Maneuverability vs Speed

[Reluctant Poster]

More to do with cats and fur balls these days.

 

[SplitRz]

But the G4M was a very early-war design. Why would you compare a 1941 bomber to a 1944 bomber.

Quick context and historical check. An aircraft going into service in 1941 WASN'T an early war bomber, WAS it? Let alone a 'very early war' one!

As much as I'm also keen not to see Japanese aircraft and engineering unfairly 'done down' by old tropes and assumptions that contain more than a whiff of racism, its also true that part of the allied response to being trounced early on in the PTO was the false idea that they were facing oriental 'wunderwaffen'. The latter is a bit of mythologizing pedalled rather too hard to offset the basic fact that the allies had grossly underestimated the Japanese, had been complacent, were caught by surprise, lacked esprit de corps and had poor initial morale and strategy. Britain, facing enemies on two fronts had under-deployed units largely fielding equipment that by 1941 was down-right obsolete, semi-obsolete or unsuitable for the European theatre of operation because of the rapid advances being made in the previous two and a bit years of conflict. The Dutch in the East Indies had lost their home nation. The Australians were a small nation by population and slowly re-arming and the Americans had yet to throw their industrial and design might at the war.

The G4M first flew in October 1939. It was adopted into service from 1941. Basic performance figure as follows taken from wiki, so not canon, but at least indicative. If it *is* wildly inaccurate, hopefully the experten here will go and correct the entry? I'm sure greater performance could be attained by stripping airframes etc (but that's equally possible for all aircraft)

• Maximum speed: 428 km/h (266 mph, 231 kn) at 4,200 m (13,780 ft)
• Cruise speed: 315 km/h (196 mph, 170 kn) at 3,000 m (9,843 ft)
• Range: 2,852 km (1,772 mi, / 1,540 nmi - I'm guessing dependent on model / weapon load?)
• Ferry range: 5,040 km (3,130 mi, 2,720 nmi)
• Rate of climb: 9.166 m/s (1,804.3 ft/min)
• Service ceiling circa 28,000ft
• Bombload: circa 2000lbs

So lets have a look at what other contemporary aircraft and compare like with like as far as we can with some twin-engined aircraft designed and put into service around a similar timeframe (1941). Are they not broadly comparable?

De Havilland Mosquito: First flight - November 1940. Adopted into service 15 November 1941 (source, Owen Thetford - Mosquito BIV - first variant in service)

Maximum speed: 380mph at 17000 ft
Cruise speed: 300mph at 22000ft
Range: 1,370 mi with maximum bombload, 1795 mi with reduced bombload (
(ferry range not listed)
Initial rate of climb 1,700 ft/min
Service ceiling: 28,800ft
Bombload: 2000lbs

The Mosquito was clearly used in many of the same roles as the Betty - low level strike, anti shipping, level bombing, and of course, went on to do many more besides

Mosquito too spicy and unfair comparison because it flew a year later than the G4M, even though its design and conception started around the same time and it went into service the same year? OK, lets consider some another relevant comparative:

Bristol Beaufighter: First flight, 17 July 1939. Adopted into service 27 July 1940

maximum speed: 335 mph (540 km/h) at 16,800 ft (5,000 m). (strike varients, 303 mph at 1, 500ft)
Cruise speed: (couldnt find one listed so far - but reading Bingham, the implication seems to be that this was 250ish)
Range: circa 1480mi
Initial Climb: circa 1,850 ft/min (564 m/min
Service ceiling: 15,000ft
Bombload: 1500lbs of bombs, alternatively 8 x 60lb rockets or 1 x 2,127lb torpedo

... and thats not even getting into the territory of 4 x belt fed 20mm cannon vs 2 x 15 round mag fed swivel guns.


Obviously, the sources for all are guilty of blending and mixing ferry range with combat radius, but whilst it clearly has an excellent range, there's nothing which appears to be superlative about the G4M and much which shows it at a disadvantage in terms of clunky/ ineffective defensive armament, propensity to burn, lightweight structure etc. It remains a good looking machine and without doubt, striking at long range and with surprise, it was a very effective weapon. But you don't keep surprising people with the same tactics. And there's a world of difference between lightning first strikes or making unmolested bombing raids on Chinese cities and the attrition of a long and opposed campaign.

As an actual design, its dated in some respects - for fun I looked up the UKs other twin engine torpedo bombers. The Beaufort? First flew a year before and introduced into service a year before the Betty. Listed top speed is about the same as the G4M at 271mph, lower combat range by a hundred miles. Bomb load of torpedo carriage - same at circa 2000lbs. Similarly inadequate defensive armament. But undoubtedly much stronger structure.

