A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4 in Aircraft Carriers Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4

Author	Comment
ChrisPat		#81	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 13 12 12:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Did I say anything different? What I would say is that you need to get there first, you need to know where "there" is before that, and you'd like to be able to come back. First one needs fighters, second scouts and the last fighters, probably directed by radar. Leaving aside the technical difficulties of the last I'd try an air group heavily biased to fighter-bombers, intending to get all or nearly all of my torpedo bombers to the target, rather than starting with more and accepting greater losses. I believe that runs counter to USN findings in pre war exercises but not too far from the reality of increasing proportions of fighters in the air groups as war progressed.
	Remove this ad
IcelofAngeln		#82	[-]
Posts: 5899 Mar 13 12 6:37 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bennett0 wrote: Chris, The problem is that the way to sink warships is to make holes that let in water, not air. Neither dive bombers or fighter bombers could really do that. That is why every carrier navy during WW2 had planes that could launch torpedoes. Bennett How many IJN ships were sunk by Devastators? (Hint: it's an integer less than 2)
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#83	[-]
Posts: 219 Mar 13 12 7:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: Flattop wrote: If your criteria is how it stacks up against a Zero or any other fighter, then no strike aircraft of WWII fares well. There is a reason that U.S. Navy doctrine called for coordinated attacks with fighter cover. It is difficult, however, to make to coordinate an attack with dive bombers, torpedo bombers and fighters if the torpedo bombers can't keep up. The problem is that aerial torpedoes weigh about 2,000lbs, it follows that a/c that can carry them from flight decks have to give up something else. Only when you have dive bombers that can drop torpedoes are your strike a/c going to be comparable in performance, and your fighters will always be faster. I don't suggest the Devastator is better than the Avenger (nor the Kate), but I do say it is better than its reputation, which is based on being tasked with the impossible. Which suggests another squadron of fighters might be more use than torpedo bombers of any type, to bend history a bit further. The Devastators biggest deficiency was that it was underpowered with 900 horse power. The Avenger had more power with 1,900 hp, and did not have trouble keeping up with the Dauntless dive bombers. (Interestingly, the Kate had only 100 more horsepower than the Devastator, but the Japanese Type 91 torpedo weighed in at 1,760 lbs (800 kg).) The Kate and the Avenger could carry a bomb load equal in weight to the torpedoes they carried, while the Devastators bomb load was half the weight of the Mark XIII torpedo. (It could also be mentioned that the Type 91 torpedo was the superior weapon as the Mark XIII suffered many of the same problems as those which plagued the submarine force's Mark XIV torpedo.) The Devastators reputation is probably exaggerated because of the slaughter at Midway. The aircraft generally performed better during the hit and run raids and at Coral Sea (despite not being able to keep up with the dive bombers and getting no hits on the second day). Still, on March 10, 1942, when Lexington and Yorktown attacked Lae and Salamaua on New Guinea's north coast, the Devastator squadrons had a very difficult time crossing over the Owen Stanley mountain range. They flew parallel legs as they strained for enough altitude to get over and just managed it. The Avenger was definitely an improvement over the Devastator, even if it did not solve every problem torpedo bombers faced. One of the most effective torpedo bombers of the war, was also the slowest, the Fairey Swordfish. The beloved "Stringbag" had a max speed of just 139 mph (224 km/h) at 4,750 ft (1,450 m) with 690 hp (510 kW). The lack of speed may, paradoxically, have been an advantage, at least in some situations. The light aircraft was also nimble because it was light. Captain Eric M. Brown, RN described the Stringbag as "antiquated, but unbelievably effective." Still, the Swordfish's most successful missions were not opposed by enemy fighters and I would question how effective the Swordfish would have been in Pacific carrier battles. The "dive bomber that can drop torpedoes" is actually a fair description of the AD-1 Skyraider which was developed too late to see action in WWII but which saw plenty of action in Korea and Vietnam. In Korea a squadron of Skyraiders actually conducted a torpedo attack -- against a dam. The AD-1, later A-1, had 2,700 hp and could carry up to 8,000 lbs (3,600 kg) of ordnance. The experience of the carrier battles during 1942 led the U.S. Navy to increase the number of fighters aboard the carriers. The original make-up of the carrier air groups was one fighter squadron, one torpedo squadron and two dive bomber squadrons -- the second dive bomber squadron was supposed to have the scouting role for the air group. The ended up reducing the number of dive bombers, by combining the dive bomber squadrons and increasing the size of the fighter squadron. Still later in the war the number of dive bombers was reduced again in favor of a number of fighter-bombers, using the F6F Hellcat in the dual role. Then, in the face of the Kamikaze onslaught, Marine fighter squadrons were brought aboard the carriers. Your Text Signature ...
