Thumpalumpacus
Major
IIRC, 1 Sep 1943 was their first action off carriers. I don't know if they operated from land before then.
Under Boyington, it was late 1943.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How early were F6Fs in action? Oct 43?
I think you mean VMF 214. I was trying to figure out when their first mission was but couldn't find it.
The F6F-3 began operations from both land and carrier in Aug 1943.That's interesting that there were some F6Fs in Guadalcanal already in 1943. When I looked into the F6F history, it seemed like the ones on carriers were doing a lot of training and work-up in 1943 but didn't see combat until 1944.
The earliest P-38 & P47 units in the Pacific / CBI that I can trace are:-The dates for the other aircraft look correct to me, but it's worth noting at least in 1942-1943 they were coming in quite small numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there were more than a couple dozen P-38s operational in the Pacific through 1943 (they were mostly being committed to the Mediterranean at that time in the hopes that they would have a big impact there).
That said, even the very early P-38s seem to have been unusually effective against the Ki-43s and A6Ms, which is why Kenney was soon clamouring for more of them. Guys like Richard Bong were flying P-38s already in 1942 IIRC.
A number of things to unpack in the above post.One other area I would like to emphasize where the Japanese had some very good designs is dive bombers. The D3A was unprotected and started taking heavy losses in later 1942, but it was a lethally accurate dive bomber, with quite a good range (much better than a Ju-87) and not as vulnerable as you might think. Certainly you can see in the operational history they had a reasonably good chance to survive against fighters depending on the mission profile (much better than equivalent torpedo bombers). I would say it compares well overall with the Ju-87, certainly in the maritime role. I put it in a tie with Ju-87 and SBD as the best dive bomber in the war.
The Yokosuka D4Y suffered from protracted teething problems like a lot of mid-war planes did, and though it was designed in 1940, the first functional variant, D4Y-2 didn't arrive until 1943, which was too late as they soon ran into the buzz-saw of F6Fs. But it was very fast (340 mph), had pretty good range (910 miles) and was apparently quite accurate - hitting several US ships even in 1944. The last variant D4Y-4 had armor and ss tanks, while retaining good speed and range, and excellent accuracy. It just came much too late.
Same can be said of the B7A, which was both a torpedo and a dive bomber. Superb speed, handling and performance, excellent range (1800 miles according to the Wiki) and it was protected from the get-go, and heavily armed with two 20mm cannon and a 13mm defensive gun. Came too late and in too few numbers to have an impact on the war, but as a design, I would say it compares very well to the late war and even post-war US and British planes (Wyvern, Firebrand, Firecrest, Spearfish for the UK, Mauler, Skypirate, Skyshark for the US). Only what became the A-1 / AD Skyraider can really compare with it - it turned out good in the CAS role, but we don't really know if the AD would have been a good ship-killer. (you could also perhaps compare it to the excellent Italian Fiat G.55 in torpedo bombing mode). The Skyraider wasn't a dive bomber and wasn't normally fitted for torpedoes, in fact I think they got rid of the internal bomb bay. The fact that the British and Americans made so many (basically failed) attempts to make something similar to the B7A shows that there was still an interest in this type of Naval strike aircraft.
Needless to say, the B7A definitely looks better than the wartime SB2C or the Barracuda, and in terms of performance and maneuverability (which also had long and painful development cycles). The real (high angle) dive bombing capability and the ability to hold bombs internally, and to carry a torpedo (I think externally), it looks like it was good enough that it may have been preferable to using fighters in the fighter-bomber role, which is what replaced the SB2C in service.
Some would argue that missiles and rockets made dive bombers obsolete, but I don't really buy that. Though it had problems, the fast dive bomber variant of the Mustang, the A-36, proved to have a quite useful niche even in the extremely hairy AAA and flying environment of mountainous Italy. The plane didn't hold up to the structural challenges of pulling out of repeated dives but it proved very handy at knocking out bridges. I think a 350 mph Stuka would have also been welcome, had the Germans been able to develop one.