The closest comparison to the 1941 Betty in service is probably the venerable Hampden, an aircraft that flew a full five years before and entered service in 1938. No, no canon armament - but equally deficient defensively. However, its only 19mph slower at rated altitude, but can manage 1720mi with a 2000lb bombload (or cash that for a lower range for up to a 4000lb load). Famously, it also operated as a torpedo bomber and was known for its manoeuvrability.

We shouldn't be mythologizing the aircraft too much. We should be a bit more interested in the skill of the aircrew (especially their peerless long range navigation) and the the initial strategy to understand what made the Betty such an effective weapon in my opinion.

None of which has much if anything to do with speed versus manoeuvrability. But that dog rolled over and died about four weeks ago!

 

[drgondog]

Great idea bringing in Spanish Civil War. I would say it's also a close parallel to the fighting in Manchuria which we have also touched on a little bit earlier in the thread. Many of the same exact aircraft took part. The battlefield was even kind of similar.

Spanish Civil War is a good example of 'fighters follow the bombers'. And as you noted, in Spain it was a situation in which some of the newer bombers were achieving higher speeds and altitude than most of the fighters, which contributed to the (mistaken) belief by many military leaders around the world in the notion of 'the bomber always gets through'



The small number of Bf 109Ds which participated in the war were about equal to or maybe a little better than the I-16 in speed, and were only armed with four 7.92 machine guns, but the pilots were well trained and the 109 climbed, dived, and handled well compared to the I-16. I believe (somebody can correct me) they also had radios.

As for the bombers though, the fairly zippy I-16 actually could catch most of the bombers you mentioned, and also the Germans Ju -52 and the dreaded Ju-87 which had it's first combat debut in Spain, but until the I-16 was a bit more heavily armed and protected (it eventually got 20mm cannon and pilot armor, though I am not sure if that made it in time for the Spanish Civil War) it wasn't that effective as a bomber killer.

General Arnold speaks directly to the alarm expeienced by Army Intelligence at the faster rate of improvement of Pursuit compared to Bombardment, causing him and several thought leaders like Fairchild and Kuter to project a time when unescorted bombers woud Not 'Always get through". The period was explicity Spanish Civil War first and BoB quickly following.

The dilemma in 1938 to 1940 was that only T/E fighters had demonstrated range to escort bombers for any significant range, and nobody believed t/e fighters with size to store adequate fuel, could compete with s/e Pursuit interceptors. Nevertheless Arnold moved developmen of a Pursuit with range of 1500 miles to the top of the list in 1940. That said, Materiel Command failed (again) spectacularly and only the P-61 emerged from next round of RFPs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

IF you're a "missle truck", I say bring 'em on. It sounds like you'll have enough for everyone.

PAC-2 Patriots have a range of 99 miles. How would you like your crew done?

 

[Vincenzo]

on practical purpose the Mosquito bomber is a year apart from the G4M, first mission summer '41 versus summer '42
the Beaufighter go in operation in very early fall '40 but it's not a full new aircraft it's a derivative of the Beaufort, and it is in a other category

 

[special ed]

General Arnold speaks directly to the alarm expeienced by Army Intelligence at the faster rate of improvement of Pursuit compared to Bombardment, causing him and several thought leaders like Fairchild and Kuter to project a time when unescorted bombers woud Not 'Always get through". The period was explicity Spanish Civil War first and BoB quickly following.

The dilemma in 1938 to 1940 was that only T/E fighters had demonstrated range to escort bombers for any significant range, and nobody believed t/e fighters with size to store adequate fuel, could compete with s/e Pursuit interceptors. Nevertheless Arnold moved developmen of a Pursuit with range of 1500 miles to the top of the list in 1940. That said, Materiel Command failed (again) spectacularly and only the P-61 emerged from next round of RFPs.

By the time Gen. Arnold became concerned, Chennault was in China, no longer listened to in the U.S. Army. Chennault had championed pursuit since 1925, which caused his unpopularity with the bomber boys.

 

[SplitRz]

on practical purpose the Mosquito bomber is a year apart from the G4M, first mission summer '41 versus summer '42
the Beaufighter go in operation in very early fall '40 but it's not a full new aircraft it's a derivative of the Beaufort, and it is in a other category

Ah, the hair-splitting comb is out once again.

The point I was trying to make was that there's only 13 months between the first flight of the Mosquito and the G4M. Indeed, if De Havilland had earlier official support and funding, that first flight may well have been much earlier, as the concept and design had already begun months previously. That makes it pretty contemporary to the Betty, given the war lasted 6 years and there were other aircraft types still in service at the end of it that had been designed first flown before it even started, from Ju88 to Wellington, B17 to P40, Zero to Hurricane.

