WW2 USN Strategic Bombing Capability

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

The Avenger could carry four 500lb GP bombs inside the bomb bay. It could carry a single 1000lb bomb. Some Avengers were fitted with rails for 4 rockets under each wing.
Avengers were hardly torpedo only.
Helldivers could carry two 1000lb bombs inside their bomb bay (and two 500lb bombs under wing).
Both planes had a range of just over 1000 miles while carrying 2000lb of bombs inside.

The Navy may very well have looked at a different mix, and changing the weapons storage would have been an easy change. Fewer torpedoes and more bombs.

However this would be a very late war change. The Kamikaze threat only came into existence in the fall of 1944 and given the several months it could take to get planes from the East Coast of the US to the far Pacific (think Panama canal) Changing carrier groups to undertake "strategic" bombing of Japan and guard against Kamikazes wasn't going to happen until the spring of 1945.
B-29s began to show up on Saipan almost two weeks before the Japanese started using kamikazes in the Philippines.
Waiting for the Navy to take over the strategic bombing campaign against the Japanese might have prolonged the war by months.
 
James W. said:
( apart from mining of course, what was the mil-spec Constellation payload).
Click to expand...

Changing your mind about the C-54??

BTW price for commercial Lockheed 049 Constellation started at $800,000 in part due to the small number made. By the time you get to the 1947/48 model 749 price had gone to $950,000.

At least the Connie could outrun some Japanese fighters at low altitude.
 

And the supply chain stretched all the way back to Long Island NY in the case of the F6F. Yes you had planes in depots at certain points but you also had a steady stream of aircraft going from the Factory to those depots. Some of them to replace simple attrition. Some to equip new units on new hulls. Some trading around of units could be done but large scale changes would have to be planned months in advance.
 
Actually the kamikaze threat and actual damage caused the US Navy to start numerous weapons programs. Few, if any, showed results by the time the Japanese surrendered. Automatic 3in AA guns with proximity fuses to replace the 40mm Bofors was one program. It was hoped to replace twin 40mm mounts with a single 3in and quad 40mm mounts with twin 3in. The Navy funded several competing anti-aircraft missiles which eventually lead to theTerrior and Talos. Quadruple 20mm guns in power mounts was another program and was much quicker but the destructive effect was not what was wanted.

Due to the losses experienced by destroyers used as distant radar pickets they came up with the idea of using submarines as radar pickets complete with replacing part of the torpedo armament with control space for guiding fighter intercepts. This took until about 1948 to actually produce hardware (and may have been less than successful even then)


The 4th rate Japanese caused an Awful lot of worry to the US Navy.
 
日本
Nippon = Japan
Nippon-jin = Japanese

Nuppon = Japan in my hometown accent. My uncle was asked to correct it to Nippon when he lived in Tokyo

Nihon = another official saying of Nippon. Not Nikon but it came from Nihon Kogaku (Japan Optical)
.............................................................. Canon came from Kannon for Goddess of Mercy.
Nihon-jin = Japanese in another official saying

Characters are same but
Ri-ben = Japan in Mandarin. Modern official Chinese
Zu-ben = Japan in Southern China's accent

Chinese sometimes call Japan as "倭 (wo)" or "倭国 (wo-guo)" which means a small country in ancient saying.
I find them many times in Chinese documents during the ww2.

Italian explorer Marco Polo who stayed in China in the 13th century introduced Japan as "Zipangu" to Europeans.
This would be the origin of Japan in English.

Please do not misuse it with
Ippon = a bottle of hot Sake
Suppon = a turtle for eating

 
Last edited:
And the point is?

The Hiro Naval Aircraft factory had been bombed by B-29s on May 5th, Mines had been laid in the port approaches on both March 30th and May 5th and about 40% of the city destroyed in a raid on July 1st.

Navy showed up July 24th,

Navy also suffered 102 aircrew lost and 133 aircraft due to the Heavy AA fire.

A lot of this attack was political posturing. Revenge for Pearl Harbor (the British were excluded from the attack on the Japanese fleet and attacked targets else where).

