Planes on carriers

[Snigbert]

I thought you seemed clear enough. College will improve your ability to express yourself in writing, if that is an issue. Or it will improve your tolerance for alcohol.

[Tankerace]

Thanks. I do agree about the college (especially about the last one )

[showboat1]

Damage to the Hornet before her eventually sinking as recorded in The Encyclopedia of the World's Warships Salamander Books, 1979

1942 (26 Oct) Hit by two bombs, two aircraft, and three torpedoes. US destroyers Mustin and Anderson attempted to sink her. Hit by 9 torpedoes and 400 rounds of 5in (127mm).
1942 (27 Oct) Sunk by four torpedoes fired from Japanese destroyers.

That seems to sum it up for the old Hornet. Tough old buzzard!

On the SBD, many people call it obsolete when compared to the fighters that would be intercepting it, though compared to the Val and SB2U it could HARDLY be considered obsolete.

On the JU-87, wasn't it considered to be basically flying artillery? There greatest successes came as tank busters in the Eastern Front.

[pad152]

1. Will WITP support specal Air Ops for Carriers.

Like being able to use Level Bombers from carriers. Where B25's can launch from a carrier, attack and land at a land base.


2. What about having leveling bombers launch from one base and land at another?

[Tankerace]

Ok, once and for all, when they call it obsolete, its not in reference to a fighter. To compare a bomber of any type is stupid and ludicrous. When they say its obsolete, it is due to old technology or certain defencies. To say the SBD is obsolete compared to a fighter is like saying the B-18 Bolo (a very obsoete bomber) is only obsolete compared to the Bf-109. Granted, the Bf-109 is a more advanced plane. but it doesn't make the B-18 obsolete. The fact that the B-18 was obsolete compared to other bombers is what makes it obsolete. Granted, it still had some good featurres, but that doen't mean its not obsolete.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Tankerace
The fact that the B-18 was obsolete compared to other bombers is what makes it obsolete. Granted, it still had some good featurres, but that doen't mean its not obsolete.

I think thats the point people are making. The SBD was NOT obsolete compared to other DIVE BOMBERS ( Vindacater, Val, Stuka) of its era.

As you stated the B-18 was obsolete because it did not compare well with its twin engine Med Bmr. contempories, such as Wellington, He111, Betty..

The SBD on the other hand was equal if not better than its comtempories. It performed its role as well or better than its competitors.

[Tankerace]

I'm not saying it didn't perform better than its contemporaries. In fact, history proves it did. What I am saying is before World War 2, in 1940, the United States Navy called the SBD obsolete, but used it since it was better than the Vindicator. That is all I am saying. I used the comparison of the B-18 because everyone here seems to think I am calling the SBD obsolete compared to a Zero. I am sorry, but you just don't compare apples and oranges.

[strawb]

Hate to be pendantic (but heh what would be new about that on ths board..)? but.... the Luftwaffe had to make the big move from shortish range tactical army support to longer range anti-navl operations intwo situations 1. In Norway where their tactics were woeful and their equipment unsuitable. 2. In the Med.

For the Med they used the Ju87R-2 (R-1? R something) which had extend range tanks and carried one large (1600lb?) anti-ship bomb. In the face of limited fighter oppsition and with fighter cover it proved highly effective against the RN. Look at Crete or off Greece etc etc.

Which I think shows that being 'obsolete' is in the eye of the beholder/opposition. Ok not a DB but the dear old (and over loved thier crews really wanted Avengers trust me!) Swordfish is an example. Fine for operations in Atlantic when not facing enemy CV fighters (Bismark), fine for a specifric task where fighters not an issue (Taranto) or on board CVEs in rough weather anti-sub ops, but disasterous in face of fighters eg Channel Dash. Tactic and other factors also determione obsolete/obscelence status

Same with Dauntless? Pilots liked it but would probably liked it less if IJN had kept CVs and had plenty of A6M5 around and USN did not have huge numbers of fighters to cover them.

Just a thought.

[CynicAl]

Sorry to be so late getting back, but I had some things to do this weekend. Anyway -

Originally posted by Tankerace
Yes, finding replacements was standard practice, but still, almost every source I have ever read about the SBD has called it obsolete upon entering service. Even books published by the USNI agree on this.

Really? Because that's not at all the characterization of the SBD I've picked up over the past twenty-odd years.

The problem is, "obsolete" only makes sense as a relative term. If you want to call anything obsolete, you have to have a frame of reference for comparison. Essentially, what you're doing there is comparing the SBD to 1944-45 aircraft, and judging it obsolete based on that. Well, if you want to do that, you certainly can - and by that standard, the SBD was at the very least obsolescent. But it is fallacious to try to apply that same judgement to the SBD in 1941-43, because it is not true in that context. As an analogy, by 1950 the appearance of jets had rendered piston-driven fighters like the F4U and F6F obsolete - but that doesn't mean they were already obsolete in 1943, when the Navy was already looking ahead to a new generation of faster, more powerful aircraft.

