FAA aircraft comparative performance

[Keith Enge]

dunmunro, what specifications do you need? Just count the number of wings! The Royal Navy was so satisfied with biplanes that they accepted a new biplane, the Sea Otter, in 1944!

Do you really want to bring up the Firefly? First operational in late 1943, it was actually slower than the prewar Hurricanes and even the wretched Brewster Buffalo. The Barracuda, also introduced in 1943, had only two rifle caliber guns and, for 1943, really bad range. It was also about the ugliest plane that wasn't a French heavy bomber of the early 1930s. The FAA realized the limitations of these planes and got rid of them as soon as they could (the Barracuda was in service less than a year, much of it employed as a minelayer), replacing them with Corsairs, Hellcats, and Avengers. They kept some Fireflys around as strike pathfinders because of their obsession with two-seat fighters. An indication of their relative worth in the FAA's eyes is shown by the numbers employed. There were fewer than 1000 Fireflys ever built while the Royal Navy had over 2000 lend-lease Corsairs and another almost 1200 Hellcats (originally Gannets). In the Spring of 1945 in the Pacific, Illustrious carried no British planes (36 Corsairs and 16 Avengers).

[lwd]

...
1) As I stated earlier I think we have to assume the use of RN weapons and torpedoes. The Albacore could drop at max speed and could dive vertically to drop altitude including making DB attacks at ~200 knts.

But the thread title is "aircraft permormance". If the US aircraft are equiped with RN torpedos and radar wouldn't they be likely to do better at Midway as well? If you are talking the planes then th e torpedo drop parameters aren't all that relevant. It's like saying what if the US torpedo planes carried late war MK13's.

3) Maybe, but there are also documented front gun kills by Albacores.

The point of defencive armamanet isn't necessarily to kill opposing planes it's to allow the bombers to survive. The longer range of the 50 is likely to result in attacking fighters not engageing or breaking off from frontal engagements sooner.

[dunmunro]

...
1) As I stated earlier I think we have to assume the use of RN weapons and torpedoes. The Albacore could drop at max speed and could dive vertically to drop altitude including making DB attacks at ~200 knts.

But the thread title is "aircraft permormance". If the US aircraft are equiped with RN torpedos and radar wouldn't they be likely to do better at Midway as well? If you are talking the planes then th e torpedo drop parameters aren't all that relevant. It's like saying what if the US torpedo planes carried late war MK13's.

The TBD was already had a very slow cruise speed and it seems unlikely that it could have handled the extra weight and drag of an ASV/ASB radar, additionally it would still be forced into a TB strike since it did not have DB capability. The SBD was eventually outfitted with ASB radar, but it had more power than the TBD and later variants had a more powerful engine.

[lwd]

..., additionally it would still be forced into a TB strike since it did not have DB capability. ....

Up to that point torpedos were considered the way to sink ships. Bombs just damaged them. It wouldn't have been a matter of being "forced" to use torpedoes.

[dunmunro]

..., additionally it would still be forced into a TB strike since it did not have DB capability. ....

Up to that point torpedos were considered the way to sink ships. Bombs just damaged them. It wouldn't have been a matter of being "forced" to use torpedoes.

Unfortunately, that's not really true except for capital ships (and RN CVs). Smaller ships such as destroyers, and cruisers were extremely vulnerable to dive bombing, while being correspondingly difficult to torpedo. Obviously, DB attacks were efficient in sinking and/or disabling most CVs.

[lwd]

We know that now but at the time torpedoes were considered the best way to sink not just capital ships but cruisers and large merchants for that matter. Bombs could certainly damage and even incapacitate such ships but torpedoes let the water in.

[dunmunro]

We know that now but at the time torpedoes were considered the best way to sink not just capital ships but cruisers and large merchants for that matter. Bombs could certainly damage and even incapacitate such ships but torpedoes let the water in.

The RN's experience against the Luftwaffe in 1941 was still fresh in everyone's mind, in mid 1942. The Luftwaffe's aircraft did have the advantage of carrying much heavier bombs than most naval DBs, but I still have to wonder if the TBD had more strike flexibility, if the USN would have carried out initial TB attacks at Midway.

[lwd]

The impression was that the torpedo bombers had done a pretty good job during the Battle of the Coral Sea and of course the Japanese torpedo bombers did quite a job at PH and eslewhere. The same could be said of British torpedo bombers, could it not? Up to that point there simply wasn't evidence that torpedo bombers were as vulnerable as they turned out to be. Indeed a big part of their vulnerability at Midway was because they got seperated from their escort. I simply don't see the war today as providing much of a case against torpedo bombers.

[Bgile]

I believe escorting early war torpedo bombers was especially challenging because their cruise speed was much slower than that of the fighters which were theoretically supposed to escort them.

[lwd]

That could well be true especially if a close escort is attempted. However especially vs the Japanese if the escorting fighters arrive at the same time or better shortly before the bombers there is a very good chance the bombers will get through.