The attacks occurred on July 24, 25 and 28. Why the 2 day gap? Damage assessment and planing of new strikes? weather problems?
Resupply of fuel, munitions and replacement aircraft?

Did the Navy attack Japan, without a doubt. Did they do a lot of damage, also without doubt.

Could they have done it much earlier? like months, not weeks or days?
Could they really have substituted for the B-29 raids without horrific Allied losses in men, aircraft and ships?
Japanese fuel resources dwindled by the day. Japanese air operations in March-April against an American fleet in the Inland Sea would have been intense. Look at the Battle of Okinawa. Now put the American fleet in the Inland sea at the end of March, early April.
 
After the Okinawa Kamikazi assault, I doubt the USN was looking forward to the invasion of Japan proper, or tooling around the Inland Sea. So I'm not convinced Admiral King would jump at the chance for this "gig".

SR6, the 102 aircrew lost and 133 planes with them, was that on July 24th only? Or was that over a several day stretch?
Thanks.

Pete
 
Peter Gunn said:
After the Okinawa Kamikazi assault, I doubt the USN was looking forward to the invasion of Japan proper,
Pete
Click to expand...

You are quite correct. In the discussions around the use of the atomic bomb King is on the record saying.

"..that the defeat of Japan could be accomplished by sea and air power alone, without the necessity of actual invasion of the Japanese home islands by ground troops. "

He was echoing Leahy's opinion, expressed at the same June 1st meeting. Leahy later wrote.

"I was unable to see any justification for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. I feared the cost would be enormous in both lives and treasure."

The idea that King or any other naval commander would have jumped at the opportunity of an invasion, proclaiming it 'their gig' is absolute nonsense.

Incidentally, following the success of the Trinity test, King was one of the small group of men ( with Byrnes, Stimson, Leahy, Marshall and Arnold) who along with Truman took the decision to drop the bomb..

Cheers

Steve
 
James W. said:
What, all 14,000 odd of them? Exaggeration much? Count again, one post rated with a dislike, & it sure deserved it..
If you are actually interested in the thread topic, then cease trolling G-G, & go read post #23.
Click to expand...
Nope, child...not playing your game...you were called out for your bullsh!t, mr mil-spec...

Aside from your assumption that they used old merlin parts in meteor engines and should use transports instead of bombers or whatever, you spouted off about surface vessels attacking Japan proper in February of '45...i simply asked you to provide details of TF58 and you couldn't.

Instead, you played games and deflected the discussion proving pretty much that you're a nothing but a tool.

So I'm simply ignoring you...simple as that...so go play your skinflute somewhere else.
 
GrauGeist said:
Aside from your assumption that they used old merlin parts in meteor engines
Click to expand...

While I generally agree with most of your comments, I'm afraid JW has you here, GG. It's pretty clear that in 1943 the blocks from old surplus Merlins were reused for Meteors, although it would be wrong to say that this was the normal practice. From what I can gather, it was only done in response to a shortage of Meteor blocks.
 
Captain Eric Brown first landed a Mosquito on a carrier in March of 1944.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMjjrp6axWs


Given that the US carriers were slightly larger, would Mosquitoes flying off US carriers given them more strategic capability?

The Mosquito Captain Brown landed was an FBVI, which had the smaller bomb load, but equally the B versions with 2,000-3,000lb bomb loads should have been able to operate off carriers?
 
Or could the Lockheed Ventura operate from carriers too?


Wingspan was 10' wider than teh Mosquito, and loaded weight ~8-10,000lbs heavier than a non cookie Mosquito.
 
James W. said:
Too funny, but hey Pete, well, if you don't want to improve your subject knowledge, that's cool..
( Check out King's response to the U-boat assault on the Eastern Seaboard in early `42.. he should've been fired then).
Click to expand...

Kid, don't ever presume to understand what my subject knowledge is, anyway, shouldn't you be trolling teenagers on a gaming board somewhere?

And yes, on the rare occasions in the future when I choose to respond to you, I will use the term kid until you stop posting like one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
593
Dimlee
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Zmauky
Z
Questions about B-29 operational range, VVS, VVS intercept capability if Operation Unthinkable happen.
17 18 19
Replies
367
Views
13K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register