As far as Enterprise and Saratoga, they did find good uses for them, but as Enterprise was unable to mount twin 5"/38 guns, she often found herself in a predicament in late war kamikaze fights and aerial attacks (hence her eventual basic removal from combat due to damage). Saratoga's shortcomings were found, and in 1945 with a plethora of Essex class carriers available, was relegated to carrier training duties following a kamikaze attack.

The problems with Big E and Super Sara were due in some part to their being older designs (especially with CV-3), but also to having come through an extremely rough year in 1942, wherein both were repeatedly smacked around and then patched up. That sort of abuse eventually takes a toll, even with periodic trips back to Bremerton for "full" refits. There are always little things - and sometimes not-so-little things - that are just "not quite right" after that sort of beating. It's the same reason you shouldn't buy a car that's been in a serious accident and repaired - it's not as good as new, and never will be.

As far as range, how do I figure that? The range of a Val acting as a divebomber was between 915 and 1200 miles as a bomber. The range of an SBD acting as a divebomber (anti ship payload) was roughly 800 miles, and 1200 when configured for scouting (According to the Boeing website), So, this proves that yes, the SBD has better range as a scout, the range is shorter as a bomber. It doesn't get much plainer than that, Cynic. I am not saying that the Val was a better plane, but that it had longer range. The SBD carried a heavier payload and was more stable in a dive.

1,200 miles is very, very high for a Val with any sort of payload. Maybe with a pair of 60kg bombs under the wings - but it would literally require an Act Of God for one of those little firecrackers to cripple a 20,000 ton ship. The SBD, on the other hand, typically carried a 500lb bomb when configured for scouting; the anti-ship payload was the 1,000lb bomb. The idea was that if the scouts found a target, they could vector in the rest of the air group, then get in a quick surprise attack and maybe put the enemy's flight deck out of commission so they couldn't reinforce their CAP when the main strike arrived. This was demonstrated in action in the attack on Zuiho at Santa Cruz - which was carried out by "scouting" SBDs. So yes, 1,200 miles in the "scouting" configuration for the SBD, which includes a 500lb bomb, really is longer than the <1,000 for the D3A with an equivalent load. It doesn't get any plainer than that.

Yes, Japan did break away from the treaty when they wanted, but given of the 6 prewar fleet carriers, Hiryu was the smallest, had the least armor, and lowest stowage capacity, becaus eon this one they actually tried to conform (They mostly broke away for the Yamatos, not carriers or other ships).

First off, Soryu was the smallest member of Kido Butai: Hiryu was about 10% bigger than her near-sister. The reason these two were smaller than the others has less to do with the Treaty and more to do with IJN priorities - they wanted to get the maximum possible striking power out of the smallest possible ship because smaller ships were cheaper and that would (in theory) allow them to build more ships, putting lots more power out in the Fleet. It turned out not to work as well as they'd hoped, and there were serious questions of vulnerability and efficiency; so Hiryu grew a little, and Shokaku grew a lot. As far as Japanese respecting the Treaty, just look at what they did with the Mogami-class cruisers. Announced to the world as "8,000t" light cruisers, they weighed in at half again that much when completed (which already put them over the Treaty limit); by the time they were actually ready for service they'd reached nearly twice that displacement, at 15,000t versus the 10,000t maximum allowed by the Treaty.

In my first posts on this topic, relating to the 250kg bomb, all I trie dto state was that they were not puny. In my posts on US carriers, yes FATAL blows were struck by torpedoes, but from the conclusions you are stating bombs were inneffectual. This is just not the case. Granted, bombs alone didn't sink any, but carriers didn't simply "shrug them off", which is the impression you are sort of giving. In fact, I don't believe I ever said that bombs were responsible for sinking them. In fact, if I do believe, I made that perfectly clear. My whole point is that bombs could damage or at least render flight ops usless for a time being (I never said to the point where they would have to go to Pudget Sound).

You're right. You didn't - quite - state outright that any US CVs were sunk by dive-bombing alone. What you did say in your first post was, and I quote, "Besides, they did a good enough job on the Lexington, Hornet, and Yorktown (yes, I know Yorktown was eventually sunk by I-168)." Trouble is, when you qualify one of the three cases that way but leave the others hanging, the implication - the clear, obvious implication - is that dive bombing alone did, in fact, suffice for both of the other two. In your second post you repeatedly misattributed damage from bombs and torpedos. Remember this? "Yortown took torpedo hits and developed a bad list, but it was the bomb damaged received from the Hiryu which put her out of action. She still could have been saved if not for the I-168, but the main point I was and am trying to make is that she was put out of action by bombs, there by rendering her defenseless (unable to launch a CAP)." In fact, Yorktown was temporarily stopped by the dive bombing attack (mostly by the single, somewhat fluky, hit to her stack), but was under way again - and conducting flight operations again, including launching F4Fs for defense - by the time the Kates arrived. At Coral Sea Yorktown's recovery was even quicker - so was Lexington's, before the AVGAS fumes touched off: both ships were conducting flight ops again very shortly after being bombed. Much the same with Enterprise at Eastern Solomons, and again at Santa Cruz - if the Kates had found her while she was dealing with the bomb damage, she'd have been in trouble, but they didn't, so she did deal with it, and shortly afterward was able to conduct flight ops again. Did they "shrug off" the hits? No - as I said above, they never were "good as new" again, even if they survived the experience to return Stateside for major repairs. But they could be made "good enough" again in a remarkably short time. Damaged, NOT crippled. Big difference.

