glennasher
Senior Airman
I'm not at all familiar with the Beauforts, would Hudsons or Venturas be suitable as substitutes as either torpedo planes or light bombers?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not according to Wikipedia.It was.
Even RAF testing of the prototype determined that it wasn't a suitable GP bomber....."The Beaufort came from Bristol's submission to meet Air Ministry Specifications M.I5/35 and G.24/35 for a land-based, twin-engined torpedo-bomber and a general reconnaissance aircraft. "
Of course any twin engined aircraft can be made into a general purpose level bomber, such as this Lisunov Li-2 (DC-3 clone) with bombs, but that doesn't mean it was designed or intended as such."high level bombing tests carried out at Boscombe Down at an altitude of 10,000 ft showed that the Beaufort was in the words of the test pilot: "An exceptionally poor bombing platform...".
Not according to Wikipedia.Even RAF testing of the prototype determined that it wasn't a suitable GP bomber.....
Like the He 111, it began life as an airliner, and like the He 111 was a bit of a hasty conversion;
Modern land based torpedo bombers at the outbreak to WW2 in 1939 equates to the Beaufort and the Ilyushin DB-3T, and that's it. The SM-79, as recounted earlier did not begin torpedo operations until July 1940, but did not really get into its stride until early to mid 1941 owing to a lack of parts equipping the units based in North Africa, a lack of doctrine, training and almost everything else required from a new unit experimenting with a new means of using an existing airframe, and a tricky new means that requires training. The SM-79 was an inspired choice as it had good performance and a good climb rate for an aircraft its size, but of what benefit are those to a torpedo bomber? Low and slow is what's needed and yes, eveading an enemy after the torpedo drop is useful, but even the much vaunted Sparviero could be shot down by a Gloster Gladiator.
Nonetheless, by 1940/1941, in reality the Sparviero is rapidly becoming obsolescent; built of metal tubing covered in fabric with a wooden wing, it has more in common with the Fokker F.VIIb mid 1920s airliner than it does with the Beaufort, construction wise. Like the He 111, it began life as an airliner, and like the He 111 was a bit of a hasty conversion; similar layout for a very small bomb load, defensive armament thrown anywhere there was room and less than ideal crew positions; the bomb aimer was located in the bath tub aft of the bomb bay. Nonetheless, the Sparviero did very well against the RN in the Meditteranean campaign as a torpedo bomber.
Hampden, He 111, Ju 88, G4M don't appear as torpedo carriers until 1941 and 1942.
The G3M predates the Beaufort. Beaufort entered service in 1940. As a torpedo-bomber 1st use in 1941?
It was designed as a bomber, the airliner livery was intended to fool foreign observers. Bomb-aimer was not located in the aft bath tub, but next to the pilot.
Sparviero was the 'Hurricane among the bombers' - old-fashioned, but useful. Any bomber of the day (1938-41) could be shot down by obsolescent fighter.
Was talking about the SM.79's bomb aimer being in the bathtub, and it had a small bomb load. Yes, I know the He 111 was designed as a bomber, but it began life as an airliner as the first production aircraft were airliners and went to Lufthansa, a batch of pre-production He 111A-0s were deemed unsuitable by the Luftwaffe and exported to China. And it was a bit of a hash of a job in conversion to a bomber, which was my point in comparing the SM.79 to it.
You've missed the point of me mentioning this aspect of it, the Beaufort was a more modern aircraft, it had a power operated gun turret for starters. Performance wise, it didn't matter that it wasn't high, my point being that even though the Sparviero had good performance, it didn't make a difference in the role it carried out. (don't fret, I'm not criticising the Sparviero, I think it's a neat aeroplane and in the flesh smaller than I had anticipated)
The one thing that I take issue with is that the Beaufort is often considered as being less than successful and that it should have been better (the premise behind this thread), but what are we hoping to achieve that wasn't done in reality? It was a purpose built torpedo carrier with a secondary role as a general reconnaissance bomber (during trials with the A&AEE it was found that it made a "poor bombing platform" - if you want to change this, you need to redesign it) and general purpose aircraft. The Beaufort had terribly unreliable engines in the Taurii and a few teething troubles before entering service, granted, but it was a good modern design for its time and with the Pratt engines was a vast improvement over the earlier model.
I expect that a lot of the Fairey Fulmar's victories, as the FAA's all-time top scoring fighter were Sparviero kills.The SM-79 was an inspired choice as it had good performance and a good climb rate for an aircraft its size, but of what benefit are those to a torpedo bomber? Low and slow is what's needed and yes, eveading an enemy after the torpedo drop is useful, but even the much vaunted Sparviero could be shot down by a Gloster Gladiator.
Can we start by identifying the limitations or competitive shortcomings you want to address? I suggest you start with your thoughts on the Beaufort's performance (speed, ceiling, rate of climb, etc), range, protection and ordnance. Just "make it better" is not a discussion.
As it was, I'd put every available Beaufort in Malaya. It's about as fast as the IJAF's Ki-27, so you only need worry about the IJAF's Ki-43 and any available IJN Zeros. Not having a credible torpedo bomber (sorry Vilderbeast) in what was predicted pre-war to be a naval campaign against Japan was just one of the big screw ups in Malayan air defence planning.
We also need to ask why we need an improved Beaufort when from 1940 onwards the Beaufighter is joining operational squadrons.
So, don't laugh. Strafing runs, skip bombing, etc., all seem "normal" for a B-25. Why does a torpedo run in a Wellington seem just the other side of crazy?Would the twin torp Wellington have been a feasible substitute instead of making the Beaufort? We know the Wellington is a good GP level bomber, and could carry twice the torpedo armament of the Beaufort.
View attachment 575768
The Wellington certainly looks good at low level. Imagine seeing this coming at you.
View attachment 575769
Some offsite chatter here on operational history of the anti-ship Wellingtons.So, don't laugh. Strafing runs, skip bombing, etc., all seem "normal" for a B-25. Why does a torpedo run in a Wellington seem just the other side of crazy?
Anyone have history on the missions?
Thank you.Some offsite chatter here on operational history of the anti-ship Wellingtons.
Let's stick a couple of these Vickers gun pods to the Wellington for added anti-ship work. That would keep any nervous AA gunners' heads down during torpedo runs.
View attachment 575771