fairey Swordfish.
They had both exceptional results with poor roots , without 12.7 mm machine gun battery or 75 mm or 57 mm guns, without rockets.
It means that those roots were not so poor, maybe.

 

[syscom3]

Interesting you chose this aircraft. A sentimental favorite?

I dont think either of this aircraft would have survived for long if it was in on the missions in the PTO that the B25/A20/Beaufighters had to contend with.

One thing that made these aircraft superior to yours is they not only performed well sinking ships, but on the days when there were no shipping to attack, they could attack Japanese airfields and other targets.

I say the "standard" for what made an effective anti-shipping aircraft was whether it could perform a low level attack on Rabaul and have a good chance getting out in one piece.

 

[Glider]

SM79. I assume that your talking about the SM79 against the RN in the Med.
If this is the case can I ask which ships Captain Buscaglia sank. As the list you mention doesn't match with the records that I have by such a margin that I must have the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
Generally Italian air attack was very ineffective. Scary and bravely undertaken but with a lack of results, The Italians were well known for carrying out very accurate attacks on shipping from high level and a number of ships were damaged by near misses but few if any vessels were sunk in this way.

 

[elmilitaro]

The PBY Catalina "CAT" was a preety good anti-shipping aircraft to, but not the best.

 

[GregP]

I worked with an old WWII B-25 crew chief about 20 years ago. He said they used to put the 75mm cannons into old, war-weary B-25 airframes because all they would get is about 15 - 18 shots or less. The airframe was junk after that. The 75mm gun was hard-mounted to the airframe, with no recoil absorbers, and it made the rivet holes oval shaped. They quit flying them when the wings started flapping!

This was the field modification, not the factory new planes. I don't know the details of the factory 75mm mounts. I would guess they DID have recoil absorbers, but do not know htat for sure.

 

[NAVAIR]

Got any data on the number of ships the Fw200 sunk? Ju88s and He111s were more successful.

I have read estimates that put total losses to Fw 200s at over 600,000 tons of shipping. One unit managed 363,000 tons by itself. I'll wager Ju 88s and He 111s combined didn't approach 25% of what the Condors sunk.

My regards,

Widewing

 

[NAVAIR]

Pappy Gunn is credited with coming up with the field modified Mitchells in the 5th AF.

B-25H models were fitted with a specially designed light-weight M6 75mm gun. Designed with a concentric recoil mechanism, it occupied 50% less volume than the standard 75mm M3 gun. This gun was so successful that it was adapted to the M-24 light tank, which was easily the best light tank design of the war. Having the firepower of an M4 Sherman (the guns used the same ammo), but was much faster and a far lower silhouette making it more survivable despite having relatively thin armor.


My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[evangilder]

I hadn't heard about the 75mm causing that much trouble. Hand loading giving it a low rate of fire was a big drawback. Pappy Gunn worked with an engineer from North American, who happened to be my wife's great uncle, Jack Fox. Unfortunately, Jack passed away before I met my wife. I would have loved to talk to him about those mods that he did down there. No one else in the family appears to have talked to him about his wartime experiences either, darn it.

One of my son's namesakes is Jack. He had a life that had many interesting stories, including rescuing my wife's grandfather from Russia during the revolution. I completely stumbled on his history with the military when researching the B-25 a few years ago.

Here is a shot of Jack from those days.

 

[NAVAIR]

Can someone briefly explain to me why the US didnt adapt the 20mm Oerlikon cannons to the medium bombers? The B25/A20 had an airframe stout enough to handle it.

This cannon worked wonderfully for shipboard air defense, and it could have been a great addition to the strafer planes

Oerlikons were markedly inferior to Hispano type cannons as aircraft guns. A typical Oerlikon aircraft gun round can be seen below as the 20x80RB. All the way to the right is the 20x110 Hispano round. Needless to say, the Hispano was far more effective in terms of velocity, trajectory and explosive power. The 20x82 was for the German MG151.

The U.S. Navy fitted Hispanos to the F4U-1C and some of the F6F-5Ns. Most SB2C dive bombers were armed with two forward firing Hispanos. Likewise, the P-61 was armed with four Hispanos as was the F7F Tigercat. All P-38s were armed with one 20mm Hispano and four .50 BMGs. 150 early Allison powered Mustangs originally ordered for the RAF were fitted with four Hispanos (those retained by the AAF were designated as the P-51 without a suffix). Indeed, the XP-51B was one of these Mustangs, modified for the Merlin. Too bad they didn't carry over the 20mm cannons in production. As to bombers, the B-29 was armed with one Hispano in the tail.

In general, the Navy was switching over to 20mm cannons while the USAAF thought the .50 BMG to be adequate. The Korean war would show that cannons were essential and almost every combat plane in the Navy was so armed. On the other hand, all of the USAF fighters in Korea were armed with the old standard of six fifties... Hundreds of MiGs survived to cross the Yalu (badly shot up from F-86 machineguns), which would not have survived if the Sabres were armed with cannons.

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[syscom3]

Thanks for the info NAVAIR. I figured if the Navy thought it was good enough for mass use on shipboard, it was probably just as good in an aircraft. I still wonder though if anyone tested a B25 with 6-8 20mm Hispano cannons.

Maybe the AAF figured the approach speeds were so high, the number of rounds that could be fired was essential.

