GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
No German fighters were encountered near Norway, but if they had been, there were USN F4Fs loitering, itching for a fight.
British Dive Bombers or lack thereof
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Crossing the Owen Stanley's was tough for all aircraft in that campaign. So was just flying around the coasts due to the near constant storms, fog, and other crazy weather. I have been reading the operational history in the New Guinea compaign, day by day (Claringbould's series) and I haven't counted but I'm fairly certain that operational losses to weather, general tropical conditions and those awful mountains were worse than attrition through combat.
I remember one P-39 pilot said something like every takeoff from the Port Morseby airfrield was a thrilling adventure in and of itself.
Nothing could be as bad as actually marching over those mountains as the Japanese attempted to do (with a few emaciated survivors actually completing the trek to make feeble attacks against the Aussie militia)
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
And I believe F4F's did encounter Bf 109s in some other (later) North Sea engagements and did alright. As did Hellcats.
Goodness. Boone Guyton would be very surprised to learn that the aircraft he flight-tested after assembly in France were not Vultee Vengeances, and that when he trained Aeronavale pilots to fly the newly-assembled aircraft, they were not learning to fly Vengeances!
I guess the photo I have of a Vengeance on the very, very aft of the Bearn's flight deck, preparing for a takeoff test, is a Photoshop fake.
I'll add a note to that and all related files.
buffnut453
Captain
Are you sure Guyton wasn't testing V-156-Fs which were carrier dive bombers? The Vengeance certainly was NOT a carrier-capable aircraft.
Also, Guyton was a test pilot for Vought not Vultee (at least according to the Wikipedia article about him). The V-156-F was a Vought product, a variation of the Vindicator. I suspect you're confusing the Vought Vindicator and Vultee Vengeance.
Here's a V-156-F aboard the aircraft carrier Bearn:
Here's a Vengeance for comparison purposes:
France did get 67 Vengeances for use in North Africa in 1943 but they were NOT carrier-capable aircraft. Also, reliability issues meant they were never used operationally.
If the above details are incorrect, please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Shortround6
Major General
The first prototype V-72 flew from Vultee's factory at Downey, California, on 30 March 1941.
In late May 1940 Béarn ferried gold to purchase aircraft from the United States, but she was diverted to Martinique in the French West Indies when the French armistice with Germany was signed in June. Under pressure from the United States, which was worried about the Germans taking control of her if she returned to France, the carrier remained there for the next four years. To placate the Americans, the local commander agreed to have her immobilized in mid-1942. The Vichy French government ordered him to sabotage the ship in May 1943 and he ultimately complied by having Béarn run aground.
Maybe the photo of a Vengeance on the Bearn was a really good darkroom fake?
another source
"Meanwhile, the now-empty Bearn was loaded for a second gold bullion run. The plan was to deliver the gold to Canada and then load American-manufactured land-based planes, to ferry them to the French air force. In June 1940, the American-built planes loaded onboard at Halifax, NS. During the return voyage, Bearn was notified by radio that all of France's Atlantic ports would be overrun and the carrier was diverted to France's Caribbean island of Martinique to await further orders. On 25 June 1940, France surrendered. Bearn was moored at Fort-au-France naval base at Martinique. The governor of the tiny island was pro-Vichy, meanwhile the crew of Bearn was split between pro-Vichy and pro-de Gaulle feelings."
wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com
In late May 1940 Béarn ferried gold to purchase aircraft from the United States, but she was diverted to Martinique in the French West Indies when the French armistice with Germany was signed in June. Under pressure from the United States, which was worried about the Germans taking control of her if she returned to France, the carrier remained there for the next four years. To placate the Americans, the local commander agreed to have her immobilized in mid-1942. The Vichy French government ordered him to sabotage the ship in May 1943 and he ultimately complied by having Béarn run aground.
Maybe the photo of a Vengeance on the Bearn was a really good darkroom fake?
another source
"Meanwhile, the now-empty Bearn was loaded for a second gold bullion run. The plan was to deliver the gold to Canada and then load American-manufactured land-based planes, to ferry them to the French air force. In June 1940, the American-built planes loaded onboard at Halifax, NS. During the return voyage, Bearn was notified by radio that all of France's Atlantic ports would be overrun and the carrier was diverted to France's Caribbean island of Martinique to await further orders. On 25 June 1940, France surrendered. Bearn was moored at Fort-au-France naval base at Martinique. The governor of the tiny island was pro-Vichy, meanwhile the crew of Bearn was split between pro-Vichy and pro-de Gaulle feelings."
Forty years of Bearn: France’s first flat-top
Bearn was France’s first aircraft carrier. Through a combination of bad design and bad luck, it had no effect on the outcome of WWII. However it had an interesting and important, if quiet, li…
wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com
Last edited:
See my post #7 way back on page 1 of this thread for the origins of the Vengeance. There was NO French order in 1940. The first orders were placed in July 1940 by Britain after the French surrender. The aircraft France did receive in North Africa were delivered in 1943 under Lend Lease.
