Rn vs IJN (1 Viewer)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Wellingtons fitted for General Reconnaissance started production in December 1940 but were called Ic for a time in 1941 until it was decided to retrospectively call them mark VIII. A batch of 60 from December 1940 to July 1941, with 221 squadron having the prototype T2919 in January 1941 and receiving 5 more in April.

5 more regular Wellington VIII in September 1941 then January, 4 in February and 2 in March 1942, which was the last VIII (GR) production. In March 1942 the first Ic (Torp), VIII (Torp) and VIII (LL) were officially built. Ic (Torp) production ended in October, VIII (LL) in November and VIII (Torp) in December 1942. Mark XI and XII production began in December 1942 and they are reported to have been torpedo capable as was the mark XIII.

Also Vickers Wellington serial numbers

These Wellingtons, I have somewhat recently learned, were pretty effective in night time attacks against German and Italian shipping in the Med.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You again are correct when you say that the Spitfire isn't a panacea against the A6M, but its probably the best alternative in the world to the A6M in late 1941. Plus of course with the sophisticated radar and air direction that would have been a significant advantage tactically.

Probably. How aircraft match up precisely can be hard to predict though. The P-38 seemed to do quite well against A6Ms while not so well against Bf 109s. The Corsair also did well, and I think this is probably a closer analogue for how a mid-war model Spitfire like a VIII does to the A6M (Spit VIII did face A6Ms i think, but not that much). Even the P-40s did fairly well after the first six months or so. But the real Zero killer by far, appears to have been the Hellcat.

As has been mentioned the only one to be sunk was the Eagle, but the one big advantage the Axis forces in the Med had, which the Japanese Navy didn't have, was that their bases were immune to attack.

Well I see your point but the Germans were driven out of Tunisia and Panterellia was basically captured by a thorough bombing and strafing campaign, and Sicily was successfully invaded, so not totally immune.

 

[RCAFson]

Fascinating insight, many thanks for the info. I've read bits and pieces in various places re the cruisers, and it seems in 1940 there was capacity for 10 but none were orderd due to other priorities. Similarly for 1941 and 1942 there was a desire (capacity?) for 7 each, including at least 4 of the 8 inch designs. I have found in Conways some good sumaries as to the wartime programs, but frustratingly it seems to only include ships that were only laid down, not planned but cancelled. Do you have by any chance some short summary of the complete wartime programs including ships by class and including planned but never laid down ships?

It seems there was cruiser planning for 12 Minotaurs and 5 Neptunes as well as 8 inch CAs (Admiral class?). So in this ATL, we can assume that the cruisers OTL delayed by the war (Didos and Fijis) could probably be finished one year early at least, and the subsequent classes/hulls be brought forward a similar amount? Also, likely the Minotaurs might be a 12 gun design.

Anyway i'm probably harping too much about these blimming cruisers, though it's interesting to ponder what the japanese could have faced in 1944-45, also because it seems the british built an obscene amount of cruisers compared to Japan. Though the americans i guess were just as "obscene" in OTL.

Back to the bigger combatants, so we probably expect another 2 Implacables to be laid down in 1940-41 ready in 1943, and another 2 Implacables or perhaps Irresistibles in 1941-42 (ready 1944-45 at best). There will be probably 6 Lions building by 1942 plus Vanguard, though the war will almost certainly result in delaying/cancelling the last 2 Lions, as well as many of the 20 plus cruisers building under the ATL 1940, 1941 and 1942 programs, or on order.

So it seems in the all important CV matchup, at best RN would have 10 fleet carriers in 1942 (Ark, 3 Follies, 6 armoured), plus Eagle and Hermes with roughly 450-475 planes on board at best, faced with the 6 KB carriers, 2 Junyos, Ryujo, 2 Zuihos with something like 550 planes. The RN will only add another 4 Implacabels or Irresistibles by 1944-45, plus whatever emergency CVL would be ready under a 1942-43 wartime program. Still to me it seems the RN on it's own will have nothing like the USN crushing fleet carrier superiority in 1944-45, not to mention many tens of CVEs.

