Swordfish vs Devastator

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

1) Of the relatively low number of Stukas involved in strikes against the Malta convoys (only 41 were involved in the battle against Operation Pedestal which was probably the biggest battle of them all), prior to 1942 it was mostly Ju 87B - i.e. 370 miles range.
2) So far as I know there were no Fw 190s flying either strikes or bomber escort missions against any of the Malta convoys. There was only one Fw 190 fighter unit in North Africa and they were there a short time. They did use some Fw 190s during the invasion of Sicily though not with spectacular results, because by then they were up against a massive force.
3) Therefore most of the escorts for the Ju 87s, if they had any, were either Bf 109 or MC 202 (if they were lucky) or MC 200, G.50, or CR 42. All short ranged aircraft.
4) But regardless, according to the Axis accounts, the Ju 87 itself was very limited in range, this was a constant complaint. To be honest, I flat out don't believe any Stuka had an operational range of 700 miles during the war. Even if they did carry a ton of extra fuel in external tanks, that would severely limit the bomb load they could carry as I already pointed out upthread.
5) The D3A did tend to take high casualties, but they pressed home their attacks anyway. They managed to fight their way through US fighter CAP (Wildcats / Martlets for the most part, plus some P-39, Buffalo, and P-40s) and score crippling or killing hits against well defended targets with a lot of AAA on numerous occasions. What they lacked in armor they made up to some extent in agility and from having very good pilots. The combat record of the D3A in naval warfare is hard to beat.


My point about the short range of the Axis aircraft involved, is that in comparison to some of the battles in the Pacific, these convoy fights went on and on and covered quite a bit of distance. Thus, not all the enemy aircraft arrayed for battle were involved at the same time. So it's a bit off base to imply that these were the equivalent engagements, aside from all the biplanes and bizarre oddball planes involved on both sides.
 

The DAF was too far away to intervene and opposite them was the Axis AFs based in north Africa. But lets see what the IJNAF had in their inventory in mid 1942 - pick a battle and show us the numbers?
 
Actually, the DAF did intervene at least once that I know of during Pedestal, specifically to chase off some Ju 88s. Some of the DAF fighters had relatively good range. DAF Beaufighters (deployed as a Night Fighter unit) also did a bunch of maritime strikes and ASW patrols.
 

The Axis aircraft were operating from 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and had much more staying power than IJN carrier aircraft as a consequence.

The 89 CR42, G.50, Re2000, and Mc200s were at least as good as the A5M4 Claude which was still a common aircraft in the 1942 IJN inventory. Biplane and flying boat recon aircraft were still common in the IJN.

The 78 x M202 and Re2001 were as good or better than the Zero.

I counted 176 trimotor RAI bombers - these all had similar performance to the G3M Nell and G4M Betty and typically the same or better bomb loads and many carried torpedoes. Again, the IJN was never able to assemble a Multiengine strike force this large against the USN from 1942 to mid 1944.

41 x JU87 = 164 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.
144 Ju88 = 1126 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.

total strike bomb load = 1290 x D3A1 Vals.

These aircraft alone probably had more striking power than the IJN ever assembled in the mid war period and to them we can add 10 x He111Hs

The 43 x Bf109Fs were far superior to the Zero and to any Allied naval fighter at that time. The Bf110C was also faster than any Allied naval fighter and had fearsome firepower and would be devastating to Allied strike aircraft. In the fighter bomber role they were extremely hard to intercept.

Range is a yes/no binary. Did the Axis aircraft have the range to escort and/or attack Allied naval forces? = yes.
 
Last edited:

On the same day (11 Jan 1941) that Illustrious was attacked with 500 or 1000kg bombs, Ju87Rs also attacked the cruisers HMS Southampton and Gloucester which were almost 300 miles from Sicily and therefore assumed they were out of range of the Luftwaffe's Stukas:

They were still within
the reach of the long-range Ju 87R-1
'Richards'. The ships had been sighted car-
lier and now, at 1500, led by an He 111 to
the spot, twelve Stukas of Maj Ennec-
cerus's IL./St. G. 2 surprised the British
squadron in an attack from out of the sun
in position 34 degrees, 54 min N, 18
degrees 24 min E, almost 300 miles east of
their Sicilian bases. (Smith Ju87 Stuka)

Southampton was sunk and Gloucester damaged.
 
