Best Bomber of ww2
- Thread starter germanace
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A
Anonymous
Guest
Lightning Guy said:
Lots of good info on WWII submarines can be found at http://uboat.net.
Genrally they were kinda similar. German subs tyically carred 2 x 20mm and perhas another 2 x 20mm or a 37mm, and an 88 or 110 mm deck gun. There were only a handful of "flak" subs with more AA on them, and these were not usuable for anything but escorting other subs out of the Bay of Biscay, a concept which was a failure, the experiment lasting only about 6 months from May-Nov of '43. From 1943 on, Aircraft were increadibly deadly to u-boats, and accounted for over half of u-boat kills. You can check the loss data yourself at: http://uboat.net/fates/losses/
US subs had the following (general) armament:
Gato class (77 ships): 1 x 3" gun, 2 x .50 BMG's, 2 x .30 BMG's.
Balao class (118 ships): 1 x 4" deck gun, 1 x 40mm Bofors, 2 x .50 BMG's.
Tench class (35 ships): 1 x 5" deck gun, 1 x 40mm Bofors, 1 x 20mm (?), 2 x .50 BMG
The 40mm bofors, from late 1943 on, probably was more effective than all the guns on the U-boats combine, even the Flak boats, due to the proximity fuse.
=====================================
US submarines were unquestionably the best in the world, even at the start of the war. They included an advanced targeting computer, welded construction allowing deep (for then) dives of 300-400 feet (more if the captain was feeling lucky), and were the only subs to be airconditioned. Relatively early on (1943 I think) they were also equiped with radar, greatly improving their ability to find and track their prey.
Airconditioning is a huge asset in a submarine. When you dive, in order to keep the pressure as ballanced as you can, you increase the pressure inside the sub. This increases the temperature, which is why on accurate movies like Das Boot (a great film!) you will notice they are always sweating like pigs. This is not just hard on the crew, it's also hard on the equipment as condensation forms on and in everything, causing corrosion, especially damaging to electronics.
On the otherhand, due to what can only be considered pure stupidity, the Mk-14 torpedo carried by virtually all US submarines was nearly useless for the first 18 months of the war. During the 30's, only two live fire tests were carried out, one failed. It was determined the Mk-14 worked (how 50% is good enough I do not know) and because they cost $10,000 each, no further tests were conducted. After mid 1943 the issues with the torpedos were resolved and from that point on they worked nearly flawlessly.
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
Gemhorse said:
Those configurations are for the U-Flaks, of which only 6 were built. They had very limited range, only carried 5 torpedos, and were a failure and were converted back to normal attack boats in Nov. 1943, after about 6 months of operation.
Typical armament was 1 x 88mm or 105 mm deck gun and two 20mm's, plus 2 more 20mm's or one 37mm.
=S=
Lunatic
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Yeah, thanks RG, they weren't specific as to what was what in the book, other than the U-boat serial No.'s and the same for the aircraft, which also mentioned the crew members - Sorry about the grainy pics, still trying to get the guts on my scanner reso....- It's great there's a U-boat website, I wasn't aware of that...
- There's a coupla photos toward the end of the book of U-534, sunk 5th May 1945 that was raised in August of 1993. In 1996, it was taken to Liverpool and restored, opened to the public as a memorial to ALL those involved in the Conflict....sure is real big when sitting outa the water, so it was sure quite a task to sink them....
- There's a coupla photos toward the end of the book of U-534, sunk 5th May 1945 that was raised in August of 1993. In 1996, it was taken to Liverpool and restored, opened to the public as a memorial to ALL those involved in the Conflict....sure is real big when sitting outa the water, so it was sure quite a task to sink them....
Attachments
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Either way, while impressive for a submarine, we are hardly talking about a floating fortress. The reliance upon 20mm weapons were a mistake. Medium AA would have been preferred. Unfortunately, German medium AA (like the naval 37mm) was among the worst in the world being a semi-automatic weapon. The 88mm and 105mm were very effective heavy AA guns, but would the Germans be carrying AA ammo for them? I think it would be more likely that they carry HE rounds for attacking merchant ships.
And the excellent submarines of the IJN should be considered. At the start of the war, they had the best torps in the war and that was a major advantage over the US boats.
And the excellent submarines of the IJN should be considered. At the start of the war, they had the best torps in the war and that was a major advantage over the US boats.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Lightning Guy said:
I just don't see how a single 88mm (or 105mm) deck gun would be much use fending off aircraft, except maybe something extremely slow like the PBY. There is a good 5 seconds between when the shooter calls out the range and the round is fired, and then a few seconds to reach the target, which means the chances it is going to burst within the required 100 feet or so is minimal. Without a proximity fuse, it pretty much has to hit the target, and that is extremely unlikely.