In regards to UK cruiser building capacity; each potential unbuilt cruiser = a potential unbuilt carrier, either a small fast CVL or a larger LFC (light fleet carrier) fitted with cruiser machinery. The UK had enormous ship building capacity, that was largely diverted towards other purposes after Dunkirk, suffered through a Luftwaffe bombing campaign, a massive u-boat campaign, and then was starved of manpower and steel as the UK was forced to increase the size of the Army and RAF.

OTOH, Japan fought the OTL war that she wanted! There was little loss to her Merchant Navy until mid 1943 and the home islands suffered no strategic bombing until mid 1944. This meant that Japan's was building to capacity in the OTL and there's no way to increase IJ industrial output. What Japan built in the OTL is what she will end up with in the ATL.

In the OTL, the USN fought the IJN to a tactical draw/strategic defeat in 1942. The USN's old battleships were not a factor and the USN effective cruiser/destroyer strength was not much better than the IJNs. The USN entered the war with Ranger, 3 x Yorktowns, Wasp, and 2 x Lexingtons = 6 fast carriers and a LFC. On paper the IJN seems certain to win yet that didn't happen.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I still think, as mentioned by others, we need to know what the ATL scenario in Europe is, to try to "predict" what can happen in the Far East. Perhaps as the OP, Shortround6 can provide his prefered scenario as to events in Europe?

How does the TBD Devastator compares with the Albacore? Judging by the speed figures shown the TBD is a fast aircraft compared to the Albacore! And recall the TBDs were simply slaughtered at Midway. And re british carrier aircraft combat radius (not range) , are there examples as to demonstrated maximum radius (and what those figures are) when operating from carriers? The Skuas might have done 300nm, but from a land base, not quite sure it will be the same from a carrier. Perhaps they were overloaded with fuel when operating from land?

PS: The D3A for examples was airborne for 7 hours at Coral Sea (attack on Neosho), and during the I-Go they operated from Buin which is iirc 300nm from Cactus. The Zero range need not be discussed, it was far in excess of any other carrier fighter in 1942, 500-600nm from landbases and perhaps 300-400nm from a carrier. I'm trying to think of examples showing B5N max radius with a torpedo or a 800kg bomb, i'm certain it's well into 200nm plus, but would be good to have an actual definite example.

The Devastator is quite poor, it was actually worse than the Swordfish in almost every measurable respect, I left them off because they only made 130 of them and they were so quickly replaced. There are a couple of other USN strike aircraft which didn't do well and were replaced, like the Vindicator (aka 'Vought Vibrator' / 'Wind indicator') of which 260 were made with some used by the Marines during Midway. And there is the Vultee Vengeance dive bomber which the Australians seem to have used with some success in New Guinea, and then I think the British used them in Burma.

Then the big one I left out is the SB2C Helldiver, which looks pretty good on paper (295 mph max, 2 x 20mm guns, 2,000 lbs of bombs in an internal bay, theoretically a torpedo also possible, supposedly 1,100 mile range) but we know in practice it had a particularly ugly shakeout period and needed a ton of work before it became viable, by which time the lack of Japanese carriers or battleships still floating (needing maybe precision dive bombing capability) meant that it became the preference to replace them with Corsairs.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I would note that a 1941 Seafire doesn't have to be a panacea for the A6M2. It just has to shoot down D3A's and B5Ns in sufficient numbers to strongly blunt the Japanese attack.
Add in hold off the A6Ms while the British attack aircraft do their job.
The F4F was not the panacea for the A6M and yet it managed to shoot down a fair number of Japanese attack planes. At Midway the problem was trying to escort a squadron of attack planes with 2-4 escort fighters. You could have used F4Us and that force ratio wouldn't have worked.