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#84	[-]
Posts: 219 Mar 13 12 7:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bennett0 wrote: Chris, The problem is that the way to sink warships is to make holes that let in water, not air. Neither dive bombers or fighter bombers could really do that. That is why every carrier navy during WW2 had planes that could launch torpedoes. Bennett The Japanese carrier Shokaku was badly damaged by bombs both at Coral Sea and then at Santa Cruz, but survived because she had not been hit by torpedoes. She was sunk in the Philippine Sea by a spread of submarine torpedoes. Most of the carriers, of both sides, sunk during the Pacific War were hit by torpedoes, but there are a few notable exceptions: the four Japanese carriers sunk at Midway and the light carrier Princeton during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Your Text Signature ...
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#85	[-]
Posts: 219 Mar 13 12 8:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: Did I say anything different? What I would say is that you need to get there first, you need to know where "there" is before that, and you'd like to be able to come back. First one needs fighters, second scouts and the last fighters, probably directed by radar. Leaving aside the technical difficulties of the last I'd try an air group heavily biased to fighter-bombers, intending to get all or nearly all of my torpedo bombers to the target, rather than starting with more and accepting greater losses. I believe that runs counter to USN findings in pre war exercises but not too far from the reality of increasing proportions of fighters in the air groups as war progressed. One thing that allowed the Navy to reduce the number of dive bombers aboard the carriers was that the Avenger could augment the Dauntless in the search role The carriers needed more fighters to cover their strikes, but also to protect themselves from enemy strikes. Your Text Signature ...
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#86	[-]
Posts: 219 Mar 13 12 8:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	IcelofAngeln wrote: bennett0 wrote: Chris, The problem is that the way to sink warships is to make holes that let in water, not air. Neither dive bombers or fighter bombers could really do that. That is why every carrier navy during WW2 had planes that could launch torpedoes. Bennett How many IJN ships were sunk by Devastators? (Hint: it's an integer less than 2) How many IJN ships were sunk by Avengers? (Hint: significantly more than 1) Your Text Signature ...
emc		#87	[-]
Posts: 6738 Mar 14 12 12:49 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bennett0 wrote: Chris, The problem is that the way to sink warships is to make holes that let in water, not air. Neither dive bombers or fighter bombers could really do that. That is why every carrier navy during WW2 had planes that could launch torpedoes. Bennett Since the bombs from dive bombers and fighter-bombers are attacking in a very similar way as the shells from a battleship, does that mean that battleships won't sink ships? The holes are letting in air and high explosives. Fire is a likely result. Why is it the same people who promote evidence-based medicine and evidence-based school systems object so strenuously to evidence-based biology and evidence-based climate science?
