Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What about the MC202, RE 2001 and the JU 88? I would rate these three as better than what the IJN could bring to fight. The Italian tri motors were also pretty good.
Yeah, I don't buy that, for one because quantity is only one factor, there is a big difference in quality especially between Italian and Japanese aircraft vis a vis naval warfare. MC.200, CR 32 and CR 42, SM.79, CANT Z506 and so on don't compare very well to A6M, Ki-43, D3A, G4M in air to air or air to surface combat. The IJN was the strongest navy in the world by far in 1942-43.
Range is another major factor, because the extremely limited range of almost all the Axis aircraft in the MTO (including their best fighter, the Bf 109, and their best bomber, the Ju 87) meant that most of those 600 aircraft could not engage at the same time, but in fact the British convoys were typically only engaging a few dozen aircraft at a time.
So sorry mate, I don't even come close to buying that. Maybe we should start another thread to debate it?
The Me110, Me109F/G, Fw190 were all superior to IJN fighters and all carried drop tanks.
The JU87, even in Jan 1941 could and did, carry 1000kg (2200lb bombs) and the JU88 2000kg bombs, and this is, respectively, 4 and 8 times the bomb load of a Val in June 1942. The initial Ju87 strike against Illustrious in Jan 1941 by ~35 Ju87s carried an equivalent bomb load to 70 - 140 Vals. The Ju87R and Ju88 had excellent range but in any event, the RN had to pass through Axis controlled choke points if it was to escort convoys and/or strike at Axis maritime targets, so the lesser range of a JU87 with a 1000kg bomb wasn't such a disadvantage
This is what the USN had to say:
"At Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio the enemy launched heavy attacks against shipping at the beachheads. Dive- and high-level bombing and strafing tactics were employed. In the summer of 1943 the Germans began to use glider and rocket bombs. These pilotless, radio-controlled bombs were released from parent planes, and were directed chiefly against convoy escort ships."
HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II
I was responding to this post by the way: "The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the Albacore. both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The RN adopted the Avenger on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the Barracuda. "
I'm not sure what you mean, at some point upthread someone brought up the Albacore, which became part of the discussion, and then later someone asked about why the TBF was considered inferior to the Albacore, and I responded by pointing out that was not the case - TBF is actually significantly better. Better than the Barracuda too according to the Royal Navy. Several other people have chimed in about TBF and Albacore since then (maybe you missed it, re-read the thread?) as well as the original discussion of TBD and Swordfish. As they were all stablemates used by the Western Allies against the same enemies, it is probably relevant as far as context. At any rate, I don't think there is any rule against thread drift, it seems pretty routine in every lengthy discussion I've seen here.
For the record though, as I have already stipulated I think six times, in my opinion the TBD was disaster of a design, obsolescent at the start of the war and barely capable of performing it's mission, and the (also obsolescent) Swordfish was marginally better. Which I think says more about the TBD than it does about the Swordfish. But having airborne AS radar that early is still cool.
Yes, definitely worse than a TBF, which could fly at level speed faster than Swordfish or Albacore could in a dive. I also do not believe Albacore had 'similar' range as a (mid-war) TBF, operationally or otherwise. We'd have to take a deeper dive into those numbers.
Yes, but as noted in the Wiki, they were considered so badly performing in the Pacific Theater that the RN decided to withdraw them... in favor of the Avenger / Tarpon. Which I think puts paid to your theory.
I believe the quote on the bad performance was derived from RN sources. I suspect they would have been much better off using CorsairsOr even Fireflies.
Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.
The D3A was a far more effective naval dive bomber than the Ju 87 - which had a range of 370 miles!
The very small number of glider bombs while quite effective, so far as I know, were never used against any RN convoys to Malta etc.
We should probably start another thread for this particular debate.
The D3A was totally obsolete by mid 1941 by ETO standards and far inferior to the JU87B and R and JU88.
