Maritime patrol aircraft: you are in charge (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

More on allied RADAR: [4.0] Microwave Radar At War (1)

"For the moment, the US had no operational airborne radars of their own, but the NRL, no doubt holding their nose at having to use British gear, (what? you didn't know that british gear smells bad?) :lol: (That's the quote! I swear I didn't make it up!) put ASV Mark II into production as "ASE" or, in Army service, the "SCR-521". The British had already put ASV Mark II on their Consolidated Catalina flying-boat patrol aircraft, and so it was straightforward to mount it on US Navy Catalinas as well, making the type the first US aircraft to carry radar in operational service.

Since ASE was too big to fit on smaller aircraft, the NRL built their own longwave set, the 58 cm (515 MHz) "ASB", originally "XAT", which was fitted to the Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bomber. Like ASE, it featured a Yagi antenna fitted under each wing, skewed 7.5 degrees from the centerline, and presumably used lobe-switching. Peak power was 200 kW and pulse width was 2 microseconds. It was the first operational US carrier-based aircraft to be fitted with radar. The ASB was very popular, with 26,000 units built. First operational use was at the Battle of Santa Cruz Island, October 26, 1942. Unfortunately the TBF-1 so equipped was shot down in a famous post launch engagement with 'rogue' A6M escorts.

The British had proven that ASV radar was an important weapon against the U-boats, and now the Americans went through the same painful learning curve. The longwave ASV Mark II / ASE fitted to Catalinas and ASB fitted to Avengers were useful, but not completely adequate. Development of centimetric ASV now became the Rad Lab's top priority. The initial ASV was a fast modification of the Western Electric SCR-520 AI, the "SCR-517", which was installed on USAAF Liberators for ocean patrol beginning in the spring of 1942.

Of course, centimetric radar was a big help in the war against the U-boats. The early SCR-517 centimetric ASV radar had a number of obvious limitations, particularly in that it only swept forward of the aircraft, limiting the radar's field of view over the ocean, and lacked a PPI display, meaning that it could only really observe one target at a time.

It was accordingly followed by the improved Philco-built "ASG" or "AN/APS-2", known as "George" to its users, which scanned full-circle, displaying echoes on a PPI display, and had a longer range of 24 kilometers (13 nautical miles). Reliability and operator training were poor at first, but as spring came it helped the Allies gained the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic.

The USAAF built their own version of the ASG, the "SCR-717", which differed in using a "B-scope" display and not a PPI display. A B-scope display gives a view somewhat like that of some early video games, with the operator staring down on top of a rectangular area, with the target tracked left or right and forward or back. The SCR-717 supplanted the SCR-517 in USAAF service.

The next step after ASG was to build a 3 cm (10 GHz) X-band ASV, which emerged as the "ASD", or simply "Dog", and was produced as the "AN/APS-3" by Philco. It could be mounted in a pod under the wing of an Avenger torpedo-bomber, and proved much more effective than the Avenger's earlier longwave ASB radar."

Too good to leave out:

"Centimetric ASV had greater maximum and shorter minimum range than longwave ASV, was much more accurate, and Metox (German passive radar detection) couldn't detect it. U-boats were hit without warning on the surface at night and in low visibility. Escort vessels were also fitted with centimetric ASV, allowing them to hunt down U-boats at night. Doenitz and his senior officers were baffled, suspecting at first that the sinkings of their submarines were due to the work of spies. They were further confused when a RAF Coastal Command prisoner told his captors that RAF planes were homing in on emissions from Metox, leading to an order for the removal of Metox from all U-boats."

Of course you can't home on a passive system! It's not emitting anything! removing Metox made the U boats vulnerable to the most primitive forms of ASV which it had formerly defeated.

another good source: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar-10.htm
 
Last edited:
Don't forget "MAD"

600px-Douglas_B-18B_(SN_37-530,_originally_a_B-18A)_with_the_MAD_tail_boom_061128-F-1234S-023.jpg
 
Don't forget "MAD"

600px-Douglas_B-18B_(SN_37-530,_originally_a_B-18A)_with_the_MAD_tail_boom_061128-F-1234S-023.jpg

That photo is just plain perverse. :shock: Looks like an aerial shark about to mate...

