SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I don't think the SBD ever appeared with Daffy Duck. The TBD, however, was prominently featured in a Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers comic book.
If Italy is neutral what does its air force look like by Sept 1942 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #62
Admiral Beez
Major
To the Skua's credit, it was the first folding wing, all metal dive bomber.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Easy meat.
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
The Dauntless entered service in 1939 by which time Skua production had already ended. It's dive bombing role being taken over by the Albacore with a routine 2,000lb (4x500lb) bombload.
- Thread starter
- #65
Admiral Beez
Major
Not necessarily. Nagumo woefully neglected CAP, leading to nine Blenheims to fly over and bomb his force undetected. Unfortunately their bombs missed their marks. Add a dozen Skuas accurately diving and we'd see some results. But yes, once the strike is complete the Zeros will clear the skies.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
225 mph top speed, they'll be cut to pieces by Zeros.
- Thread starter
- #67
Admiral Beez
Major
Afterward, yes. No contest. But with no CAP and shoddy AA at least one Japanese flat top is ablaze and a long way from home. And with Skuas diving from above, the Blenheims may not be noticed and can make better bomb runs. But yes, it's a one way trip for those Skua crews.. as it was for those in the Blenheims.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
With no CAP, any plane can launch attacks. A lot of folks forget that SBDs often got bounced by Zeros while attacking.
- Thread starter
- #69
Admiral Beez
Major
True. If the Brits had the intel that the IJN had no concept of fleet air defence nor of effective AA the RAF might have sent everything on Ceylon at Nagumo. An unmolested Tiger Moth with eight 20 lb bombs would have wrecked one of the IJN's matchstick carriers. The IJN deckhands lazily look up and see this formation of Moths, and think, WTF is that? We'd still be buying the "Hero of Ceylon" Tiger Moth kits today.
Of course, if Italy is neutral and Germany is beating itself to death in Russia, by April 1942 Ceylon might well have a squadron of Beaufighters. Maybe Italy could sell some SM.79 Sparvieros to fill any gaps in the RAF ranks.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The British may buy Italian aircraft/supplies to get by a temporary shortage. Long term gets somewhat iffier.
As was well shown by EwenS's post #50 Italy's "politics" was not on the side most of Europe for over 5 years. And his post left out the Italian involvement in the Spanish civil war.
Italy not attacking France was the last chance not to be drawn into the war, but not drawn in is not the same as being Neutral. Italy was siding towards Germany in many ways. Depending on Italy long term was a rather doubtful.
Sending Italian aircraft east is also not a good choice. Complicating the supply chain/logistics as far as spare parts goes is not smart. Ability of the British forces in India and east to fabricate missing/broken parts is a lot less that doing the same in Great Britain. Some units did wonders but you want to keep the necessity to a minimum, not rely on it.
I would also be more than a little hesitant about using trainers and other odds/sods to try to intercept Japanese carriers, even 2nd/3rd rate ones. Even 4-6 A5M Claude's with experienced pilots are going to tear up a bunch of fabric covered biplanes. And we have the reverse of the Skua/Dauntless. The D3A Val only had 2 7.7mm guns but just about the same speed as the Skua/Dauntless and well known for it's maneuverability (at least as a bomber).
The Reggiane Re.2000 in British service needs a little more fleshing out.
Like armament. Italian 12.7mm guns that use Italian ammo? Or rechambered for British .5in ammo?
Supplies of British .5in ammo East of Suez?
Re-gun with .303 Brownings and put one in each wing?
British keep them in England (or in South Africa) for trainers as they don't come with protected tanks and armor/bp glass?
Sending 90 to South Africa might free up 90 Mohawks ?
From wiki so................ "Also, the wing fuel tanks of the Re.2000s received by Hungary were poorly sealed, with many of them leaking"
This was a similar complaint to the American P-43s (and perhaps to the P-35s?) and is a result of the type of construction.
The Seversky and Reggiane aircraft used integral tanks. Saved weight by using the wing skins as the top and bottom of the fuel tanks but as the wing flexed it often broke the sealant in the joints. Even the US P-43s that were supposed to have self sealing tanks leaked without getting shot at.
Using Italian built aircraft in the further reaches of the Empire was just asking for trouble. Amount of Metric tools in India or Singapore (or Australia/South Africa) in 1939-40?