As for the Beaufighter not being a 'full new aircraft', I'm stumped as to what relevance has that to the point being made? In fact, if anything, it underlines the inherent limitations of the G4M given that it was of new design and manufacture and yet the Beaufighter flew 3 months before it. Note, I also mentioned the Beaufort from which it was derived in exactly that context, as even that doesn't look instantly obsolescent compared to the key G4M performance stats and it first flew the year before it..

What ever 'category' an aircraft is placed in, if anyone wants to make a useful comparison to contemplate its strengths and merits, surely the point is to look at how is was employed? Did the Beaufighter carry a near equivalent (or arguably superior) offensive load? Yep. Was it employed against shipping? Yep. Could it carry a torpedo and was it used as a torpedo bomber? Yep. Did it carry bombs? Yep. Was it used against land targets? Yes. Was it employed on long range interdiction missions over land and sea? Yep.

And what is the Betty's own Japanese 'category'? Its described as the twin-engined (yep) Mitsubishi G4M Navy Type 1 Attack Bomber. Not a strategic bomber. And not solely as a torpedo bomber. Yes, the Beaufighter was vastly more versatile. But it also performed many of the key roles performed by the Betty - and in all theatres of war. That to my mind makes the comparison entirely relevant.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Quick context and historical check. An aircraft going into service in 1941 WASN'T an early war bomber, WAS it? Let alone a 'very early war' one!

It is a very early war design for the pacific war, and in particular when compared to the A-26, which first saw action in June of 1944. My post that you quoted was in response to a guy saying we should compare G4Ms to A-26, which is the equivalent of comparing a Spitfire Mk V to an Me 262.

As much as I'm also keen not to see Japanese aircraft and engineering unfairly 'done down' by old tropes and assumptions that contain more than a whiff of racism, its also true that part of the allied response to being trounced early on in the PTO was the false idea that they were facing oriental 'wunderwaffen'. The latter is a bit of mythologizing pedalled rather too hard to offset the basic fact that the allies had grossly underestimated the Japanese, had been complacent, were caught by surprise, lacked esprit de corps and had poor initial morale and strategy. Britain, facing enemies on two fronts had under-deployed units largely fielding equipment that by 1941 was down-right obsolete, semi-obsolete or unsuitable for the European theatre of operation because of the rapid advances being made in the previous two and a bit years of conflict. The Dutch in the East Indies had lost their home nation. The Australians were a small nation by population and slowly re-arming and the Americans had yet to throw their industrial and design might at the war.

Ok, that's reasonable. But I don't think it's the whole picture. Sure there is a simplistic trope that overhypes the Japanese military. There are many others, some of which we have pointed out already, which pretend as if the whole air war was decided in 1944-45, by which time the actual outcome of the war was no longer really in doubt. I would argue that the reality is the Japanese are by and large, underestimated in general, certainly around here. I think the borderline racist sentiments expressed by the OP are not unusual, and yet, are not accurate.

The G4M first flew in October 1939. It was adopted into service from 1941. Basic performance figure as follows taken from wiki, so not canon, but at least indicative. If it *is* wildly inaccurate, hopefully the experten here will go and correct the entry? I'm sure greater performance could be attained by stripping airframes etc (but that's equally possible for all aircraft)

• Maximum speed: 428 km/h (266 mph, 231 kn) at 4,200 m (13,780 ft)
• Cruise speed: 315 km/h (196 mph, 170 kn) at 3,000 m (9,843 ft)
• Range: 2,852 km (1,772 mi, / 1,540 nmi - I'm guessing dependent on model / weapon load?)
• Ferry range: 5,040 km (3,130 mi, 2,720 nmi)
• Rate of climb: 9.166 m/s (1,804.3 ft/min)
• Service ceiling circa 28,000ft
• Bombload: circa 2000lbs

So lets have a look at what other contemporary aircraft and compare like with like as far as we can with some twin-engined aircraft designed and put into service around a similar timeframe (1941). Are they not broadly comparable?

These figures are in the ballpark. However, I don't think anyone - certainly not me - claimed that the G4M was a state of the art design in 1941. I think there were definitely better bombers. The most advanced design for the Japanese was the A6M, and to a slightly lesser extent, the Ki-43 and the D3A. The G4M was a somewhat average design for the more advanced industrialized nations which had good range and reliability. What made it lethal was it's (for the time, pretty advanced) torpedo.