ChrisPat		#88	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 14 12 1:02 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Flattop wrote: The Devastators biggest deficiency was that it was underpowered with 900 horse power. The Avenger had more power with 1,900 hp, and did not have trouble keeping up with the Dauntless dive bombers. If we consider rough "generations" shouldn't we be asking if the Avenger can keep up with the Helldiver? I don't know the answer, btw. (Interestingly, the Kate had only 100 more horsepower than the Devastator, but the Japanese Type 91 torpedo weighed in at 1,760 lbs (800 kg).) The Kate and the Avenger could carry a bomb load equal in weight to the torpedoes they carried, while the Devastators bomb load was half the weight of the Mark XIII torpedo. (It could also be mentioned that the Type 91 torpedo was the superior weapon as the Mark XIII suffered many of the same problems as those which plagued the submarine force's Mark XIV torpedo.) So we could say the problem was the torpedo rather than the a/c, on weight and (initially) reliability. Still, on March 10, 1942, when Lexington and Yorktown attacked Lae and Salamaua on New Guinea's north coast, the Devastator squadrons had a very difficult time crossing over the Owen Stanley mountain range. They flew parallel legs as they strained for enough altitude to get over and just managed it. Secondary missions are important, but they are secondary. Had the Devastator devastated those bombing missions would be an obscure footnote to its record of ships sunk. One of the most effective torpedo bombers of the war, was also the slowest, the Fairey Swordfish. The beloved "Stringbag" had a max speed of just 139 mph (224 km/h) at 4,750 ft (1,450 m) with 690 hp (510 kW). The lack of speed may, paradoxically, have been an advantage, at least in some situations. The light aircraft was also nimble because it was light. Captain Eric M. Brown, RN described the Stringbag as "antiquated, but unbelievably effective." Still, the Swordfish's most successful missions were not opposed by enemy fighters and I would question how effective the Swordfish would have been in Pacific carrier battles. The Avenger's most successful missions were not opposed effectively by fighters, and that was because of USN fighters, not the Avengers. Given air supremacy Swordfish would lose out to Avengers on missions flown in a given time, and maybe on range, but not on vulnerability. The "dive bomber that can drop torpedoes" is actually a fair description of the AD-1 Skyraider which was developed too late to see action in WWII but which saw plenty of action in Korea and Vietnam. Indeed, it also describes the Swordfish, the Albacore and the Barracuda, albeit they usually get tagged t'other way about. The Barracuda's most effective mission IIRC was against Tirpitz and by dive bombing. Using Swordfish as dive bombers will ensure your torpedo bombers don't get left behind, so long as they aren't airships. The experience of the carrier battles during 1942 led the U.S. Navy to increase the number of fighters aboard the carriers. The original make-up of the carrier air groups was one fighter squadron, one torpedo squadron and two dive bomber squadrons -- the second dive bomber squadron was supposed to have the scouting role for the air group. I thought it was more scouts that can dive bomb, but there are the functions I listed earlier. "What I would say is that you need to get there first, you need to know where "there" is before that, and you'd like to be able to come back. First one needs fighters, second scouts and the last fighters, probably directed by radar." The two strike roles as well I'd like to think were understood from my answering Bennett. The ended up reducing the number of dive bombers, by combining the dive bomber squadrons and increasing the size of the fighter squadron. Much what I said, launch less but lose less, but radar control of those fighters had changed things a bit. Still later in the war the number of dive bombers was reduced again in favor of a number of fighter-bombers, using the F6F Hellcat in the dual role. The other option to dual roleing torpedo and dive bombing. Then, in the face of the Kamikaze onslaught, Marine fighter squadrons were brought aboard the carriers. Kamikaze and radar changing the calculation a bit there, but yes. Last Edited By: ChrisPat Mar 14 12 1:05 AM. Edited 1 times.
ChrisPat		#89	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 14 12 1:07 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Flattop wrote: One thing that allowed the Navy to reduce the number of dive bombers aboard the carriers was that the Avenger could augment the Dauntless in the search role Given a torpedo sized fuel tank I'd have thought a Devastator would be useful, although I know its ceiling isn't great.
ChrisPat		#90	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 14 12 1:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Flattop wrote: How many IJN ships were sunk by Avengers? (Hint: significantly more than 1) How many other types of torpedo bomber were being thrown at the IJN with overwhelming fighter cover? (Hint, dam' few) If for some reason the USN switched to the Swordfish in 1943 they'd have sunk a lot of IJN ships. Like saying the SMLE killed more German soldiers than the Ross in WW1, therefore it's a better rifle. Note that most people would say the SMLE is better than the Ross, just as most would say the Avenger is better than the Devastator, but those stats aren't evidence either way.
	Remove this ad
ChrisPat		#91	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 14 12 1:15 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	emc wrote: Since the bombs from dive bombers and fighter-bombers are attacking in a very similar way as the shells from a battleship, does that mean that battleships won't sink ships? It will take a while, that was one of the problems.