Didn't forget it, just buried it so it would escape your notice ... :twisted:

IN addition to RADAR there was HF/DF and some early versions of magnetic anomally detection gear for ASW. Sonobouys were also a WW2 development, First dropped by a B-18 Bolo in the Gulf. Think it was July 25, 1942. First operational squadron use was by RAF Sunderlands (wikipedia).

Cool photo though!
 
Last edited:
The japanese did not fit as good, or as early ASV radar as the Allies and never developed proper ASW capability either. However they did develop close co-operation between their air arms and their surface assets, and developed doctrines for their floatplane cruisers to work with their carrier strike arms very closely. until midway, there had always been cruiser mounted floatplanes to support the IJN carriers. and not just for ASW patrols or isolated aircraft one or two per ship. they had dedicated seaplane carriers, lots of them, the top of which were the heavy cruisers Tone, which carried a full squadron of floatplanes, designed and trained for air search and which provided a great deal more flexibility to the main strike arm of the IJN. Thats not a technological solution ( in the sense of using new technology in the fitout of the aircraft) but it is a doctrinal and training solution. Sure the doctrine had a limited shelf life...once the USN got its act together and fielded overwhelming styrength. but in the context of 1939-43 it had great merit, and took great capability. nobody else had that capability.

The japanese would use their seaplane tenders and their lr seaplanes to provide a search arc ahed of their carriers. they would also uise their seaplane carriers, like Chitose and Mizuho plus merchant hulls to provide advance air cover for small scale amphib landings. This again freed up their fast carriers for other duties.

At Coral Sea, the Japanese relied heavily on their land based Mavis air group to provide advance scouting. on that occasion the capability was inadequate, but the fact that the japanese would even consider reliance on their floatplanes for scouting duties and advance warning (and in the case of one of the landings, providing emergency air cover) says volumes about the Japanese air search capability centred around their floatplane arsenal.

The Japanese never developed their float planes, or ideed their naval avaition, into an effective ASW arm. They never really developed ASV radars to the same extent as the allies. to that extent there is every reason to criticise them. But what they did do is to develop the hardware (the aircraft), and the rtraining and doctrine to a level not seen in any other navy. Ultimately Floatplanes and all that peripheral stuff was found to be less efficient than more conventional airpower. The Americans demonstrated that, but that isnt the issue at issue here.....
 
Hey guys - everyone is talking about these long legged patrol aircraft but what kind of equipment are they carrying to FIND their targets, and IMO the primary target would be a sub (If an aircraft carrier happens to cruise by!) Brag about range and bombload, if you can't target anything you're just burning fuel!

Mr Flyboy J
I believe that in this thread we judge the aircrafts as aerial platforms. Obviously equipment is very important part but a radar set is not unique to any particulary aircraft, any aircraft can carry it . A Do 24 is superior to a Catalina and an Emily superior to a Sunderland as aircrafts.
Mosquito was the best NF not beacause of its radar, other alleid nf caried the same radars, but because of its characteristics as an aircraft
Besides that ,there were many submarines kills in WW2 by patroling aircrafts without radar ( I think "Wahoo" was susch a case)
 
The USN realized that the IJN had developed a very effective search doctine early on, well before Coral Sea. The Lexington's attack on Rabaul was aborted because it was first detected at lomg range and then attacked. During his two long sojourns in the Coral Sea, Fletcher found IJN searches particularly effective making any opportunity to raid a very risky proposition. He was roundly criticized by King for his timidity, but the Japanese flyingboat search net was very tight and nearly impossible to penetrate deeply undetected. Of course their cruiser float plane searches did fine service as well, even including the obvious "bad luck" at Midway. The basic flying boat and cruiser float plane search doctrine was nominally shared by the USN but the IJN was just evidently better at organizing and implementing it. Their departures from the common doctine you have outlines above were sufficiently effective to prompt the USN to consider copying it. There was some thought to develping and deploying the Wildcatfish fighter as a supplementary aviation support asset. As you point out above, Their Tone class IJN cruisers were particularly useful: from wiki:

"The Tone class had no aircraft hangar, but there was a comprehensive arrangement of transport rails and turntables on the aircraft catapult and quarterdecks. Two gunpowder-propelled catapults were located on the beam abaft the mainmast. A maximum of four long range Kawanishi E7K2 'Alf' three-seat floatplanes and four shorter legged Nakajima E8N1 'Dave' floatplanes could be carried, the normal complement being six, of which four were to be E8Nls. In practice, no more than five were ever embarked. As the war progressed these types were superseded by (the similar combination) Aichi E13A1 'Jake' and Mitsubishi F1M2 'Pete'. seen below: In comparison the US treaty Cruisers carried 4 catapult launched floatplanes in a well deck hanger. Longest ranged of these was the Vought OS2U Kingfisher with perhaps less than half the range of its IJN counterpart.
 

Attachments

  • Kawanishi_E7K_seaplane.jpg
    Kawanishi_E7K_seaplane.jpg
    57.2 KB · Views: 110
  • Nakajma E8N.jpg
    Nakajma E8N.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 138
  • E13A-3s.jpg
    E13A-3s.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 150
  • Mitsubishi-F1m.jpg
    Mitsubishi-F1m.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
...Of course you can't home on a passive system! It's not emitting anything! removing Metox made the U boats vulnerable to the most primitive forms of ASV which it had formerly defeated...

How I remember the story, I probably read it from Price's Instrument of Darkness in 70s, Germans first doubted the story given by a CC prisoner but then one German professor told to the Dönitz staff that receivers sometimes also emitted and when Germans made a test they found out that Metox really emitted not much but detectable amount and then they believed the story and Dönitz ordered to remove Metoxes.

Juha
 
How I remember the story, I probably read it from Price's Instrument of Darkness in 70s, Germans first doubted the story given by a CC prisoner but then one German professor told to the Dönitz staff that receivers sometimes also emitted and when Germans made a test they found out that Metox really emitted not much but detectable amount and then they believed the story and Dönitz ordered to remove Metoxes.

Juha

No one knows the origin of that story or who that prisoner was if there was one at all. However it is technically possible to home in on the local oscilator over considerable distance. It was Wilhelm Runge, the designer of the Wurzburg Radar who decided this was plausible not Doenitz, Doenitz merely acted on advice. Overall the period between the introduction of Microwave ASV and the German discovery of it and implementation of a radar warning receiver was only a few months. The assumption that homming onto local oscilators was being used however had the effect of focing a conversion to inferior sets that did not emit at a time the early non microwave ASV sets were still in dominant use. There was some fumbling of information (slow transfer of information from the discovery of a H2S ground mapping radar) to the u-boat arm but we are talking a matter of weeks not the months or years so often infered.

However Doenitz was it seems responsible for not preparing the u-boat arm to fight against an enemy with radar. The German navy was the foremost pioneer of naval radar, having experimented with blind fire lobbing sets as early as 1936. These sets were way superior to those Chain Home derived sets of the Royal Navy (which used 7.5m, latter 3.75m eg type 79 type 279) waves as they opperated at 60 or 81 cm and could be formed into a tight beam able to accuratly deterct the bearing and range of a surface u boat and even its perioscope at night. Observers of early radar trials are known to have remarked to Doenitz that his tactics of surfaced u-boats opperating at night was likely to come undone with only minor improvements in radar.

It was the belated application of 50cm radar technology that made the Royal Navy incapable of dealing with u-boats at night up to the end of 1941 rather than the lack of a microwave radar. The RN was using these sets for main gunnery ranging and AAA ranging (type 284 and 285) anything but detecting u-boats.
 