Late to the party as usual but I'm a bit confused by:


Um, did I miss a major battle in the Pacific War? It's a bit of a stretch to say the RN "went up against the KB" because yes, both fleets were in the same ocean if that's what you mean. As memory serves, Sommerville spent most of his time keeping well away from KdB. Granted I believe he was angling for the much adored night radar torpedo attack, but I don't see much correlation to the Coral Sea action soon afterwards, and certainly not the battle off Midway in June.
 

Woah... hold on there tiger. Nice try Please show me where 89 A5M4 were involved in any combat in the Pacific? Their combat use was primarily in China, and only a handful ever saw action against the USN, there were a handful on the CVL Shōhō, of which TWO were in action the day it got sunk at Coral Sea (May 1942). As far as I know, no A5M saw action against the USN after that day.

The vast majority - more than 95% of Japanese fighters that saw action in the Pacific Theater were either A6M, Ki-43, or more modern types like the Ki-61. There were a few of the lumbering Ki-45 around here and there (basically identical to Bf 110 but with twice the range).

IJN inventory. Biplane and flying boat recon aircraft were still common in the IJN.
Click to expand...

Yeah they had a few biplane recon aircraft, I think just the F1M flying from cruisers etc., but not biplane fighters homeboy. In fact their main float plane was the excellent A6M2-N which was far superior to all of those planes stationed on Sardinia. Nor did the Japanese try to use flying boats as bombers or strike aircraft but the RA did with those 506Z.

The 78 x M202 and Re2001 were as good or better than the Zero.
Click to expand...
The MC 202 is probably comparable, but better? I don't think so. Keep in mind the Zero had 20mm cannon. The Re 2001 was a promising design but I don't think it was up to the level of an A6M.

I counted 176 trimotor RAI bombers - these all had similar performance to the G3M Nell and G4M Betty and typically the same or better bomb loads and many carried torpedoes.
Click to expand...

The combat record of these aircraft says otherwise.

41 x JU87 = 164 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.
Click to expand...
Lol, yet another very long reach. 41 Ju 87 are not equal to 41 D3A1 let alone 4 times as many. In a naval strike, how much ordinance were they carrying? More importantly, how far could they carry it? The Ju 87 carried a single bomb capable of harming a large ship, same as the D3A1.

144 Ju88 = 1126 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.
Click to expand...
So now the Ju 88 is a carrier aircraft?

total strike bomb load = 1290 x D3A1 Vals.
Click to expand...

Wow... considering that "Vals", operating with no more than a few dozen at a time, sunk 3 or 4 full size fleet carriers, the HMS Hermes (RN carrier), at least 3 heavy cruisers, 12 destroyers (a few of them British) and scores of merchant ships and lesser vessels, I guess this means that the Luftwaffe must have sunk 20 or 30 carriers and 40 or 50 other warships, right?


Actually no, range is not a yes / no binary. Range is about little circles on a map, and each of the 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' represents the epicenter of one of those circles. In naval combat, as soon as an enemy ship or fleet moves beyond that range, it can no longer be attacked. In the case of fighter aircraft being used as escorts, it means that if your bomber range circle is bigger, it can still attack but without escort. Which is in fact what frequently happened during 'Pedastal'.

Whether the Bf109F was 'far superior' to the Zero is another questionable claim, but I'll cover this a bit more in the next post.
 
Ok time for a reality check.

If you want a realistic comparison of aircraft involved in the naval air war in the Mediterranean vs. the Pacific, you need look no further than a few miles south of where the convoys were steaming past... the Desert Air War.

The Desert Air War was very intense by the time of Pedestal. But it took a while to get there.

When the fighting first started in 1940, the fighting was done mainly between Gloster Gladiators and CR 32s and later more and more CR 42 biplanes. It was like a late WW I redux. The Gladiators had a slight edge in the fighter combat but struggled to catch Axis bombers, and bombers on both sides (mainly Blenheims and some Lysanders on the British side, with SM 79, Br 20 and later a few He 111s on the Axis side) were fairly safe, the notion that 'the bomber always gets through' holding true for a little while. Bombers in Theater weren't really that effective at ground attack though as they were still figuring that out, and the war carried on in spite of them.