G4M compares quite well against most of the contemporaneous British twin engine bomber types - Hampden, Whitley, Wellington, Blenheim, and the Beaufort. The Blenheim (introduced 1937) and the Wellington were the most widely used, some Beauforts were used in the Pacific by the Aussies. Beaufort is a very close comparison to the G4M, Blenheim is slightly inferior - in particular because it couldn't carry a torpedo. Wellington has better range and bomb load but is very slow and was considered basically too vulnerable for daytime operations except far out to sea by the time G4M was available.

Other bombers like He 111, Il-4 were quite comparable in speed, armament and range to the G4M. Speed for all these is about 250-270 mph.

The stand outs in the early war are the US types - Boston, Maryland, Baltimore, all of which had speed of 300 mph + (the Boston up to 350 mph in some variants). The B-25 and B-26 had similar performance to the G4M but were much more heavily armed and protected.

The Soviet Pe-2 and German Ju-88 are also notable for being fast and accurate dive bombers, better overall performance and bombing accuracy than the G4M.

De Havilland Mosquito: First flight - November 1940. Adopted into service 15 November 1941 (source, Owen Thetford - Mosquito BIV - first variant in service)

Maximum speed: 380mph at 17000 ft
Cruise speed: 300mph at 22000ft
Range: 1,370 mi with maximum bombload, 1795 mi with reduced bombload (
(ferry range not listed)
Initial rate of climb 1,700 ft/min
Service ceiling: 28,800ft
Bombload: 2000lbs

The Mosquito was clearly used in many of the same roles as the Betty - low level strike, anti shipping, level bombing, and of course, went on to do many more besides

Mosquito too spicy and unfair comparison because it flew a year later than the G4M, even though its design and conception started around the same time and it went into service the same year? OK, lets consider some another relevant comparative:

Yes I would say the Mosquito is a somewhat unfair comparison for the early war anyway, partly because it was such a remarkable stand out (best performing bomber of the war except for the Arado jet), but because it was not really being used very much as any kind of bomber, and certainly didn't sink a lot of ships (until maybe later in the war). Early Mosquitos were being used mainly as recon planes. So it might be a more realistic comparison to put it up against an early Japanese recon plane like the Ki-46

Mitsubishi Ki-46 'Shiki' / 'Dinah'. First flight 1939, introduced 1941

Maximum speed: 375 mph at 19,000 ft
Cruise Speed: 250 mph at 13,000 ft
Range: 1,537 miles
Service Ceiling: 35,170 ft
Bombload: None

The Ki-46 posed a serious problem for the Allies for a while, though eventually they managed to catch them sometimes with P-38s and by stripping down Spitfires and P-40s. They were still effective in the recon role into 1944. The Mosquito was ultimately a better aircraft because they kept improving it and expanding it's role, though it was never available in enough numbers. So in spite of the fact that the Ki-46 had a comparable speed and range to the early Mosquitoes, I'll give the nod to the British here.

However, when you move beyond land based aircraft and more fully into the naval arena, I think the Japanese embarrass the British Fleet Air Arm. But I'll come back to that.

Bristol Beaufighter: First flight, 17 July 1939. Adopted into service 27 July 1940

maximum speed: 335 mph (540 km/h) at 16,800 ft (5,000 m). (strike varients, 303 mph at 1, 500ft)
Cruise speed: (couldnt find one listed so far - but reading Bingham, the implication seems to be that this was 250ish)
Range: circa 1480mi
Initial Climb: circa 1,850 ft/min (564 m/min
Service ceiling: 15,000ft
Bombload: 1500lbs of bombs, alternatively 8 x 60lb rockets or 1 x 2,127lb torpedo

... and thats not even getting into the territory of 4 x belt fed 20mm cannon vs 2 x 15 round mag fed swivel guns.

I would say here again, really not at all an apt comparison for the G4M. The Japanese Army did have a somewhat comparable heavy fighter though, that would be the Ki-45.

Kawasaki Ki-45 'Toryu' / 'Nick': First Flight January 1939, into service Oct 1941

maximum speed: 340 mph
cruise speed: (also couldn't find)
range: 1,200 miles
initial climb: 2,300 ft/min
Service ceiling: 33,000 ft
Bombload (none- but it carried a 37mm and 20mm cannon for strafing. It did also have armor and self sealing fuel tanks)

Here again I actually like the Beaufighter better overall, but in terms of performance the Ki-45 actually has the edge. In particular it could function reasonably well at higher altitudes.

Obviously, the sources for all are guilty of blending and mixing ferry range with combat radius, but whilst it clearly has an excellent range, there's nothing which appears to be superlative about the G4M and much which shows it at a disadvantage in terms of clunky/ ineffective defensive armament, propensity to burn, lightweight structure etc. It remains a good looking machine and without doubt, striking at long range and with surprise, it was a very effective weapon. But you don't keep surprising people with the same tactics. And there's a world of difference between lightning first strikes or making unmolested bombing raids on Chinese cities and the attrition of a long and opposed campaign.

