Barracudas repeated their attack on Tirpitz on six later occasions with basically no success. The dates, all in 1944, were May 15, July 14, August 20 (abortive), August 22, August 24, and August 29. The initial attack worked because it was the first and was thus a surprise; subsequent attacks didn't have that edge and were almost totally ineffective.
By the way, there was nothing wrong with the Barracuda's roll rate. The plane was actually quite light on the ailerons. That was one of its few good qualities. I've always felt that the plane's best defense was the medusa effect; the plane was so ugly that Axis pilots turned to stone when they saw it.
FAA aircraft comparative performance
-
Keith Enge
- Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:36 am
Re: FAA aircraft comparative performance
The subsequent attacks were largely unsuccessful because of bad weather and the effective smoke screen employed by the KM to shield Tirpitz.Keith Enge wrote:Barracudas repeated their attack on Tirpitz on six later occasions with basically no success. The dates, all in 1944, were May 15, July 14, August 20 (abortive), August 22, August 24, and August 29. The initial attack worked because it was the first and was thus a surprise; subsequent attacks didn't have that edge and were almost totally ineffective.