Last edited:
Mr Flyboy J
I believe that in this thread we judge the aircrafts as aerial platforms. Obviously equipment is very important part but a radar set is not unique to any particulary aircraft, any aircraft can carry it . A Do 24 is superior to a Catalina and an Emily superior to a Sunderland as aircrafts.
Mosquito was the best NF not beacause of its radar, other alleid nf caried the same radars, but because of its characteristics as an aircraft
Besides that ,there were many submarines kills in WW2 by patroling aircrafts without radar ( I think "Wahoo" was susch a case)

While your statements are true, the only reason why there were many visual airborne ASW kills were because of 1. Target rich environments, 2. The need for the subs of the day to surface. By the end of the war there were more aerial sub kills by crews using both surface radar and MAD equipment. The aircraft is just a platform, it must have the capability to find the target and destroy it and having worked on ASW aircraft I can tell you the naked eye only works so well when scanning open seas for targets.
 
Mr Flyboy J
I believe that in this thread we judge the aircrafts as aerial platforms. Obviously equipment is very important part but a radar set is not unique to any particulary aircraft, any aircraft can carry it . A Do 24 is superior to a Catalina and an Emily superior to a Sunderland as aircrafts.
Mosquito was the best NF not beacause of its radar, other alleid nf caried the same radars, but because of its characteristics as an aircraft
Besides that ,there were many submarines kills in WW2 by patroling aircrafts without radar ( I think "Wahoo" was susch a case)

Seems to me if we judge a fighter by the types of guns it carries and its performance as a fighter including range and ammo amount, a bomber by the bomb payload, defensive armament and range, it is only fair to judge a maritime patrol aircraft by the factors that make it effective. the sensor and navigation suite among them. An ASW or maritime patrol aircraft is not simply a long range bomber. Not every aircraft can carry the full suite of electronic gear and ordnance required to be effective in that role. That's the reason that purpose built ASW maritime patrol aircraft began to appear toward the end of WW2.

I believe you will find relatively few actual visual kills of subs. I suspect numerous visual kiils is a myth built on the complexity of ASW ops. It is not easy to encapsulate the complex ballet of multiple integrated forces coordinating to produce a kill. It's easier for an observer to simply say a sub was detected and killed without going into details few folks would find interesting. Just my opinion.

I am curious to know what leads you to believe that the Wahoo was a visual kill? Looking at the Wikipedia account of the last mission, I didn't interpret that to be the case. The IJN was using RADAR at that time, both aerial and surface types. It may have been just the sort of coordination of mutilple sensors on multiple platforms that produced the final result. I don't know but can't judge conclusively one way or the other...

In WW2, much depended on, as J suggested, the amount of time a sub typically spends on the surface. In WW2 a sub was not a true submarine warship although it came a bit closer to that capability with the advent of the snorkel. The WW2 sub was more a limited- or temporarily-submersible warship. Much hunting (by both predator and prey) was done on the surface, of necessity. Based on their slow submerged and limited surface speeds, WW2 subs might also be characterized as manueverable and tracking minefields. The ww2 era sub might also be seen as extensions of the Q-ship or merchant raider with the significant advantage of being submersible instead or being camoflaged. The advent of nuclear power made possible the true submarine warship.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia: USS Wahoo,

"Japanese records also reported, that on 11 October (1943), the date Wahoo was due to exit through La Perouse Strait, an antisubmarine aircraft sighted a wake and an apparent oil slick from a submerged submarine. The Japanese initiated a combined air and sea attack with numerous depth charges throughout the day. Sawfish had been depth-charged by a patrol boat while transiting the strait two days before, and the enemy's antisubmarine forces were on the alert; their attacks apparently fatally holed Wahoo, and she sank with all hands."

I would love to know what kind of an aircraft sighted probably a periscope feather and the oil slick. And whether there was any localization assistance in the narrow straight in the form of airborne or surface (land or marine based) radar.
I assume the surfaces elements were using some sort accoustic equipment to detect the sub. During WW2 the IJN was certainly savvy enought to exploit geographical/marine choke points, such as the La Peruse Straight, in its ASW efforts.
 

Attachments

  • la-perouse-strait.png
    la-perouse-strait.png
    128.3 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
Catapult launches from purpose built catapult ships were SOP for German seaplanes. The Do-15, Do-18, Do-24, Do-26 and Bv-138 routinely launched by catapult.

