Best dive-bomber of the pacific

Catch22 · Jan 6, 2012

renrich said:
The landing gear of the F4U was designed so it could be used as dive brakes. The Corsair could actually dive safely at a steeper angle than the SBD. 85 degrees versus 70 degrees and tests showed that the Corsair was almost as accurate in dive bombing as the Dauntless. Pages 79-80, "Corsair" by Barrett Tillman. Another interesting story about the Corsair which was scoffed at in another thread by some members is that "Operation Danny" was planned in June, 1944. To counter the German V-1 threat it was planned to rush five MAG-51 F4U squadrons to Europe where they would fly from CVEs in the North Sea and destroy buzz bomb sites with Tiny Tim rockets. When this plan was discovered by George Marshall he canceled it and said " as long as I am charge there will never be a Marine in Europe." Also in Barrett's book, page 116.

Interesting stuff there. I didn't realize it could actually dive more steeply than an SBD, thanks for posting this. Also, sounds like an interesting story about MAG-51. I'll have to try and find that book.

And yes Dave, I did mean warships, my apologies. So I guess the Corsair would have no issue doing the job as it had the payload abilities.

tbfighterpilot · Jan 6, 2012

The main reason that I did not put the F4U on the list is because I was thinking of planes meant for dive-bombing.

davebender · Jan 7, 2012

Bombing accuracy with the Mk 8 gunsight would be a problem.

However nothing prevents the Corsair from skip bombing. If done correctly that bombing method is as accurate as dive bombing. The Luftwaffe liked skip bombing so much that even proper dive bombers such as the Ju-87 and Ju-88 often attacked using that method. It also allowed the Fw-190F fighter-bomber to effectively strike at maritime targets.

RCAFson · Jan 7, 2012

Could the F4U carry ASV radar? Could it be expected to find targets at night, or in poor visibility?

The F4U couldn't have replaced a dedicated multi-seat DB because any DB has additional roles, and attack modes, to fulfill that a single seat aircraft just couldn't do.

The Fairey Barracuda, OTOH, was a better DB than the Val (lower bomb load) and SBD (fixed wings), and a better TB than the TBF (poor torpedo and no DB capability), and, for all its faults was a better handling aircraft than the Sb2C, especially the -1 and -2.

davebender · Jan 7, 2012

Does it really matter?

WWII radar required a dedicated operator. ASV radar installed on a F4U would be no more effective then AI radar installed on a F4U.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 7, 2012

RCAFson said:
Could the F4U carry ASV radar? Could it be expected to find targets at night, or in poor visibility?

It carried radar and also operated in adverse weather and at night. the Barracuda was a marginally adequate aircraft. Using the adequacy of a torpedo is a very poor excuse to judge the performance of an aircraft and the US torpedo problem was eventually corrected. Compare the longevity of the F4U and the Barracuda. Do I see some nationalistic pride clouding the air?

pbfoot · Jan 7, 2012

FLYBOYJ said:
Do I see some nationalistic pride clouding the air?

Even my vision ain't that clouded to have anything to do with that abortion of a machine ,

RCAFson · Jan 7, 2012

AI radar was designed for short range interception of aircraft at roughly the same altitude as the interceptor. ASV/ASB radar required a dedicated operator and large internal volume as initial versions used long wave antennae, and were too bulky for a fighter cockpit, yet they were crucial for finding targets in poor visibility or at night. AFAIK, the TBF introduced ASB to USN carriers in late 1942, when a replacement for the fixed wing SBD was wanted by the USN.

RCAFson · Jan 7, 2012

pbfoot said:
Even my vision ain't that clouded to have anything to do with that abortion of a machine ,

Funny, that's pretty much what Eric Brown said about the SB2C...

RCAFson · Jan 7, 2012

FLYBOYJ said:
Do I see some nationalistic pride clouding the air?

It's just a matter of considering capability versus availability.

Catch22 · Jan 7, 2012

If the Barracuda was such a better torpedo bomber than the Avenger, why did the British use Avengers? They may not have ended up using them as much in their intended role due to the poor torpedoes but if the Barracuda was so great the British wouldn't have gotten another TB.

And I like the Barracuda, but I just think it's an interesting plane, so I have no bias against it, but to say it's better than the Avenger isn't true. You can't blame the plane for the torpedoes being poor.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 7, 2012

pbfoot said:
Even my vision ain't that clouded to have anything to do with that abortion of a machine ,

FLYBOYJ · Jan 7, 2012

RCAFson said:
It's just a matter of considering capability versus availability.

And during the war the Barracuda proved neither

Catch22 said:
If the Barracuda was such a better torpedo bomber than the Avenger, why did the British use Avengers? They may not have ended up using them as much in their intended role due to the poor torpedoes but if the Barracuda was so great the British wouldn't have gotten another TB.

And I like the Barracuda, but I just think it's an interesting plane, so I have no bias against it, but to say it's better than the Avenger isn't true. You can't blame the plane for the torpedoes being poor.

Young Corey hits the nail on the head.

RCAFson · Jan 8, 2012

Catch22 said:
If the Barracuda was such a better torpedo bomber than the Avenger, why did the British use Avengers? They may not have ended up using them as much in their intended role due to the poor torpedoes but if the Barracuda was so great the British wouldn't have gotten another TB.