As was well shown by EwenS's post #50 Italy's "politics" was not on the side most of Europe for over 5 years. And his post left out the Italian involvement in the Spanish civil war.
Italy not attacking France was the last chance not to be drawn into the war, but not drawn in is not the same as being Neutral. Italy was siding towards Germany in many ways. Depending on Italy long term was a rather doubtful.
Sending Italian aircraft east is also not a good choice. Complicating the supply chain/logistics as far as spare parts goes is not smart. Ability of the British forces in India and east to fabricate missing/broken parts is a lot less that doing the same in Great Britain. Some units did wonders but you want to keep the necessity to a minimum, not rely on it.
I would also be more than a little hesitant about using trainers and other odds/sods to try to intercept Japanese carriers, even 2nd/3rd rate ones. Even 4-6 A5M Claude's with experienced pilots are going to tear up a bunch of fabric covered biplanes. And we have the reverse of the Skua/Dauntless. The D3A Val only had 2 7.7mm guns but just about the same speed as the Skua/Dauntless and well known for it's maneuverability (at least as a bomber).
The Reggiane Re.2000 in British service needs a little more fleshing out.
Like armament. Italian 12.7mm guns that use Italian ammo? Or rechambered for British .5in ammo?
Supplies of British .5in ammo East of Suez?
Re-gun with .303 Brownings and put one in each wing?
British keep them in England (or in South Africa) for trainers as they don't come with protected tanks and armor/bp glass?
Sending 90 to South Africa might free up 90 Mohawks ?
From wiki so................ "Also, the wing fuel tanks of the Re.2000s received by Hungary were poorly sealed, with many of them leaking"
This was a similar complaint to the American P-43s (and perhaps to the P-35s?) and is a result of the type of construction.
The Seversky and Reggiane aircraft used integral tanks. Saved weight by using the wing skins as the top and bottom of the fuel tanks but as the wing flexed it often broke the sealant in the joints. Even the US P-43s that were supposed to have self sealing tanks leaked without getting shot at.
Using Italian built aircraft in the further reaches of the Empire was just asking for trouble. Amount of Metric tools in India or Singapore (or Australia/South Africa) in 1939-40?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
More than a touch of hyperbole there, but hey, have fun.
- Thread starter
- #72
Admiral Beez
Major
Good points all round. If the British could get some Italian tanks for Malaya we could play out my other scenario.
Italian vs. Japanese WW2 Tanks
How do Italian and Japanese WW2 tanks have compare? They both settled on smaller, lighter tanks, I assume due to limitations on production capacity and resources, engines or need for easy transport. Some good modern day vids on the Japanese Type 95 tank... At 2:50 it's not difficult to...
ww2aircraft.net
Shortround6
Major General
Why?Good points all round. If the British could get some Italian tanks for Malaya we could play out my other scenario.
Italian vs. Japanese WW2 Tanks
How do Italian and Japanese WW2 tanks have compare? They both settled on smaller, lighter tanks, I assume due to limitations on production capacity and resources, engines or need for easy transport. Some good modern day vids on the Japanese Type 95 tank... At 2:50 it's not difficult to...ww2aircraft.net
If the Italians don't fight in Africa (for whatever reason) the British have hundreds more British (or American) tanks to send to Malaysia/Burma/Borneo.
Buying Italian tanks to muck up the logistics chain just helps the Japanese.
And how much rework do Italian tanks need?
Like replacing machine guns and radios (or fitting radios in the first place?).
The Indian units in Malaysia were very short of artillery and ammo, both for training and for actual action.
Make sure units are well supplied and trained rather than depend on gimmicks/toys.
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
Operation Banquet - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
- Thread starter
- #75
Admiral Beez
Major
I'm just trying to find a means to put Italian tanks up against Japanese ones. Maybe Italy sells some to Thailand or FIC.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Read up on Italo Balbo. He was an important and influential Fascist, and he warned Mussolini about joining the Germans. "You will all wind up shining the shoes of the Germans!"
Shortround6
Major General
Both countries have problems in 1940-41.
Italy only made about 100 of the M11/39s
Vision is dismal, Commander handles the twin 8mm machineguns which are fed with 24 round boxes. Traverse of the hull mounted 37mm was 30 degrees total.
Problem for the Italians and export prospects is that these were by far the best Italian tanks available in 1939 and for about 1/2 of 1940.