KM Falke. A typical German catapult ship.
Falke Information
sfalke.gif

Schleuderschiffe - catapult ships - were used by Germany since the 1920s. Their most famous use before the war was their usage as floating bases in the South Atlantic to enable flying boats to cross the Atlantic for mail delivery. Stationed at the at the African and South American coast, they were used to refuel and resupply the small flying boats like the Dornier Wal on their way across the ocean.

Equipped with a catapult, they were able to launch the flying boats instead of doing a manual takeoff from the water. This allowed the flying boats to carry more fuel and allowed a higher range to fly.

Based on the experience with the civilian catapult ships, additional ships were build during the war for military purposes only. Together with thier civilian counterparts, they were used to maintain and launch reconaissance flying boats in areas outside of fixed installations.

The Falke and its sister ship Bussad were mainly used in Denmark and Norway during the war, which both survived. Their crane was able to lift aircraft up to 20t. Their catapult was able to launch aircraft of the same weight, enableing the ship to carry Dornier Do18, Dornier Do24 or Blohm &Voß BV138 aircraft.
 
Thank you for confirming my point.

" Equipped with a catapult, they were able to launch the flying boats instead of doing a manual takeoff from the water. This allowed the flying boats to carry more fuel and allowed a higher range to fly.

Now without the catapult, either from ship or shore, what is the range?
 
Be interesting to see what the operational record was for these ships or were they pretty much berthed in Scandanavia IMHO you wouldn't send these ships out unless they had escort
 
Seems to me the somewhat light payload of the Do-24 but very long range (about 30% longer than the PBY) would make it a pretty good recon aircraft but fairly poor in Maritime patrol if you want to preserve the range. Comparing it to the Cat:

Do-24:

Wing area: 108 m² (1,162 ft²)
Empty weight: 13,470 kg (29,700 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Powerplant: 3 × Bramo 323 9-cylinder radial engines, 746 kW (1,000 hp) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 341 km/h (212 mph)
Combat radius: 2,900 km (1,802 mi) range ~ (3,600 mi)
Service ceiling: 5,900 m (19,357 ft)
Wing loading: ~ 34.85 lbs./ ft²
Armament

1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon
2 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine guns
12 × 50 kg (110 lb) bombs (= 600 kg)

PBY:

Wing area: 1,400 ft² (130 m²)
Empty weight: 20,910 lb (9,485 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 35,420 lb (16,066 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt Whitney R-1830-92 Twin Wasp radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW each) each
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0309
Drag area: 43.26 ft² (4.02 m²)
Aspect ratio: 7.73
Performance

Maximum speed: 196 mph (314 km/h)
Cruise speed: 125 mph (201 km/h)
Range: 2,520 mi (4,030 km)
Service ceiling: 15,800 ft (4,000 m)
Rate of climb: 1,000 ft/min (5.1 m/s)
Wing loading: 25.3 lb/ft² (123.6 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.034 hp/lb (0.056 kW/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 11.9

Armament

3× .30 cal (7.62 mm) machine guns (two in nose turret, one in ventral hatch at tail)
2× .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns (one in each waist blister)
4,000 lb (1,814 kg) of bombs or depth charges; torpedo racks were also available

The PBY was able to trade significant payload for electonic enhancements (RADAR and Leigh Light) which extended its tenure beyond what should have been its retirement date. It could accomodate the gear and the potent punch. With the Do-24 it would seem to me, you may have both, but you've got to give up the range. one or the other, but not both. Still, an elegant and capable contemporary airframe for the time. circa 1937+
 
Last edited:
The Do-24 was developed for service in the Dutch East Indies. The German military could have selected the Do-24 over the Bv-138 but chose not to. So I don't think there would be a German military version.
 