Rockets, as we know, were not that accurate. They may have been fine for attrition warfare, for sinking ships and ground targets of secondary importance late in the war, but for accuracy such as needed to sink capital ships or troop transports, they probably weren't good enough. Early missiles and glide bombs could be quite effective, but the Allies (I think the British?) quickly developed pretty effective counter-measures against these, reducing their effectiveness, and the launch platforms, such as Do-217s, seemed to be excessively vulnerable. Specifically Do 217s did sink some Allied ships with Fritz X and HS 293 weapons during amphibious operations around Italy, and they missiles / glide bombs were very sophisticated for the time, but Do 217s took such crippling losses in making these strikes that the units were swiftly eliminated.
What about it?However, even though they also missed the war, the Ki-83 in IJA spec was, performance-wise, sort of small beer to the de Havilland Hornet (485 mph in testing, 472+mph in production), and the NAA P-82 Twin Mustang (P-82B with Merlins did 475-482 mph fully equipped, depending on equipment).
This is all quite interesting layer of context around the B7A, but I don't think it changes anything I was saying.A number of things to unpack in the above post.
Firstly the B7A was a new generation of aircraft for the Japanese with design starting in 1941. It was designed to fly from a new generation of Japanese carriers starting with the Taiho, laid down July 1941, and the Unryu class, design of which had begun in late 1941, with the lead ship being ordered that year although she wasn't laid down until after Midway. These ships were fitted with larger lifts and stronger arrester gear to handle this new larger and heavier type. Even had they not been lost by the time the B7A began series production in mid/late 1944, it could not have operated from that earlier generation of carrier without them being extensively reconstructed.
Next we need to separate out the British designs you mention. The Firebrand, Firecrest, Wyvern line had virtually nothing in common with the B7A apart from the ability to carry a torpedo. As discussed on other threads the Firebrand as a single seat torpedo fighter, was an attempt to turn a failed fighter into something useful. The Firecrest was never intended to go beyond the prototype stage as a thin winged Firebrand. The true successor to the Firebrand was the Wyvern (Spec N.11/44) whose primary role was intended to be as an escort fighter (a successor to the Hellcat & Corsair in RN service) with a secondary strike capability. Because it took so long to develop it is remembered for the latter role.
The B7A is like the Fairey Spearfish whose design was started in 1943, in the respect that it was intended to operate from a new generation of carriers, the Audacious, Centaur & Malta classes, and was too large for the earlier British armoured carriers. While the few built exhibited handling problems, these could no doubt have been resolved had the whole project not ben terminated with the end of WW2 and the suspension of the ships that it was designed to operate from.
In the AM-1 Mauler/AD-1 Skyraider we see the US the US firstly combining the dive & torpedo bomber roles, like the B7A, but then moving to a single seat strike aircraft concept, dumping the second crewman and his associated turret & guns to save wight and thereby add speed. The change of concept is why so many US projects "failed". The AM-1/AD-1 were designed as both dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Thing was that by the time the AD-1 came to see combat in Korea attack profiles had changed because of the increased air defence threat. As developed by the end of WW2 with the fighter bombers, it was get in low, pop up, deliver ordnance and get out.
And the B7A should be better than the Barracuda and Helldiver as it represents an advance of about 2 and 1 generations respectively by the time its design was begun.
The early German guided weapons were very quickly countered. First use of the Fritz X bomb was 21 July 1943 against shipping in Augusta harbour without success (in fact its not clear if the Allies were aware of the nature of the weapon during these early raids. That changed with the sinking of the Roma and events at Salerno in early Sept). The first Hs 293 was used on 25 Aug against escort ships in the Bay of Biscay. By early Oct 1943 the first US jammers had been developed and installed in two destroyer escorts bound for the Med. More intelligence finds resulted in a second generation of US jammers in Dec 1943. British scientists took a different approach to jamming and had a system (Type 650) ready for trials in Dec 1943. By D-Day in Normandy the guided weapons had effectively been defeated electronically.
The real weakness of these guided systems was the inability to "fire and forget". An aircraft needed to be fairly large to carry them and then it had to hang around just out of gun range with the target in sight (so really daylight only or dusk/dawn) to guide the weapon to its target. So the first defence was improved fighter cover and fighter direction to either down or force away a carrier aircraft. Hard manoeuvering by vessels targeted could defeat them (not always possible for ships in convoy) as could smoke screens for vessels at anchor. And of course jamming the signals, once enough intelligence had been obtained about frequencies etc.
The use of these weapons at Salerno gave an impetus to designing ships with bigger AA guns, like the US Worcester class cruisers and the never built British Neptune class (Although the mounts went into the Tiger class in the 1950s), and to the development of surface to air missiles to increase the envelope of the AA defence.
