Most valuable Carrier Fighter Of WWII

[GrauGeist]

Actually, very few A-36s survived the war - and the P-51 that saw service in Korea were latewar models, being very much different in performance and design.

The ground attack champion in Korea was the Douglas A-1 (itself rooted in WWII) which did use ground attack doctrine learned during WWII.

 

[parsifal]

I don't know how relevant this may be, but in Korea, the RANs chief strike a/c was the Fairey Firefly AS5 which carried a 2000lb bombload and developed methods for true divebombing as well as using her patented Youngman flaps to "float" over the targets at relatively low speed and thereby markedly improve bomb aiming accuracy. Ive read accounts that the fireflies were considered the most effective and most accurate carrier borne strike aircraft of the war.

 

[fastmongrel]

I thought the Fireflies carried more than 2000lbs. I have seen photos of them carrying 2 x 1000 lbers and 8 x 3inch rockets.

 

[Shortround6]

The Army A-24s that saw combat in the Java/ New Guinea area were equivalent to SBD-3s. They had the 1000hp engines (take-off rating). They had problems operating over the Owen Stanley mountains. The pilots had little training in dive bombing and coordination with fighter units was often not up to par (read they were not getting fighter escorts). This may have soured the Army on dive bombers. Single engine bombers operating in that theater may not have returned much target effect for the investment needed in logistics. A squadron of A-20s may not have required that many more ground crew than a squadron of A-24s and the A-20s could carry several times the bomb load further. SBD-3s were only supposed to have 140-150 gallons of fuel when carrying a 500lb bomb and only 100 gallons when carrying a 1000lb bomb.

 

[parsifal]

I thought the Fireflies carried more than 2000lbs. I have seen photos of them carrying 2 x 1000 lbers and 8 x 3inch rockets.

Yes they could but most often they carried just the two bombs. The sea furies were usually the rocket carriers which they usually combined with 20mm suppression fire covering for the fireflies

 

[Elvis]

The Army A-24s that saw combat in the Java/ New Guinea area were equivalent to SBD-3s. They had the 1000hp engines (take-off rating). They had problems operating over the Owen Stanley mountains. The pilots had little training in dive bombing and coordination with fighter units was often not up to par (read they were not getting fighter escorts). This may have soured the Army on dive bombers. Single engine bombers operating in that theater may not have returned much target effect for the investment needed in logistics. A squadron of A-20s may not have required that many more ground crew than a squadron of A-24s and the A-20s could carry several times the bomb load further. SBD-3s were only supposed to have 140-150 gallons of fuel when carrying a 500lb bomb and only 100 gallons when carrying a 1000lb bomb.

You make a good point. When you look at it that way, it makes more sense to use a "light bomber" or a "heavy fighter" in the ground attack role, rather than a dedicated dive bomber.
Good post, Shortround! =)

 

[Elvis]

Actually, very few A-36s survived the war - and the P-51 that saw service in Korea were latewar models, being very much different in performance and design.

The ground attack champion in Korea was the Douglas A-1 (itself rooted in WWII) which did use ground attack doctrine learned during WWII.

...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for Sandy.


Elvis

 

[Peter Gunn]

...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for Sandy.


Elvis

Weak and a failure in what way? I'd say it was easily as effective as the F4U, and losses were within about 1% of each other. Please explain how the P-51 failed at ground attack.

 

[Elvis]

...please allow me to show you...

...water cooled powerplant. Where is the radiator located?
Susceptible to small arms fire and "splash back" caused by exploding ordinance. My dad, who was a Korea-era vet, told me this was a well-known problem and the plane was not used very much in that role, because of that.
Picture courtesy of Aircorps Aviation.com



Elvis

 

[Shortround6]

You make a good point. When you look at it that way, it makes more sense to use a "light bomber" or a "heavy fighter" in the ground attack role, rather than a dedicated dive bomber.
Good post, Shortround! =)

The range issue might not have been as important to other theaters. The Early Ju 87s didn't have much range but they were operating close to the front.
For dive bombers to be effective against tactical targets they need good target marking and/or good direction. The Germans used luftwaffe officers imbedded in the ground units with radios that could talk to the attack planes. In dessert much less direction was needed as targets tended to stand out more from the terrain.
The US had considerable trouble in the jungles of Vietnam with getting ordnance on target. You can't hit what you can't see and planes carrying a single bomb per plane , no matter how close to the aiming point they can hit, have a problem if they have no aiming point.