As an actual design, its dated in some respects - for fun I looked up the UKs other twin engine torpedo bombers. The Beaufort? First flew a year before and introduced into service a year before the Betty. Listed top speed is about the same as the G4M at 271mph, lower combat range by a hundred miles. Bomb load of torpedo carriage - same at circa 2000lbs. Similarly inadequate defensive armament. But undoubtedly much stronger structure.

I am not so sure about the Beaufort being so much stronger. G4M lacked SS tanks, but it wasn't flimsy, that is one of the canards about Japanese planes. G4M were routinely recorded as making long flights while shot up with only one engine working. As I noted up above, I think the Beaufort and the G4M were pretty similar in capabilities, both were known for being somewhat vulnerable to fighters, but both were able to sink some ships. I'd give the slight edge to the G4M here but not by much.

The closest comparison to the 1941 Betty in service is probably the venerable Hampden, an aircraft that flew a full five years before and entered service in 1938. No, no canon armament - but equally deficient defensively. However, its only 19mph slower at rated altitude, but can manage 1720mi with a 2000lb bombload (or cash that for a lower range for up to a 4000lb load). Famously, it also operated as a torpedo bomber and was known for its manoeuvrability.

The Hampden was considered so bad that it was taken out of action, even for night missions, by 1942.

We shouldn't be mythologizing the aircraft too much. We should be a bit more interested in the skill of the aircrew and the the initial strategy to understand what made the Betty such an effective weapon in my opinion.

Again, I really have no idea where you got the idea that someone was saying that the G4M was a world beating bomber. I am certainly not "mythologizing" the aircraft, or any aircraft, and I resent the suggestion that I am. I would say that the A6M was a world class fighter in 1941, as good as an early Spitfire, Bf 109, Yak-1, D.520, P-36, early P-40, or F4F. The D3A was a contender for the best dive bomber in the world along side the Ju 87 and the SBD.

More to the point, if you compare IJN carrier capable naval aircraft with British designed FAA equivalents side by side:

A6M2 - Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Fulmar
A6M3 - Seafire
A6M5 - Firefly

D3A - Swordfish
B5N - Swordfish
D4Y - Albacore
B6N - Barracuda
B7N - Fairey Spearfish,

I would say that the Japanese carrier aircraft (perhaps with the exception of the B5N) were not only clearly better, they were better by a wide margin. The Royal Navy were lucky to have Lend Lease, and that they didn't tangle with the IJN much during their peak.

None of which has much if anything to do with speed versus manoeuvrability. But that dog rolled over and died about four weeks ago!

You may have missed it, but the maneuverability vs speed discussion continued as a thread right past all the distractions, side tracks and derails. A fairly pertinent discussion of fighter maneuverability during the Spanish Civil War has been going on in the last page or two. I think the CR.32 vs. I-16 is a very good example of maneuverability overcoming speed, as is the Gladiator vs. the CR 42 not long after.

I don't know what you did with that formatting there but I couldn't delete that lol

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ah, the hair-splitting comb is out once again.

The point I was trying to make was that there's only 13 months between the first flight of the Mosquito and the G4M. Indeed, if De Havilland had earlier official support and funding, that first flight may well have been much earlier, as the concept and design had already begun months previously. That makes it pretty contemporary to the Betty, given the war lasted 6 years and there were other aircraft types still in service at the end of it that had been designed first flown before it even started, from Ju88 to Wellington, B17 to P40, Zero to Hurricane.

As for the Beaufighter not being a 'full new aircraft', I'm stumped as to what relevance has that to the point being made? In fact, if anything, it underlines the inherent limitations of the G4M given that it was of new design and manufacture and yet the Beaufighter flew 3 months before it. Note, I also mentioned the Beaufort from which it was derived in exactly that context, as even that doesn't look instantly obsolescent compared to the key G4M performance stats and it first flew the year before it..

What ever 'category' an aircraft is placed in, if anyone wants to make a useful comparison to contemplate its strengths and merits, surely the point is to look at how is was employed? Did the Beaufighter carry a near equivalent (or arguably superior) offensive load? Yep. Was it employed against shipping? Yep. Could it carry a torpedo and was it used as a torpedo bomber? Yep. Did it carry bombs? Yep. Was it used against land targets? Yes. Was it employed on long range interdiction missions over land and sea? Yep.