The US experimented with a number of larger guided and unguided weapons late in the war. So we have for example the guided Bat glide bomb, guided AZON/RAZON free fall bombs, the unguided Tiny Tim rocket with an 11.75in warhead carrying nearly 150lb of explosive, and the GT-1 glide torpedo designed to deliver a torpedo from stand off distances. All these were used with varying degrees of success in 1944/45 but all relied heavily on air superiority to allow an aircraft to deliver its load accurately.
Postwar development of both guided & unguided weapons continued in both nations.
Switching from the fighters back to the bombers.
Already mentioned the Ki-21 and Ki-32 in earlier posts (#44 & 48)
The Ki-48 was well behind the times. It it appeared in combat units in late 1940.
It was faster than a Blenheim but after that is was all down hill.
One extra crewman, no power assisted guns (and worse ones that the Blenheim) and normal bomb load of 300kg (six 50 kg bombs) and a normal range less than that of Blenheim IV.
Yes a number of German bombers started the war with only 3 machine guns but by late 1940 they all were carrying 5-7 guns even if not a good layout.
The Ki-48 II listed by Wiki didn't show up until 1942 and wiki once again lists the max bomb load and the max range. Normal bomb load was 400 kg which is poor return for a 4 man crew. Especially in 1942.
The Ki-49 is pretty much of a flop. Went into operation in the fall of 1941. An eight man crew to deliver 750kg of bombs normal and 1000kg max (not counting suicide attack) and defended by five 7.7 guns and one 20mm gun. all slow firing, of limited ammo capacity and manually aimed.
And again the numbers in Wiki are for the later version that showed up in late 1942.
It you are going to mount garbage guns, get rid of 3-4 of crew, use a smaller fuselage and at least try for speed.
Normal range for the late version was 2000km and the max range was 2950km so it didn't even have the Japanese Navy bombers excuse of longer range.
Compare to Wellington MK III, B-25C & D, B-26A,
What did the Allies or Western Axis have, that could match the performance of the KI-46?IMO, it seems that Japan was always a bit behind the Allies in terms of development, just as Germany with piston engine fighters hit a lull from 1942-44, and by the time they started to catch up, it was a brick short and a day late.
You missed the point about timing again.I was on a road trip for a couple of weeks, so wasn't able to comment on this before, and I'm a little tired to get into it tonight, but suffice to say that i find the notion that the Ki-48 and K-49 were inferior to the Blenheim or the Wellington (which were direct competitors) is absurd. They were in fact superior in many respects, especially performance.
You seem to be forgetting the Mosquito, which even early versions were almost as fast as the Ki-46-III.
The Mosquito PR I entered service in 1941, the first Ki-46s entered service in 1940. Problem was that the Mosquito PRI had a top speed of 380+mph, Ki-46-I had a top speed of 336 mph, which was much slower than was hoped for in the original IJA specification (373mph). The Ki-46-II (1941) reached the spec'd speed of 373 mph, but that was still slightly slower than the Mosquito, and the Mosquito bomber/PR variants that got two stage Merlins were faster yet.
Only the Ki-46-IV was faster than those Mosquitos (or two stage Merin or Griffon PR Spitfires), but it didn't reach mass production. The Spitfire PR XIX was faster than all of them (and was among the fastest of the Spitfires), but wasn't as long ranged as the Ki-46 or the Mosquito.
Not to mention that the Mosquito and Spitfire PR planes could operate at higher altitudes. Japan was def. behind in terms of supercharger tech compared to the British (2 stage supercharging) and the US (turbocharging), just as Germany was, and for several of the same reasons.
Of course, the experimental F-82 camera ship was much faster and could out-range all versions of the Ki-46. But the caveat there is that it was a one off (toyed with at Elgin AFB in 1948), was aside from the camera pod a standard F-82B, and came about around 3 years after World War II had ended, with the P-82 itself also missing the war, with the first production aircraft not delivered to the USAAF (as a fighter) in Nov. 1945.
You missed the point about timing again.
Introducing a "better" Blenheim in late 1940 is hardly a mark of keeping up with the British.
Blenheim I was in service with 5 squadrons in 1937.
Blenheim IV was in service with 1st squadron in May of 1939.