The M11/39 has a top speed of 32kph(?) and range of 200kph and it has about 30mm of armor on the Front, sides are about 1/2.
The M13/40 starts to show up in July/Aug of 1940 and hits a peak production of 60-70 tanks per month sometime after that.
decent but not outstanding 47mm gun. Two man turret. Mobility about the same as the M11/39. 30mm armor on the hull front, thicker turret and around 25mm on the sides/rear.
For jungle fighting it is a 14-15 ton tank with narrow tracks.
How many the Italians may decide to sell for export is certainly debatable. But the sales need to be completed and tanks loaded on ships by the summer of 1940 to get them
to SE Asia, un-loaded and crews trained and get them to forward areas. Italy has only the old M11/39s and the little tankettes with machine guns IF/when Italy goes to war in Europe so balance overseas sales with Italy's own needs, real or imagined.
Without going through the Japanese catalogue tankettes and light tanks the main contenders are the Type 95 Ha-Go
3 men, one in the turret, poor vision, few or no radios. A whopping 12mm of armor.
about 7.5-8 tons 45kph and a range of 200-210km. 37mm gun may be effective at 500-700 meters?
The other common tank was the larger Type 97 Chi-Ha
15-16 tons 4 men, two in the turret. 25mm armor. 38kph and 210km range.
Low velocity 57mm gun, the High velocity 47mm doesn't show up until April 1942(?) last few weeks of the Philippines.
Japanese 7.7mm tank machine guns were based off the Czech ZB 26 and used 20 round magazines.
Basically neither the Italians nor the Japanese tanks had any great advantage over the other/s. They all had crap for armor at jungle distances. They all had poor vision and over worked turret crews. High speed on dirt roads in Malaysia? They were within a few percent on book range. What is somewhat unknown is ability to get through undergrowth/jungle, the Japanese having somewhat better p/w ratio but still not good.
Compare to the M3 Stuart which entered production in March 1941.
- Thread starter
- #78
Admiral Beez
Major
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Maybe we see Balbo replace Mussolini as our man to keep Italy neutral.
I wonder what the Japanese would bring to Malaya if Britain had sent two hundred (or even fifty) Valentines, Covenanters or Matlidas. Is there any British tank available in 1939-41 that's smaller than Churchill, that has a HE and antipersonnel round? Did the Italians or Japanese have HE rounds on their small tanks?
The M3 Stuart's 37mm gun, similar to the British 2-pdr offered a both a HE and the M2 canister round. The latter would be interesting to counter Bonsai charges.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
What have you got against the British Commonwealth forces in Malaya?
The Covenanter was one of the worst mass produced tanks ever inflicted on any army. People should have gone to jail for treason for it.
And speaking of going to jail for treason, no-one has ever explained the lack of HE shells for the 2pdr.
Every single 37mm infantry gun, AT gun, tank gun, anti-aircraft gun and aircraft cannon since before the 1st WW had an HE shell of some sort. And yet the British could not do it with the 40mm 2pdr AT/tank gun? British navy had 2pdr HE shells in the 1915 Pom-Pom guns. Granted you want something better in shape and materials in 1935, 20 years later but the lack of 2 pdr HE shells was not due to technical difficulties. It was idiotic doctrine.
The much vaunted (sarcasm) US 37mm HE shell weighed 1.6 lbs and held 38-39 grams of HE.
Italy doesn't go to war in France in the summer of 1940 or fights in Africa?
Send a few hundred Cruiser A 13s to Malaya/Borneo. Have somebody load up 20-30,000 rounds of HE shells (use Pom-Pom shells or use 40mm Bofors Projectiles) Might not hit to the same aiming marks in the sight but at close range they won't be that far off.
There may be some reliability issues but certainly nowhere near as bad as the Covenantor or even early Crusaders. In the Crusader tank they lowered the height of the Liberty engine by about 6.5-7in which screwed up the oil scavenging in the crankcase and required a new fan drive which was a notorious weak point.
The 2pdr AP shot will take out any Japanese tank at any range it can hit it. The Besa gun is worth 2-3 of the Italian or Japanese machine guns.
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
There were 114 Stuarts in Burma with the 7th Armoured Brigade who landed at Rangoon and were instrumental in covering the withdrawal to India. As to what ammunition types they had I cannot advise.
