Maneuverability vs Speed

[GregP]

Hey GregP,

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but in case i am not:

The G4M design was specified with the ability to carry 1x air dropped torpedo or 2000 kg of bombs. As such, there was no adapting needed. In effect it was specified as a torpedo-bomber, in a similar manner to the B5N Kate. (I suppose you could claim it was a bomber-torpedoer, but torpedo-bomber sounds better. )

It was a medium, land-based bomber that COULD carry a torpedo when required. When not required, it was rigged for regular HE bombs. When torpedos were required, the racks for torpedos had to be mounted, the same as for ANY bomber that was "rigged" for torpedo duty that was not a regular torpedo bomber. Designing in the torpedo adapters simply meant that there was no jury-rigging required.

It was not normally a torpedo bomber, but could be pressed into service as such easily.

They rigged a Fiat G.55 S Centauro to be a torpedo bomber, too. See below:

But not many G.55s were so fitted and, when not needed, even the G.55 S had the torpedo mounts removed.

The Bettys were the same. They used them with torpedo hardware when required and remove same when it wasn't needed.

 

[Shortround6]

Considering the losses B17's sustained do you really think unprotected poorly protected Betty's doing only 220mph at 6,000ft would have not suffered worse losses?

The GM41 model 12 got rubber sheeting under the wing tanks, nothing on top, with rubber sheeting and sponge to protect the fuselage tanks. They did fit a CO2 system to all tanks.
They got a different engine that gave best power in high gear at 6,000 meters instead of at 4,000 meters like the Model 11. The fuel tank protection was better than nothing and that was about it.

 

[PAT303]

About the same as if it had been Wellingtons or Sterlings or Lancasters flying during daytime, escorted by... anything.

Thats the difference, the British wouldn't have launched the mission knowing the losses of aircrew would be too high, same as they would never compromise the protection of the pilot for range. Hypothetical, would you fly in the BoB against 8 gunned Spitfires in an A6M?, here's your seat by the way, the holes are to make it lighter, improves range.

 

[Shortround6]

They rigged a Fiat G.55 S Centauro to be a torpedo bomber, too. See below:
But it was not normally one and the rigging was not put onto many G.55s. The G.55 S didn't even retain it when not needed.

The normal G.55 had the radiator under the fuselage.
The G.55 S had split radiators under the wing roots.

The Beaufort was a torpedo bomber. It dropped a lot more bombs than it ever did torpedoes. The underside of the fuselage was configured to carry the torpedo, it extended for and aft of the 'normal' bomb bay.

There were a lot of bombers that needed special adaptors or mounts to carry out of the ordinary bombs.

 

[RCAFson]

Considering the losses B17's sustained do you really think unprotected Betty's doing only 220mph at 6,000ft would have not suffered worse losses?, how would the 350mph A6M's stop 420mph FW190A's from doing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted?, regarding maneuverability and speed, against the A6M the Anton had both.

G4M1s (probably model 12) flew a series of high altitude bombing missions over Australia (Darwin), Max bombing altitude was ~29k ft against the USAAF base at Fenton.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The G4M wasa twin-engine, land-based, medium bomber that was adapted for torpedos when so required. It was not designed primarily as a torpedo bomber, but was adapted as one. It was decently high-speed for when it first flew, but "high-speed" in 1939 was not the same thing as "high-speed" in 1944, as we all know.

At Guadalcanal, the Japanese lost 100 G4Ms with crew and there were no replacements available.

I got news for you, the US lost a whole lot of P-39s, F2As, F4Fs, SBDs, TBDs, TBFs, B-26s, P-40s, Hudsons, etc. etc. in the first year of the Pacific War. Attrition rates were high all around, including and especially at Guadalcanal.