Coming to the party 1 1/2 to 3 years late pretty much is a perfect example of the title of the thread.
Or compare to the Soviet SB 2M-103 of 1938. 3 years late for less than 20mph of speed, while carrying 1/2 the bombs, crappier defensive guns and not going any further?
The Ki-49 was a direct competitor to the Wellington is absurd from the point of view of timing.
The Ki-49 first prototype flew at about the time that Wellingtons were equipping eight squadrons and were flying operations against Germany within one month.
The Ki-49 I wasn't accepted for Production until March of 1941. That means making the production tooling.
In the Spring of 1941 you had.
Wellington Is (a bunch of them) with Pegasus engines.
Wellington IIs with Merlin engines in service with several squadrons
Wellington IIIs with Hercules XI engines going into service
Wellington IVs with P&W R-1830s were being built in late 1940 and early 1941.
The only way the Ki-49 shows up on time is with a time machine. Actual production of the Ki-49 I started in Aug 1941.
The Ki-49 II with the higher powered engines starts delivery in Aug 1942.
You missed the point about timing again.
HiYes but here is the thing -
Ki-48 and 49 were competitors to the Blenheim and Wellington (and SB, IL-4, SM 82, SM 79 and He 111 etc.) operationally. Their use in service overlapped quite a bit. It may have gone into service in 1937-39, but the British were still flying Blenheims to attack the Japanese fleet at Ceylon in mid 1942. They were using Blenheims in action, in spite of brutal losses, in the Mediterranean into 1943. Wellingtons too but not at daytime bombers because it was just too slow. They did still prove useful at night particularly in the maritime strike role.
The direct competitor to the Blenheim in terms of design and deployment was actually the Ki-21 (deployed in 1938) for the Japanese army and the G3M for the navy. It still looks better to me.
Ki-21: 300 mph top speed, 1700 mile range, 2,000 lb payload, 5 x .30 cal and one 12.7mm machine gun for defense. Ceiling 33,000 ft. That top speed may not seem important but it proved to be helpful during strikes as it meant less time over target and a faster egress from the kill zone. The RAF found the same thing for the Martin 167 and 187 in the Middle East.
The Japanese (albeit gradually) replaced the Ki-21 with the Ki-48 and Ki-49 in 1941-42. The Ki-49 in particular with it's armor and ss tanks, was a major improvement. The British did not come up with a good improvement over the Blenheim during that crucial mid-war period, excepting the superb Mosquito which was slow into production and was being used mainly for recon and other non-tactical roles (I have been an advocate for a wider role for it myself). The Beaufort was mainly for the maritime strike role in which it rather struggled, though it's a bit better than the Blenheim.
The only real competitors for the Ki-48 and 49 are the Ju 88 and the US A-20 and B-25, and the Soviet Pe-2. The A-20, as already noted, was excellent but very short ranged, especially in it's early incarnation. The B-25 proved to be versatile but it was relatively slow. The Pe-2 was accurate but was also lacking in range. The Ju-88 maybe was the best of these six overall in the early war though certainly not invincible (and it's arguable). All the early war bombers had substantial flaws and limitations. The early B-25s though heavily armed didn't have tail guns for example.
Eventually, under Kenny and Pappy Gunn, the B-25 evolved into a lethal strafer and masthead bomber, but that took a while.
Hi
Reference the Ki-49, this was classed as a heavy bomber so any discussion on technology comparison between Japan and the west must deal with actual contemporary designs. This means the Ki-49, first flight August 1939, deliveries start August 41 and Ops it appears in early 1942, should be compared, in the British case, with the heavy bombers that first flew in the same period, these are:
Short Stirling, first flight May 1939. First Op Feb 41.
Avro Manchester, first flight July 1939. First Op Feb 41.
H P Halifax, first flight Oct 39. First Op March 41.
Even the Avro Lancaster is a close contemporary with its first flight in Jan 41 and first Op in March 42.
The Wellington was still in service as a main bomber during 1942 and most of 43 but being replaced with the new types, the Wellington did go overseas and used as a main bomber, indeed the first RAF heavy bomber in the Far East during 1942, however, it was a much earlier generation than the Ki-49 and was far from the 'current' aircraft technology then entering and being used by the RAF in the same period. I don't think that the Ki-49 was equal in technology with its RAF contemporaries.
Mike