Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.How was the accuracy from that altitude?, I'm assuming not good.
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 propsI 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.
They did sink the Chicago with torpedoes.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.
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.
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
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 rtaeDuring 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.
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.Ok so Spit I had the manual variable pitch (two speed?), Spit II had constant speed? How about Hurricanes?