Mitsubishi Betty Equivalent

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

rob23

Airman 1st Class
122
191
Jun 8, 2018
Did the US have an airplane that could be considered the equivalent of the Betty? Anecdotally, the G4M seemed to be a very dangerous anti-ship weapon when paired with the Type 93 'Long Lance' torpedo. Would the US have benefited from a similar system?
 
Armed and ready:

dominion-revenge-with-torpedo.jpg
 
Did the US have an airplane that could be considered the equivalent of the Betty? Anecdotally, the G4M seemed to be a very dangerous anti-ship weapon when paired with the Type 93 'Long Lance' torpedo. Would the US have benefited from a similar system?

Americans have gotten the bomber part of the system right. Problem was in their torpedoes; the 'torpedo scandal' was a real deal back then. Actually working and reasonably fast torpedoes would've been a welcome addition to the US arsenal, OTOH if the US aircraft were not carrying a single torpedo the US forces will still kill the IJN surface units anyway.

The Long Lance torpedo was exclusively used by IJN surface units, however.
 
Don't think the B-26 is a good equivalent, its+40% heavier empty, has twice the engine horse power, and double the bomb load. Using gross weight, the wing loading of the B-26 was +55% greater than the G4M.
 
Last edited:
Don't think the B-26 is a good equivalent, its+40% heavier empty, has twice the engine horse power, and double the bomb load. Using gross weight, the wing loading of the B-26 was +55% greater than the G4M.
Well that's the closest you're going to get when comparing to US aircraft designed to accomplish the same role. Can you think of another US twin that can carry bombs and torpedoes? Maybe the A-20?

And the B-26 didn't burn like the Betty
 
Just crunching numbers, a Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero seems like more an equivalent than any American aircraft. I know 3 engines and not American, but wing loads, range, total engine horse power are similar. Bomb load favors the Italian aircraft.
 
The Long Lance torpedo was exclusively used by IJN surface units, however.

Right. I think the aerial torpedo was the Type 91? But all the same, it should be acknowledged that Japanese torpedoes didn't suffer the issues of American detonators of the Mk 13, 14, or 15. As such, the Betty + torpedo weapons system was superior to any American torpedo bomber up until 1943-44, by what I've read.
 
The B-25J could carry a "glide torpedo" in 1945.

The First Provisional Glide Torpedo Squadron was attached to the 41st BG on Okinawa in mid-1945 carrying out its first mission on 31 July. These weapons could be dropped from 12 miles out from the target so identifying success or failure was difficult.

 
To me the obvious candidates are the Martin Maryland and Martin Baltimore. Both could have carried torpedos since they could carry equivalent bomb loads but, for some reason, were never so employed. Seems like they were a perfect match for torpedo bomber candidates.

Somehow, though they were fast, they never "caught on."
 
Last edited:
To me the obvious candidates ar ethe martin Maryland and Martin Baltimore. Both could have carried torpedos since they could carry equivalent bomb loads but, for some reason, were never so employed. Seems like they were a perfect match for torpedo bomber candidates.

Somehow, though they were fast, they never "caught on."
Were the bomb bays of the Maryland and Baltimore long enough to take a 16ft 3in long British Mk.XII torpedo? Even longer with a Monoplane Air Tail.

The normal load of these aircraft was 4x500lb bombs. That load would probably be shorter than a torpedo.
 
Martin Baltimore is in the ball park on wing loading and engine power, even a planed maritime reconnaissance variant with room for a torpedo that never happened.
 
The Sm.79, which is well known for its operational history as a torpedo bomber, carried its torpedo externally. The external torpedo would have cost the Martin Baltimore some of its speed, but it would likely still be much faster than a G4M (Maybe faster than a Sm.79?). The Martin Baltimore would also have to give up its bomb bay to fuel tanks to match the range of the Sm.79 or G4M.
 
Don't think the B-26 is a good equivalent, its+40% heavier empty, has twice the engine horse power, and double the bomb load. Using gross weight, the wing loading of the B-26 was +55% greater than the G4M.
The B-26 would be the closest the US had to the G4M's performance profile and combat role.
Yes, it was heavier and somewhat faster, but it's ability to travel over 1,000 miles with a warload of 3,000 pounds is comparable to the G4M.
It's ability to carry a torpedo and having done so during the war, puts it in the same league as the Betty.

I suppose we could mull over all the Army (and Navy) twin types and see what might have or could have done the job, but the Marauder actually did it.
 
But here's the situation - I don't believe the Maryland and/ or Baltimore ever carried a torpedo on a combat sortie (correct me if I'm wrong) and was not used operationally (in a combat zone) by the US
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back