Just thought it would be useful to post the wiki specs for ready comparison of the flying boats mentioned in this thread. In this case, adding a comparison of the Short Sunderland and Kawanishi H6K Mavis

Short Sunderland:

Wing area: 1,487 ft² (138 m²)
Empty weight: 34,500 lb (15,663 kg)
Loaded weight: 58,000 lb (26,332 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Bristol Pegasus XVIII nine-cylinder radial engine, 1,065 hp (794 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 210 mph (336 km/h) at 6,500 ft (2,000 m)
Cruise speed: 178 mph (285 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m)
Stall speed: 78 mph (125 km/h)
Range: 1,780 mi (2,848 km)
Service ceiling: 16,000 ft (4,880 m)
Rate of climb: 720 ft/min (3.67 m/s)
Wing loading: 39 lb/ft² (191 kg/m²)
Power/mass: .018 hp/lb (.030 kW/kg)

Armament

Guns:
16× 0.303 inch (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns
2× Browning 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) machine gun
Bombs: about 1,000 kg. including various defensive and offensive munitions, including bombs, mines and depth charges carried internally and, some, winched out beneath the wings. Manually launched flares, sea markers and smoke-floats.


Kawanishi H6K:

Wing area: 170 m<sup2 (1,830 ft)
Empty weight: 11,707 kg (25,755 lb)
Loaded weight: 17,000 kg (37,400 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 21,500 kg (47,300 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Mitsubishi Kinsei 43 or 46 14-cylinder, air-cooled, radial engines, 746 kW (1,000 hp) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 331 km/h (211 mph)
Cruise speed: 138 mph
Range: 6,580 km (4,112 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,610 m (31,520 ft)
Rate of climb: 370 m/min (1,213 ft/min)
Wing loading: 100 kg/m<sup2 (20 lb/ft)
Power/mass: 0.17 kW/kg (0.11 hp/lb)
Armament

1× 7.7 mm (0.30 in) Type 97 machine gun in nose
1× Type 97 machine gun in spine
2× Type 97 machine guns in waist blisters
1× 20 mm Type 99 cannon in tail turret
2× 800 kg (1,764 lb) torpedoes or 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) of bombs
[edit]

Some of the Sunderland's relatively light payload appears to be due to its heavy defensive armament compared to the other early flying boats operational early in the war. Seems to me they all contain the raw potential capability for decent maritime patrol and ASW operations. They all were roughly 1937 vintage so essentially contemporary. BV-138 seems a contemporary with roughly similar specs as these others.
 
Last edited:
again, to determine effective operational range, you cannot give too much weight to the published figures, and they certainly cannot be considered comparable, because we dont know the operating conditions that the figure was arrived at. we dont even know if the range is expressed as a radius orr a total distance

what i am prepared to say is that the big Japanese flying boats, operationally, outranged all the similar foreign flying boats of the time. But a Mavis did not have an operational radius of 4100miles. it didnt even have a radius of half that. It could range out to about 800-1000 miles (possibly even more, since Mavis boats could range almost to new Caledonia from the Shortlands seaplane base) , on an armed maritime recon (ie carrying at least 1500 lbs warload and full defensive armament). which was more than any other flying Boat. PBY Black Cats doing the same sort of mission had to operate from ndeni and could only just reach past guadacanal..... a sunderland did not have a range of 1800 miles, It did not have a range of half that. ive read it could operate about a maximum of 600miles from its bases with a normal warload (whatever the hell that is) which is not sufficient to close the air gap, or even provide patrols into the arctic from the Scottish airbases. PBYs operating at extreme range from Darwin Harbour could just reach the eastern half of celebes from memory (thats approximately 700 miles) carrying no armament and 1 sea mine. B-29s and B-24s were needed to mine harbours like balipapaan and taraklan from Darwin

To give some idea of the PBYs capabilities, it is useful to look at examples of its operational employment. As an armed recon machine, it had an effective range of about 700 miles or so "18 Dec 1943: VP-34 was relocated to Palm Island, Queensland, Australia, under the operational control of FAW-17. By 26 December 1943, the squadron was located at Samarai"(near Milne Bay) , "Papua New Guinea, where it began its first offensive combat operations against the enemy as a Black Cat squadron".