The G4M was not a bad aircraft, but its design was also not very adaptable as far keeping it current with fighter aircraft was concerned. It started out with 1,530 hp Mitsubishi Kasei Model 11 engines and went to Kasei 21s, Kasei 25s, and Kasei 27s, eventually with 1,820 Kasei 27bs engines. The horsepower increase did not quite keep up with weight increases. The late-war Betty was sort of like a late-war Wellington ... OK but not exactly top-tier equipment by that time.

Much the same could be said for many medium bombers. Some "kept-up," many did not.

A late-war A-26 Invader was a completely different animal from a G6M Betty. The A-26 could hit near 360 mph and that made it tough to catch for most fighters, especially down low. The Betty was maxed out at 265 mph and couldn't escape from even P-40. But, if it got through, the Betty could hit you about like an A-20, with about 2,000 pounds of bombs. It was very A-20-like in performance, but slower by about 50 mph.

But the G4M was a very early-war design. Why would you compare a 1941 bomber to a 1944 bomber. If you want to compare it to a Ki-67

Mitsubishi Ki-67 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

or a P1Y

Yokosuka P1Y - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GregP]

The normal G.55 had the radiator under the fuselage.
The G.55 S had split radiators under the wing roots.

The Beaufort was a torpedo bomber. It dropped a lot more bombs than it ever did torpedoes. The underside of the fuselage was configured to carry the torpedo, it extended for and aft of the 'normal' bomb bay.

There were a lot of bombers that needed special adaptors or mounts to carry out of the ordinary bombs.

Basically, that's what I said about the G.55 S, Shortround. ?

I didn't include radiator differences because it wasn't necessary, I mentioned it because the G.55S was an occasional torpedo bomber, when needed. It wasn't a dedicated torpedo bomber, same as the G4M, which ALSO wasn't a dedicated torpedo bomber.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Kind of hard to figure out without documentation from the Japanese.

Was it for long range recon?
Long range over water bombing?
Long range torpedo bombing (naval bombing, whatever that is) ?
Long range over land penetrations?
Whatever it was, the ability of the G4M to defend itself was clearly lacking.

The first 30 "production" planes were built as heavy escorts for the G3Ms but weren't fast enough to keep up with them once they had dropped their bombs.
First bombing raids were in the late spring or early summer of 1941 over China and hundreds of miles from blue water.
Once they ran into even average Western fighters losses mounted. With no passive protection, 4900 liters of fuel and four Lewis guns and a single slow firing, hand aimed 20mm cannon with 15 round magazines, and a cruising speed of around 200mph the idea they could operate without fighter support was crazy, And the A6M never had the range to escort the G4M to the extent of it's range (although the book ranges maybe incorrect, like max range was without bombs as the G4M1 had a gross weight of about 21,000lbs and 4900 liters of fuel is over 7700lbs of fuel) in plane that was supposed to weigh just under 15,000lb empty.

It was a Navy bomber. Land based but made specifically for the Navy. It wasn't made to fly deep into the US, Australia, or Russia and hit strategic targets.

What it actually did most effectively in the war was mostly sink ships. In that role it was fairly deadly.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Considering the losses B17's sustained do you really think unprotected Betty's doing only 220mph at 6,000ft would have not suffered worse losses?, how would the 350mph A6M's stop 420mph FW190A's from doing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted?, regarding maneuverability and speed, against the A6M the Anton had both.

I don't think the 'Betty' could have survived mass daylight raids into Germany at that time, unescorted. Any more than any British or Russian bomber could. The B-17 and B-24 were the most heavily armed and protected heavy bombers in the world at that time and they were not able to manage it without crippling losses. As I noted already, the G4M wasn't designed for that. it was made to sink ships. Ask the Prince of Wales and the Repulse about that.