I don't totally disagree but Seafires didn't have the range to escort strikes

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Fascinating insight, many thanks for the info. I've read bits and pieces in various places re the cruisers, and it seems in 1940 there was capacity for 10 but none were orderd due to other priorities. Similarly for 1941 and 1942 there was a desire (capacity?) for 7 each, including at least 4 of the 8 inch designs. I have found in Conways some good sumaries as to the wartime programs, but frustratingly it seems to only include ships that were only laid down, not planned but cancelled. Do you have by any chance some short summary of the complete wartime programs including ships by class and including planned but never laid down ships?

It seems there was cruiser planning for 12 Minotaurs and 5 Neptunes as well as 8 inch CAs (Admiral class?). So in this ATL, we can assume that the cruisers OTL delayed by the war (Didos and Fijis) could probably be finished one year early at least, and the subsequent classes/hulls be brought forward a similar amount? Also, likely the Minotaurs might be a 12 gun design.

Anyway i'm probably harping too much about these blimming cruisers, though it's interesting to ponder what the japanese could have faced in 1944-45, also because it seems the british built an obscene amount of cruisers compared to Japan. Though the americans i guess were just as "obscene" in OTL.

Back to the bigger combatants, so we probably expect another 2 Implacables to be laid down in 1940-41 ready in 1943, and another 2 Implacables or perhaps Irresistibles in 1941-42 (ready 1944-45 at best). There will be probably 6 Lions building by 1942 plus Vanguard, though the war will almost certainly result in delaying/cancelling the last 2 Lions, as well as many of the 20 plus cruisers building under the ATL 1940, 1941 and 1942 programs, or on order.

So it seems in the all important CV matchup, at best RN would have 10 fleet carriers in 1942 (Ark, 3 Follies, 6 armoured), plus Eagle and Hermes with roughly 450-475 planes on board at best, faced with the 6 KB carriers, 2 Junyos, Ryujo, 2 Zuihos with something like 550 planes. The RN will only add another 4 Implacabels or Irresistibles by 1944-45, plus whatever emergency CVL would be ready under a 1942-43 wartime program. Still to me it seems the RN on it's own will have nothing like the USN crushing fleet carrier superiority in 1944-45, not to mention many tens of CVEs.

Minotaur is a great name for a warship

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One has to remember that all three torpedo bombers: Swordfish, albacore and TBD Devastator had a 3-member crew. I don't think there is much difference in the combat radius or range between the Swordfish and the TBD. However, the range of the Swordfish was often extended by removing one of the crew members and replacing him with an auxiliary fuel tank. The USN never saw fit to try to improve the range of the TBD in the same way.
The Blackburn Skuas which sank the cruiser Königsburg in 1940 were carrying 500 lb bombloads – not quite the same as carrying a 1700 lb torpedo.

True, but they only built 130 TBD and it was gone by mid-1942, replaced by the much, much better TBF. They built 2,300 Swordfish and they were still making them until 1944, Sworfish being deemed better than their ostensible replacement, the Albacore. The Barracudas (also not so great) weren't coming into action until mid 1943.

 

[mack8]

Re the Barrcauda, was looking at it again and i'll just say my god what were they thinking when they built that thing. Don't knows who's more at fault, RN who drew the specs (is it them who wanted the high wing?) or Fairey who built it. They probably said to themselves, "right, how can we make this plane as awkward, inefficient and complicated as possible". What was wrong with designing a straighforward, decent if not outstanding torpedo plane with low or at most mid wing, with landing gear attached to the wings.

Was also looking at Indomitable and Formidable airgroups in spring 1942, it seems they carried a pitiful 79 aircraft BETWEEN them (45 plus 34). A single Shokaku or Kaga can carry almost as many on their own (72) at full strength. Hell, at those numbers they need all 4 Illustrious operational at that time just to equal Shokaku and Zuikaku. Even Soryu or Junyo carried more than 45 aircraft. Even the poor Ryujo i think carried 33 at some point, iirc Eastern Solomons. Is there some good info as to the typical airgroups carried by other RN carriers at that time? When did they started using american style deckparks, which increased the numbers they could carry?

