Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
These Wellingtons, I have somewhat recently learned, were pretty effective in night time attacks against German and Italian shipping in the Med.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So no modified airliners.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.
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.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)
Well the US had the Alaska with 12" guns and 9" armor belt
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.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.
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 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.
My hand is up!!! I know this one! All the FW-200s!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?