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#92	[-]
Posts: 219 Mar 14 12 8:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: Flattop wrote: The Devastators biggest deficiency was that it was underpowered with 900 horse power. The Avenger had more power with 1,900 hp, and did not have trouble keeping up with the Dauntless dive bombers. If we consider rough "generations" shouldn't we be asking if the Avenger can keep up with the Helldiver? I don't know the answer, btw. (Interestingly, the Kate had only 100 more horsepower than the Devastator, but the Japanese Type 91 torpedo weighed in at 1,760 lbs (800 kg).) The Kate and the Avenger could carry a bomb load equal in weight to the torpedoes they carried, while the Devastators bomb load was half the weight of the Mark XIII torpedo. (It could also be mentioned that the Type 91 torpedo was the superior weapon as the Mark XIII suffered many of the same problems as those which plagued the submarine force's Mark XIV torpedo.) So we could say the problem was the torpedo rather than the a/c, on weight and (initially) reliability. Still, on March 10, 1942, when Lexington and Yorktown attacked Lae and Salamaua on New Guinea's north coast, the Devastator squadrons had a very difficult time crossing over the Owen Stanley mountain range. They flew parallel legs as they strained for enough altitude to get over and just managed it. Secondary missions are important, but they are secondary. Had the Devastator devastated those bombing missions would be an obscure footnote to its record of ships sunk. One of the most effective torpedo bombers of the war, was also the slowest, the Fairey Swordfish. The beloved "Stringbag" had a max speed of just 139 mph (224 km/h) at 4,750 ft (1,450 m) with 690 hp (510 kW). The lack of speed may, paradoxically, have been an advantage, at least in some situations. The light aircraft was also nimble because it was light. Captain Eric M. Brown, RN described the Stringbag as "antiquated, but unbelievably effective." Still, the Swordfish's most successful missions were not opposed by enemy fighters and I would question how effective the Swordfish would have been in Pacific carrier battles. The Avenger's most successful missions were not opposed effectively by fighters, and that was because of USN fighters, not the Avengers. Given air supremacy Swordfish would lose out to Avengers on missions flown in a given time, and maybe on range, but not on vulnerability. The "dive bomber that can drop torpedoes" is actually a fair description of the AD-1 Skyraider which was developed too late to see action in WWII but which saw plenty of action in Korea and Vietnam. Indeed, it also describes the Swordfish, the Albacore and the Barracuda, albeit they usually get tagged t'other way about. The Barracuda's most effective mission IIRC was against Tirpitz and by dive bombing. Using Swordfish as dive bombers will ensure your torpedo bombers don't get left behind, so long as they aren't airships. The experience of the carrier battles during 1942 led the U.S. Navy to increase the number of fighters aboard the carriers. The original make-up of the carrier air groups was one fighter squadron, one torpedo squadron and two dive bomber squadrons -- the second dive bomber squadron was supposed to have the scouting role for the air group. I thought it was more scouts that can dive bomb, but there are the functions I listed earlier. "What I would say is that you need to get there first, you need to know where "there" is before that, and you'd like to be able to come back. First one needs fighters, second scouts and the last fighters, probably directed by radar." The two strike roles as well I'd like to think were understood from my answering Bennett. The ended up reducing the number of dive bombers, by combining the dive bomber squadrons and increasing the size of the fighter squadron. Much what I said, launch less but lose less, but radar control of those fighters had changed things a bit. Still later in the war the number of dive bombers was reduced again in favor of a number of fighter-bombers, using the F6F Hellcat in the dual role. The other option to dual roleing torpedo and dive bombing. Then, in the face of the Kamikaze onslaught, Marine fighter squadrons were brought aboard the carriers. Kamikaze and radar changing the calculation a bit there, but yes. SB2C Helldiver: Max speed: 295 mph (475 km/h). Cruise speed: 158 mph (254 km/h) TBF Avenger: Max speed: 275 mph (442 km/h) Looks like the Avenger would have no difficulty keeping up with the Helldiver at cruise speed on the way to the target. The Navy was never fully satisfied with the Helldiver and many pilots who had also flown the Dauntless