I think TomasPs point is that having escorts would be better than bombers flying alone, but I agree that by 1943 A6M would be outclassed by Fw 190s. Simply due to speed, (not maneuverability where the A6M actually still has a significant edge). But the Fw 190 is doing 400+ mph and that is a 70 mph speed advantage, too much to overcome or offset by that time.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Thats the difference, the British wouldn't have launched the mission knowing the losses of aircrew would be too high, same as they would never compromise the protection of the pilot for range. Hypothetical, would you fly in the BoB against 8 gunned Spitfires in an A6M?, here's your seat by the way, the holes are to make it lighter, improves range. View attachment 727213

If for some very odd reason I was teleported back in time, trained as a fighter pilot, and forced at gunpoint to fly raids into England during the Battle of Britain, against the British, (my allegiance would be pro-British, to be clear) and I had to chose any fighter in the world at that time, A6M would be high on my list. I believe it would handle the Spitfire 1 fairly well, it was as well armed as a 109E, but had almost three times the range, meaning a lot more operational flexibility, and I wouldn't be thinking about running out of gas.

The Spitfire would have a speed advantage, but depending how long the battle lasted, the A6M would have an initial advantage until the British adjusted their tactics to contend with it's marked superiority in agility.

Armor is nice, but 20mm cannons will rip apart the British fighters regardless of armor, and they for the most part didn't have things like bullet proof glass or fully protected fuel tanks so their protection is limited.

(are we taking variable pitch props on that Spit by the way?)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Again we are lumping all A6Ms together here.
The A6M2 had some definite limitations over much of 1942, a main one for both fleet defense and long range air combat (bomber escort) was the 60 rounds per gun limitation of the 20mm cannon. It turns out that wasn't enough. The Japanese tried to cover that with fast deck handling and reloads but having CAP fighters that could engage the enemy for twice as many seconds may have payed big dividends.

You seem to suggest here that somewhat limited ammunition for the 20mm cannon was unusual. That 60 round drum was not, in fact rare.

The Spitfire Mk VB, which was still flying and fighting in the Med in 1943, had this ammunition system for their 20mm cannon.

The Bf 109E had them too, though these were being phased out by the Germans in the Med in early 1942.

I believe the early Bf 110s had those 60 round drums too. As did the French D.520, many other planes.

7 seconds of cannon ammunition doesn't sound like a lot, but cannons do a lot more damage than machine guns as we have often discussed around here. How many seconds of cannon fire does it take to shoot down an enemy plane? But I do agree it was a limitation, it was much better to have 100+ rounds for 20mm by early 1943. By later 1943 I think 200 rounds was more common.

The US planes in the Pacific did not have 20mm and had a fairly large amount of ammunition, but they did have another related problem in that their M2 .50 cal machine guns often jammed, especially if fired while pulling G. This was only gradually improved toward the end of 1943. The Hispanos also had a jamming problem which proved particularly severe for the Spit Vs at Darwin, in part due to poor quality Australian ammunition.

I would say that the limited ammunition in the A6M2 was indeed a problem, but I would debate the implication or contention that it was an unusual, let alone unique problem.

The A6M3 32 couldn't reach Guadalcanal with it's greater ammo capacity. The A6M3 22 could but it was late, I don't know if they could fit the new magazines to the older A6M2 fighters. I haven't read anything either way.
A pair of 7.7mm Vickers guns was not enough after the 20mms ran out of ammo. Yes they shot down some aircraft but the P-39, P-40 and F4F established a reputation for being able to absorb gunfire and stay in the air (or at least not crashing). Of course if they had performed better perhaps they wouldn't have been shot up as bad.

Using two fighters to get 240 20mm shells to the battle site is not efficiency. An F4F-3 had close to the same firepower as an A6M2 except it's firepower lasted for just over 30 seconds not under 7 seconds.
Both sides needed fighters that would do more. The A6M2 ran out of offensive firepower before it ran out of fuel.
The Allied fighters ran out of airspeed/altitude (firing position) before they ran out of ammo.

This seems to be alluding to the way I would put it - all these aircraft had some flaws and some advantages.

Allied fighters could engage and shoot down multiple Japanese bombers in one mission. Mediocre but long lasting armament vs poor protection.