But it gradually heated up, with each side escalating and introducing new and better aircraft. The British brought in Hurricanes and got Maryland bombers into action, which were too fast for Italian biplanes to catch. The Italians brought in their Fiat G.50 and Macchi MC 200 fighters to help even the odds, and the Germans sent in some Ju 87s which were far better at ground attack than any other bombers in the Theater. To help even the air to air score the Germans also sent some Bf 110s. The British then deployed Tomahawks, which proved dangerous opponents for both the Bf 110 and the MC 200. Hurricane Mk IIs with 4 x 20 mm cannon were very good at destroying bombers and were dangerous strafers, capable of destroying light armored vehicles and ordinance efficiently. The Germans brought in the first elements of JG .27 with Bf 109E and later F fighters. The Brits got fast Baltimore and Boston bombers and brought in Kittyhawks, and the Germans deployed the first Ju 88s. And so on.

By the time of Pedestal, all of the third and fourth tier aircraft had been forced out of the front line in the Desert, to be replaced by the best available. The first Spitfire Mk V had arrived on Malta in April 1942 and in North Africa shortly after, forming the top fighter tier. Kittyhawk Mk II and III were the main fighter after that, followed by Tomahawks and Hurricane II, Kittyhawk I and a few Hurricane I though the latter were mostly being used as fighter-bombers by then. The Americans sent some P-39s but after a few disastrous engagements they were quickly relegated to 'coastal patrol'. They also had a few Martlets. The Blenheims and Lysanders were also long gone, as were the SM. 79s, CANT 1007s, Bf 110s and He 111s - all basically relegated to maritime operations. Ju 88s and Ju 87s flew very careful sorties and were quick to jettison their bombs and flee for home when they saw Allied fighters, and took heavily casualties every time they were caught. P-38s arrived in Nov 1942 and the Americans brought in B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers, and B-25s and B-26s. The Germans were flying Bf 109F and G fighters, the Italians MC 202s and only a few MC 200. The elite JG 27 was starting to crack under the strain and started to rotate out by Oct 1942, being replaced by JG 77.

Now here's the thing. The Allied fighters involved in the land battle in North Africa in 1942 consisted of the following:

P-38F / G
Spitfire V
P-40
Hurricane
P-39
Martlet

Bombers consisted of:

Baltimore
Boston / A-20
B-25
B-26
B-17
B-24

This is basically the same mix of aircraft the Allies were using in the Pacific. In both cases, the Allied fighters struggled against the Axis, achieving something slightly below parity but gradually wearing down the Axis opposition through steadily increasing numbers and gradually improving tactics. The tactics used were different, because the Axis aircraft and their tactics were different, but there was a remarkably similar curve - from defeat and doom in the early part of 1942 to near parity by the middle.

In the Pacific, the Spitfire, as we know, for whatever combination of reasons struggled against the A6M. The P-40s got slaughtered early in the year in the Philippines and Java but held their own at Milne Bay etc. mid-year The P-39 was barely surviving in Guadalcanal etc., the Hurricanes got slaughtered every time they encountered A6M or Ki 43 fighters as far as I know. The F4F Martlet / Wildcat was much more prominent in the Pacific, and was basically on par with the P-40, that is to say, they just barely held their own against A6M.

Basically, these were the best combat aircraft the Allies had and they were struggling roughly to the same extent against the Japanese as they were against the Germans and Italians using the same planes. To me this suggests that the opposition was roughly of equal potency.

However, if we then pan the camera north, the scene changes dramatically. It's almost like going back in time 5 years to the Spanish Civil War era. In the maritime conflicts and convoy fights, all the antiques were heavily engaged. Allied fighters included:

Spitfire (a few, never enough)
Hurricanes
Sea Hurricanes
Fairey Fulmars
Blackburn Skuas
Gloster Gladiators
Sea Gladiators

and of course.. the bombers included Swordfish and Albacores. This too is where the Italians were able to still use their obsolescent SM 79, SM 84, SM 82, and CANT 1007 and 506 bombers, as well as their few remaining venerable CR 42 and G.50 fighters, their MC 200s, and the Germans could roll out their Bf 110s and He 111s along with Ju 87s and their (quite good) Ju 88s.