And what is the Betty's own Japanese 'category'? Its described as the twin-engined (yep) Mitsubishi G4M Navy Type 1 Attack Bomber. Not a strategic bomber. And not solely as a torpedo bomber. Yes, the Beaufighter was vastly more versatile. But it also performed many of the key roles performed by the Betty - and in all theatres of war. That to my mind makes the comparison entirely relevant.

I don't think the Beaufighter is an apt comparison because it wasn't really a bomber. It was a fighter. As I noted in my last post, a closer comparison during the early war is the Ki-45.

The Beaufighter did eventually start carrying torpedoes, but that was in 1943 or 1944.

But I will say that the Beaufighter was a better and more useful aircraft than either the G4M or the Ki-45.

 

[SplitRz]

It is a very early war design for the pacific war, and in particular when compared to the A-26, which first saw action in June of 1944.

Then why not compare it to the A20? First flew 23 January 1939 ...?

Anyone can defend ANY aircraft against a meaningless comparison.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Then why not compare it to the A20? First flew 23 January 1939 ...?

Anyone can defend ANY aircraft against a meaningless comparison.

I think you certainly can compare it to the A-20. Sure.

The early A-20 had very good performance, but also very short range. So for the Pacific Theater it was much more limited in terms of the amount of space it could threaten.

Douglas A-20A . First flight Jan 1939, Introduced Jan 1941

maximum speed: 347 mph
cruise speed: 295 mph
range: 525 miles
Initial climb: (5.1 minutes to 10,000 ft)
service ceiling: 28,175 ft
bomb load: Up to 2,400 lbs (1,500 lbs more normal)

The A-20A is the one that was originally deployed in the Pacific. Excellent performance, cripplingly short range. And at least in US and British use, didn't carry torpedoes. Over time they gradually made improvements to the A-20s. The early ones did not have protected tanks. The tanks were small, they added more. They added more guns. It gradually improved.

Douglas A-20C (delivered from mid 1942, arriving in late 1942 - with British as Boston IIIA

maximum speed: 342 mph
cruise speed: 280 mph
range: 745 miles
service ceiling: 25,320 ft
bomb load: Up to 2,400 lbs (1,500 lbs more normal)

These were better but not nearly enough better in terms of range. They also had more guns and protection.

Douglas A-20G (available from February 1943)

maximum speed: 339 mph
cruise speed: 230-272 mph
Range: 1025 miles
Initial climb: 1,300 feet per minute
service ceiling: 25,800 ft
bomb load: 4,000 internal bomb bay + external (2,000 more normal)

These were much better, much more heavily armed and nearly double the range of the A-20A, but still rather short range for the Pacific. Very heavily armed sometimes with six or eight .50 cal guns in the nose plus defensive guns (configured as strafers). They became much more effective in the anti-shipping role due to skip bombing and mast-head bombing.

So as a pilot or crew member which plane would I rather fly? A-20 because the speed gives you a bit of a safety margin. As a commander (General or Admiral) which would I rather have on my bases in the Pacific? Well in 1941 or 1942, I think the G4M because the strike range is so much further - I can sink ships at three times the distance. Once the A-20G is available I might change my mind though.

 

[Shortround6]

. Yes, the Beaufighter was vastly more versatile.

. But it also performed many of the key roles performed by the Betty

Part of the problem is time. Beaufighter didn't perform some of it's rolls until after it had been in combat for several years.................and got newer engines. Beaufighter torpedo bomber with 1300hp engines?

Flying over 3000 miles is not what is needed for tactical missions.
The G4M was designed to do certain missions and was compromised for doing other missions. A Betty night fighter?
4900 liters of fuel weighs over 7700lbs. Japanese could have speced a bombers that held 1/2 fuel, flew 1500 miles and held almost 6,000lb worth of bombs. They didn't. they knew what they wanted.
The Betty used a wing almost identical in size to Wellington. It also used a fuselage within a foot of the fuselage that the Wellington used.

The fact they could both carry a torpedo and thus do the "same" job glosses over a host of things.

People also gloss over the early Mosquito history. The Mosquito was amazing, it also fell in exactly the right time to benefit from the Merlin XX engine and 100/130 fuel.
An early Mosquito with Merlin X engines and less than 100/130 fuel???
Still very good but perhaps not quite the legend that later Mosquito was.

the Beaufort from which it was derived in exactly that context, as even that doesn't look instantly obsolescent compared to the key G4M performance stats and it first flew the year before it..

The Beaufort was close to being a turd without crossing the line. It was obsolescent when it first flew. Yes it was better than the Botha but somebody (or several somebodies) should have got to jail because of the Botha so the bar for the Beaufort was pretty low. Range was under 1/2 the range of Betty, if both were carrying a torpedo.
Wiki ranges are almost always max range with light or no load.