Japanese bombers did seem to be excessively vulnerable to US fighters by the end of 1942. They were coming out with some armored and better protected ones by then, but not nearly quickly enough.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Basically, that's what I said about the G.55 S, Shortround. ?

I didn't include radiator differences because it wasn't necessary, I mentioned it because the G.55S was an occasional torpedo bomber, when needed. It wasn't a dedicated torpedo bomber, same as the G4M, which ALSO wasn't a dedicated torpedo bomber.

I would say that the G4M was a torpedo bomber which could also work as a light bomber of airfields and ports.

 

[Shortround6]

I would say that the G4M was a torpedo bomber which could also work as a light bomber of airfields and ports.

For some reason that I have no explanation for the Japanese never or almost never, built a 2 engine bomber that carried more than 1000kg (2205lbs) of bombs,

Nakajima Ki-49 heavy bomber. 750kg normal, 1000kg max.
25,000lbs max gross weight.
Crew of eight.
pilot
co-pilot
bombardier
navigator
radio operator/gunner
three gunners.

Granted it is Army but the Japanese didn't have anything that could hit harder (bomb load) than the G4M in either the Army or the Navy.
The Army Mitsubishi Ki-67 was rated at 500kg normal and 800kg max.

 

[SaparotRob]

I got news for you, the US lost a whole lot of P-39s, F2As, F4Fs, SBDs, TBDs, TBFs, B-26s, P-40s, Hudsons, etc. etc. in the first year of the Pacific War. Attrition rates were high all around, including and especially at Guadalcanal.

But no Fulmars, Swordfish, Skuas or SeaHurricanes.

 

[Shortround6]

You seem to suggest here that somewhat limited ammunition for the 20mm cannon was unusual. That 60 round drum was not, in fact rare.

The Spitfire Mk VB, which was still flying and fighting in the Med in 1943, had this ammunition system for their 20mm cannon.

The Bf 109E had them too, though these were being phased out by the Germans in the Med in early 1942.

I believe the early Bf 110s had those 60 round drums too. As did the French D.520, many other planes.

7 seconds of cannon ammunition doesn't sound like a lot, but cannons do a lot more damage than machine guns as we have often discussed around here. How many seconds of cannon fire does it take to shoot down an enemy plane?

The time of fire varied a bit depending on the gun. Hispano 60 round drum lasted about 6 seconds because it fired faster.
Now a lot of what you mention are leftovers. Yes they were flying Spitfire Vbs in 1943. They stopped making them in 1941, sort of.
There are two meanings for the Vb,
one is the plane had the "B" type wing with one 20mm cannon with a 60 round drum and two .303 machine guns.
The other is the plane had the B type armament in a "C" type wing. The C wing could hold two 20mm cannon and two .303 machine guns in each wing, the 20mm cannon could be fed with 120 round belts. You could also install just eight machine guns, which is why it was called the "universal" wing. The eight machine gun option was never used? The four cannon and 4 machine gun may have been tested but never issued used except for ferry flights to Malta where upon landing two guns were taken out to use as spares. Some Spitfire Vs lost the machine guns but kept the four cannon. At times these were called Vc's. to differentiate them from the two cannon aircraft. The Vc with the universal wing first showed up in Oct 1941. Now you had several factories making Spitfires and not all changed over at the same time. You also had a number of older Spitfires rebuilt to the MK V standard and I don't know what some of the rebuilds got. But at the end of 1941 you had Spitfire Vs showing up with 120rpg even if the numbers were small at that time. It British fashion they kept the newer planes at home and sent the 2nd line stuff east.
The French planes went of production in 1940 and nobody bothered to upgrade them in 1941-42-43,
109E had gone out of production in Mid 1941? Yes they used left overs.
But equating left overs to the new production planes is painting a bit of false picture at any given time. The planes with 60 round drums were decreasing with each week.

But I do agree it was a limitation, it was much better to have 100+ rounds for 20mm by early 1943. By later 1943 I think 200 rounds was more common.