PS: Indian Ocean airgroups

Indomitable (Rear-Admiral D. W. Boyd):
- 880 Squadron (9x Sea Hurricane Ib)
- 800 Squadron (12x Fulmar II)
- 827 Squadron (12x Albacore)
- 831 Squadron (12x Albacore)
Formidable:
- 888 Squadron (12x Martlet II)
- 820 Squadron (12x Albacore I)
- 818 Squadron (9x Albacore I, 1x Swordfish I)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ok, I'll bite, Just how many airliners did the Italians and Germans modify?
You know, strip the seats and lunch trolley out of and cut a hole in the floor for the bombsight and hatch out the top for a gun?

Well those would be Italian aircraft in this case. The Germans had the Fw 200 but that was not involved in the Med as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong). And I think the He 111 had some kind of lineage with an airliner role maybe as a cover story (?) but there were relatively few of those around - I think seven He 111s were involved in the battle.

Of the Italian aircraft, the big one for the Italians was the S. (or SM.) 79 Sparviero - a favorite of mine. That was an airliner (or 'fast transport aircraft') in the tradition of the S. 75 and way back in 1934, which evolved into their best torpedo bomber. A little long in the teeth but it was a good design and it could sink ships, comparable to the G3M. Others were not nearly as successful, including the SM 72 (mainly a transport, but also used as a bomber), and the SM 84 (1941) which was supposed to be an improved S.79 but had a catastrophic service record, and were used during Pedestal but didn't hit anything.

Then there were the CANT bombers developed from the Z.506 seaplane / transport / postal aircraft of 1936, a well designed aircraft which also served as an airliner for the Italian airline "Ala Littoria". Z.506 is included in the list of ostensibly almost 300 bombers during pedestal by the way, though it was of questionable utility in that role. The Z.1007 was developed as basically a Z.506 without the floats. This was a somewhat marginal bomber produced since 1938, basically in the context of the Spanish Civil War, but by the time Hurricanes etc. were showing up in the Middle east it was pulled out of combat.

 

[RCAFson]

I still think, as mentioned by others, we need to know what the ATL scenario in Europe is, to try to "predict" what can happen in the Far East. Perhaps as the OP, Shortround6 can provide his prefered scenario as to events in Europe?

How does the TBD Devastator compares with the Albacore? Judging by the speed figures shown the TBD is a fast aircraft compared to the Albacore! And recall the TBDs were simply slaughtered at Midway. And re british carrier aircraft combat radius (not range) , are there examples as to demonstrated maximum radius (and what those figures are) when operating from carriers? The Skuas might have done 300nm, but from a land base, not quite sure it will be the same from a carrier. Perhaps they were overloaded with fuel when operating from land?

PS: The D3A for examples was airborne for 7 hours at Coral Sea (attack on Neosho), and during the I-Go they operated from Buin which is iirc 300nm from Cactus. The Zero range need not be discussed, it was far in excess of any other carrier fighter in 1942, 500-600nm from landbases and perhaps 300-400nm from a carrier. I'm trying to think of examples showing B5N max radius with a torpedo or a 800kg bomb, i'm certain it's well into 200nm plus, but would be good to have an actual definite example.

The TBD wasn't fast and operationally it's cruise speed was about the same as the Albacore but it had far less range and it was constrained in it's attack profiles because it's airframe wasn't stressed for dive bombing and was extremely weak. There's no indication that I can find that the TBD ever made it's stated max speed in 1942 which was just as well as Vne was only 205 knots, Dives in excess of 45degs were prohibited, and doubtless this was carefully taken to heart by it's pilots as it would have exceeded Vne very rapidly in a dive.
OTOH, the Albacore was fully stressed for vertical divebombing and was equipped with flaps that doubled as divebrakes. Vne was 215 knots. The Albacore can undertake a variety of day/night attack missions and can vary it's attack profile and attack cruise altitude to best suit the mission plan; it's preferred daylight attack profile was a medium altitude cruise to the target and then steep dive approach to weapon release.