Me 110 had a dramatically "less than excellent" combat record in the MTO, even against Hurricanes and Fulmars, firepower doesn't matter a whole lot if you never manage to point your guns at the enemy aircraft. It had mediocre range at best (411 to 530 miles under normal conditions), unless burdened down with huge ferry tanks. As far as comparing it to Japanese fighters, the Bf 110 is equivalent to a shorter ranged Ki-45.
The Ju 87B had a range of less than 370miles, the D3A1 had a range of 915 miles. That's a big difference. The Ju-87R was equivalent to the D3A1 in range, but only with a bomb load limited to a single 250 kg bomb.
The D3A was still easily capable of killing capital ships well into 1943. It was far more lethal (and had a far better combat record) than the Devastator, the Swordfish, or the Albacore, that is without a doubt.
The drastically limited range of all the single-engined Luftwaffe aircraft severely curtailed their capability for naval operations. Some of the convoys passed very near the shoreline, and frankly they were so pathetically protected (with Sea Gladiators, Skuas and Fulmars for protection in the early days) that even just a few dozen aircraft at a time were able to decimate them. But your claim that the Royal Navy was up against ~600 German and Italian aircraft - in your words a "greater force than the Japanese ever mustered until the Philippine Sea", is ludicrous. The IJN would have annihilated those convoys. They devastated the Royal Navy Far East fleet with far less than they had available for most of the major Sea Battles in 1942-44.
Aircraft with ~400 miles range were fine for frontal aviation, which is mainly how they were used, but certainly would not have been much use operating from a carrier.
As for the assessment, I think you are taking that out of context.
Hey Just Schmidt,
In the early-war period we are talking about (ie Devastator) there was not really any blindfire capable radar system (I think).
As for distinguishing one class of ship from another, it would be difficult unless the radar operator is experienced and the radar environment is amenable to doing so.
The photo below is from a Yagi aerial ASV Mk II radar such as used on the Swordfish I (& II?). The spike at the bottom is most likely clutter from immediately in front of the radar platform (either ground or water). The spike about half-way up the 'A' scope is from the target and indicates it's range. The overall width of the target spike is an indication of its size, while the greater amplitude of the spike on the left of the centerline indicates that the target is slightly to the left of the line of flight of the aircraft. An experienced operator might be able to estimate the target size from the ratio of range vs the width of the target spike. But the spike width would change considerably depending on the target (ie a ship in this case) aspect, ie whether the ship was heading toward/away from the radar, or moving cross-heading (ie the target is broadside to the radar).
View attachment 609435
The drastically limited range of all the single-engined Luftwaffe aircraft severely curtailed their capability for naval operations. Some of the convoys passed very near the shoreline, and frankly they were so pathetically protected (with Sea Gladiators, Skuas and Fulmars for protection in the early days) that even just a few dozen aircraft at a time were able to decimate them. But your claim that the Royal Navy was up against ~600 German and Italian aircraft - in your words a "greater force than the Japanese ever mustered until the Philippine Sea", is ludicrous. The IJN would have annihilated those convoys. They devastated the Royal Navy Far East fleet with far less than they had available for most of the major Sea Battles in 1942-44.
Lol right back a you! Everything I said was a fact. The actual historical record of the Bf110 in the MTO was that it was considered so hopeless in combat it was basically grounded except for occasional fighter bomber strikes. I am very familiar with the actual historical record of combat in the MTO - I have a whole bookshelf on that including all of the 'Mediterranean Air War' series which go through each engagement day by day. Your claims do not jibe with the data.
Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.
The D3A was a far more effective naval dive bomber than the Ju 87 - which had a range of 370 miles!
.
The range of the Ju 87D-5 (which had a greater wing span) was recorded as 715 km (443 mi) at ground level and 835 km (517 mi) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft).
With drop tanks we might get another 200 miles (700 miles total)
Thanks, good post. 443 miles range is less than half the range of a D3A. By coincidence it's exactly 1/4 the range of a G4M.
Ju 87 was designed as a frontal aviation bomber, and it was good in that role. As a naval aircraft (or land based aircraft use against maritime targets) it was extremely limited. Fine for attacking ships in the English channel, but limited in as large an arena as the Mediterranean, let alone the Pacific.