Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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?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.
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.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.
B-25's and A-20's skipping 500 lb bombs into the sides of ships was our equivalent.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?
Read the OP - talking torpedoes!B-25's and A-20's skipping 500 lb bombs into the sides of ships was our equivalent.
And that was mentioned earlier but the A-20 AFAIK never used torpedoes operationally by the US!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
The Long Lance torpedo was exclusively used by IJN surface units, however.
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.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
And Lt. Van Jonson did a job on them!B-26s even stood in for Betties in the movie A Guy Named Joe.
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.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.
IMO - absolutely!Could the B-26 have been more effective in the anti ship role with more focused training? That and a better torpedo, of course.
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.