If you want to see what the "state" of the art for Medium bombers was in 1940 look at the very early B-25 of Aug 1940. 322mph at 15,000ft, 3000lb of bombs, one .50 in the tail and few scattered .30 cal guns.

eBay: North American B-25 Mitchell

North American Aviation NA-62, B-25 Mitchell 40-2165, first North American Aviation B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, 40-2165, at Mines Field, August 1940. The constant dihedral wing was used on the first nine airplanes built Wright R-2600-9 Archives - This Day in Aviation

ww2aircraft.net

But that is not a torpedo bomber although it was adapted to carry a torpedo. B-25 also has a wing 3/4s the size of a G4M wing.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Then why not compare it to the A20? First flew 23 January 1939 ...?

Anyone can defend ANY aircraft against a meaningless comparison.

I am definitely not making any kind of meaningless comparison. Very much to the contrary. Read it again if you are confused.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Part of the problem is time. Beaufighter didn't perform some of it's rolls until after it had been in combat for several years.................and got newer engines. Beaufighter torpedo bomber with 1300hp engines?

Flying over 3000 miles is not what is needed for tactical missions.
The G4M was designed to do certain missions and was compromised for doing other missions. A Betty night fighter?
4900 liters of fuel weighs over 7700lbs. Japanese could have speced a bombers that held 1/2 fuel, flew 1500 miles and held almost 6,000lb worth of bombs. They didn't. they knew what they wanted.
The Betty used a wing almost identical in size to Wellington. It also used a fuselage within a foot of the fuselage that the Wellington used.

The fact they could both carry a torpedo and thus do the "same" job glosses over a host of things.

People also gloss over the early Mosquito history. The Mosquito was amazing, it also fell in exactly the right time to benefit from the Merlin XX engine and 100/130 fuel.
An early Mosquito with Merlin X engines and less than 100/130 fuel???
Still very good but perhaps not quite the legend that later Mosquito was.


The Beaufort was close to being a turd without crossing the line. It was obsolescent when it first flew. Yes it was better than the Botha but somebody (or several somebodies) should have got to jail because of the Botha so the bar for the Beaufort was pretty low. Range was under 1/2 the range of Betty, if both were carrying a torpedo.
Wiki ranges are almost always max range with light or no load.

If you want to see what the "state" of the art for Medium bombers was in 1940 look at the very early B-25 of Aug 1940. 322mph at 15,000ft, 3000lb of bombs, one .50 in the tail and few scattered .30 cal guns.

eBay: North American B-25 Mitchell

North American Aviation NA-62, B-25 Mitchell 40-2165, first North American Aviation B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, 40-2165, at Mines Field, August 1940. The constant dihedral wing was used on the first nine airplanes built Wright R-2600-9 Archives - This Day in Aviation

ww2aircraft.net

But that is not a torpedo bomber although it was adapted to carry a torpedo. B-25 also has a wing 3/4s the size of a G4M wing.

Wartime B-25s were not anywhere near that fast though, closer to the speed of the Betty.

 

[SplitRz]

I don't think the Beaufighter is an apt comparison because it wasn't really a bomber. It was a fighter. As I noted in my last post, a closer comparison during the early war is the Ki-45.

The Beaufighter did eventually start carrying torpedoes, but that was in 1943 or 1944.

But I will say that the Beaufighter was a better and more useful aircraft than either the G4M or the Ki-45.

Small correction - for the majority of its deployment and was a long range strike/ground/maritime attack. It was employed early in its career as a night fighter over the UK as a significant step-up from the Havocs, Defiants and Blenheims before it. That was a role in which was largely superseded by Mosquitos in less than two years. But it had neither the high altitude speed or the manoeuvrability to perform as a day fighter in any other capacity except as a long range destroyer of flyingboats, seaplanes and transports - or equivalent German aircraft attempting the same mission, like the JU88c. I'm guessing we're not going to regard the JU88 as a default fighter either, are we? As far as its 'fighter' descriptor is concerned, the Beau was handicapped by its clear Beaufort bomber heritage. It did afterall, share the same wings with its forbear.

I'd recommend a read of 'Bristol Beaufighter' by Victor Bingham - its a fascinating historical and in depth look at its development and deployment. Its absolute forte was long range low level ground attack, using its devastating armament to strafe and supplementing that with rockets, torpedoes and occasionally bombs, from the North Sea through the med and of course in the PTO.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Small correction - for the majority of its deployment and was a long range strike/ground/maritime attack. It was employed early in its career as a night fighter over the UK as a significant step-up from the Havocs, Defiants and Blenheims before it. That was a role in which was largely superseded by Mosquitos in less than two years. But it had neither the high altitude speed or the manoeuvrability to perform as a day fighter in any other capacity except as a long range destroyer of flyingboats, seaplanes and transports - or equivalent German aircraft attempting the same mission, like the JU88c. I'm guessing we're not going to regard the JU88 as a default fighter either, are we? As far as its 'fighter' descriptor is concerned, the Beau was handicapped by its clear Beaufort bomber heritage. It did afterall, share the same wings with its forbear.

