carrier capable bomber

[nimrod.michaeli]

what was the first carrier capable bomber (not dive bomber or torpedo bomber)

bomber like the b-17 or b-24

 

[GrauGeist]

*technically* it was the B-25, which was used in the Doolittle mission to bomb Tokyo.

But that was a one-time deal. A B-17 or B-24 is just way to large to be deployed on an aircraft carrier.

 

[nimrod.michaeli]

i meant what was the first heavy bomber which was carrier capable

 

[Airbone Bunny]

The first carrier capable bomber would be the B25, but as it has been mentioned before it was a one time deal.

On the other side, the B25 was a middle weight bomber (2 engines), not a heavy bomber. As it has also been mentioned no way a WWII heavy bomber (4 engines) like the B24 or B17 had been able to make it in a carrier.

 

[GrauGeist]

To give you a rough idea why a "heavy" can't be launched from a carrier...

The Hornet, which launched the B-25s for the Doolittle raid, has a deck of about 825 feet and is about 114 feet wide. Keep in mind that there is a structure (island) on the deck that narrows the usable width of the deck to a certain degree.

A B-17 has a wingspan of 103 feet and would require a runway of about 3,400 feet. The B-24 had a wingspan of 110 feet, just 4 feet shy of the Hornet's overall deck width.

 

[Colin1]

A B-17 or B-24 is just way to large to be deployed on an aircraft carrier.

You'd need a ferocious (by WWII standards) steam catapult; God only knows how you'd get it down...

 

[Vincenzo]

carrier capable don't need the landing on carrier??
so no B-25


p.s. maybe Savage

 

[red admiral]

The first proper carrier based bomber was the d.H. Sea Mosquito with first deck landing in 1944 but entry into squadron service in 1946. It had folding wings, conformal fuel tanks on the outer wings and radar in the nose.

 

[GrauGeist]

carrier capable don't need the landing on carrier??
so no B-25


p.s. maybe Savage

I did say *technically*

Since the Hornet did indeed launch 16 B-25 bombers from her deck, that would make the B-25 bomber the first to be accomodated by a carrier.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Well, the A-6 Intruder could carry almost as much bombs as a B-17 - 15k lbs.

 

[syscom3]

B-25's were capable of landing on a carrier. Although for all practical purposes, the B25 was not dedicated carrier bomber.

 

[R Leonard]

Not to mention Syd Bottomley landing a PBJ (a USN B-25) aboard USS Shangri La in November 1944 and then taking off with the aid of a catapult (hydraulic type, not steam). So yeah, it could be done. Also by June 1948, Johnny Hayward's VC-5 was operating P2Vs off carriers on a regular basis. Of course, these are all twin engine types. The USN TBD and TBF and the Japanese B5N had perfectly respectable level bombing capability. I'd have to look up what the Japanese used, but the USN planes used Norton bombsights.

 

[Airbone Bunny]

B-25's were capable of landing on a carrier. Although for all practical purposes, the B25 was not dedicated carrier bomber.

Interesting

Any idea if it was possible for a "raw" B25 to land on an "raw" carrier, or extensive modifications to the plane landing gear and the carrier arresting and recovery equipment were required?

That could mean that, in theory, an option for Doolittle's B25 could have been to come back to the Hornet instead of going all the way to China. Right? Was possible for Doolittle to do that: to go, bomb and come back to the Hornet or or distances made that a no-no?

 

[syscom3]

That could mean that, in theory, an option for Doolittle's B25 could have been to come back to the Hornet instead of going all the way to China. Right? Was possible for Doolittle to do that: to go, bomb and come back to the Hornet or or distances made that a no-no?

That was the origional plan.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe the Blackburn Baffin though designed as a Torpedo-Bomber could also be used as a level bomber and were used in 1934.

 

[R Leonard]

The Doolittle B-25s could not land back aboard, they had no arrestor hooks and the arrestor gear on Hornet could not have accommodated them, anyway. Bottomley's PBJ was equipped with an arrestor hook and the gear on the later, and larger, Essex class Shangri La could do the job of bringing the plane to a halt

 

[BombTaxi]

That PBJ must have had some serious structural reinforcement though, or I could easily see the force of landing and deceleration breaking the airframe in half And of course, that extra weight means less fuel/payload. I am also assuming that while the a/c could land on a carrier, it could not be taken below as it was too big for the lifts/did not have floding wings, etc?

 

[barney]

Early in the war, because of crummy US torpedoes, Avengers were used mostly as level bombers. They were designed to carry a torpedo internally – they had a bomb bay so it was no problem switching to bombs. The bombardier sat in the rear compartment and sighted through the open bay doors.

 

[BombTaxi]

The first combat deployment of the Avenger was as a torpedo bomber though, IIRC. While I know US torpedoes were highly unreliable in the early phase of the war, I wasn't aware of torpedo bombers ops being reduced because of this - the Devastator squadrons mainly flew torpedo sorties both at the Coral Sea and Midway...

 

[Waynos]

The Royal Navy flew Avengers almost exclusively as bombers I believe with torpedo attacks being handled by the Swordfish/Albacore/Barracuda triumvirate.