often wished they had not switched over to "the Beast." The torpedo the Devastator carried was definitely a problem, but I would not say it was the only problem. Some pilots reported torpedo hits on Shokaku at Coral Sea, but, in fact, the carrier took no torpedo hits. Perhaps she was hit by torpedoes that failed to explode -- even the duds, as reported by sub captains, could have a small water sprout that could give the appearance of successful hit. The Avenger could also dive bomb -- for dive bombing an aircraft needs a bomb load and some kind of dive breaks (fixed landing gear or flaps). The TBF was an affective submarine hunter, claiming 30 U-boats in the Atlantic. Built by Grumman, she could take a lot of punishment and still return home, much like other aircraft built by the company which earned the nickname the "Grumman Iron Works." This Avenger was badly damaged during a strike on Chuichi Jima -- note the damage to the wing and rear fuselage -- and returned to land aboard its carrier. Radar guided fighters in defense of the carrier from enemy strikes. Radar did not guide a strike to a target. An aircraft capable of scouting is needed, and a scouting aircraft that can carry a good bomb load can pay dividends on a search -- such as the attack on Zuiho at Santa Cruz. Once the target is found, you need an aircraft that can carry a good punch, at least 1000 lbs in bombs or a torpedo. Then you need an aircraft that can make sure you land that punch by providing cover. And, of course, you need an aircraft that can protect your carrier from an enemy strike. The longer the range these aircraft have, the farther out you can hit targets. Having fighters is definitely important, but a strike without a real punch isn't very useful. In 1942, the F4F Wildcat could only carry two 100 lb bombs, so dive bombers were still needed. The F6F Hellcat was capable of carrying a 2,000 lb bomb or torpedo load (it was tested for torpedoes, but never carried them in combat). However, a fighter carrying a heavy bomb load can't fly cover for other aircraft; it can only resume the fighter role once the bomb load is dropped. So you would need fighters to cover the fighter-bombers, at least on the way to the target. The experience with the different types which could perform dual roles (the Helldiver was able to carry a torpedo but, like the Hellcat, never did so in combat) led to the development on a true multi-role attack aircraft, the AD-1 Skyraider. Bombs alone were not always enough. The four Japanese carriers at Midway were especially vulnerable to bombs because of the multiple ordance changes of their aircraft and the ordnance just lying around on the hanger and flight decks. CVL Princeton is the only other carrier to be sunk by bombs only. Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet were all hit by torpedoes, only Wasp was not also hit by bombs. Shokaku was badly damaged by bombs at Coral Sea and again at Santa Cruz but survived both times only to be sunk by a spread of submarine torpedoes at Philippine Sea. Taiho was hit by torpedoes, but should have survived if not for incompetent damage control. Other Japanese carriers sunk at Philippine Sea or Leyte gulf were hit by bombs and/or torpedoes, but not bombs alone. Franklin and Bunker Hill survived devastating damage caused by bombs or Kamikazes carrying bombs. Other CVs and CVLs hit by Kamikazes survived and the only carriers sunk by Kamikazes were CVEs. Your Text Signature ...
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#93	[-]
Posts: 219 Mar 14 12 8:37 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	emc wrote: Since the bombs from dive bombers and fighter-bombers are attacking in a very similar way as the shells from a battleship, does that mean that battleships won't sink ships? Depends on the ship. One British carrier was sunk by German battlecruisers. There are some who claim that Bismarck was not sunk by the Royal Navy, but was scuttled by her crew. The Kirishima was badly damaged by Washington and South Dakota but finished off by aircraft. Your Text Signature ... Last Edited By: Flattop Mar 14 12 8:42 PM. Edited 1 times.
Flattop.genealogyandfam...		#94	[-]
Posts: 219 Mar 14 12 8:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: Flattop wrote: One thing that allowed the Navy to reduce the number of dive bombers aboard the carriers was that the Avenger could augment the Dauntless in the search role Given a torpedo sized fuel tank I'd have thought a Devastator would be useful, although I know its ceiling isn't great. But the extra weight would have slowed the aircraft down. How long are you willing to wait for a search pattern to be completed? Your Text Signature ...
