The A-20 with torpedo also looks nifty, mostly used by Soviets. The single torpedo was suspended under right wing, the rack being in the same time attached to the fuselage side so the torp would stay in it's place even during maneuvers (picture, more pictures - click on the thumbnails). The 'side' rack was rated up to 1000 kg (~2200 lb) bomb. Leaves the bomb bay for plenty of fuel.
Best ship buster.....
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Aside from being "KoooL" just what would either of these two aircraft have done that the Beaufighter couldn't do?
Not sure that I'm trying to bash Beaufighter, more of trying to contribute to the discussion.
With that said - compared with Beaufighter, Mosquito will have an easier time in a contested airspace. The A-20 was much more available for the Americans, let alone for Soviets; not that is Beaufighter's fault, of course.
With that said - compared with Beaufighter, Mosquito will have an easier time in a contested airspace. The A-20 was much more available for the Americans, let alone for Soviets; not that is Beaufighter's fault, of course.
Last edited:
stug3
Staff Sergeant
The four B-25 squadrons of the 345th Bomb Group of the 5th Air Force were credited with 260 vessels destroyed and 275 damaged. How many of these "vessels" were actually ships, I don't know. I do know that the B-25s did sink dozens of destroyers, destroyer esctorts, corvettes and similar type vessels.
As for the 75mm cannon carried in the B-25G and B-25H models, they were not very well liked by the crews. First and foremost, the copilot's seat was given over to the 75mm gunner. Crews didn't like not having a "spare" pilot in case the other one was killed or wounded (many times a co-pilot still flew on the B-25H models in a jump seat). Second, after three shots of the 75mm gun, the whole plane was filled with smoke and fumes. The crew member in charge of loading the gun wasn't issued any gloves, and after several shots the empty cases were hot enough to cause burns on bare hands and fingers. Lastly, on at least one occasion during the ditching, the gunner was trapped when the gun sight and/or related equipment came loose in the impact and pinned him.
I have no "written" references to back this up, as it came from a B-25 crewman who served in the 500th Bomb Group. He also stated that he witnessed from a life raft a Japanese patrol boat being shot literally to pieces by a B-25 strafer, so he didn't feel that a B-25 with a nose full of .50 caliber machine guns was to be scoffed at by any ship smaller than a cruiser.
As for the 75mm cannon carried in the B-25G and B-25H models, they were not very well liked by the crews. First and foremost, the copilot's seat was given over to the 75mm gunner. Crews didn't like not having a "spare" pilot in case the other one was killed or wounded (many times a co-pilot still flew on the B-25H models in a jump seat). Second, after three shots of the 75mm gun, the whole plane was filled with smoke and fumes. The crew member in charge of loading the gun wasn't issued any gloves, and after several shots the empty cases were hot enough to cause burns on bare hands and fingers. Lastly, on at least one occasion during the ditching, the gunner was trapped when the gun sight and/or related equipment came loose in the impact and pinned him.
I have no "written" references to back this up, as it came from a B-25 crewman who served in the 500th Bomb Group. He also stated that he witnessed from a life raft a Japanese patrol boat being shot literally to pieces by a B-25 strafer, so he didn't feel that a B-25 with a nose full of .50 caliber machine guns was to be scoffed at by any ship smaller than a cruiser.
Having said my piece about the B-25, I will now say that my choice for "best ship buster" would have to go to the Avenger, with one reservation. Being an aircraft that could land or take off of carriers (as the norm) gave the Avenger an inherent advantage over land based aircraft, because it made it less problematic to get the "ship buster" close enough to the ships that needed "busting." The Avenger could also carry either bombs, rockets, or torpedoes, which gave it flexibility not enjoyed by some of the other aircraft mentioned. It's drawback was that the Avenger didn't carry much in the way of guns, which leads us to my one reservation: The F6F Hellcat. I have never seen or heard of a Hellcat actually carrying a torpedo, but most of the specifications for the F6F list that ability. It could certainly carry an adequate bomb or rocket load, had 6 .50 caliber machine guns for strafing, and once shed of its external ordnance, could take care of itself with any interceptors.
I have heard that in the latter stages of World War II, many carriers were taking more Hellcats to sea in place of Helldivers and Avengers, since the Hellcat was more versatile and just a competent of a bomber as the Avenger or Hellcat, with the added expertise in knocking down kamikazes.
I have heard that in the latter stages of World War II, many carriers were taking more Hellcats to sea in place of Helldivers and Avengers, since the Hellcat was more versatile and just a competent of a bomber as the Avenger or Hellcat, with the added expertise in knocking down kamikazes.
Last edited:
I will readily accept the B-25 was a powerful ship buster, provided the enemy does not have any worthwhile fighter force around, and bombs are used (not torps). The Avenger won't work well if a country lacks a good number of decent carriers. Avenger was able to carry only the US-made torpedo (fat short) due to dimensions of the bomb bay. The A-20, B-25 or Beaufighter can display both 'warhead' and gun firepower, the Avenger was a bit lacking on later.
The data sheet for the F6F-3, dated Oct 1945, indeed lists the Mk-13-2 as possible weapon.
The data sheet for the F6F-3, dated Oct 1945, indeed lists the Mk-13-2 as possible weapon.
Shortround6
Major General
The Hellcat had a problem with strike radius. IF you slung a torpedo under it you couldn't carry drop tank/s.
US carrier targets changed as the war went on. Late war the threat of the Japanese Navy diminished considerably and the target/mission for the aircraft was often ground support of amphibious forces. Carriers could stay closer to the Island being attacked than they would to an enemy task force.