At Midway, the TBD's had to fly low and slow to conserve fuel. I'm not saying the Zeros wouldn't have inflicted severe losses on Albacores flying the same mission profile, but I am saying that Albacores would have far more options in terms of mission profile, altitude, and weapon type, and these options would reduce the probability of interception prior to weapon release and increase the Albacores options in terms of escaping after interception.

IIRC, the only land based D3A attack against Guadalcanal was a one way mission, where the aircraft undertook a planned ditching after the strike.

The Zero had extreme range because they had a very efficient low rpm, low altitude, cruise. In combat they burned fuel rapidly, hence their short endurance over Guadalcanal when flying from land bases.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Re the Barrcauda, was looking at it again and i'll just say my god what were they thinking when they built that thing. Don't knows who's more at fault, RN who drew the specs (is it them who wanted the high wing?) or Fairey who built it. They probably said to themselves, "right, how can we make this plane as awkward, inefficient and complicated as possible". What was wrong with designing a straighforward, decent if not outstanding torpedo plane with low or at most mid wing, with landing gear attached to the wings.

One of the reasons I tend to highlight these things is that it was a big problem then, which continues to haunt the US and i think maybe the UK right up to our own time - problems either with the specs or the company building the plane, or the inspection and verification processes or all three. The Barracuda was disappointing, as was bizarre stuff like the Roc. The US had the total disaster with their torpedoes. They also had the SB2C debacle, eventually becoming viable but only after a brutally long and ugly shaking out phase... by the time which was over it was too late to play a major role in the war There were also projects like the Brewster Buccaneer (771 built) which were totally useless. The Vindicator which I mentioned previously was another largely useless navy bomber. The Curtiss SO3C (795 built) was a total failure, which seems less important because it's "just" a scout plane but those kind of aircraft were key to the American strategy. These things are baffling and frustrating and I think we need to address these kinds of failures as they happen, earlier in the process, because this stuff still does happen in the modern day.

 

[z42]

While Britain never built another 8" cruiser after completing the Exeter in 1931, they did not give up on the idea. There were plans for a new "Admiral" class with 9x8" (3x3) from about 1938/39 to Oct 1942, but WW2 meant the resources could not be spared to build them. Courtesy of Churchill, in 1939/40 there was even a short lived suggestion (I wouldn't even call it a serious proposal, let alone a plan, because it was shot down so quickly by the Admirals!) for a 9.2" armed cruiser.

Now because of the treaty limits the 8in gun cruisers became defacto 2nd class battleships or modern Armored cruisers like the pre-dreadnought armored cruisers. Nobody had much for new armored cruisers, anybody that could afford armored cruisers could afford battlecruisers. So everybody's had old armored cruisers from before about 1910 that needed replacing anyway.
10 years later and having seen the great Cruiser Race the British were in no mood or financial position to engage in Cruiser Race II and the British needed a crap load of smaller cruisers to stop merchant raiders and not small, short range, battle fleet 3.
The British were trying to get both the size of cruisers down so they could build larger numbers and they needed to replace the old battleships, in part due to age. The British had put more miles on their early WW I battleships and they needed more overhauls/rebuilding just to say in service.

The theory behind all the nations cruisers armed with triple 6" guns from the early 1930s was that sheer weight of fire from 12/15 6" barrels would overwhelm an enemy (more hits each casing less damage) whereas the heavier 8" shells would result in fewer hits each causing more damage. But the need for such ships came out of the London Naval Treaty 1930. It split cruisers into two categories:-

1. Cruisers with guns greater than 6.1"
2. Cruisers with guns not greater than 6.1"

The first group was limited both by total tonnage AND by the number of ships permitted. So USN/RN/IJN was 18/15/12, and both the RN and IJN had already built to these limits (the RN actually needed to convert/disarm/scrap the Hawkins class by the end of 1936 to comply). The US got more ships in this category by special pleading.

The second group had an overall tonnage cap only. So you could have a lot of smaller cruisers or a lesser number of larger ships.

