Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,642
- Dec 6, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
More to do with cats and fur balls these days.
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!But the G4M was a very early-war design. Why would you compare a 1941 bomber to a 1944 bomber.
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.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.
IF you're a "missle truck", I say bring 'em on. It sounds like you'll have enough for everyone.
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.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.
Ah, the hair-splitting comb is out once again.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
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)
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?
- 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
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 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!
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.
Then why not compare it to the A20? First flew 23 January 1939 ...?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.
. Yes, the Beaufighter was vastly more versatile.
. But it also performed many of the key roles performed by the Betty
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.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..
Then why not compare it to the A20? First flew 23 January 1939 ...?
Anyone can defend ANY aircraft against a meaningless comparison.
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 Aviationww2aircraft.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.
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 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.
They traded speed for guns and protection and more bombs at times.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.