ChrisPat		#95	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 15 12 2:42 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Flattop wrote: In 1942, the F4F Wildcat could only carry two 100 lb bombs, Because the design couldn't carry any more or because no one asked for it because it was a fighter? a fighter carrying a heavy bomb load can't fly cover for other aircraft; it can only resume the fighter role once the bomb load is dropped. So you would need fighters to cover the fighter-bombers, at least on the way to the target. No, you can load them all with bombs and take the risk that they have to jettison them. If they do and then destroy large numbers of enemy fighters you just reload them and send them back, subject to the magazine capacity of your carriers. Bombs alone were not always enough. True, but does that mean you need one third fighters / dive bombers / torpedo bombers or one quarter each with the rest scouts? If you destroy the enemies a/c with your fighters, then their AA with your surviving fighters dropping bombs how many torpedo bombers do you need to get three or four hits per target? How many more fighters can you carry if you reduce your torpedo bomber numbers to just enough?
jlyons97	Air group compostitions...	#96	[-]
Posts: 4112 Mar 15 12 2:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The experience of the carrier battles during 1942 led the U.S. Navy to increase the number of fighters aboard the carriers. The original make-up of the carrier air groups was one fighter squadron, one torpedo squadron and two dive bomber squadrons -- the second dive bomber squadron was supposed to have the scouting role for the air group. The ended up reducing the number of dive bombers, by combining the dive bomber squadrons and increasing the size of the fighter squadron. Still later in the war the number of dive bombers was reduced again in favor of a number of fighter-bombers, using the F6F Hellcat in the dual role. Then, in the face of the Kamikaze onslaught, Marine fighter squadrons were brought aboard the carriers. It was not 'experience' that generated the bigger fighter complements in 1942. The only reason it wasn't larger sooner was simply lack of airplanes. It was well known pre-war that 18 fighters were not enough to defend the force and escort strikes, but fiscal reality ruled until war production caught up. Not sure of your point re 'scout bombers' and 'dive bombers'. The number of 'SB' types remained constant at about 36 until the Kamikaze threat, as it had been since the mid-30s. This number was not altered by combining 'VS' and 'VB'. The carriers had room to double the size of the fighter squadron without reducing the dive bomber count. Look at the air group compositions in Lundstrom or Morison, both for the late '42 carrier battles and in the months to follow. Marine F4Us were indeed used to plus-up fighter complements, because they were already in theater. But they would not be the only source of additional fighters. Again, look at the air group compositions in mid-1945. Both VT and VB squadrons were about halved to make room for what would be 70 or so fighters. The now-surplus pilots were put back into the training pipeline to become fighter pilots.
ChrisPat		#97	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 15 12 2:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Going back a bit, and paraphrasing, you said that another squadron of useless Devastators wouldn't make any difference. What I am saying is; Why should another squadron of a/c be torpedo bombers? How would a squadron of any other torpedo bombers be any better against that target, with that support, than one of Devastators?
bgile		#98	[-]
Posts: 3569 Mar 15 12 3:46 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Flattop wrote: emc wrote: Since the bombs from dive bombers and fighter-bombers are attacking in a very similar way as the shells from a battleship, does that mean that battleships won't sink ships? Depends on the ship. One British carrier was sunk by German battlecruisers. There are some who claim that Bismarck was not sunk by the Royal Navy, but was scuttled by her crew. The Kirishima was badly damaged by Washington and South Dakota but finished off by aircraft. No, Kirishima was sunk by Washington. She capsized while trying to shift crew to a destroyer. She was never attacked by aircraft. You may have read an old account prior to recent translation of testimony by crewmembers.