The RN thought that this would limit cruiser size to around the size of a Leander. In fact it didn't because the Japanese built the Mogami class with 15x6.1" forcing a new cruiser race of 9,000-10,000 ton ships armed with a generally larger number of guns than previously. But for the RN the issue was numbers so they limited the Towns to 12 guns. The Edinburgh sub group were initially planned to have 16x6" in 4 quad turrets. The US built the Brooklyn class in response.

That was why the 1936 London Treaty sought to limit ship size rather than total tonnage to help the RN with its need for numbers.

The Mogami class were designed from the outset to be upgradeable to 8", which is what happened after the Japanese quit the Treaty system.

In a way the 8" heavy cruiser was a pretty difficult design spot, and they tended to end up as a bit of glass cannons, as it wasn't really feasible to design a well balanced 8" cruiser within the treaty 10kton limit. Or then just lie about the actual displacement.

That being said, I wonder if in the absence of the treaties, we'd seen such heavy cruisers at all? Light cruisers certainly, as they had a useful role to serve even in the absence of any treaties. But the heavy cruiser didn't really have much going for it in the sense it could do the light cruiser roles + that it could likely beat a light cruiser in a 1 vs 1 engagement, in a somewhat more expensive package. But, in the absence of a treaty, the response to that would be a class of "heavy cruiser killer cruisers". Which in turn could be beaten by another slightly bigger "heavy cruiser killer cruiser killer". Iterate a few times, and (ignoring the historical diversion of the battlecruiser concept), pretty soon we're up at a full-size battleship. So why not skip the iteration and go straight for building more battleship and forget about the classes in between the light cruiser and the battleship?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The TBD wasn't fast and operationally it's cruise speed was about the same as the Albacore but it had far less range and it was constrained in it's attack profiles because it's airframe wasn't stressed for dive bombing and was extremely weak. There's no indication that I can find that the TBD ever made it's stated max speed in 1942 which was just as well as Vne was only 205 knots, Dives in excess of 45degs were prohibited, and doubtless this was carefully taken to heart by it's pilots as it would have exceeded Vne very rapidly in a dive.
OTOH, the Albacore was fully stressed for vertical divebombing and was equipped with flaps that doubled as divebrakes. Vne was 215 knots. The Albacore can undertake a variety of day/night attack missions and can vary it's attack profile and attack cruise altitude to best suit the mission plan; it's preferred daylight attack profile was a medium altitude cruise to the target and then steep dive approach to weapon release.

At Midway, the TBD's had to fly low and slow to conserve fuel. I'm not saying the Zeros wouldn't have inflicted severe losses on Albacores flying the same mission profile, but I am saying that Albacores would have far more options in terms of mission profile, altitude, and weapon type, and these options would reduce the probability of interception prior to weapon release and increase the Albacores options in terms of escaping after interception.

IIRC, the only land based D3A attack against Guadalcanal was a one way mission, where the aircraft undertook a planned ditching after the strike.

The Zero had extreme range because they had a very efficient low rpm, low altitude, cruise. In combat they burned fuel rapidly, hence their short endurance over Guadalcanal when flying from land bases.

D3A were routinely used to attack Allied bases in New Guinea and also in the Solomons, as well as at Pearl Harbor. It was a much more capable and survivable aircraft than the Swordfish or Albacore. The only advantage the RN has on this level is to fight at night or during storms, with radar, and hope the radar works correctly and that they work with it correctly.

Swordfish or Albacore were dead meat up against Zeros or Ki-43s. Or K-45s for that matter.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

In a way the 8" heavy cruiser was a pretty difficult design spot, and they tended to end up as a bit of glass cannons, as it wasn't really feasible to design a well balanced 8" cruiser within the treaty 10kton limit. Or then just lie about the actual displacement.

