Vengence questions

[MacArther]

Hi everyone, been a long time since I made a post here. Anyway, I have conflicting specifications for the bomb load-out for Vengances. One article says they were only capable of one 500lb bomb. Yet another article says they can carry 2000lbs of bombs. Another question, one source lists the Vengance as having a top speed of 330 mph, while another lists it down at 275mph. Finaly, I have conflicting results on the gun armament of the Vengance. One source says that there were 4 forward firing 50 cals and two in the rear for defence, while another source lists 4 forward firing with one in the rear. Can ya help me with these questions?

 

[Wildcat]

Ah the Vengeance, one of my favourites! The bomb load is 2000lb's with 2x500lb bombs in the bomb bay and 1x500lb bomb under each wing. As for it's max speed, I also have conflicting data. The MkI,IA, II, III had a 1600hp Wright R-2600-19 Cyclone 14 cylinder radial with a top speed of about 250mph. On the other hand the improved (superior) MkIV had a 1700hp R-2600-13 radial which gave it a top speed of about 279mph. During a dive bombing run the aircraft would roll on to it's back at about 10 000ft and then go into a vertical dive at about 250mph, this speed would then build up to 300mph (max speed with dive brakes deployed). During the dive, the pilot would aim at the target and be adjusting his controls to hold the a/c on target. If the a/c went past the vertical during the dive, the pilot would would use the ailerons to roll the a/c through 180 degrees to return to a correct diving attitude. At about 3000ft the bombs were released after which the a/c began to pull out of the dive. Then the bomb bay doors were closed and the dive brakes retracted. The a/c would by then be doing about 400mph and by about 1 500ft the a/c would have reduced speed and resumed level flight. This would all have taken about 20 seconds.(note, this was the way the RAAF conducted their attacks, I'm not sure if the RAF did it the same way.)
As for armament the Mki, II and III's had 4x.303's in the wings and 2x.303's in the rear cockpit. On the MkIV however this was up graded to 4x50cals in wings and a single 50 cal in rear cockpit. Some MkIV's also had 6x50cals in the wings.
Hope this info helps Mac, by all reports the Vengeance was a very accurate dive bomber but was held back by is speed and range and the fact that it required a fighter escort. The RAAF in New Guniea and the RAF and RIAF in Burma achieved great results with the Vengeance and in some cases put 100% of bombs on target! Check out my sig for a great shot of RAAF Vengeances.

 

[Wildcat]

Here's some pics of RAAF Vengeances.

 

[MacArther]

Thank you! So the 330 miles per hour level speed is infact a falacy?

 

[Wildcat]

Yes I believe so. It would only reach those kinds of speeds while in a dive as mentioned above.

 

[plan_D]

Didn't post the picture of the crashed Vengence, eh, Wildcat? Heheh ...

 

[Wildcat]

Don't worry D, I haven't forgot who gave me some of those pics mate!!

 

[plan_D]

I was more implying that you didn't show it because you didn't want the Vengeance to be in a bad light. But now you mention it ... haha.

 

[Pete A]

Hello,
just wondering if anyone knows if the Vengeance MkIIa had USAAF serial numbers. Just find it surprising that the MkIa, MkIII, MkIVa and MkIV have them but not the MkIIa. I've gone through all the RAAF aircraft status cards online but have found nothing. Cheers.

 

[Micdrow]

If it had a US serial number you would probably be able to locate it at one of the two web sites below


USAAS-USAAC-USAAF-USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers--1908 to Present

US Navy and US Marine Corps Aircraft Serial Numbers and Bureau Numbers--1911 to Present

Enjoy Micdrow

 

[mosquitoman]

How come it wasn't used in the ETO?

 

[MacArther]

Self explanatory...After the Battle of Britain, the Western Allies seemed to believe that dive-bombers had reached their limit, and would no longer be a viable weapon in the European front. On this front, it was much more effective to send waves of bombers to flatten a whole area, rather than wipe out one squadron of divebombers while trying to hit one building. Also, targets needed more precision in the Pacific, especially when they were being hidden very well.
Also, Dive bombers were seen as too fragile (I think I heard that on WINGS) for European fighting. This belief may have stemmed from the problems the Stuka had holding its own without fighter escort. How does the lack of fighter escort play in? For a good part of the war, bombers were going un-escorted into Axis territory, so the solution was to put progressively more guns and armor on the bombers. In this light, the dive bomber was not protected enough to handle enemy fighters, not that the heavy bombers were sufficient alone either.

 

[mosquitoman]

right, thanks

 

[MacArther]

No problem, glad to be of assistance.

 

[JeffK]

They also suffered that most Fighters available could carry a similar load, be nearly as accurate and not need escort. They also only needed 1 crew.

The RAAF Mk IIa dont appear to have US Serials, they however have RAF codes, if built to a British order did they get US serials?