 

[Peter Gunn]

In the "No shit Sherlock" category regarding the Mustang radiator, it's a shame no one told the Air Force about that back in '42 or else they could have made the massive mistake of using it for ground attack from WWII through the early '50s, i.e. Korea.

How many thousands of ground attack missions did it fly in Korea again? Weak and a Failure it certainly was not. Why does the Mustang get busted on for it's "delicate" design and the F4U get's a pass for being tough? Loss rates don't exactly back up that mantra.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

...please allow me to show you...


View attachment 509198

...water cooled powerplant. Where is the radiator located?
Susceptible to small arms fire and "splash back" caused by exploding ordinance. My dad, who was a Korea-era vet, told me this was a well-known problem and the plane was not used very much in that role, because of that.
Picture courtesy of Aircorps Aviation.com



Elvis

So I guess the P-51's airframe must have been remarkably resistant to battle damage, given that even though it was saddled with an engine that used WATER, it still managed to have a loss rate in the same role almost identical to that of the F4U.

 

[GrauGeist]

...doesn't make any difference. It was the design of the airplane that made it a weak in the ground attack role.
The A-1 was the ultimate development of propeller-driven ground attack / dive bomber aircraft.
Many Vietnam-era vets have a special place in their hearts for Sandy.


Elvis

The A-36 (of which only 500 were built), which was a dedicated dive-bomber, was very effective in it's role.
It's only short-coming, which was not a hinderance to it's mission profile, was that it had the carbeurated Allison, like the P-51 and P-51A. This did not hamper it's performance in Europe, but did pose a problem in the CBI.

The later, RR Merlin types, the last of which saw service in Korea (F-51D/F-51K) were faster, better climbers, had good performance at low, medium amd high altitudes, better armed and were no more vulnerable than the F-80, F-84, F-86, F2H, F9F and Meteor, who's engines would not tolerate any damage whatsoever.

And let's keep in mind that the P-51D conducted ground attack missions in Europe and weren't falling in droves, despite the fact that the Germans had fairly accurate ground defense weapons and flak concentrations. And neither was the P-38, Spitfire, Typhoon, Mosquito and Tempest - all of whom had water-cooled engines.

 

[swampyankee]

First, a warning: this is an anecdote to an event to which I was not a witness.

Some USAF observers brought some VIPs (politicians? journalists? generals?) to observe its air support in action. A few (four?) Mustangs came in, went in one right after another, each dropping a 500 lb bomb. By a coincidence (?), a USMC unit called in air support. A similar number of Corsairs came in, each with 2 x 1000 lb bombs, dove in, in formation, dropped their loads, and left. The observers were less impressed by the USAF than planned.

 

[GrauGeist]

Why does that not surprise me that the Marines "accidently" showed up the Air Force!

 

[Elvis]

...if the P/F-51 was such a stellar ground attack aircraft, then why was it pulled from that duty before the end of the Korean conflict...

 

[CORSNING]

Hi guys, I am out of time tonight so I do not have time to elaborate all
that I would like to, but if anyone still doubts (or challenges) the SBD's
capabilities, well then compare it to a UK's flattop fighter of 1940-1943,
The Fairey Fulmar and tell me what you think.

 

[Peter Gunn]

...if the P/F-51 was such a stellar ground attack aircraft, then why was it pulled from that duty before the end of the Korean conflict...

Would you like the one word answer?








Jets.

 

[CORSNING]

Would you like the one word answer?

Jets.

Yep, that pretty much says it all.

However, different time, different era. Totally off topic here.

 

[parsifal]

The RAAFs experience mirrors that exactly. We went into Korea equipped with P-51s, but upgraded to Meteor F-8s. We had wanted F-86s, but these were not available at the time they were needed.