That being said, I wonder if in the absence of the treaties, we'd seen such heavy cruisers at all? Light cruisers certainly, as they had a useful role to serve even in the absence of any treaties. But the heavy cruiser didn't really have much going for it in the sense it could do the light cruiser roles + that it could likely beat a light cruiser in a 1 vs 1 engagement, in a somewhat more expensive package. But, in the absence of a treaty, the response to that would be a class of "heavy cruiser killer cruisers". Which in turn could be beaten by another slightly bigger "heavy cruiser killer cruiser killer". Iterate a few times, and (ignoring the historical diversion of the battlecruiser concept), pretty soon we're up at a full-size battleship. So why not skip the iteration and go straight for building more battleship and forget about the classes in between the light cruiser and the battleship?

Well the US had the Alaska with 12" guns and 9" armor belt

Alaska-class cruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Shortround6]

Well those would be Italian aircraft in this case. The Germans had the Fw 200 but that was not involved in the Med as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong). And I think the He 111 had some kind of lineage with an airliner role maybe as a cover story (?) but there were relatively few of those around - I think seven He 111s were involved in the battle.

Of the Italian aircraft, the big one for the Italians was the S. (or SM.) 79 Sparviero - a favorite of mine. That was an airliner (or 'fast transport aircraft') in the tradition of the S. 75 and way back in 1934, which evolved into their best torpedo bomber. A little long in the teeth but it was a good design and it could sink ships, comparable to the G3M. Others were not nearly as successful, including the SM 72 (mainly a transport, but also used as a bomber), and the SM 84 (1941) which was supposed to be an improved S.79 but had a catastrophic service record, and were used during Pedestal but didn't hit anything.

Then there were the CANT bombers developed from the Z.506 seaplane / transport / postal aircraft of 1936, a well designed aircraft which also served as an airliner for the Italian airline "Ala Littoria". Z.506 is included in the list of ostensibly almost 300 bombers during pedestal by the way, though it was of questionable utility in that role. The Z.1007 was developed as basically a Z.506 without the floats. This was a somewhat marginal bomber produced since 1938, basically in the context of the Spanish Civil War, but by the time Hurricanes etc. were showing up in the Middle east it was pulled out of combat.

So no modified airliners.

Planes that built to modified airliner designs which is not quite the same thing.
Also please note that a number of companies in different countries tried to use modified airliner designs for bombers to save on engineering and tooling costs.
Lockheed actually did rather well with this, Hudson's and Ventura's.

 

[RCAFson]

Re the Barrcauda, was looking at it again and i'll just say my god what were they thinking when they built that thing. Don't knows who's more at fault, RN who drew the specs (is it them who wanted the high wing?) or Fairey who built it. They probably said to themselves, "right, how can we make this plane as awkward, inefficient and complicated as possible". What was wrong with designing a straighforward, decent if not outstanding torpedo plane with low or at most mid wing, with landing gear attached to the wings.

Was also looking at Indomitable and Formidable airgroups in spring 1942, it seems they carried a pitiful 79 aircraft BETWEEN them (45 plus 34). A single Shokaku or Kaga can carry almost as many on their own (72) at full strength. Hell, at those numbers they need all 4 Illustrious operational at that time just to equal Shokaku and Zuikaku. Even Soryu or Junyo carried more than 45 aircraft. Even the poor Ryujo i think carried 33 at some point, iirc Eastern Solomons. Is there some good info as to the typical airgroups carried by other RN carriers at that time? When did they started using american style deckparks, which increased the numbers they could carry?

PS: Indian Ocean airgroups

Indomitable (Rear-Admiral D. W. Boyd):
- 880 Squadron (9x Sea Hurricane Ib)
- 800 Squadron (12x Fulmar II)
- 827 Squadron (12x Albacore)
- 831 Squadron (12x Albacore)
Formidable:
- 888 Squadron (12x Martlet II)
- 820 Squadron (12x Albacore I)
- 818 Squadron (9x Albacore I, 1x Swordfish I)

Aircraft availability was a key factor here. 4 (of 16) of Formidable's Martlets had been detached to Ceylon and IIRC Indomitable carried 12 Sea Hurricanes. In May 1942, Illustrious reached the IO and she carried 47 aircraft, including 25 Martlets, IIRC, which was a rare example of an FAA carrier unexpectedly having access to an abundance of aircraft. During Pedestal Indomitable initially carried 33 (22 SH1B and 11 Martlets) fighters and two squadrons of Albacores.