Well, I agree that it was used a lot as a maritime strafer etc., but the Beaufighter routinely dueled with Bf 110s in the Med, and perhaps more pertinent, it dueled with all kinds of aircraft including Zeros in the Pacific. In fact, there used to be a wonderful website called "Pacific Victory Roll", focusing on Australian and New Zealand air combat in the Pacific. For some tragic reason it's gone now but you can still get it on the wayback machine. If you go through the victory tallies, you'll notice Beaufighter did claim a fair number of A6Ms. And there are not too many aircraft in the world which did.

Pacific Victory Roll - Home

web.archive.org

(I seriously think we should pass the hat and figure out a way to revive that site, it was a treasure trove of useful data and quite well organized).

So I'd say, Beaufighter was a heavy fighter, and a somewhat specialized one, but it was a fighter (and a strafer). At least until they did start putting torpedoes on it.

The main reason I don't think it matches up with the G4M at all is that it did not normally carry bombs.

I'd recommend a read of 'Bristol Beaufighter' by Victor Bingham - its a fascinating historical and in depth look at its development and deployment. Its absolute forte was long range low level ground attack, using its devastating armament to strafe and supplementing that with rockets, torpedoes and occasionally bombs, from the North Sea through the med and of course in the PTO.

I am a fan of the type, both in the Pacific and Mediterranean operational histories you can see that it took a bite out of the enemy. There was also that famous flight to Paris...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Check it out

 

[Shortround6]

Wartime B-25s were not anywhere near that fast though, closer to the speed of the Betty.

They traded speed for guns and protection and more bombs at times.

The A-20 is crappy comparison. And the A-20 could carry a torpedo, it didn't, but it was fitted for, stressed for, had the needed mounts/accessories available.
Torpedoes were somewhat rare, expensive, needed maintenance in storage and needed training to get good results, assuming your torpedoes worked to begin with.
The A-20, B-25 and B-26 all hung the torpedo's out the bottom or for the last two completely under the airplane for a large increase in drag.
And with the A-20 and it's short range extra drag was not something you wanted.

Please look at the increase in the gross weights for some of these aircraft as they 'developed'
The A-20A started at 20,311lbs and the A-20s went to 24,000lbs with 27,000lb combat overload. The latter needed considerably longer runways. A-20 also had 55% of wing area of a Betty.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They traded speed for guns and protection and more bombs at times.

The A-20 is crappy comparison. And the A-20 could carry a torpedo, it didn't, but it was fitted for, stressed for, had the needed mounts/accessories available.
Torpedoes were somewhat rare, expensive, needed maintenance in storage and needed training to get good results, assuming your torpedoes worked to begin with.

That, and the American torpedoes didn't work in 1942. I think the British torpedo was maybe too long?

The A-20, B-25 and B-26 all hung the torpedo's out the bottom or for the last two completely under the airplane for a large increase in drag.
And with the A-20 and it's short range extra drag was not something you wanted.

Agreed. That is why the skip-bombing / masthead bombing was so useful. You could keep the high speed of the A-20 and still sink ships.

Please look at the increase in the gross weights for some of these aircraft as they 'developed'
The A-20A started at 20,311lbs and the A-20s went to 24,000lbs with 27,000lb combat overload. The latter needed considerably longer runways. A-20 also had 55% of wing area of a Betty.

Well I didn't say it was a similar aircraft, but it was contemporaneous and also a twin engined bomber. I didn't make a point of comparing them in my initial post but SplitzRz challenged me to compare them so I did.

And I agree, A-20G got slower as they added guns and fuel and armor etc. I would still say it was more capable and a better balance than the A-20A, though the A-20A was still pretty good at short range (it did very well in the Med)

 

[Shortround6]

The Betty was not only a torpedo bomber it was about as good as it got for a Japanese strategic bomber (damning with very faint praise) and with it's two speed supercharged engines and sizable wing had a useful ceiling higher than the American twins and the Wellington. Trouble was that a hand full of Lewis guns and some rubber sheeting was not going to protect against even mediocre Fighters.
Part of the trouble with being a jack of all trades,
Yes we want it to carry a torpedo and fly at 100ft.
Yes we want it to fly 3000 miles, or more.
Yes we want it to fly at 25,000ft or more.........loaded.