Apologies to everyone for being a complete idiot. I'm in the middle of writing a script for the Vought Vindicator and apparently I suffered a stroke.
Where's the emoji for punching yourself in the side of the head?
Shortround6
Major General
when you find it let me know, I have needed it myself more than once
Apologies to everyone for being a complete idiot. I'm in the middle of writing a script for the Vought Vindicator and apparently I suffered a stroke.
Where's the emoji for punching yourself in the side of the head?
Guyton tells a slightly different version of this story in Test Pilot, which goes into far more detail on his time in France.
Somewhere, I have the official post-war testimony of a squadron commander (I believe Mesny) who tells a slightly different third version, or perhaps the tale of a very similar loss.
Hope everything is all right now
BTW - what kind of script for the Vindicator you are writing?
Prospective part of a series of videos for YouTube. They'll probably never come to fruition.Hope everything is all right now
BTW - what kind of script for the Vindicator you are writing?
FWIW, you have my best wishes and support for the endeavor.
OK, this one I am absolutely sure of:
The Roc could carry two 250lb bombs, one under each wing. It designed from the start as a dual-role aircraft, although it would obviously be much less capable as a dive bomber than the Skua. From Blackburn Roc description.
"The loads that each universal carrier could carry was listed in the pilot's notes as either a 250 lb "B" or semi-armour piercing (SAP) bomb or a 100 lb anti-submarine (AS) bomb or a bomb container. It was cleared for dive-bombing up to angles of 70 degrees."
I've confirmed this in numerous sources, including Peter C. Smith's "Skua!", Jackson's Blackburn Aircraft Since 1909, contemporary publications, and photographs showing the bomb carriers for the 250 lb. bombs inboard of the light bomber carriers (4x30 lbs per side).
The external fuel tank was purely a prototype and never saw operation service. A good thing, since the Roc would have been still slower than the Skua. (Dinger states, "However, this belly tank was by no means a standard fittment and it is not mentioned at all in the Roc pilot's notes." That's putting it mildly.)
While the range of the Roc was substantially less than that of the Skua, I believe that it was 20% less, not 50%. Smith gives the Skua a range of 760 miles and the Roc. Mixed Skua/Roc squadrons in 1940 operating from Hatston against Norway noted that the Rocs did not have the range to make it all the way to Norway and back, but there is not indication that the Roc's range was only 50% that of the Skua. ("The newly-formed 806 Squadron was assigned a number of Rocs and took them up to Hatston, however, they did not have enough range to allow them to accompany the squadron's Skuas on raids to the Bergen and Stavanger areas.")
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
No, I'm sorrry, that's incorrect. (
)
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I hope you're wrong about that, it's an overlooked airplane that should be covered. And the guys here might could steer you to their own resources?
Best of luck with it all the same, you've got this. Don't quit now!
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 774
- Sep 30, 2021
I have official Vindicator production by month, though the 1939 French Order exact monthly figures are uncertain, things like the start of war embargo obscuring the figures.
From Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft. The dimensions listed are slightly different to those given in other references. Overload weight = Normal service load and maximum fuel
From Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft. The dimensions listed are slightly different to those given in other references. Overload weight = Normal service load and maximum fuel
| Maker | Maker | Blackburn | Blackburn | Blackburn | Blackburn |
| Name | Name | Roc | Roc | Skua | Skua |
| Type | Type | Fighter | Fighter | Dive Bomb. | Fighter |
| Engine | Number | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Engine | Make | Perseus XII | Perseus XII | Perseus XII | Perseus XII |
| Engine | Cooling | Air | Air | Air | Air |
| Power | Horse Power | 905 | 905 | 905 | 905 |
| Power | At Height (feet) | 6,500 | 6,500 | 6,500 | 6,500 |
| Size | Span feet | 46' | 46' | 46' | 46' |
| Size | Length feet | 35' | 35' | 35' | 35' |
| Size | Height feet | 12.5' | 12.5' | 12.5' | 12.5' |
| Size | Wing Area (square feet) | 319 | 319 | 319 | 319 |
| Men | Crew | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Armament | Forward Wings | 0 | 0 | 4 Browning | 4 Browning |
| Armament | Dorsal | 4 Browning | 4 Browning | 1 Lewis | 1 Lewis |
| Armament | Rounds Per Machine Gun Forward | 0 | 0 | 600 | 600 |
| Armament | Rounds Per Machine Gun Dorsal | 600 | 600 | 6 Mags. | 6 Mags. |
| Bomb Load | Normal (pounds) | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 |
| Bomb Load | Maximum (pounds) | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 |
| Weight | Tare (pounds) | 6,121 | 6,121 | 5,839 | 5,839 |