To me this highlights the fact that the convoy fights, important as they were, were a tertiary level of combat compared to the Pacific OR to the Western Desert.
 
Last edited:

That's not true. On the afternoon of April 5 Somerville's two carriers closed to within 150nm of the KB (and 5 IJN fleet carriers), located the KB via recon Albacores, whilst being undetected themselves and were preparing to launch a night strike, when the IJN intercepted the 2nd Albacore and prevented it from sending an accurate position report. The KB, which knew it had been detected by RN carrier aircraft, turned east to disengage and didn't move west again for 3 more days. Somerville spent that entire night probing for the KB with a strike prepared to go, but thought the KB had moved north west and could not reacquire them. On 6 or 7 April Somerville learned that he was up against the entire KB (less one fleet carrier), but also learned that no invasion was imminent, and then sent his older battleships to Kenya and his fast carriers north to Bombay.

If Fletcher had learned that the entire KB was heading towards him at Coral Sea, he too would have had to disengage or risk complete destruction. At Midway, the KB was down to 4 fleet carriers, whilst the USN had 3 and the equivalent of one or two more via strike aircraft at Midway Island, including ASV equipped PBYs.
 
Last edited:
"Schweik, please report to the principles office."

A fellow student in your class complained about you calling him a homeboy. (What is a homeboy anyhow that makes it so offensive?) Please address your fellow students by their name from now on.

To anyone listening. Threatening a "war of insults" over the word homeboy will not be tolerated either. This is not the 4th grade. Start acting like adults. There is no need for insults, real or perceived. At the same time, a little thicker skin would not be so bad either.

Now can we all debate like adults, and get along? Act amicable at the very least?
 
Last edited:
I apologize for the use of "homeboy". It is a common colloquialism where I live, with no negative connotations that I am aware of. To the contrary, it implies a friendly failiarity, similar (or so I have been lead to believe) to 'mate' in the UK and elsewhere in the Anglo-American sphere.

I also meant nothing pejorative by the appellation "tiger". It was meant in the spirit of friendly banter, nothing more.

If I was being overfamiliar, I apologize for that as well.
 
All kidding aside, I think what is actually being revealed here is that years ago when many of us were youngsters being educated on military history, each national (or pan-national, in the case of the Commonwealth) tradition had it's own heavy emphasis on the exploits of the home nation. On the kit used and especially designed and produced by their own countrymen. And on the Theaters where their uncles and fathers and grandfathers fought.

So as a kid growing up in the US, and my dad a Navy veteran, I learned all about the exploits in the Pacific Theater. Read the books, listened to the interviews, watched the documentaries and played the SPI games (and later even a few computer games, though they were never as fun). I didn't really know much about the Mediterranean Theater until fairly recently, and most of what I know about the Channel front I learned on this board.

As the result our assumptions are different, our emphasis is different, our sense of perspective is skewed toward what is deeply familiar to us. I always grew up thinking of the Imperial Japanese Navy as by far the most dangerous Axis foe at sea, (and to be honest, I still think that was the case) but I can understand why someone growing up in the UK or Commonwealth, or Italy, might think the Med was more important. To be honest until I got on this board I didn't know about the Swordfish carrying radar or the Albacore being capable of dive bombing, and that's quite interesting. Doesn't mean I changed my mind about MTO convoys vs. Pacific Theater naval throwdowns, but it is great to learn new things about all this. And helps me partly understand why those types remained in production and use for so long.

Until yesterday I had no idea what the radar screen on a WW2 aircraft looked like, and now I do. Fantastic. It looks fantastic. So maybe we should do more learning from each other and less getting bent out of shape every time we disagree on the range of a Bf 110 or a Ju 87.

After all, though it's hard to even conceive of this right now that I'm mentally sitting in the backseat of a Swordfish, there are millions, no I think it's fair to say billions of people out there who don't give a crap about WW2, or torpedo planes, or radar, and will never know the joy of arguments like this. We have far more in common with each other than we do with those poor deprived souls.

Just my $.02.