[dunmunro]

The impression was that the torpedo bombers had done a pretty good job during the Battle of the Coral Sea and of course the Japanese torpedo bombers did quite a job at PH and eslewhere. The same could be said of British torpedo bombers, could it not? Up to that point there simply wasn't evidence that torpedo bombers were as vulnerable as they turned out to be. Indeed a big part of their vulnerability at Midway was because they got seperated from their escort. I simply don't see the war today as providing much of a case against torpedo bombers.

The RN's experience at Kirkenes (and to a lesser, the Channel Dash) highlighted the vulnerability of TBs to determined fighter attack. I'm pretty certain that the USN TB crews were under no illusions as to their fate if met by large numbers of fighters.

[dunmunro]

There has been some discussion in the threads on FAA/RN carrier operations as to the ability of the Fulmar to carry bombs. The specs for the Fulmar 1 and 2 state the ability to carry up to 2 x 250lb bombs on underwing hardpoints, while the Fulmar 2 was given the ability to carry either a 550lb (60gal) DT, 500lb or 250lb bomb on a centre line hard point. Here is confirmation that the Fulmar did act as a fighter bomber (these are probably Fulmar 1s):

While reviewing the THE CARRIER BORNE AIRCRAFT ATTACK ON KIRKENES AND PETSAMO:
http://funsite.unc.edu/hyperwar/UN/UK/L ... /38300.pdf

I noticed that the Fulmars that escorted the raid on Petsamo were carrying bombs:

14. The fighter ' escort proceeded South/
keeping to the West of the torpedo aircraft and
climbing above them.
They patrolled to the Southward of the target
area, keeping between it and the nearest aerodrome
some fifteen miles to the South. They
then acted in accordance with the general plan,
in which, if no enemy aircraft were encountered,
they were to assist the striking force by
attacking ground targets with bombs and
machine-gun fire, with the restriction that not
more than half their ammunition was to be
expended on ground targets.

[Bgile]

I don't think anyone was seriously questioning whether Fullmars could carry bombs. Pretty much every fighter in the war carried bombs at one point or another, but that doesn't mean the navy would eliminate dive bombers from their carriers and just carry fighters.

[lwd]

The impression was that the torpedo bombers had done a pretty good job during the Battle of the Coral Sea and of course the Japanese torpedo bombers did quite a job at PH and eslewhere. The same could be said of British torpedo bombers, could it not? Up to that point there simply wasn't evidence that torpedo bombers were as vulnerable as they turned out to be. Indeed a big part of their vulnerability at Midway was because they got seperated from their escort. I simply don't see the war today as providing much of a case against torpedo bombers.

The RN's experience at Kirkenes (and to a lesser, the Channel Dash) highlighted the vulnerability of TBs to determined fighter attack. I'm pretty certain that the USN TB crews were under no illusions as to their fate if met by large numbers of fighters.

But in the channel dash were any of the torpdo bombers given much of an escort? Even if they were the CAP was supperior to the escort was it not? And at Kirkenes not only was there no surprise but the British were attacking into a harbor after crossing a mountain range into an alerted and prepared defence again including suppeiror CAP. If you look at the early war carrier strikes in the Pacific the escorting fighters were usually numbers wise on a par with or superior to the defending ones. Furthermore there were cases where any bombers could be manhandled by CAP. Even the Midway fighters shot up the incoming Japanese bombers pretty well given that they only got one pass before the Japanese fighers intervened.

[dunmunro]

The impression was that the torpedo bombers had done a pretty good job during the Battle of the Coral Sea and of course the Japanese torpedo bombers did quite a job at PH and eslewhere. The same could be said of British torpedo bombers, could it not? Up to that point there simply wasn't evidence that torpedo bombers were as vulnerable as they turned out to be. Indeed a big part of their vulnerability at Midway was because they got seperated from their escort. I simply don't see the war today as providing much of a case against torpedo bombers.

The RN's experience at Kirkenes (and to a lesser, the Channel Dash) highlighted the vulnerability of TBs to determined fighter attack. I'm pretty certain that the USN TB crews were under no illusions as to their fate if met by large numbers of fighters.

But in the channel dash were any of the torpdo bombers given much of an escort? Even if they were the CAP was supperior to the escort was it not? And at Kirkenes not only was there no surprise but the British were attacking into a harbor after crossing a mountain range into an alerted and prepared defence again including suppeiror CAP. If you look at the early war carrier strikes in the Pacific the escorting fighters were usually numbers wise on a par with or superior to the defending ones. Furthermore there were cases where any bombers could be manhandled by CAP. Even the Midway fighters shot up the incoming Japanese bombers pretty well given that they only got one pass before the Japanese fighers intervened.

I thought that I'd explore the Raid on Kirkenes for a bit, rather than reply in detail.