"31 Dec 1943–22 Jan 1944: Lieutenant Commander Thomas A. Christopher, the squadron commanding officer, set the pace for VP-34 operations in the Bismarck Sea area of operations. On 31 December 1944 he attacked and damaged one enemy vessel during a night patrol. On 22 January 1944 he again attacked and damaged an enemy vessel at night, receiving damage from heavy AA fire resulting in injury to one crewmember. For his leadership in seeking out the enemy and pressing home the attack under heavy fire Lieutenant Commander Christopher was awarded the Navy Cross. On 15 January 1944 Christopher led a five-aircraft attack on a strongly escorted enemy convoy attempting to cross the straits. He made a mast-head attack at extremely close range and personally accounted for one 6,800-ton merchantman, while the remainder of the flight destroyed two more. For this action Lieutenant Commander Christopher was awarded a Gold Star in lieu of a second Navy Cross.

31 Dec 1943–15 Feb 1944: Lieutenant Ellis J. Fisher led his PBY-5 Catalina in numerous attacks on Japanese shipping in the Bismarck Sea. On the nights of 31 December 1943, 4 and 15 January 1944, and 15 February 1944 he participated in attacks on heavily escorted enemy convoys, sinking a large merchant ship, heavily damaging another and aiding in the destruction of a large tanker. On 18 January and 2 February 1944 he damaged a large merchant vessel and sank a medium sized tanker. On 13 February 1944 he successfully strafed and destroyed an armed enemy vessel, sank five motor launches and probably damaged a midget submarine. For his actions between 31 December 1943 and 15 February 1944 he was awarded the Navy Cross.

Jan–Feb 1944: During the nights of 16 and 22 January and 15 February, Lieutenant Harold L. Dennison led his PBY Catalina against enemy ships in the Bismarck Sea and within the vicinity of strong enemy bases. He bombed an enemy destroyer under intense antiaircraft fire which caused severe damage to his aircraft. However, with his damaged aircraft, he returned to make repeated strafing attacks. Under hazardous weather conditions he carried out an attack against a large merchant vessel in a strongly defended convoy. Receiving heavy and constant enemy fire, he caused heavy damage to the merchant vessel. In another action he forced an enemy tanker to run aground. For his actions in these engagements he was awarded the Navy Cross."


These attacks by VP-34 when it operated from Samarai are pretty typical of PBY operations, and represents rather well the range capabilities of the type. Even as late as late '43 there were parts of the Bismarck Sea that the Allied land based air units could not reach. now, compare that to the range capabilities of the H6K, which could fly armed recons fom Rabaul to a point south east of guadacanal.

Sunderlands operated by the RAAF from Moresby could just reach the northern coast of NG (and even then I think they had to be stripped down to do so). Have a look at the map, the relative advantages of the japanese in terms of range capabilities become immedialtely apparent when considered in those terms.

The RAAF also operated Do24s (under Dutch control). AFAIk they could not reach as far as the PBY5a on mining operations into SE Asia, and yet, they have a listed range greater that the cat. Why??? Because published ranges cannot in any shape way or form be compared to each other or even considered as indicative of a given types abilities. you need to look at the way they were actually used to determine that.

Nations and manufacturers do tell porkies of varying degree about the range of their aircraft. Range is better expressed as endurance incidentally since that does away, to a large extent the issues of weather and wind strength.
 
The manual for the PBY-5A is in the manuals section of this web site. Of interest in comparing ranges is the fact that the PBY-5A had 3 different fuel tank configurations. Two big tanks, unprotected with 1750 US gallons. Sets of multiple protected tanks inside the big tank spaces for 1244 US gallons or one unprotected tank and one set of protected tanks for 1497 US gallons.

So what is the range of of a PBY? :)

According to the range chart it can do 1965 miles at 125mph at 10,000ft on 1280 US gallons. making allowances for warming up, take off and a bit of reserve will show what the "pratica"l radius was and a Maritime patrol plane does not fly out and back, it flies out, turns and flys an arc (sector) for a period of time and then flies back or it orbits in an area before flying back.

Maritime "patrol" ranges/radius's are going to shorter than even "bomber" ranges/radius's. because, while they don't burn fuel flying in formation they are expected to stay "on station" for several hours at the patrol distance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back