And I like the Barracuda, but I just think it's an interesting plane, so I have no bias against it, but to say it's better than the Avenger isn't true. You can't blame the plane for the torpedoes being poor.

The RN used the TBF, not as a torpedo bomber, but as a level bomber, to bomb land targets, since that is all that remained by the time the British Pacific Fleet was formed in late 1944. However, even with reliable torpedoes the TBF could not match the Barracudas ability to deliver torpedoes by using a dive bomber attack profile, and off course, the TBF could not perform as dive bomber at all:
Flying Magazine - Google Books
They don't mention the Barracuda by name in the article above, but no other allied torpedo bomber had the ability to dive at 75degs and 385mph while carrying a torpedo.

davebender · Jan 8, 2012

I wonder if that's because the USN aerial torpedo was unique in size.

USA Torpedoes of World War II
USN Mk 13 Aerial Torpedo.
13 ft 5 in length.
22.4 in diameter.

Almost everyone else including Britain used an aerial torpedo 18 inches in diameter but longer then the USN model. TBFs carried the torpedo internally. Perhaps a normal (i.e. not USN) aerial torpedo wouldn't fit the weapons bay.

RN 18" Mark XII aerial Torpedo.
16 ft 3 in length.
18 in diameter.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 8, 2012

RCAFson said:
The RN used the TBF, not as a torpedo bomber, but as a level bomber, to bomb land targets, since that is all that remained by the time the British Pacific Fleet was formed in late 1944. However, even with reliable torpedoes the TBF could not match the Barracudas ability to deliver torpedoes by using a dive bomber attack profile, and off course, the TBF could not perform as dive bomber at all:
Flying Magazine - Google Books
They don't mention the Barracuda by name in the article above, but no other allied torpedo bomber had the ability to dive at 75degs and 385mph while carrying a torpedo.

By the end of the war all combatants were relizing that the end of the 'traditional' torpedo attack over and even if your claim is true, you can't drop a WW2 torpedo into the water at 385 mph, so tell us how is that value added? Corey hit the nail on the head, an interesting aircraft but not a war winner or game changer. Liquid cooled engines add another hazardous item aboard a carrier as well, one reason why the US Navy avoided them.

davebender · Jan 8, 2012

WWII era CVs stored aviation gasoline and aircraft bombs in a confined space. What could be more hazardous then that? Aircraft engine coolant looks pretty safe by comparison.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 8, 2012

davebender said:
WWII era CVs stored aviation gasoline and aircraft bombs in a confined space. What could be more hazardous then that? Aircraft engine coolant looks pretty safe by comparison.

You'll need another bilge or storage area for glycol. It is still hazardous and in the end takes up precious space, something needed aboard any ship. Radial engines eliminated this.

Catch22 · Jan 8, 2012

davebender said:
I wonder if that's because the USN aerial torpedo was unique in size.

USA Torpedoes of World War II
USN Mk 13 Aerial Torpedo.
13 ft 5 in length.
22.4 in diameter.

Almost everyone else including Britain used an aerial torpedo 18 inches in diameter but longer then the USN model. TBFs carried the torpedo internally. Perhaps a normal (i.e. not USN) aerial torpedo wouldn't fit the weapons bay.

RN 18" Mark XII aerial Torpedo.
16 ft 3 in length.
18 in diameter.

Dave got it, this is exactly why it wasn't used much in the TB role. British torpedoes DIDN'T fit inside the Avenger, so they used American ones with it, which weren't very good. You'll probably call this a design limitation, but in reality it's much more modern than holding a torpedo externally on the belly of an aircraft, causing drag, therefore lowering performance, and the torpedo would be more likely to get damaged en route.

Dave, I think what Joe is getting at is just adding ANOTHER thing to that volatile mix you stated. While the difference it would make is probably small, that's the reasoning. Plus it's one less thing to carry if radial engines do the job.

RCAFson · Jan 8, 2012

FLYBOYJ said:
By the end of the war all combatants were relizing that the end of the 'traditional' torpedo attack over and even if your claim is true, you can't drop a WW2 torpedo into the water at 385 mph, so tell us how is that value added? Corey hit the nail on the head, an interesting aircraft but not a war winner or game changer. Liquid cooled engines add another hazardous item aboard a carrier as well, one reason why the US Navy avoided them.

RN aerial torpedoes available from about 1943 onwards had drop speeds of up to 270 knots. From the article, it would seem that the Barracuda would cruise at medium altitude, then dive vertically towards the target, pull out at a few hundred feet, bleed speed down to aprox 300mph, drop their torpedo and then hit the overboost and escape.

According to Campbell, Naval Weapons of world War Two, the RN had the mid war, Mk XII** which was capable of drop speed of 250-270 knots, but the standard mid war torpedo was the Mk XV, with a 270 knot drop speed, and the MkXVII was in production towards the end of war, and it had a 350 knot drop speed.

Best dive-bomber of the pacific

What was the best dive-bomber in the pacific theater?

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

Douglas SBD Dauntless

Yokosuka D4Y Judy

Aichi D3A Val

Other

Major

Airman

1st Lieutenant

Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads