Dive bombers to Ceylon 1942 (1 Viewer)

[EwenS]

The decision to send dive bombers to Ceylon would have to be part of the overall decision to send Hurricanes, Blenheims, PBYs, etc. and for that matter Sommerville's fleet to the island.

AB
Admiralty plans for a sizeable fleet in the Indian Ocean were formulated in Aug 1941 with a view to establishing it by April 1942.

They were able to do this because of agreement reached between FDR and Churchill when they met to sign the Atlantic Charter in early Aug 1941. While FDR was unwilling to commit sendiing a US fleet to the Philippines, he was willing to use it in the Atlantic which allowed Britain to withdraw the R class from Atlantic convoy duty to refit before going east.

Revenge - reached Kilindini in Sept

Royal Sovereign - after refit left Britain in mid-Nov as escort to troop convoy WS12Z, arriving Kilindini 6 Jan 1942.

Ramillies - completed refit Dec 1941 and sailed as escort to WS14 arriving Kilindini 20 Jan 1942.

Resolution - completed refit and sailed east as escort to WS15 in Jan 1942. Arrived Kilindini mid-March 1942.

And there was Repulse. Completed refit mid-Aug and sailed as escort to WS11 at the end of the month, arriving Kilindini 13 Oct.

Remember the Buffalo squadrons in Singapore formed May to Oct 1941, with personnel sent out from Britain, New Zealand & Australia.

You want PBY Catalinas? They were in short supply in the RAF having only begun to enter service in early 1941. 205 at Singapore was an early recipient in April 1941 as replacement for Short Singapore III. But it had to cover both IO and SCS so had detachments elsewhere. 413 was sent out hurriedly in March 1942 and was still arriving at the time of Operation C. It had only formed in July 1941.

Between Jan and July 1941 the RAF received 74 Catalina I & II with another 15 following by Nov and another 9 by Jan 1942. The major deliveries didn't start until July 1942. The Battle of the Atlantic took priority.

Availability of Sunderlands was no better.

Your decision making process needs to start long before Aug.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

In Nov 1941, the Vought Chesapeakes of 811 Naval Air Squadron were withdrawn from service. The Brits operated all of fourteen of the apparently fifty ex-French aircraft Britain received, though the actual number delivered seems to be unverified. Earlier that year, in May 1941 the Blackburn Skua was withdrawn from frontline FAA service, with its crews moved over to the Fulmar and TSRs. I assume by 1941 at least a quarter of the 192 Skuas produced should still be serviceable. If we wanted to get four squadrons of divebombers in Celyon out of these two aircraft in time for Nagumo's rail in March 1942, how do we bring it about? For starters, do we transfer the aircraft to the RAF? Would they have the necessary pilots or ground crew available? And then we need to get them trained in divebombing.

View attachment 853037
View attachment 853038

I apologize if our resident contrarians feel triggered, but, if you think this would or could not have occurred; this is not the thread for you.

As for the rest of us, how can we pull it off? We've got issues with manpower and logistics to start with. Both aircraft can fold their wings, so transport to Ceylon might be a little easier.

View attachment 853082

The French had also ordered 174 SBD-3 Dauntless, which ended up being taken over by the USN. If part of this order had been taken over by the British, even one squadron, that might have helped a lot. SBD was a lot more capable than the Vindicator.

I think to use any of these dive bombers against the IJN thought, they would need more and better fighters at Ceylon as well. Maybe some Martlets, or some Kittyhawks, or best of all Spitfires though that seems unlikely. Spitfires would also have limited range. If Hurricanes were the only thing available then I'd say a lot more of them. Three or four more squadrons, and ideally IIBs or IICs rather than Mark Is. If not Martlets are available, maybe another squadron or two of Fulmars for longer range recon. I'd think some Beaufighters and a unit of Sunderlands would also be very helpful.

And other possibility might be some Westland Whirlwinds.

 

[EwenS]

The French had also ordered 174 SBD-3 Dauntless, which ended up being taken over by the USN. If part of this order had been taken over by the British, even one squadron, that might have helped a lot. SBD was a lot more capable than the Vindicator.

I think to use any of these dive bombers against the IJN thought, they would need more and better fighters at Ceylon as well. Maybe some Martlets, or some Kittyhawks, or best of all Spitfires though that seems unlikely. Spitfires would also have limited range. If Hurricanes were the only thing available then I'd say a lot more of them. Three or four more squadrons, and ideally IIBs or IICs rather than Mark Is. If not Martlets are available, maybe another squadron or two of Fulmars for longer range recon. I'd think some Beaufighters and a unit of Sunderlands would also be very helpful.

And other possibility might be some Westland Whirlwinds.

Despite what it says on Wiki the order for 174 SBD-3 for France, while discussed, never seems to have been finalised before the French surrender. If it had been then the contract would have passed to Britain.

At 0330 on 17th June 1940, just 5 hours before the US Treasury froze French assets, representatives of Britain & France signed an agreement whereby Britain took over responsibility for all undelivered aircraft under French contracts and the French portion of orders under the Joint Anglo/ French scheme. That did not include any SBD.

Peter C Smith in his book on the SBD included the following as a note about this "contract":-

"Some sources state these were for the French Navy, the Aeronavale, but there is no mention of them in John McVikar Haight, Jr's American Aid to France, 1938-1940, New York 1970. The French did place orders with Douglas at this time for 180 of the DB-7, the export version of the Army's A-20 twin engined Attack bomber, known as the Havoc in the USA and the Boston in the RAF. The French Navy certainly took delivery of export Vindicators (The V-156) and had ordered 170 of the Brewster SB2A and 130 Vultee V-72 dive bombers also, specifying the Wright 2600 engine as the power plant for both orders."intended

There is also no mention of such a contract being taken over in the Air Britain book "The British Air Commission and Lend Lease".

At another point in the book Smith notes that during a visit to the Douglas factory in Jan 1941, it was suggested that "...165 plus Douglas SBDs be offered to the British". Deliveries would have been in Oct/Nov 1941. This offer was rejected as the SBD was considered obsolete; instead orders were placed for the Brewster Buccaneer (from Anglo /French contracts) and Vultee Vengeance (the first contract for the VV was signed on 3rd July 1940 effectively firming up previous discussions under the Joint Anglo French scheme).

On 30 Sept 1941 there were further discussions in Britain about acquiring 200 SBD for delivery between Dec 1941 & April 1942 if a quick decision was made (and subject to investigating modifications including folding wings). By 9 Oct the delivery timescale had moved out to 1942/43. Then PH changed everything. Eventually in 1944 9 SBD-5 were delivered to Britain under Lend Lease but intended for no more that comparitive trials with other aircraft.

It is worth noting that the first USN order for the SBD-3 was placed in Sept 1940 and the first of this model did not start rolling off the production line until March 1941. Production of the SBD-1 (57 aircraft) only began in June 1940 and the SBD-2 (87 aircraft) in Nov 1940. These earlier models lacked things like self sealing fuel tanks, but many were still in front line service at the time of PH.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Despite what it says on Wiki the order for 174 SBD-3 for France, while discussed, never seems to have been finalised before the French surrender. If it had been then the contract would have passed to Britain.

At 0330 on 17th June 1940, just 5 hours before the US Treasury froze French assets, representatives of Britain & France signed an agreement whereby Britain took over responsibility for all undelivered aircraft under French contracts and the French portion of orders under the Joint Anglo/ French scheme. That did not include any SBD.

Peter C Smith in his book on the SBD included the following as a note about this "contract":-

"Some sources state these were for the French Navy, the Aeronavale, but there is no mention of them in John McVikar Haight, Jr's American Aid to France, 1938-1940, New York 1970. The French did place orders with Douglas at this time for 180 of the DB-7, the export version of the Army's A-20 twin engined Attack bomber, known as the Havoc in the USA and the Boston in the RAF.

Some of these would have also been very useful for Ceylon, even though they definitely aren't dive bombers. Especially the later 1942 vintage ones, i.e. "Boston III".

If you could fit British torpedoes in or under them that would be even better.

The French Navy certainly took delivery of export Vindicators (The V-156) and had ordered 170 of the Brewster SB2A and 130 Vultee V-72 dive bombers also, specifying the Wright 2600 engine as the power plant for both orders."intended

There is also no mention of such a contract being taken over in the Air Britain book "The British Air Commission and Lend Lease".

I figured it was early stages of negotiation on the SBD

At another point in the book Smith notes that during a visit to the Douglas factory in Jan 1941, it was suggested that "...165 plus Douglas SBDs be offered to the British". Deliveries would have been in Oct/Nov 1941. This offer was rejected as the SBD was considered obsolete; instead orders were placed for the Brewster Buccaneer (from Anglo /French contracts) and Vultee Vengeance (the first contract for the VV was signed on 3rd July 1940 effectively firming up previous discussions under the Joint Anglo French scheme).

That would certainly seem like a mistake, though Vengeances would certainly also be useful and were indeed in Theater a bit later on, and seemed to be fairly effective in the land war. As a dive bomber I'd think it would be better than both the Vindicator and the Skua for a variety of reasons.

On 30 Sept 1941 there were further discussions in Britain about acquiring 200 SBD for delivery between Dec 1941 & April 1942 if a quick decision was made (and subject to investigating modifications including folding wings). By 9 Oct the delivery timescale had moved out to 1942/43. Then PH changed everything. Eventually in 1944 9 SBD-5 were delivered to Britain under Lend Lease but intended for no more that comparitive trials with other aircraft.

It is worth noting that the first USN order for the SBD-3 was placed in Sept 1940 and the first of this model did not start rolling off the production line until March 1941. Production of the SBD-1 (57 aircraft) only began in June 1940 and the SBD-2 (87 aircraft) in Nov 1940. These earlier models lacked things like self sealing fuel tanks, but many were still in front line service at the time of PH.

I bet the folding wings was the deal breaker for the British. They never did use SBDs preferring the TBF instead. That is another possible option for Ceylon, especially if you A) had some better fighter support and B) got two or three squadrons worth of Tarpons / Avengers, and could (as with the Boston) somehow fit British torpedoes on them, then the Japanese fleet might be in trouble.

 

[EwenS]

The FAA wanted the more modern SB2C Helldiver not the SBD. At one point they had about 450 on order. In the end only 26 were delivered in 1943/44, the US consistently failing to deliver the agreed allocations. The timing was unfortunate in that it coincided with USN decisions to replace air groups on carriers every 6 months and to increase the level of reserves, both of which called for increasing numbers of SB2C. Then add in Admiral King's intransigence which meant he was only willing to see the FAA get no more than replacement aircraft for those initial allocations. In the end only one FAA squadron was equipped with them.

1820 Naval Air Squadron

The TBF didn't enter production until Jan 1942 with the first deliveries to VT-8 in April. A detachment of 6 from this unit reached Midway in time to participate in the Battle of Midway in June. US spec TBFs were supplied to 832 squadron in Jan 1943 when Victorious went to Norfolk prior to deploying to the Pacific. British spec aircraft followed a few months later. British torpedoes were too long for the Avenger bomb bay. So they were initially allocated for ASW duties in FAA service. Later in 1944 when they went aboard RN fleet carriers they were supplied with USN Mk 13 torpedoes, which were never used as no opportunity arose.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

At another point in the book Smith notes that during a visit to the Douglas factory in Jan 1941, it was suggested that "...165 plus Douglas SBDs be offered to the British". Deliveries would have been in Oct/Nov 1941. This offer was rejected as the SBD was considered obsolete; instead orders were placed for the Brewster Buccaneer [...]

lol, how'd that work out for them?

 

[Shortround6]

A single squadon of anything shipped off to a corner of the empire was not going to accomplish much.

A single squadron of planes that is in widespread use in other places has a better supply of experienced air crew, ground crew and spare parts.
Two different situations.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

A single squadon of anything shipped off to a corner of the empire was not going to accomplish much.

A single squadron of planes that is in widespread use in other places has a better supply of experienced air crew, ground crew and spare parts.
Two different situations.

That's a good point. And frankly it's hard to imagine that the US would want to give up a lot of SBDs, they also apparently require a fair amount of training to learn to use them effectively, but that is also true for the Vindicator, Vengeance and I presume the Skua as well.

Maybe just send a few dozen Kittyhawks with bomb racks on them.

 

[EwenS]

That's a good point. And frankly it's hard to imagine that the US would want to give up a lot of SBDs, they also apparently require a fair amount of training to learn to use them effectively, but that is also true for the Vindicator, Vengeance and I presume the Skua as well.

Maybe just send a few dozen Kittyhawks with bomb racks on them.

Well considering the USN air groups on Wasp and Ranger were flying Vindicators into the summer of 1942 and the delays already apparent with the next generation of dive bombers (the Brewster SB2A and the Curtiss SB2C) by mid-1941 and the relatively slow rate of SBD-3 production (SBD-2 were still in some of the Pacific Fleet CVGs in Dec 1941), there is zero chance of the USN giving up any SBD-3.

See my earlier post for the RAF and training on the Vengeance. All it took was practice to increase accuracy in dive bombing.

You have already discussed in the last few days on another thread on this site the availability of bombs on Kittyhawks. Kittyhawks didn't begin to arrive with the Desert Air Force squadrons until the very end of 1941 with bomb racks starting to be fitted from May 1942.

 

[EwenS]

lol, how'd that work out for them?

Well the RAF didn't want to do dive bombing anyway. It got lumbered with the role because of Beaverbrook at MAP and various politicians looking at German use of Stukas in Poland, Norway and western Europe and thinking it would be a good idea to support the Army with them. I've even seen a comment that the RAF threatened not to provide crews for them.

For example Wing Commander Slessor in 1934 stated "The aeroplane is NOT a battlefield weapon". In 1941 as an Air Marshall and despite nearly 2 years of war was still protesting "...we don't want aircraft skidding around over Kent looking for enemy tanks, that is the job of the anti-tank gun".it The RAF was meant to be a strategic air force offensively bombing Germany.

So when the Vengeance finally was ready to enter service the RAF at home had no use for it. At the same time the Far East was crying out for modern aircraft so they were sent there in lieu of anything better.

The SB2A was a total disaster for the USA, Australia and Britain for a variety of reasons. Not all on order were built. Ultimately about 370 were received with 152 reduced to produce almost immediately. They even failed as target tugs!

So I don't think that the RAF would be losing sleep over the failure of the SB2A. It was never intended to equip the FAA.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The SB2A was a total disaster for the USA, Australia and Britain for a variety of reasons. Not all on order were built. Ultimately about 370 were received with 152 reduced to produce almost immediately. They even failed as target tugs!

That's the joke.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Well considering the USN air groups on Wasp and Ranger were flying Vindicators into the summer of 1942 and the delays already apparent with the next generation of dive bombers (the Brewster SB2A and the Curtiss SB2C) by mid-1941 and the relatively slow rate of SBD-3 production (SBD-2 were still in some of the Pacific Fleet CVGs in Dec 1941), there is zero chance of the USN giving up any SBD-3.

Yeah you are probably right

See my earlier post for the RAF and training on the Vengeance. All it took was practice to increase accuracy in dive bombing.

I think there is a bit more to it, there certainly was with the SBD. There is also the issue of surviving contact with enemy fighters...

You have already discussed in the last few days on another thread on this site the availability of bombs on Kittyhawks. Kittyhawks didn't begin to arrive with the Desert Air Force squadrons until the very end of 1941 with bomb racks starting to be fitted from May 1942.

Bomb racks were 'fitted' on P-40s in the factory as soon as the first D model (Kittyhawk Mk I) came out which was back in May - June 1941, first British Kittyhawk mission in the Middle east was in Dec 1941 and first bombing mission was in May 1942.

In a 'what-if' scenario Kittyhawks could have been sent to Ceylon by about the same timeline (late 1941) and they had the capacity to carry bombs right out the gate. I didn't read the whole thread but I assumed the goal here was to thwart the April 1942 Japanese raid on Ceylon?

The modifications done in the field - including relatively nearby in Burma- were for carrying heavier wing bombs.

 

[GrauGeist]

Would Northrop's A-17 have been of some help in this scenario?

 

[MikeMeech]

Would Northrop's A-17 have been of some help in this scenario?

Hi
As the A-17 was slower, had less range and bombload than a Blenheim it would not be of any help in this scenario (or in any other I suspect?), even more Blenheims would be a better choice.

Mike

 

[SaparotRob]

But it looked so cool.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

lol, how'd that work out for them?

Yeah, the guys flying fabric covered biplanes saying that a monoplane is obsolete (before I get lapidated, I know that the Swordfish was quite useful in some role even late in the war)

On another note, could the Hermes could had been used to ferry those DB?

 

[GrauGeist]

Hi
As the A-17 was slower, had less range and bombload than a Blenheim it would not be of any help in this scenario (or in any other I suspect?), even more Blenheims would be a better choice.

Mike

And yet the Royal Navy had Fairy Swordfish and Albacores in service at Ceylon.

The A-17 may not have been a world beater in 1941/2, but it was available in numbers.

 

[Shortround6]

Sort of working my way backwards here.

Unless any of the proposed aircraft have the needed range (out, back, combat allowance and reserve)
we can get rid of most of them.

A-17/A was bog slow, makes a Battle look speedy.
A-17/A could carry twenty 30lb bombs in the internal bays (vertical tubes), not very good for killing ships.
Anything bigger went outside and there may have been some rather hefty loads (or not?)
Four 100lb bombs could be carried in addition to the internal bombs.
One photo shows an A-33 with eight 100lb bombs filling up a lot of space from landing gear leg to landing gear leg.
Unfortunately the A-33 (commandeered Norwegian planes) had a 1200hp engine and not the 825hp engines used in the French/British aircraft.
It might have been possible to load four 300lb bombs under the A-17A or perhaps four British 250lb bombs? But do you have to reduce the fuel load to do it?
And multiple external bombs are going to make drag cutting range.

"Bomb racks were 'fitted' on P-40s in the factory as soon as the first D model (Kittyhawk Mk I) came out which was back in May - June 1941, first British Kittyhawk mission in the Middle east was in Dec 1941 and first bombing mission was in May 1942."
This is both true and it is false.
The existence of bomb racks on the entire P-40 series (and P-36s) is very confusing (snippets scattered here and there). In regards to the P-40D/E in the early manual there were two under wing bomb racks each capable of holding three 20lb bombs. Location for the manual release is given and the electrical release could used using the B-4 trigger switch and the "bomb" selector switch.
No mention is made of an under fuselage bomb. The drop tank is certainly mentioned and the release handle for it is just forward of the manual bomb release handle.
Later on they started carrying a single 100lb bomb under each wing and perhaps enterprising pilots and ground crew may have rigged 250lbs under each wing.
Depending on the ground crew and the availability of parts and access to areas of the aircraft they may have been able to rig the fuselage fuel tank rack to the stick "trigger" instead of having the pilot reach down to the cockpit floor next to the seat to manually release the bomb. It was done that way but perhaps accuracy was not the best?
On some of the later planes there were switches that controlled the fuses in the bomb/s. The bombs should always be set to "safe" when jettisoning the bombs for a forced landing.
Dropping live bombs on your own airfield was strongly discouraged
Strangely a 1943 P-40 manual makes very few mentions of the bomb systems (or it is in a different manual?)
Finding out when (and how?) the crews rigged up the dropping systems (and trigger releases) and the fitted the safety systems might explain the delays in using some planes as fighter bombers.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Sort of working my way backwards here.

Unless any of the proposed aircraft have the needed range (out, back, combat allowance and reserve)
we can get rid of most of them.

A-17/A was bog slow, makes a Battle look speedy.
A-17/A could carry twenty 30lb bombs in the internal bays (vertical tubes), not very good for killing ships.
Anything bigger went outside and there may have been some rather hefty loads (or not?)
Four 100lb bombs could be carried in addition to the internal bombs.
One photo shows an A-33 with eight 100lb bombs filling up a lot of space from landing gear leg to landing gear leg.
Unfortunately the A-33 (commandeered Norwegian planes) had a 1200hp engine and not the 825hp engines used in the French/British aircraft.
It might have been possible to load four 300lb bombs under the A-17A or perhaps four British 250lb bombs? But do you have to reduce the fuel load to do it?
And multiple external bombs are going to make drag cutting range.

"Bomb racks were 'fitted' on P-40s in the factory as soon as the first D model (Kittyhawk Mk I) came out which was back in May - June 1941, first British Kittyhawk mission in the Middle east was in Dec 1941 and first bombing mission was in May 1942."
This is both true and it is false.
The existence of bomb racks on the entire P-40 series (and P-36s) is very confusing (snippets scattered here and there). In regards to the P-40D/E in the early manual there were two under wing bomb racks each capable of holding three 20lb bombs. Location for the manual release is given and the electrical release could used using the B-4 trigger switch and the "bomb" selector switch.
No mention is made of an under fuselage bomb. The drop tank is certainly mentioned and the release handle for it is just forward of the manual bomb release handle.
Later on they started carrying a single 100lb bomb under each wing and perhaps enterprising pilots and ground crew may have rigged 250lbs under each wing.
Depending on the ground crew and the availability of parts and access to areas of the aircraft they may have been able to rig the fuselage fuel tank rack to the stick "trigger" instead of having the pilot reach down to the cockpit floor next to the seat to manually release the bomb. It was done that way but perhaps accuracy was not the best?
On some of the later planes there were switches that controlled the fuses in the bomb/s. The bombs should always be set to "safe" when jettisoning the bombs for a forced landing.
Dropping live bombs on your own airfield was strongly discouraged
Strangely a 1943 P-40 manual makes very few mentions of the bomb systems (or it is in a different manual?)
Finding out when (and how?) the crews rigged up the dropping systems (and trigger releases) and the fitted the safety systems might explain the delays in using some planes as fighter bombers.

I agree the heavier wing bombs on a P-40 (D onward) were a gradual development, but as soon as you could put a 50 gallon fuel tank on the centerline (earliest production version of P-40D) you can carry about a 300 lb bomb for sure, and it turned out pretty quickly that you can also carry about a 500 lb bomb. The fuel tank system has a release switch to ditch the external tank. Needless to say that also works for a bomb, so all you have left to do is rig something to arm the bomb which seems to have been done various ways.

SBDs did plenty of harm with 500 lb bombs on Japanese ships, and Vals did even worse on US and British ships. We actually know that P-40s could carry a 1,000 lb bomb on the centerline too but they may not have known that in early 1942. It's a cinch they can carry enough to hurt most Japanese ships, anything less than a heavy cruiser or battleship.

And those Kittyhawks could bomb pretty accurately, as we also know from the operational history.

But range would be limited with external bombs. That's the real limitation here.

Two other types that came to mind are the Whirlwind (as a coastal defense fighter and strafer) and a Martin Maryland, which they did have available quite early. Doesn't carry a huge bomb load but it is fast and has a long range, and what bombs it does carry can go in the bomb bay I think. If you don't want the Whirlwind (I can hear complaints already) send some Beaufighters, they were already around. Beaufighters had enough speed down low that they could tangle with Zeros and sometimes came out on top, plus plenty firepower (and more ammunition than Whirlwind) to strafe ships.

 

[EwenS]

Whirlwind - just 114 built incl prototypes. Equipped just 2 squadrons, the second only forming in Sept 1941. Only started using bombs in June 1942, after suitable modifications.

Beaufighter - in high demand in Britain as a nightfighter (Mosquito NF.II didn't begin to enter service until early 1942 with first ops in April). Coastal version in short supply. 3 squadrons at home (2 of which converted to type in last quarter of 1941. Next didn't convert until June 1942) and 2 squadrons in ME (third squadron didn't form until Aug 1942 having drawn aircraft and crews from home) Another squadron at home reverted to flying Blenheim IVf in mid-1941 until Sept 1942 due to lack of aircraft. First thoughts of turning it into a torpedo fighter only arose at very end of 1941. Accelerated development saw first dozen TF operational around Sept 1942.

Amongst the little referred to movements was the decision in Jan 1942 to send two Beaufort squadrons to Ceylon. 22 left in Feb becoming operational there at end of April, thereby just missing Operation C. 217 left in May but aircraft delayed in ME. Beaufort was another aircraft in short supply in late 1941/early 1942. Formation of 2 squadrons on the type in Britain in late 1941 had to be postponed. They received Hampdens for TB role in early 1942 along with 2 squadrons transferred from Bomber Command in April, as replacement for the 2 Beaufort squadrons being sent to the Far East.

Marylands formed the backbone of Desert Air Force light bomber squadrons in 1941/42 alongside Blenheims. At one point in mid-1941 the plan was for the Baltimore to go to the Far East, but priorities changed and they went to the ME instead. But again this was a type that didn't begin to reach the front line squadrons until early 1942.

The problem with all these light bomber types is that without fighter escort their losses were heavy. 11 squadron Blenheims got lucky when they attacked the IJN in 1942, remaining undetected until they dropped their bombs. But once the IJN fighters got their act together 5 of the 9 attacking Blenheimscwere shot down.