S
 

Yup, agree, but the insistence of the FAA on producing specs where one aircraft does everything makes for a complicated beast. The Barra spec was written at a time when the FAA was going from RAF to navy control and could have benefitted from some restraint. It should have been a better aircraft than it was but the navy had already decided that modern (that is, all-metal, high performance) aircraft should be able to do as much as possible for several reasons back in the early 1930s; that is, because their increase in size and complexity meant limited space on a small number of carriers, which accounted for torpedo/dive bomber/reconnaissance aircraft, and the slightly impracticable fighter/dive bomber specification.

Schweik said:
Trying to jam too many roles in the multi-role design is another chronic problem with American designs
Click to expand...

I think the British may have beat the USA to that particular thing!

Reluctant Poster said:
The Swordfish successor should have been a monoplane.
Click to expand...

Yup, in hindsight. Britain had a march over every other navy in aerial torpedo operations and old habits die hard. The very first aircraft carrier based torpedo aircraft had no armament at all (apart from the torpedo) and were single-seaters. Their defence was flying low and slow and evading enemy interference by manoeuvring. This was the Sopwith T.1 of 1917 vintage and carried through to the post war RAF Fleet Air Arm's first torpedoplane, the Blackburn Dart, again a single-seater with no defensive armament. The Swordfish wasn't far removed in technology from the Dart, as was its replacements in the Baffin and Ripon, which were essentially based on the Dart's design, but enlarged and fitted with more equipment and people on board to satisfy increased roles, such as fleet spotter/reconnaissance duties. The Albacore was the ultimate in the British torpedoplane thought process and, to all intents and purposes a sound design, but, as with so many aircraft we discuss on this forum, was overtaken by technological development, yet, by sheer experience and practicability was eminently suited for the role it was designed to fulfil. The Barracuda was supposed to be the Applecore's and the dive bomber Skua's replacement - see above.


Schweik said:
I also meant nothing pejorative by the appellation "tiger". It was meant in the spirit of friendly banter, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Yup, same as the phrase "easy tiger" (which I've used recently!) - it's a colloquialism designed to highlight someone's over enthusiasm, rather than said as an insult.
 
Last edited:

What? Ju 87B-2 could carry 1000 kg bomb only as an overload and it meant that the rear gunner was leaved on the ground. A Ju 87 B as a single seater carrying a 1000 kg bomb would be a sitting duck for any enemy fighter. And if a Ju 87 R was carrying droptanks for extra range, its bombload was limited to one 250 kg bomb.

Ju 87 B/R could carry in short range attacks heavier loads, that is true because Val's load was either one 250 kg bomb OR two 60 kg bombs, the latter was really a rather laughable load for an anti-shipping strike. But for long range missions both Ju 87 R and Val carried the same max. bomb load, namely one 250 kg bomb
 
I'm well aware of the information in both of those paragraphs thank you. Fact is, Fletcher WAS there to stop an invasion like it or not. Although he did have the luxury of reinforcements in the form of Enterprise and Hornet i.e. TF16, which was hauling ass down from Pearl Harbor after the Doolittle strike. So if KdB showed up in force (5 - 6 CV's), Fletcher could have bided his time until help arrived. Then it's mano a mano boys, bring your A game and may the best carriers win. Also remember, American carrier air groups were larger than their IJN counterparts, so the USN may be outnumbered in flight decks but would have almost parity in numbers of aircraft engaged. As it was, the IJN came whithin a whisker of losing all three carriers devoted to the MO operation.

No disrespect to the RN in the Indian Ocean at the time, but Sommervile was a one trick pony, he could hazard a night torpedo attack, which in my estimation stood a very good chance of success. But that was all, once daylight comes it might get ugly, but I tend to think he could have put down a couple of IJN carriers in the night attack. I don't like his odds fending off a daylight attack from KdB the next morning if he's still in range. I think he would have been savvy enough to get the hell out of Dodge as soon as the night strike was back.
 

Fletcher also had the potential support of land based aircraft from New Guinea, which he may have needed to move closer to in the event of being more heavily outnumbered.


Yep. I don't think you'd want to rely on Fulmars to protect you from ~150 Japanese strike aircraft. The likelihood of swift doom would have been very high. It would also be a big risk to make a night attack during the night itself, because due to the very short range of the Swordfish, the RN fleet would have to get very close to launch and recover a strike, and there was the distinct possibility of running into a Japanese surface fleet. If the IJN sent out some of their destroyers with those long-lance torpedoes, even a few of them could have wrecked the British fleet. Not to even speak of the larger surface ships.
 