 

[z42]

Well the US had the Alaska with 12" guns and 9" armor belt

Alaska-class cruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, I know. I guess I just don't see the logic behind these. Somewhat cheaper than a fast battleship, sure, but also significantly more limited deployment options as well as you can't really send it up against enemy battleships. Just churn out another Iowa class ship instead. Or more Essex spam for that matter.

 

[Shortround6]

Re the Barrcauda, was looking at it again and i'll just say my god what were they thinking when they built that thing. Don't knows who's more at fault, RN who drew the specs (is it them who wanted the high wing?) or Fairey who built it. They probably said to themselves, "right, how can we make this plane as awkward, inefficient and complicated as possible". What was wrong with designing a straighforward, decent if not outstanding torpedo plane with low or at most mid wing, with landing gear attached to the wings.

I think we can put most of the blame on the RN/air ministry for this one. After all, they did have the choice of picking this instead.

For two different manufacturers to come up with such ugly airplanes at the same time for the same requirement (and these are the ones that made it off paper) and this one is from the company building the Spitfire.

 

[mack8]

Yeah should have mentioned this 322 as well, it's even worse!

The TBD wasn't fast and operationally it's cruise speed was about the same as the Albacore but it had far less range and it was constrained in it's attack profiles because it's airframe wasn't stressed for dive bombing and was extremely weak. There's no indication that I can find that the TBD ever made it's stated max speed in 1942 which was just as well as Vne was only 205 knots, Dives in excess of 45degs were prohibited, and doubtless this was carefully taken to heart by it's pilots as it would have exceeded Vne very rapidly in a dive.
OTOH, the Albacore was fully stressed for vertical divebombing and was equipped with flaps that doubled as divebrakes. Vne was 215 knots. The Albacore can undertake a variety of day/night attack missions and can vary it's attack profile and attack cruise altitude to best suit the mission plan; it's preferred daylight attack profile was a medium altitude cruise to the target and then steep dive approach to weapon release.

At Midway, the TBD's had to fly low and slow to conserve fuel. I'm not saying the Zeros wouldn't have inflicted severe losses on Albacores flying the same mission profile, but I am saying that Albacores would have far more options in terms of mission profile, altitude, and weapon type, and these options would reduce the probability of interception prior to weapon release and increase the Albacores options in terms of escaping after interception.

IIRC, the only land based D3A attack against Guadalcanal was a one way mission, where the aircraft undertook a planned ditching after the strike.

The Zero had extreme range because they had a very efficient low rpm, low altitude, cruise. In combat they burned fuel rapidly, hence their short endurance over Guadalcanal when flying from land bases.

D3A2s took part in operation I-GO in April 1943 and flew from Buin, which is about 300nm away from Guadalcanal. So they seem to have no issue operating at 300nm radius. And the D3A2 actually had a shorter range compared to the D3A1.

The August 1942 D3A1 strike on Guadalcanal took of from Rabaul 560nm away, and the survivors ditched at Shortland, about 400nm away. So they flew 860nm. If they could have flown from Buka, 400nm from Guadalcanal, seems they could just have made it (i mean land and not ditch), though flying on fumes.


As to the Albacore torpedo, it may have been more reliable and dependable than the US Mark 13, but isn't the drop limit 150kts max and a few hundred feet for it? Better than the Mark 13, but still slow. And the whole of 10kts VNe advantage for the Albacore probably wouldn't help much against a Zero!

 

[SaparotRob]

Ok, I'll bite, Just how many airliners did the Italians and Germans modify?
You know, strip the seats and lunch trolley out of and cut a hole in the floor for the bombsight and hatch out the top for a gun?

My hand is up!!! I know this one! All the FW-200s!
Oops. Almost forgot. All the HE-111s.