The German 20mm AA guns were actually pretty damn good, espeically when radar aimed (not available on subs of course). However, the gunners were increadibly exposed and the tactic used was to have a wildcat (or other plane) machine gun the deck while another attacked the sub itself. If you had two capable planes, such as a wildcat and an Avenger, the u-boat was pretty helpless to put up much AA.
As far as the ammo, I would imagine (but am not sure) that the same ammo would work for either purpose, as they always had an impact fuse. The time-delay fuse could just be set long and it would do fine against a merchant ship.
As for the IJN, their subs kinda stunk. But they did have good torpedos.
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
This is true, which is why USA submarines were relatively ineffective in the first 18 months of WWII. However, fixing/improving torpedos is much easier than fixing/improving submarines.
After about 18 months, US torpedos were fine, and the subs were increadibly effective from that point on.
=S=
Lunatic
After about 18 months, US torpedos were fine, and the subs were increadibly effective from that point on.
=S=
Lunatic
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
I read somewhere recently that the proximity fuse was the most successful development of WWII.......
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Chances of scoring a direct hit with a heavy AA round on a fighter-sized target are rather low. Even before the addition of the VT fuze to the American 5" shells a time-fuze was used since it was realized shrapnel was the best chance to down an aircraft.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Without the VT fuse they had to rely on the timed fuse. This required gun aimer call out the delay, the fuse setter set the delay, the shell be loaded, then the gun was fired, and it was hoped the time delay would be correct. But the time to set the fuse and load the gun was variable, and the path of the target was often variable, and the end result was that timed fuses were horribly ineffective against most targets. And the gunner's imperative to adjust his fire once he called out the delay was for the most part gone, he had to fire if he wanted much of a chance to score a hit or the delay would be all wrong. The only reason the German's had any success at all was the dense formations of bombers flying strait and level on their bomb runs were easier to hit and they had huge numbers of Flak guns (20,000) mostly ringed around a few key cities. But even so, they didn't do very well.
With the VT fuse the gun was loaded, the gunner aimed, and he could fire when he felt he had the best chance of hitting the target. If the round came within the prescribed distance of the target it would wait until the distance started to increase and then expload. This meant the odds of scoring a meaningful hit were tremendously improved. The VT fuse could also be set to detonate when it came within a set distance of a target, which was mostly used for airbursts of artillery fire.
In my opinion, the VT fuse, the A-bomb, and 10 cm (and smaller) radar have to rank as the three most significant weapons developed in WWII.
=S=
Lunatic
With the VT fuse the gun was loaded, the gunner aimed, and he could fire when he felt he had the best chance of hitting the target. If the round came within the prescribed distance of the target it would wait until the distance started to increase and then expload. This meant the odds of scoring a meaningful hit were tremendously improved. The VT fuse could also be set to detonate when it came within a set distance of a target, which was mostly used for airbursts of artillery fire.
In my opinion, the VT fuse, the A-bomb, and 10 cm (and smaller) radar have to rank as the three most significant weapons developed in WWII.
=S=
Lunatic
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
But the point remains, scoring a direct hit on a fighter with a heavy AA weapon was next to impossible.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hmmm.. How heavy?
40mm Bofors guns on Warships had some success at it. Of course, there were lots of QuadBof's firing!
I agree, a single 88mm or 5" gun, or even a fair number of them, have almost no chance of hitting a fighter that is engaging in any kind of manuvering.
=S=
Lunatic
40mm Bofors guns on Warships had some success at it. Of course, there were lots of QuadBof's firing!
I agree, a single 88mm or 5" gun, or even a fair number of them, have almost no chance of hitting a fighter that is engaging in any kind of manuvering.
=S=
Lunatic
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Generally, the 40mm is considered a medium AA weapon. Heavy AA would typically be somewhere in the 3"-6" range.
They had the 37mm AA on...ah...what's it's name? Wirbelwind, not the vierling one that had four 20mm...Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
The Germans didn't use much medium AA because their medium AA weapons sucked! That 37mm weapon you refer to was a basically a conventional, breech-loading cannon. Rate of fire was pathetic (not much better than what the US 5"/38 could achieve) and a low-rate of fire is hardly desirable in an AA weapon.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I could see the Mossie as the best light bomber. The B-26 Marauder beats the Wimpy in the Medium role. The B-17 and B-24 were probably the equal of the Lanc. There is nothing from the war to compare the B-29 too so it was certainly the best overall. In terms of impact, I would go with the B-24. The number of B-24s produced is fairly close to the total number of B-17s and Lancs produced and it saw service in far more diverse areas. While the B-17 was primarily and the Lanc was solely a European bomber, the B-24 served everywhere US forces were present.