The Luftwaffe (OB from Operation Pedestal) was flying JU87Ds and I know that they were carrying 1000kg bombs, because they hit Indomitable with two of them. In the Fall of 1941 Ju87Bs hit the Soviet battleship Marat with 1000kg AP bombs and there is strong evidence that they used the same on HMS Illustrious in Jan 1941. The JU87R could carry the same bomb weight for short range missions, and due to the operational requirements of the Malta Convoys FAA carriers had to operate within the JU87B radius of action with a 1000kg bomb. I already indicated, in a prior post (#245), that the JU87-R traded bomb weight for extra fuel for long range missions.
 

Basically, you are saying that Fletcher would probably withdraw until reinforced (if intel indicated he was up against the entire KB) , and I'm sure Somerville thought the same, after he learned that he was up against the entire KB (of course there was only a single RN fleet carrier due to arrive in May). Somerville's initial intel was that he faced a two fleet carrier IJN force.

Somerville was prepared to launch daylight strikes if the weather conditions gave the Albacores a reasonable chance of evading CAP, but of course he would not dare to do this against the actual forces against him and the historical weather.
 
Last edited:
There is more to bomber effectiveness than tonnage carried. At the time of the April 1942 slaughter of the RN fleet near Ceylon, the 85 x D3A1, escorted by 9 zeros which easily breezed past the escort of Fairy Fulmars (shooting down two on the way) and half of them locating their target, quickly sunk the HMS Hermes, these IJN dive bombers with their original highly trained crews had a bombing accuracy rate of over 80%. They had developed a new method for attacking warships of using general purpose HE bombs in the first wave, to wipe out the light AA, and then the armor-piercing bombs in the second wave. Their 250 kg bombs had no trouble sinking the Hermes and 5 other ships, then later another 3 more for the loss of 4 only bombers to all causes.

In spite of being unarmored, the D3A was agile and maneuverable enough to survive combat with naval or land based fighters. When they engaged the land based fighters of 258 Squadron in Ceylon in two raids on April 5 1942, the toll on the IJN was 5 x D3A and 1 A6M lost, for 8 x Hurricanes and 3 x Fulmars. Then in a second engagement 1 x D3A was lost and 8 more Hurricanes destroyed.. In all 16 x Hurricanes, 4 Fulmars, 4 Blenheims and 6 Swordfish (which were just flying through the area) were shot down. Numerous fighters and light bombers were also destroyed on the ground. They lost at least one Albacore and two PBYs flying recon missions. As far as I can determine the IJN lost a total of 9 x Val bombers and 3 x A6M. In addition to the Hermes (which was hit by no less than 40 x 250 kg bombs), the British lost the armed merchant cruiser Hector, the Cruisers Dorsetshire and Cornwall, 2 destroyers, 23 merchant ships, and 2 light war vessels. One US and one Australian ship were also lost. I think that proves the deadliness of the Japanese naval forces against RN and RAF at that time.

But if you are extremely fixated on heavy bomb weights, D3A was not the only Japanese strike aircraft available in the mid-war. the Yokosuka D4Y (combat debut in 1942), which made 340 mph and had a 950 mile range with ordinance, carried a 500 kg bomb. Not that you really need that if you can hit an enemy carrier 40 times.
 
Here's another way to look at it. I would say on that one day of April 5 the IJN wroght more havoc than the losses of the entirety of operation Pedestal which went on for 12 days, and suffered fewer losses themselves in the process.

At least according to Wikipedia, in and near Ceylon, the IJN almost all on April 5, destroyed the following -

1 x Carrier (Hermes)
2 x Heavy cruisers
2 x Destroyers
1 x "Armed merchant cruiser"
1 x Corvette
1 x Sloop
23 x Merchant ships
40+ aircraft

The Japanese lost 20+ aircraft

During Pedastal 3-15 August, according to Wikipedia the Germans and Italians destroyed the following:

1 x Aircraft Carrier + 1 damaged
2 x Light Cruisers + 2 damaged
1 x Destroyer
9 x Merchant ships +3 damaged
34 aircraft destroyed

and lost 2 x submarines and 40-60 aircraft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
Narvik Swordfish
Replies
3
Views
939
buffnut453
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register