 

[SM79Sparviero]

If this is the case can I ask which ships Captain Buscaglia sank. As the list you mention doesn't match with the records that I have by such a margin that I must have the wrong end of the stick somewhere

My source about 24 torpedos at target on 29 war actions is "SM 79 Sparviero"-i grandi aerei storici" -number 2, October-November 2002 Delta Editorial-Parma.Author: the competent historical researcher Nico Sgarlato . Sources:Ufficio storico stato Maggiore Aeronautica Militare; John Milner, Eagle Press.
I will search other international sources if possible.
I myself can surely remember from my books the following claims, up to 1941:
September 17, 1940: HMS Kent out of action for 12 months

December 3 1940 HMS Glasgow out of action for 9 months

Dec 26 1 hit on an unidentified cargo , in Sollum's harbour

May 8, 1941: 1 hit on cargo Ranswley

March 28 1941 : 1 hit on "Formidable " aircraft carrier , one torpedo that has always been denied by British sources I don' t really know why, exactly as I don' t understand the reason why the damages caused by one 450 mm torpedo hit and 100 mm gun and 20 mm machine-gun shells from Lupo torpedo boat( which received back 14 152 mm shells on board) to Orion cruiser in May, 21 1941 have always been denied by British sources( someone wrote about "pom Pom" shells from Dido!) , on the contrary Rear Admiral Irvine G. Glennie,commander of the task force, was severely inquired for his behaviour under enemy fire even if he had really been successful in blocking the Axis motorcraft convoy carrying troops to Creta, under the escort of the Italian torpedo-boat .....

 

[Gemhorse]

Those German rockets could've been quite a problem for the Allies...good point, Adler....

I concur on the Mosquito in the PTO, the Aussies made and used them, and they were up with the Brits in Burma etc. too, they had great range...

Capable of carrying a torpedo, a variant later became the Sea Mosquito, but the Beaufighters, although slower, were more a torpedo variant until RP's came in....

I believe the Hurricane IID's the with 2x 40mm 'S' guns were used in the MTO on the odd coastal strike between tank-busting...
They were also the first Allied aircraft to trial RP's, and did use these combos in the MTO and Far East...shame they didn't use them in the Strike Wings with the Mossies and Beaus, that would've really mixed it up against the German Navy along the Low Countries up into the Baltic...

But I agree, the B-25 was the real PTO ship-buster, used by the US Forces, and the Beau's were used by the other Allies...nothing like twin-engines for that type of task, but in no-way do I discount the sterling work done by the other variants that were also used though, such as the Dauntless, right through to RP-firing Corsairs....

Gemhorse

 

[SM79Sparviero]

Interesting you chose this aircraft. A sentimental favorite?

I dont think either of this aircraft would have survived for long if it was in on the missions in the PTO that the B25/A20/Beaufighters had to contend with.

One thing that made these aircraft superior to yours is they not only performed well sinking ships, but on the days when there were no shipping to attack, they could attack Japanese airfields and other targets.

I say the "standard" for what made an effective anti-shipping aircraft was whether it could perform a low level attack on Rabaul and have a good chance getting out in one piece

The risk faced by a wing of 15-20 A-20s attacking a Japanese target was not so different from the one met by 2-3 SM 79s attacking Nelson battleship, moreover with the threat of Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes waiting in the same sky, while Allied fighter-bombers could usually fly quite free, after Midway..Rebember the "coat of arms" of italian torpedo bombers: four cats. In Italian "quattro gatti=four cats" gergally means "very few people", they chose that nickname also because they realized that no more than 2-4 aircrafts could go to battle in the same time.

A sentimental favorite?It is possible.I chose Swordfish too, for the same reasons.Ironically, the two aircrafts shared the same engine!Alfa Romeo 126-128 series was Bristol Pegasus built in Italy under British patent.

I wouldn' t despise old fashioned wooden-made stringbags with cloth wings: in Korea some Polikarpov Po-2 armed with frags and 50-100 kg old bombs destroyed in one night two F-86 Sabre and severely damaged 6 more.And it was not the first successful raid neither would have been the last!Few cheap ( or poor) biplanes were successful in one night in the purpose in which Mig 15 and Shturmovick failed in 6 months!And they showed to be very difficult preys, in the night.

It is apparently absurd to say that Po-2 "bedcheck charlie" is a better strike aircraft than Ilyushin Il-10 or a better fighter than Mig-15, but nobody can deny that in the reality, ON THE BATTLEFIELD , in its own appropriate background ( the night), with the right skilled pilot, with a bit of courage IT WAS THE BEST WAY TO DESTROY F-86s without many losses, consequently IN REALITY it behaved as an excellent strike aircraft and an excellent fighter.
Not all is written on the books, as not all depends from a battery of 1 37 mm and 2 23 mm guns , or from eight 127 mm rockets.

 

[trackend]

The Stringbag is bound to be my choice,
I am still waiting for a reply from the Fleet Air Arm archives regarding tonnage of shipping sunk but I think its going to come out as the most successfull anti shipping aircraft of WW2.
As to was it the best all I can say is it proved its self with a remarkable kill rate eg 11 solo and 10 joint U-boat kills just for starters.
Add the odd couple of battleships and cruisers, a few destroyers, E-boats etc it starts getting into impressive figures before the mercantile kills are even thought about.
Probably a lot of its success was down to it's adaptability in various roles from low level torpedo attacks to dive bombing ,rocket and mine laying capability's among its many rolls.
I also believe it to be one of the few aircraft to have brought down 2 enemy aircraft simultaneously without firing a shot. (Commander C Lamb Vs 2 FIAT,s ) by encouraging them to crash inverted into the sea after trying to maintain contact with his incredibly maneuverable Swordfish as he did a vertical stall turn to port at very low altitude.