Mitsubishi Betty Equivalent

[chris ballance]

I assume torpedoes would be carried externally, like on the B-26. I have not investigated the bomb bays. They just seem close enough toa Betty to be a good equivalent.

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.

My impression was the B-26 was superior to the G4M, that they are not even in the same class. I didn't think that the B-26s weight was a liability, rather it was the sign of a much heavier armed and armored aircraft with engine power to match. Would not the higher wing loading mean the B-26 had better stability and handling at speed?

I could be wrong about my impression, and I'm sure the G4M had a better functioning constant speed propellers.

 

[GregP]

You are correct, FlyboyJ. I just feel the Maryland / Baltimore were very good candidates for equivalent aircraft with the G4M.

The fact that they were not makes it a "what if," with no correct answers. I put that out as a suggestion for what they could have been.

In real life, they weren't. Guilty as charged.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My impression was the B-26 was superior to the G4M, that they are not even in the same class. I didn't think that the B-26s weight was a liability, rather it was the sign of a much heavier armed and armored aircraft with engine power to match. Would not the higher wing loading mean the B-26 had better stability and handling at speed?

I could be wrong about my impression, and I'm sure the G4M had a better functioning constant speed propellers.

Well the B-26 is the closest AMERICAN aircraft you're going to get similar to the G4M. It was superior all the way around. The higher wing loading would show less maneuverability in some situations but the B-26 was almost 30 mph faster than the G4M IIRC. At the end of the day the only other comparison I think we can make was the comparison of the torpedoes.

 

[wlewisiii]

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?

B-25's and A-20's skipping 500 lb bombs into the sides of ships was our equivalent.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

B-25's and A-20's skipping 500 lb bombs into the sides of ships was our equivalent.

Read the OP - talking torpedoes!

 

[wlewisiii]

Hah! The A-20 was actually built to carry them. Big chunk in the manual on how to use them.

They had a lot more success skipping bombs

 

[SaparotRob]

Score!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hah! The A-20 was actually built to carry them. Big chunk in the manual on how to use them.

They had a lot more success skipping bombs

And that was mentioned earlier but the A-20 AFAIK never used torpedoes operationally by the US!

Now the USSR did!

 

[SaparotRob]

Score!

 

[Shortround6]

The Long Lance torpedo was exclusively used by IJN surface units, however.

Tomo is correct.

There wasn't a lot to chose between the Japanese type 91 torpedo and the British 18 in torpedo.
Both were modified a number of times during the war. They got heavier warheads, better explosives, more range (not much over 2000yds forget the Long Lance stuff)
And both (and the US MK 13) were modified for higher speed and higher altitude drops.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm surprised by how basic the Betty's cockpit is compared Allied twins.

Here's an A-26 Invader.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm surprised by how basic the Betty's cockpit is compared Allied twins.

View attachment 689478

Here's an A-26 Invader.

View attachment 689479

Those airplanes are several years apart in development. Of course the latter will have a more-complex cockpit.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm surprised by how basic the Betty's cockpit is compared Allied twins.

View attachment 689478

Here's an A-26 Invader.

View attachment 689479

Well first off I think you'll find the A/B-26 was a lot more complicated aircraft, at least a generation ahead of the Betty. Some of the basic flight instruments are there but the B-26 has all the engine instruments (in duplicate) on the panel.

Compare the Betty to the Wellington

 

[Barrett]

B-26s even stood in for Betties in the movie A Guy Named Joe.

And Lt. Van Jonson did a job on them!

 

[PStickney]

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.

The torpedo issues, which were real, and which were serious, weren't fundamental problems with the torpedo designs, they were die to a total lack of testing before the torps were accepted for service. Once they got sorted out - a big problem with that, was that the same guy that was running the Torpedo Station at Newport Rhode Island, and didn't perform the testing, was now the guy at BuOrd who was constantly rejecting problem reports from the combat zones.
The Mk 13 ended up as the most effective airborne torpedo of the Late War (Just ask Yamato and Musashi - we don't know how many hits it would have taken to sink them, but we know how hany we were going to use), with the drop envelope extended from about 110 kts/100' (200kph/30m) to 300+ kts (480 kph / 5000' (1500m) with near 100% reliability.

 

[Snautzer01]

Wellington is an option i think.

 

[rob23]

Could the B-26 have been more effective in the anti ship role with more focused training? That and a better torpedo, of course.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Could the B-26 have been more effective in the anti ship role with more focused training? That and a better torpedo, of course.

IMO - absolutely!

 

[Greg Boeser]

In the MTO, low level, anti-shipping attacks proved too costly. Doolittle withdrew them from that mission and limited them to medium altitude formation bombing. A role they performed very well. They had some success in the Aleutians, sinking and damaging a number of ships, in limited action. Marauders in RAF service had some success as well. In the South and Southwest Pacific, B-26s saw some low level anti-ship missions, but mostly they flew conventional medium altitude missions.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The torpedo issues, which were real, and which were serious, weren't fundamental problems with the torpedo designs, they were die to a total lack of testing before the torps were accepted for service.

The contact exploder, with its perpendicular pin, is something I would indeed call a design flaw, and a fairly fundamental one given that torpedoes not exploding renders the attack nugatory.

You're absolutely right that later in the war the Mk 13, with its flaws fixed and its expanded launch envelope, was a damned good fish.