| Normal | Weight (pounds) | 7,044 | 7,044 | 8,215 | 8,115 |
| Normal | Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards) | 546 | 546 | 670 | 650 |
| Normal | Landing (Over 50 ft) (Yards) | 650 | 650 | ||
| Normal | Climb to Height (feet) | 10,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
| Normal | Climb to Height Time (Mins) | 14.1 | 14.1 | 22 | 21 |
| Normal | Service Ceiling (Feet) | 17,500 | 17,500 | 19,000 | 19,300 |
| Normal | Maximum Speed (m.p.h) | 223 | 223 | 212 | 213 |
| Normal | Max Speed Height (Feet) | 10,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
| Normal | Cruising Speed (m.p.h) | 191 | 191 | 193 | 194 |
| Normal | Cruise Speed Height | 10,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
| Normal | Bomb Load (pounds) | 0 | 0 | 500 | |
| Normal | 50 Minutes allowance Range (miles) | 507 | 507 | 466 | 906 |
| Normal | 50 Minutes allowance Endurance Hours | 2.66 | 2.66 | 2.93 | 4.67 |
| Normal | Fuel (for range, pounds) | 735 | 735 | 706 | 1,080 |
| Normal | Fuel (for allowance, pounds) | 142 | 142 | 142 | 142 |
| Normal | Fuel (Total, pounds) | 877 | 877 | 848 | 1,222 |
| Normal | Fuel (Total, Gallons) | 127 | 127 | 163 | 163 |
| Normal | Miles per 100 pounds fuel | 69 | 69 | 80.2 | 83.9 |
| Extended | Overload Weight (pounds) (Max bombs (or Fuel if same)) | 8,473 | 7,944 | 8,625 | 8,115 |
| Extended | Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards) | 620 | 546 | 770 | 650 |
| Extended | Climb to Height (feet) | 10,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
| Extended | Climb to Height Time (mins) | 17.3 | 14 | 25 | 21 |
| Extended | Service Ceiling | 16,200 | 17,500 | 18,000 | 19,300 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | ||||
| Extended | Speed (m.p.h) | 175 | n/a | 190 | |
| Extended | Height (feet) | 10,000 | n/a | 15,000 | |
| Extended | Bomb Load (pounds) | 500 | n/a | 500 | |
| Extended | Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) | 485 | n/a | 890 | |
| Extended | Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs | 2.77 | n/a | 4.7 | |
| Extended | Fuel (for range, pounds) | 735 | n/a | 1,080 | |
| Extended | Fuel (for allowance, pounds) | 142 | n/a | 142 | |
| Extended | Fuel (Total, pounds) | 877 | n/a | 1,222 | |
| Extended | Fuel (Total, Gallons) | 117 | n/a | 163 | |
| Extended | Miles per 100 pounds of fuel | 66 | n/a | 82.5 | |
| Extended | Maximum Fuel Capacity (Gallons) | 117 | 117 | 163 | 163 |
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | ||||
| Extended | Speed (m.p.h) | 144 | 144 | 157 | 156 |
| Extended | Height (feet) | 10,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
| Extended | Bomb Load (pounds) | 500 | 0 | 500 | |
| Extended | Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) | 575 | 642 | 980 | 1,025 |
| Extended | Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs | 4 | 4.45 | 6.25 | 6.57 |
| Extended | Fuel (for range, pounds) | 735 | 735 | 1,080 | 1,080 |
| Extended | Fuel (for allowance, pounds) | 142 | 142 | 142 | 142 |
| Extended | Fuel (Total, pounds) | 877 | 877 | 1,222 | 1,222 |
| Extended | Fuel (Total, Gallons) | 117 | 117 | 163 | 163 |
| Extended | Miles per 100 pounds of fuel | 78.3 | 87 | 91 | 95 |
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,381
- Dec 6, 2006
A D4Y sank the Princeton killing 108 of her crew and another 233 aboard the Birmingham when the Princeton exploded. A D4Y planted two bombs on the Franklin causing immense damage and killing ~ 800 Americans. Considering the odds facing them those are quite the achievements.
In the words of the Damage Report she was bombed at "an inopportune time", while she was preparing to launch a strike with many aircraft fuelled and bombed up both on the flight deck and in the hangar. Shades of the Japanese carriers at Midway. Again from the Damage Report
"Direct damage from detonation of the enemy bombs was extensive in itself, but appears minor compared with the immense damage caused by subsequent fires, explosions of bombs and rockets, and water used in firefighting."
The scariest things were the 11.75" Tiny Tim rockets cooking off and blasting down the flight deck.
That Japanese D4Y did not sink the Princeton as her Damage Report makes clear. Para 11
"11. Even after the explosion of the bombs in the torpedo stowage, the ship was apparently still seaworthy but damage received by the escorting ships and the tactical situation precluded further salvage efforts."
As a result the cruiser Reno was ordered to sink her. She fired two torpedoes one of which reportedly hit Princeton's forward magazine and sinking her.
Damage Report here
USS Princeton CVL23 War Damage Report No. 62
CONFIDENTIAL U.S.S. Princeton (CVL23) Loss In Action Battle for Leyte Gulf 24 October 1944 The Chief of Naval Operations directs that this report be shown only to those persons to whom the report would be of value in the performance of their duties. Steps shall be taken accordingly to insure...
Edit photo of her from Birmingham showing extent of flight deck damage and with the fires seemingly under control.
Last edited:
