Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

I'm not trolling at all. I was just reading about a battle (I think I posted a link?) in early 1943 where G4M and G3M bombers sunk some American ships with torpedoes. The idea that G4m carrying a torpedo was rare is very new to me. You think it's a strategic bomber meant for bombing cities like a B-29?

 

[GregP]

Go read my posts. It's a light / medium bomber that also carries torpedoes sometimes.

There's nothing strategic about a 2,000 pound payload. It's right at the upper edge of light bomber and the lower edge of medium bomber. It could also be used to start campfires and cooking fires ... especially if any flighters or flak were skulking about.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

I think range was a problem for the Germans during the BoB. Because it is frequently mentioned in historical narratives I've read about it, and because German pilots themselves talked about it in interviews I have read. It's one of the things they blame most frequently for their defeat.

I think aside from that, I don't have any particular reason to assume that Spitfire 1 (again, variable pitch props?) would do better against A6M than Spit V, however nerfed, did at Darwin. Even at +9 boost I would think a Spit V is a bit more potent than a Spit I. Or at least similar.

We already know that Hurricane IIc's couldn't cope with A6Ms so why should I assume that a Hurricane I would do any better?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Go read my posts. It's a light / medium bomber that also carries torpedoes sometimes.

There's nothing strategic about a 2,000 pound payload. It's right at the upper edge of light bomber and the lower edge of medium bomber. It could also be used to start campfires and cooking fires ... especially if any flighters or flak were skulking about.

Or in the form of a torpedo, sink ships.

I think the USN was pretty concerned about the land based torpedo bombers of the IJN, which was for a long time mainly just the G3M and the G4M. I read a lot of Pacific War histories, this is the impression I was left with.

I agree that the 2,000 bomb load is a light bomber load. It is, not coincidentally, just about enough to carry a torpedo.

As for the rest "light bomber that also carries torpedoes sometimes", I disagree, I am not anywhere near trolling. I am baffled why you hold the opinion you do, but I'm ok with it too. Believe whatever you want.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GregP,

Obviously the G4M flew far more bombing missions than torpedo missions. But so did the B5N, Swordfish, Albacore, TBF/TBM, and SB2C. Probably others I am not thinking of right now. Does that mean they were not torpedo-bombers and only 'adapted as needed'? (I do not know how many torpedo missions the D4Y flew vs bombing missions.)

I am not sure how much the photos would indicate the carriage of the torpedo, unless the photos are from the bottom hemisphere. While the Japanese sometimes did not use bomb doors on the G4M, they would usually use fairings of one sort or another for streamlining. If you are looking at the G4M from the side the torpedo is totally within the visible depth of the fuselage with the fairings fitted, and you would not see any part of the torpedo. Ditto for the bombs (other than the Oka ).

The G3N, G4M, and Wellington were all designed from the start to carry torpedoes. It was not any kind of afterthought. While the torpedo mission may have been considered a secondary one for the Wellington, it was of equal importance to the bombing mission for the G3M and G4M. They were required to be able to make torpedo attacks against capital ships at very long range.

 

[ThomasP]

re survival over Germany on missions like Schweinfurt-Regensburg

In a vacuum, where the Japanese were suddenly transported to Europe, and were stupid enough to fly missions like this one in the same way the US did, of course it probably would go badly for them. But if they had any time (like the ~4 years the US had) to prepare, I would bet they added some armour and at least some SSFT earlier in real life - both to the G4M and A6M - and probably improved the firepower of the A6M with the 100-round belt fed 20mm at least. (Was the A6M3 Model 22 available in any numbers in late-1943?)

But if my understanding of the B-17 losses is correct, somewhere around 70% were due to fighters with around 15% due to flak and the remaining 15% to unknown cause. Since the Japanese actually could escort the bombers all the way, it would depend a lot on how many A6Ms they had available. If the Japanese had 200-300 A6Ms available for escort I am thinking the Luftwaffe would have had a bad time of it.

If the Japanese were on our side against the Germans in Europe, would the US 8th AF have turned down an offer of escort by 200-300 A6Ms for the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission? How about the next mission?

 

[GregP]

Or in the form of a torpedo, sink ships.

I think the USN was pretty concerned about the land based torpedo bombers of the IJN, which was for a long time mainly just the G3M and the G4M. I read a lot of Pacific War histories, this is the impression I was left with.

I agree that the 2,000 bomb load is a light bomber load. It is, not coincidentally, just about enough to carry a torpedo.

As for the rest "light bomber that also carries torpedoes sometimes", I disagree, I am not anywhere near trolling. I am baffled why you hold the opinion you do, but I'm ok with it too. Believe whatever you want.

The main Japanese torpedo bombers were the Nakajima B5N, the Nakajima N6N, the Mitsubishi B5M, and the Mitsubishi Ki-67. The B4Y and B2M were minor, but were also early torpedo bombers. The Betty wasn't really much used as a torpedo bomber as much is it was used to drop bombs.

For someone who seems to be kind of well-read on this, you are ignoring the main aircraft used for torpedo bombing. Why?

None of which addresses Maneuverability versus Speed, does it? This has wandered off topic WAY too far and I'm partly to blame. If you want to discuss torpedo bombers or the G4M, let's do it ... in another thread so-named.

Cheers.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Like the G3M before it, the G4M was a navy aircraft, and it's main mission was to sink ships with torpedos. Which it did pretty well. It was also reasonably good for bombing ports and coastal air bases. It wasn't designed for strategic bombing deep into an enemy country's interior. Nor did they use it much for that kind of thing, the planes used in China were mostly Army planes.

I do not content that naval attack was an extremely important mission, and probably the one recieving highest priority, when the G4M was concieved as a replacement for the G3M.

However, as things were organized in imperial Japan, strategic bombing was a responsibility of the IJNAF. In fact one reason for the range of the Zero was that unescorted G3M's were being shot down in drowes over the interior of China. The Zero accordingly debuted in China, putting a stop to the Japanese Schweinfurts.

Edit: At least the IJNAF's Schweinfurts.

 

[drgondog]

Then you had bad raids like Schweinfurt where you had 26% lost and another 41% damaged.

The actor Jimmy Stewart (famous when I was a kid, maybe not so well known today.. he was in a lot of Hitchcock films...) was in one of those bad raids

Jimmy Stewart and the WW2 Mission That Almost Broke Him

Jimmy Stewart rarely talked about his World War II experience after returning from the service, but intense air force battles over Europe left lifelong scars.

www.denofgeek.com

Stewart missed the worst mission of the 445th, namely when it lost the highest number of bombers of any US Bomb Group - ever. I'm still researching the September 27, 1944 mission to Kassel when the 2nd BW departed at the IP andwent toward Gottingen. Two mysteries. 1. Was 2BW tasked to separate and meet at Rally Point NNE of Kassel past Gottingen? 2.) Why did 4th FG not fly escort as the 2nd Box (2BW) as their assignment?

I still need to find the 8th AF MPI target codes to make a final judgment.

FYI the 65FW escorted the 2nd BD that day, 56FG flew Penetration Support to the IP, sweeping out front before turning back about 20 mi west of Kassel.

The 355th covered Vinegrove 1 and 2 up front, the 4th escorted middle and 361st covering the last two boxes. My father flew that mission in lead squadron of 355th. His briefing map is attached. It shows that the 479th (with Olds as squadron CO of 434FS/479th FG) was tasked with meeting the bombers at the Rally Point slightly NE of Gottingen. Based on the follow up 2nd BD debriefing his squadron arrived, spotted the B-24s flying south and swept from trailing box to lead - but didn't see the 445th and 389th and 453rd near Gottingen. The lead and trail BW were near the waypoint (Eisenach) to turn SW for the eturn home. The 445th was perhaps 25 mi in trail south bound when hit by JG3 and JG4 Sturms. The 445th lost 25 B-24s and 22 crews near Eisnenach/Eswege in the span of perhaps 5 minutes

This might be worth a different posting.

 

[PAT303]

I think range was a problem for the Germans during the BoB. Because it is frequently mentioned in historical narratives I've read about it, and because German pilots themselves talked about it in interviews I have read. It's one of the things they blame most frequently for their defeat.

I think blaming a lack of fuel is a cop out, the BoB was fought on British terms not the Luftwaffe's, using A6M's or 109's with DT's would have resulted in a greater loss of experienced pilots as they started going deeper into England bringing them into range of more fighter groups, once their 7-9 seconds of cannon ammunition is gone what do they do then, fight their way back out with nothing more than two MG's to protect themselves from the coastal fighter groups that have refuelled and rearmed and waiting for them?, how will the bombers fare once they are gone?, burn injuries suffered in the BoB changed the way burns were treated from that point onwards, the effectiveness of De Wilde ammunition is well known, like SR posted, MkII Spits over England were a very different animal to the MkV's over Darwin.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The main Japanese torpedo bombers were the Nakajima B5N, the Nakajima N6N, the Mitsubishi B5M, and the Mitsubishi Ki-67. The B4Y and B2M were minor, but were also early torpedo bombers. The Betty wasn't really much used as a torpedo bomber as much is it was used to drop bombs.

This is a bit of a mess. B4Y and B2M were biplanes which were basically experimental / transitional designs and not used during the war. They were quickly replaced by the Nakajima B5N.
The Mitsubishi B5N was not really used during the war. Basically a failed inter-war design.

I think where you wrote Nakajima N6N you are talking about the Nakajima B6N 'Tenzan' / Jill, which was a good design (much faster and longer ranged than the B5N). But it didn't arrive in Theater until later 1943. They lost a lot of these in the Marianas and in the Philippines where they went up against a buzz-saw of Hellcats. It also lacked armor and ss tank protection so was excessively vulnerable.

The Ki-67 was both Army and Navy, but only arrived in 1944 and in small numbers, mainly used to strike land targets. It could carry torpedoes but rarely did during the war.

IJN Carrier Strike Aircraft
I think it's worth reiterating the forces used by the Japanese Navy. The Japanese Navy had two types of strike aircraft, carrier based and land based. During the period 1941-1943 in the war the only Carrier based strike aircraft the IJN used in action on a significant scale were the B5N, D3A, and D4Y. Of those, only the B5N 'Kate' was a torpedo bomber.

The B5N wasn't so great - it was slow, clumsy, and had short range. It was a ship killer though, mainly due to the high quality Type 91 torpedoes it carried. It was also used as a level bomber against ground targets like Henderson Field and Midway. It was slightly better than a TBD devastator but that isn't saying much. The best carrier based strike aircraft for the IJN during this period was the D3A dive bomber. It had pretty good range, better speed, almost incredible accuracy as a dive bomber, and was somewhat difficult for fighters to catch. The D4Y was a promising design (very fast and pretty good range) but it had a lot of teething troubles and was used just as a recon plane for a long time. Also lacked armor etc. But it could be a lethal dive bomber, for example notable for sinking the carrier USS Princeton at Leyte Gulf.

For the later war, one you left off of your list is the excellent Aichi B7A 'Ryusei' / Grace, which was both a dive bomber and a torpedo bombers. This was a superlative design, very fast for a WW2 navy strike aircraft (352 mph) with excellent handling and maneuverability (it was said in tests to outmaneuver the A6M5) protected with armor and ss tanks, and quite heavily armed with two 20mm cannon, and it had superb range of 1,800+ miles. It was probably the best carrier strike aircraft designed during the war. The only problem with is it was too big, being designed for a class of carriers which was essentially strangled in the crib by the USN. And it came much too late and in much too few numbers.

IJN Land Based Strike Aircraft
The Japanese Navy had basically two land based strike aircraft during 1941-43. The first, left off your list, was the Mitsubishi G3M 'Rikko' / 'Nell'. It was designed in 1935 but continued to be used through the war. The G3M was slow and vulnerable, but it had excellent range and could carry those lethal type 91 torpedoes, or the equivalent weight of small bombs. It was primarily a torpedo bomber but was also used as a land based light bomber. It was involved in the strike against the Prince of Wales and the Replulse, struck US bases in the Philippines, Singapore, Wake Island, Darwin, and other targets. The last significant mission was the Battle of Rennell Island where G3M and G4M bombers sunk the US Heavy Cruiser USS Chicago in January 1943.

The second IJN strike aircraft was the Mitsubishi G4M. It was, again, mainly a torpedo bomber, but could carry a light bomb load of the same weight. It was a good bit faster than the G3M and more heavily armed, with a 20mm cannon in the tail (with limited ammo and traverse as Sr6 will point out), but shorter (still quite good) range. It lacked armor and ss tanks until later types. Mainly operating out of Rabaul, G4M sunk ships around New Guinea, the Marianas, and the Solomons thanks in large part to that Type 91 torpedo. It was also used as a recon aircraft and to drop bombs on land based targets such as at Darwin, on New Guinea, and Henderson Field on Guadalcanal.

Later in the war another one not on your list was the Yokosuka P1Y 'Ginga' / 'Frances', another very good design (fast at 340 mph, excellent range of 3,000 miles) that came too late, though they did make 1,000 of them. It too was designed mainly a torpedo bomber though it ended up being used as a kamikaze.

Think for a moment about the purpose of a navy bomber. I think that will help.

For someone who seems to be kind of well-read on this, you are ignoring the main aircraft used for torpedo bombing. Why?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are just wrong? Or partly wrong? Maybe you are just looking at it from another perspective.

None of which addresses Maneuverability versus Speed, does it? This has wandered off topic WAY too far and I'm partly to blame. If you want to discuss torpedo bombers or the G4M, let's do it ... in another thread so-named.

Cheers.

The discussion of the G4M is relevant to the discussion of the A6M (representing maneuverability) and the merits of the Japanese armed forces in general, which was part of the OPs query.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I do not content that naval attack was an extremely important mission, and probably the one recieving highest priority, when the G4M was concieved as a replacement for the G3M.

However, as things were organized in imperial Japan, strategic bombing was a responsibility of the IJNAF. In fact one reason for the range of the Zero was that unescorted G3M's were being shot down in drowes over the interior of China. The Zero accordingly debuted in China, putting a stop to the Japanese Schweinfurts.

Edit: At least the IJNAF's Schweinfurts.

That is a fair point, and it's true that both G4M and A6M were used in China a bit, but the Japanese Army had the main responsibility in China, and most of the bombing there was done by the army types like the Ki-21, and then the more heavily armed and armored Ki-48, Ki-49, and later on Ki-67, with the main protection provided by Ki-43 fighters which proved as capable as the A6M (in fact I think a bit more so in terms of victory claims)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think blaming a lack of fuel is a cop out, the BoB was fought on British terms not the Luftwaffe's,

I think there is some truth in that, the real reason for the failure of the Luftwaffe in the BoB was down largely to the integrated air defense system, radar, and the good quality pilot training and aircraft of the British. But the German pilots did note that they were very limited in how long they could fight over England and that they were constantly worried about running out of fuel over the channel on the way back to base.

using A6M's or 109's with DT's would have resulted in a greater loss of experienced pilots as they started going deeper into England bringing them into range of more fighter groups,

I don't think that automatically follows. Where they go is up to them, but the longer range also translates to longer endurance.

once their 7-9 seconds of cannon ammunition is gone what do they do then, fight their way back out with nothing more than two MG's to protect themselves from the coastal fighter groups that have refuelled and rearmed and waiting for them?, how will the bombers fare once they are gone?,

Again, I don't think better range automatically means deeper penetration into the interior of England. Raids will go where the planners send them, but greater range for example would mean that they can be a good bit less predictable as to where they do strike. That might be further north or further west but still along the coast. I think that would depend on the perceived value of the targets and the risks to benefit rewards.

It would also mean for example that if the strike group knew that an interception was outbound, they could shift the strike to another unexpected target, and maybe use up fuel for the defenders or force some of them to land to refuel.

But the main difference is really much simpler than that. An A6M was armed basically the same way as a Bf 109E. Same amount of cannon ammunition, equivalent light machine gun armament. The real difference is the A6M pilot won't have to worry about running out of gas on the way back and can stay in the mix longer if he needs to. It is quite clear that light machine gun ammunition was sufficient to shoot down BoB era aircraft - look how many Hurricanes were shot down by Ki-27s and Ki-43s.

burn injuries suffered in the BoB changed the way burns were treated from that point onwards, the effectiveness of De Wilde ammunition is well known, like SR posted, MkII Spits over England were a very different animal to the MkV's over Darwin.

I don't think there is such a difference in favor of Mk I Spitfires vs an A6M2. For one thing the Spit V has cannon ammunition. And variable pitch props. And a few other improvements.

 

[RCAFson]

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

Not great but they did hit the base and runway as they had clear skies during their bomb run. They were forced high to stay out of the Spitfire's best performance band. Also the high altitude caused severe problems with Spitfire CS prop failures and the Hispano cannons basically stopped working after firing for a few seconds. Ironically, an 8 x .303 MG Spitfire (or Hurricane) would have been far more effective at Darwin than the twin cannon, 4MG armament on the Spitfire V. Clive Caldwell's "Big Wing" tactics were hopelessly ineffective over Darwin.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I don't think there is such a difference in favor of Mk I Spitfires vs an A6M2. For one thing the Spit V has cannon ammunition. And variable pitch props. And a few other improvements.

The Spitfire Mk I and II had variable pitch propellers certainly by the BoB. In fact all Mk IIs had constant speed props and all MK I in front line service had been converted to CS props by the BoB. Very few MK I s were built with fixed pitch props

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

They did sink the Chicago with torpedoes.

Battle of Rennell Island - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not great but they did hit the base and runway as they had clear skies during their bomb run. They were forced high to stay out of the Spitfire's best performance band. Also the high altitude caused severe problems with Spitfire CS prop failures and the Hispano cannons basically stopped working after firing for a few seconds. Ironically, an 8 x .303 MG Spitfire (or Hurricane) would have been far more effective at Darwin than the twin cannon, 4MG armament on the Spitfire V. Clive Caldwell's "Big Wing" tactics were hopelessly ineffective over Darwin.

I think you will find that the G4Ms usually flew that high (at least in part) to stay over the accurate range of the heavier AA guns

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Spitfire Mk I and II had variable pitch propellers certainly by the BoB. In fact all Mk IIs had constant speed props and all MK I in front line service had been converted to CS props by the BoB. Very few MK I s were built with fixed pitch props

Ok so Spit I had the manual variable pitch (two speed?), Spit II had constant speed? How about Hurricanes?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

During that battle 27 aircraft attacked the Hornet in one coordinated strike, only two returned, 93% loss rate, no one will convince me that extreme range and low speed maneuverability is worth that.

Lundstrom give a complete accounting of the Japanese losses in the attack on the Hornet at Santa Cruz in "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign". Not near a 93% loss rtae

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Ok so Spit I had the manual variable pitch (two speed?), Spit II had constant speed? How about Hurricanes?

All MK Is were converted from two pitch to CS during July and Ausgst of 1940. These were DH two pitch props. The MK II had Rotol CS props from the start of production.

Better Propellers for “The Few”: Desmond Cooke’s Legacy in the Battle of Britain

Curator Jeremy Kinney explores the contribution of Royal Air Force leader Desmond Cooke to the improvement of Supermarine Spitfires prior to the Battle of Britain.

airandspace.si.edu

I do know that Hurricanes were in production with Rotol CS props before the Bob but I do not know if two pitch prop Hurricanes were still in front line service. Rolls Royce converted a lot of Mk !s with Merlin XXs and Rotal CS props during the BoB.