Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
View attachment 733825
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.
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.
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.
The TBD is left off the charts, so to speak, because it was withdrawn from service after about seven months of U.S. involvement in the war. We are ignoring it the same way the Brewster SB2A is ignored from these comparisons.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.
If you did you would see a small number.That being said, I wonder if in the absence of the treaties, we'd seen such heavy cruisers at all?
They actually stopped making it in 1939 before Poland. there were never going to be anymore. The newest plane used at Midway was at least 3 years old, had hundreds of hours on the airframe and had zero armor and zero protection of the fuel tanks. The Buffaloes used at Midway were two years newer and at least some protection.The TBD is left off the charts, so to speak, because it was withdrawn from service after about seven months of U.S. involvement in the war. We are ignoring it the same way the Brewster SB2A is ignored from these comparisons.
I have to admit i don't know enough about naval architecture to comment. Alaska class ships look pretty damn useful to me. Another value to those bigger guns is in the bombardment role where they seem to have been pretty devastating. I don't know how a 12" gun holds up to a 14", but I think it probably out-ranges an 8" a bit and one or two shells ought to be very lethal in naval combat. If i was an admiral in some of those 1942 -43 surface battles I'd be glad to have one around. The armor is pretty good too, enough to deal with anything but a full fledged battleship.
The big question I guess is how much time / resources does it take to make one compared to an Iowa. How much fuel does it use in comparison. One thing I've learned about the Pacific War is that the battleships used an astonishing amount of fuel, as much as many many other ships, and that is in part why both the IJN and USN were somewhat slow to use them.
In the photo please note the window under the wing. There was also a requirement that the "observer" had to be able to see below the wing so this dictated the high wing design which then complicated the retracting landing gear or forced the fixed gear. The Dumbo used a tilt wing (-2 degrees to +16 degrees) to get the landing speed down which also forced the high wing design. When you are trying for a stalling speed about 12mph lower than the Avenger there are going to be a few compromises.Supermarine's alternative bid for an Albacore replacement was a very interesting aircraft and probably better than the Barracuda. However, the Barracuda 1 first flew in late 1940 vs mid 1943 for the Supermarine 322 (pictured above).
The Barracuda and the Supermarine 322 were torpedo bombers; they were torpedo dive bombers and as such had to have an airframe stressed for dive bombing, This is a key distinction.
Typical bomb load as a DB was 1500lb (2 x 500 + 2x 250lb plus flares for night ops) for the (also Swordfish ) Albacore and Barracuda. Max was 2000lb (4 x 500lb or a single 1600 (max used in carrier ops ) or 2000lb for the Barracuda) Both could an carry external drop tank and theoretically reduce the bomb load for increased range.Regarding the Albacore and Barracuda as dive-bombers, what were the typical loadouts for this DB role? I'm trying to get a feel how they compared with the SBD and D3A. At any rate, at 215kts VNe the Albacore is terribly slow, on one hand it's slow speed presumably helps it aim better, on the other hand it means more time exposed to AA.
Iirc the typical dive speed (presumably not VNe) for the D3A is 240 kts, not sure for the SBD, but probably in the same region?
PS: Yes, it was about 240-250 knots for the SBD too.
The US 8in Cruisers used about 100,000 to 107,000hp until the Baltimore's 120,000hp for 13,000 tons (heavier when loaded)I didn't find any info about fuel consumption at cruise speed but I'd expect at cruise speed the Alaska would have a bigger advantage, maybe fuel consumption being roughly proportional to the displacement as a first guess. So yes, less fuel consumption than a battleship, but then again compared to a 10kton cruiser, yeah the Alaskas will gulp down fuel at a fearsome rate.
During the August 1942 strike the D3A1 bomb load had to be reduced to 2 x 60kg bombs (see Lundstrom), so not really an advertisement for extreme range. It shows the incredible stupidity that the IJN sometimes exhibited.Yeah should have mentioned this 322 as well, it's even worse!
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!
Now please note that this cruiser could out distance the max range of Warspite's "hit" (not the max range of the Warspite) by almost 6000 yds so everybody was under delusions as to how far they could really hit at. Some people were beginning to catch on that combat just might be at ranges under 20,000yds and faster firing 6in guns might work better more of the time.
The D3A1s sent against Guadalcanal were land-based, and had been optimized for ground support.During the August 1942 strike the D3A1 bomb load had to be reduced to 2 x 60kg bombs (see Lundstrom), so not really an advertisement for extreme range. It shows the incredible stupidity that the IJN sometimes exhibited.
In 1940 Skuas sank Konigsberg at ~300nm from their base.
The drop speed limit for the Mk XII was raised via mods to an eventual 250-270 knots (Campbell). The Mk XV, it's mid war replacement started at 270 knots. The Zero would have a hard time following an Albacore in a vertical dive, certainly harder then one flying straight and level.
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.
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.
That's true. Modified airliners aren't always bad. Hudson in particular seemed to be a very, very useful aircraft. Ultimately very helpful to the Allied cause in many Theaters. Venturas were pretty good too. Most modified airliners though as far as I can think of don't make the greatest front line strike aircraft. Sparviero did pretty well but at great cost because they were a bit too vulnerable. The other Italian ones didn't do so well.
The point i was making is that these were rather obsolescent types compared to what the Japanese was using in the Pacific Theater.
So yes, less fuel consumption than a battleship, but then again compared to a 10kton cruiser, yeah the Alaskas will gulp down fuel at a fearsome rate.