jlyons97	Mission clarification...	#99	[-]
Posts: 4112 Mar 15 12 4:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: Flattop wrote: In 1942, the F4F Wildcat could only carry two 100 lb bombs, Because the design couldn't carry any more or because no one asked for it because it was a fighter? The Wildcat, like the Corsair, like the F2A and every other fighter going back to at least the F11C had a secondary requirement for 'light dive-bombing' with 100 lb bombs. To meet this requirement these designs had outer wing racks for the bombs and ventral sighting windows just like straight dive bombers. The Wildcat could and did carry bigger bombs later in the war off CVEs. Of course an airplane with the same horsepower as an SBD could carry about the same bomb load - just like a Hellcat/Corsair could theoretically match the Helldiver/Avenger, although seldom used thus. a fighter carrying a heavy bomb load can't fly cover for other aircraft; it can only resume the fighter role once the bomb load is dropped. So you would need fighters to cover the fighter-bombers, at least on the way to the target. No, you can load them all with bombs and take the risk that they have to jettison them. If they do and then destroy large numbers of enemy fighters you just reload them and send them back, subject to the magazine capacity of your carriers. Look at the 'Mission Beyond Darkness' at Philippine Sea. Some, but not all, Hellcats carried 500 lb bombs. Against a target that had interceptors to use against them. But the 'heavy lifting' re bombs was done by SBDs and SB2Cs, and re torpedoes by TBFs. The former because they were true dive bombers (1000lb bombs delivered with a bomb crutch in a 70+ dive). Bombs alone were not always enough. True, but does that mean you need one third fighters / dive bombers / torpedo bombers or one quarter each with the rest scouts? If you destroy the enemies a/c with your fighters, then their AA with your surviving fighters dropping bombs how many torpedo bombers do you need to get three or four hits per target? How many more fighters can you carry if you reduce your torpedo bomber numbers to just enough? Chris, I've followed you somewhat tortuous arguments re torpedo bombers in this thread with my finger. Won't argue, but do observe the USN, poor fools that they were, did not based, on the evidence, agree with you. Post-war, the VB designation disappeared, leaving only VT. And that role was filled solely by SB2C-5s which could serve as both a true dive bomber and torpedo bomber. It was replaced by a similar multi-role attack aircraft, the AD. This airplane would a do a lot of dive bombing in Korea, a bit of torpedo bombing as well. With the despised Mk XIII, yet.
ChrisPat		#100	[-]
Posts: 5853 Mar 15 12 1:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	jlyons97 wrote: Chris, I've followed you somewhat tortuous arguments re torpedo bombers in this thread with my finger. Won't argue, but do observe the USN, poor fools that they were, did not based, on the evidence, agree with you. Post-war, the VB designation disappeared, leaving only VT. And that role was filled solely by SB2C-5s which could serve as both a true dive bomber and torpedo bomber. It was replaced by a similar multi-role attack aircraft, the AD. This airplane would a do a lot of dive bombing in Korea, a bit of torpedo bombing as well. With the despised Mk XIII, yet. I've got two arguments here; Firstly that the Devastator gets damned for failing in the impossible and for not being around for the possible. Secondly that air attacks depend on fighters to get through, that most ships could not resist a few torpedo hits and so a few torpedo bombers and a lot of fighters sounds a better balance to me than equal numbers of both. You said yourself that 18 fighters is not enough, do you need 18 torpedo bombers to sink an opposing carrier if you have air superiority? Take your point on money, but did the USN have the proportions of a/c dictated to them or did they decide to spend more (more crew = more money?) on strike than on defence and defence suppression? Asides; The same could apply to the IJN and the RN air group proportions; There was nothing wrong with the Mark XIIIs used by Skyraiders. Some of the ones used by Avengers had various faults and those faults were more common with the ones on the Devastator. That probably reduced the effect of the Devastator / MarkXIII system but generally the a/c gets the blame. Again, if Flattop is right on the weights of the MarkXIII vs other aerial torpedoes the weapon is affecting the system but the a/c is getting blamed. Edit - A browse through CombinedFleet's TRoMs for IJN carriers says two survived three torpedo hits (Sub ones, with c500lb min charges) and none survived more than four of any type. Of course you don't know this in the '30s, but how many attacks do you need to launch to get that many with (say) 18 TB / 36 SB / 18F and how many with 6 TB / 12 SB / 54F? Both cases vs a notional similar enemy with 24 of each type. Do you rely on finding and striking first or can your fighters destroy an attack and avoid you getting hit if the enemy finds you first? Probably you'd need radar to make it a ploy you would choose but choice might not be available. Taking it further how many more fighters again could you carry if the 6 TB were single seat, relying on the SB for strike navigation and the fighters for defence? "Again, look at the air group compositions in mid-1945. Both VT and VB squadrons were about halved to make room for what would be 70 or so fighters." I make that about 18 TB / 18 SB / 72 F / 108 total, two thirds fighter with radar direction; 6 TB / 12 SB / 54F / 72 total is three quarters total. Last Edited By: ChrisPat Mar 15 12 3:24 PM. Edited 2 times.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

A soft spot for an "Odd Duck". CV-4