Amount of ammo varied by gun and plane. Hurricanes held about 90 (in belts, not large drums) Spitfires stayed at about 120 until the later Griffon models. 20mm Hispano is heavy, especially for four guns. Typhoon had 140(?). P-38 held 150 rounds. By 1944-45 with even bigger engines the USN was putting in around 200.
The 109 used about 150 for the Mg 151, down from 200 rounds for the MG 151/15. because of weight. they had the volume. Soviets used around 120-140 on the Yaks and Lagg-3.

times of fire was closer to 12-15 seconds, you want more than 3 short bursts. but going past five 3 second bursts? enough 20mm Hispano ammo for four guns to last 6 seconds was 150lbs. Japanese army, once the Ho-5 gun finally showed up, used about 150 rounds per gun and that was the lightest 20mm round used.

The US planes in the Pacific did not have 20mm and had a fairly large amount of ammunition, but they did have another related problem in that their M2 .50 cal machine guns often jammed, especially if fired while pulling G. This was only gradually improved toward the end of 1943.

This also varied with the type of plane and the time. Yes they had quite a bit of trouble in early 1942, got better even if not totally solved. Some planes got better quicker than others.
The P-51B&C with the tilted guns had the problem come back with a vengeance.

I would say that the limited ammunition in the A6M2 was indeed a problem, but I would debate the implication or contention that it was an unusual, let alone unique problem.

The lack of ammo in the A6M2 was not unusual but it was old. The Germans didn't like it in the BoB, At times they ran out of ammo before they ran out of fuel. And the two 7.9s in the cowl was not enough. Germans carried double the amount of ammo as the A6M2 did for it's machineguns. 30 seconds of firing time was too much. You ran out of 20mm ammo 23 seconds earlier. or over 7 firing opportunities earlier.

Many air forces figured a pilot could only keep pointing at a target for 3 seconds. A plane flying at 300mph is covering 440fps so in 3 seconds the firing plane will cover about 1/4 of a mile while the target plane covers ????

I don't know what the ideal is but I figure that 6-7 seconds is too little and over 30 seconds is too much. Somewhere around 15-18 seconds might be close.

Now for bomber busting things might be adjusted upwards a bit.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

But no Fulmars, Swordfish, Skuas or SeaHurricanes.

Ah, no, not the US...

 

[GregP]

I would say that the G4M was a torpedo bomber which could also work as a light bomber of airfields and ports.

It was a land-based medium bomber that could occasionally carry a torpedo. Go look at the photos of Betty bombers. You won't find any showing a torpedo or torpedo loading. The only torpedo depictions you see are artwork drawings.

The only decently notable torpedo attacks were on the Prince of Wales and the REPULSE. Most of the rest of the time it dropped bombs or flew reconnaissance missions. Yes, it made torpedo runs. No, not very often.

You're just trolling, Bill. It isn't really very well camouflaged.

Good job, though, Kelso.

Cheers.

 

[PAT303]

29k ft against the USAAF base at Fenton.

How was the accuracy from that altitude?, I'm assuming not good.

 

[PAT303]

A6M would be high on my list. I believe it would handle the Spitfire 1 fairly well, it was as well armed as a 109E, but had almost three times the range, meaning a lot more operational flexibility, and I wouldn't be thinking about running out of gas.

So range somehow makes your impervious?, there is nothing the A6M would do that the Spit and 109 didn't do, except get shot down easier.

 

[PAT303]

7 seconds of cannon ammunition doesn't sound like a lot, but cannons do a lot more damage than machine guns as we have often discussed around here. How many seconds of cannon fire does it take to shoot down an enemy plane?

Only when they worked, the biggest problem with the early cannons was not just the limited ammunition but unreliable ammunition, fuzes took a lot of sorting out, as for shooting down planes, you better be a damn good shot to knock down more than one plane with 7 seconds of ammunition, you'll use 2 seconds for your first burst, correct your aim and then another 2 seconds looking for strikes then immediately the rest for the kill.