WW2 USN Strategic Bombing Capability (1 Viewer)

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

Where did I claim that? You claimed the USN didn't attack Japan directly until July, & you are wrong.
a few posts back, you stated:
What would've stopped them 6 months earlier was that they were busy invading Iwo Jima.

As I noted earlier, the USN did work over Nippon in Feb 1945, between the Iwo, & Okinawa jobs.
( when it was "convenient", & why not).
The only thing that got worked over, was the Franklin

So how about you get back on the thread's topic?
 
Based on what data?

Do you Know what the tonnages are? Or is it a guess? There were hundreds of bomb capable aircraft available,
& they'd even put ashore many of the torpedo only planes, due to lack of potential targets,

Read the OP.

And then tell me that they were a capable strategic bombing force.
 
Funny no "battlewagons" there, but the USN was, & beat the hell out of the Japanese defences.
Shame on you to besmirch the 700 American boys who died on the Franklin like that too..
They didn't beat any Japanese defenses...and you do NOT even start to lecture me on "besmirching" ANY casualties.

Period.
 
I just did..

& the USSBS* reports that USN aircraft ( not even counting thousands of massive artillery shells) dropped
"6,800 tons" of bombs on Japan, 3/4ths of which were "directed against...military targets" & the other 1/4th
on "economic" targets, & "accuracy was high...at least 50% hits within 250 ft of the aiming point".

* US Strategic Bombing Survey.
Nope...wrong, your circular argument is falling apart and growing very tiresome.

You claimed that surface vessels "beat the hell out of Japanese defenses".

I'm calling you out on that.

I want you to tell me in detail: which US surface fleet vessels did this in February of 1945.

I want you to tell me what task force, which ships and what targets were involved.

Until you can provide this information to back your previous claims, you have absolutely no credibility around here.

In otherwords, put up or shut up.
 
I just did..

& the USSBS* reports that USN aircraft ( not even counting thousands of massive artillery shells) dropped
"6,800 tons" of bombs on Japan, 3/4ths of which were "directed against...military targets" & the other 1/4th
on "economic" targets, & "accuracy was high...at least 50% hits within 250 ft of the aiming point".

* US Strategic Bombing Survey.

From The Blitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The Luftwaffe dropped around 45,000 short tons (41,000 t) of bombs during the Blitz disrupting production and transport, reducing food supplies and shaking the British morale. It also helped to support the U-Boat blockade by sinking some 58,000 long tons (59,000 t) of shipping destroyed and 450,000 long tons (460,000 t) damaged.
 
Yes, ta, & in how many attacks? How many tons per raid?

From the Wiki page on the Blitz:
Over a period of 267 days, London was attacked 71 times, Birmingham, Liverpool and Plymouth eight times, Bristol six, Glasgow five, Southampton four, Portsmouth and Hull three and a minimum of one large raid on eight other cities.

That equates to 124 raids, or 330t (370 short tons) per raid.

It would require just 19 of those raids to equal the tonnage dropped on Japan by the USN according to the USSBS.

So, how many raids were done by the USN?
 
I just did..

& the USSBS* reports that USN aircraft ( not even counting thousands of massive artillery shells) dropped
"6,800 tons" of bombs on Japan, 3/4ths of which were "directed against...military targets" & the other 1/4th
on "economic" targets, & "accuracy was high...at least 50% hits within 250 ft of the aiming point".

* US Strategic Bombing Survey.

6,800 tons by the USN, and after consulting the USSBS, how much did the B-29s alone drop?

You have to remember, the USN was a mobile striking force that could overwhelm at any point of attack it chose. No land based installation could have enough assets to stop the 700-800+ aircraft the TF's could bring to the table. But a sustained strategic attack was probably a bit of a stretch for its capability. I could be wrong but I don't think the fleet train could keep the Task Force supplied with enough ammo, fuel, lubricants ect. for a long drawn out strategic campaign. Also remember ships need to return to port for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure the fleet train could keep them going for a good spell, but I think that's an unnecessary strain on resources.

And why would you want to? How many Helldivers or bomb carrying Avengers does it take to equal one B-29 tonnage wise?
 
Yeah right, is that why you have "shut up" on the Merlin-Meteor matter G-G,
& you just can't admit it - when you are wrong..proved wrong, just like in this thread.
I wasn't involved directly in that particular discussion, sport.

And as I recall, your fantastic claim of putting war-weary aircraft merlins in Metor tanks was proven absolutely wrong by several folks who tried (obviously in vain) to set you straight on that by providing data and detailed explanations.

So here we are, in a different thread and you're deflecting.
 
So, one B-29 crew=11, or after LeMay and XXI AF removed the defensive armament and crew, even less v. 10 carrier planes crewed by either two or three, say 25 total crew, plus the fuel for 10 engines v. 4 (albeit LARGE engines). 10 chances for a plane and crew loss or a bomb miss v. 1. Mmm... so far not seeing the advantage of having the USN try to do XXI Bomber Commands job.

Also, thanks for the info SR6.
 
So, one B-29 crew=11, or after LeMay and XXI AF removed the defensive armament and crew, even less v. 10 carrier planes crewed by either two or three, say 25 total crew, plus the fuel for 10 engines v. 4 (albeit LARGE engines). 10 chances for a plane and crew loss or a bomb miss v. 1. Mmm... so far not seeing the advantage of having the USN try to do XXI Bomber Commands job.

Also, thanks for the info SR6.
Didn't you mean the C-54 instead of the B-29? :lol:
 
Didn't you mean the C-54 instead of the B-29? :lol:
C-54 mine dropping crew.

042734.JPG
 
Sorry guys but I gave some wrong information on the B-29. It was good for 5000lb bomb load at a 1600 mile radius at high altitude and 12,000lbs at 1600 mile radius at medium altitude. That would make it equal to 2 1/2 to 6 carrier planes assuming the carrier planes carried 2,000lbs each.
I would view max bomb loads like 4000lbs for F6Fs or F4U-4s with extreme suspicion for carrier use. They may very well have used bomb loads like that from land bases on occasion but getting off the carrier deck with such a load might be a bit difficult. You also have the problem of the carrier magazines. You only have so much space and filling up space with extra heavy bombs that are used only on occasion means more frequent replenishment.
Carriers carried enough aviation fuel and munitions for around 5-7 days of intensive air operations. Keeping an Island airbase stocked was no picnic either but they sometimes stockpiled fuel and bombs for weeks while doing less intesive operations to get ready for a major (multiple raid) operation/campaign.
I would also note that the US 1600lb AP bomb was pretty much useless as a general bombardment weapon, having less explosive than a noraml 500lb GP bomb.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back