It also may be that in a US task force with multiple carriers some carriers were tasked with anti-ship duties first with secondary ground/support mission and other carriers were tasked with primary ground/support missions and were back-up for anti-ship stikes.
I could be way off on that but at the battle for the Philippines the US could muster 8 fleet carriers, 8 light carriers and 18 escort carriers.
US carrier targets changed as the war went on. Late war the threat of the Japanese Navy diminished considerably and the target/mission for the aircraft was often ground support of amphibious forces. Carriers could stay closer to the Island being attacked than they would to an enemy task force.
It also may be that in a US task force with multiple carriers some carriers were tasked with anti-ship duties first with secondary ground/support mission and other carriers were tasked with primary ground/support missions and were back-up for anti-ship stikes.
I could be way off on that but at the battle for the Philippines the US could muster 8 fleet carriers, 8 light carriers and 18 escort carriers.
Swordfish is actually the winner. It sank more tonnage of shipping than any other aircraft.
"Swordfish MKII
The Swordfish flew with distinction during the Second World War, destroying a greater tonnage of enemy shipping (including 20 U-boats) than any other Allied torpedo bomber.
One of the keys to its success was its superb handling, another was the ability to turn tightly at such a slow pace at sea level, making it a hard target for enemy fighters."
Limits on Torpedo release height and speed put the Swordfish at no disadvantage compared to faster torpedo bombers in the first half of the war.
I believe much of its success was at night, the aircraft could carry radar for instance.
A B-25D named "Tondelayo" acquitted herself rather well against a swarm of Zeros...while flying on one engine, no less:
"The 500th Bomb Squadron Association Home Page"
However, luck was definitely on the side of the crew of the Tondelayo that day. A 20mm API shell hit one of Murphy's guns, went between his legs, and spent itself on a bulkhead without igniting...which was lucky, because a crewman was inches below the impact, holding a rag tied around a leaking fuel line that had previously been holed by another 20mm shell. He got some chemical burns on his face from the incendiary mixture that failed to ignite. The crew chief (last name Isler) had to cut through the bulkhead with a fire ax to get at the leak. The crew chief and radioman also had to steal ammunition from the guns up front and pass them up to Murphy in a timely manner. Murphy would only shoot between 5-10 rounds at each Zero as it came into range.
However, the two B-25s that throttled back to give cover to the "Tondelayo" were both shot down, with only two of the 12 crew members from those planes surviving.
Still, I would rather be in a Hellcat or Corsair while trying to sink a ship with enemy fighters buzzing around.
Last edited:
I am not sure raw tonnage in and of itself is a good measurement. There is tonnage "accrued" from blowing up Italian freighters tied up alongside a dock in Libya, and other tonnage "accrued" by sinking Japanese carriers twisting and turning at high speed and sporting dozens of AA guns with a couple of dozens Zeros protecting them.
The Swordfish had a comparable "Battle of Midway type" sortie against several warships maneuvering at speed with cover from fighters and that was the Channel Dash. No hits were scored and none of the six Swordfish returned.
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The Swordfish is the No1 tonnage killer you cant start saying "Oh but" that simply doesnt wash. The old girl sank everything from Battleships to Fishing boats during the day during the night and in all weathers. If you start trying to slice and dice the figures then you get into the same sort of argument over figures that we have had many times on here about Fighter Ace totals.
Just because many of Hartmans kills were against less experienced Soviet pilots flying lesser aircraft doesnt detract from his numbers. Equally just because a large proportion of Swordfish numbers were against Merchantmen some of which were in harbour means nothing. Which would you rather attack a well defended harbour or a ship at sea. Equally much of the Avengers tonnage was against Merchantmen and was during a time when the USN was dominant in the air.
Which counts for more an Avenger sinking a freighter but covered by swarms of Hellcats or a Swordfish sinking a Freighter at night but on its own.
Just because many of Hartmans kills were against less experienced Soviet pilots flying lesser aircraft doesnt detract from his numbers. Equally just because a large proportion of Swordfish numbers were against Merchantmen some of which were in harbour means nothing. Which would you rather attack a well defended harbour or a ship at sea. Equally much of the Avengers tonnage was against Merchantmen and was during a time when the USN was dominant in the air.
Which counts for more an Avenger sinking a freighter but covered by swarms of Hellcats or a Swordfish sinking a Freighter at night but on its own.
The value of tonnage sunk depends on the situation. Sinking the Bismark was vital, if she broke free she could have wreaked havoc in a convoy. By the time the Tirpitz was sunk after being damaged many times she was a side show taking up a lot of men of the German navy and a lot of ships in the RN to maintain a "status quo". Hard to argue against the Swordfish Taranto and the Bismark had significant effects on the war, removing up to 20 U Boats is significant however you cannot discount freight vessels as unimportant, the Battle of Malta for example at times hinged on one or two freighters/tankers making it through the blockade. I am sure Rommel would much rather see 100,000 tons of freight shipping putting into port than the same tonnage of Battleships.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
So can I see it both ways but you can spend a year going through each sinking and comparing it, you can take into account the weather, the economic value of the ship sunk, whether a damaged ship also counts but it all comes down to tonnage when comparing different anti ship aircraft and circumstances.
Theres no doubt the Avenger was the better, bigger, more comfortable aircraft (though a lot of crews thought the engine was missing 4 cylinders and about 300hp). However the the Stringbags and the FAA, RAF and RCAF crews that flew them were pretty damn good value
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