On the subject of the Yorktown (just read that part), I didn't say that was the sequence of attacks, I was talking about total damaged sustained. Yes I know the bombs hit first, then the torpedoes. What I was making clear (or at least trying to) was it was the bomb hits that prevented flight ops. The second bomb to hit the ship came from the port side, pierced the flight deck, and exploded in the lower part of the funnel. It ruptured the uptakes for three boilers, disabled two boilers themselves, and extinguished the fires in five boilers. Smoke and gases began filling the firerooms of six boilers, and if memory serves only one boiler was able to stay lit. This dropped the speed to six knots. This eliminated her ability for flight ops, and 20 minutes after this she was dead in the water, BEFORE any Kates had attacked. This is my point, which I believe should go with my original point that the 250kg bomb is still lethal enough to wound a ship. It wasn't until one hour later that she was again underway (at a 20 knot top speed), and 10 minutes after that the Kates befell her putting two torpedoes into her, causing her abandonment.

See above. The bomb hits prevented flight ops only for a relatively short time - Yorktown did manage to launch enough CAP to wipe out half of Hiryu's strike.

As for being a native English speaker, I must ask why you are even asking. I was born in the USA, and I have lived in the USA for all 18 years of my life. I was at school (Like I am today) and don't have all the time in the workld to proofread. I am sorry if I made it a bit misunderstanding.

Same reason I usually ask questions - to find out the answer. It wasn't meant as a slight or a put-down. I did note you referring to the USA as "we," but that doesn't prove anything: you could also easily be a resident alien or a naturalized citizen, or perhaps a second-generation immigrant; for that matter, Spanish is an official language with the same standing as English in New Mexico, for all I know you're from Albuquerque or something (and if you are, or if you're not - I really don't need, or care, to know).

In this particular case, some of your usages (for example, "made it a bit misunderstanding") remind me of things I've seen on occasion from ESL writers elsewhere. I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here... and now I'm forced offer my most sincere apologies to the many ESL writers of my acquaintance whose mastery of written English far surpasses yours. (You can take that as a slight if you want, but it's just the facts.)

[Tankerace]

Thank you guys for some fun "conversation" (arguing if you want), its been something fun to do after and during school. However, I am not going to participate in this discussion any further when my writing (and I assume also by that, my entire knowledge of the English language) skills are called into question. You are right, I "could" be a resident alien, but if you are going to pry, I am an American. I was born here to American parents in 1985. I am a senior in high school. My Grandfather was a gun Captain, Turret II, USS Mississippi BB-41 1943-45. And no, English is not a second language to me. If anything remotely is, it is German. And even if I did speak with English as a second language, what is the difference. So what if I was a resident alien or naturalized citizen? They are just as much Americans as you or I. Granted, their relatives might not have fought in World War II, or even if they did maybe not for the United States, but they are still Americans, and "we" still refers to the United States in my case or theirs.

You are right, I said "...made it a bit misunderstanding." What is wrong with that. In different parts of the U.S. people talk a little differently, varying on dialect. Would I have to type "made the matter a little misunderstanding" to suit how you would want me to write?

I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here... and now I'm forced offer my most sincere apologies to the many ESL writers of my acquaintance whose mastery of written English far surpasses yours. (You can take that as a slight if you want, but it's just the facts.)

How else am I supposed to take it? You tell me I have no "mastery" of written English(or have little mastery of it). Also, for some reason that I am quite frankly at a loss to understand, you brought up this topic (my English skills), and then felt compelled to apologize to the many ESL writers who probably never read this, or could care less about my English skills. Remind me again what this has to do with Midway, planes on carriers, or anything else that this topic is about.

I do however wish to point out, you have no problem criticizing my written English skills, but your own are not 100% grammatically correct either ("putting lots more power out in the Fleet."). The difference is I saw no reason to bring them up or point them out, as they have no bearing on this topic. Perhaps due to errors like this you can only write on a pre-high school level. I doubt it, but you never know...

However, in any case, this is all academic. I thank those of you who were willing to discuss a topic with me and not bring my ability to write into question. Thanks again. Good day, gentlemen (and ladies).

[CynicAl]

First off - When I posted that "I really don't need, or care, to know," I was specifically trying to head off the autobiography. I don't need to know any of that. I don't care to know any of that.

Second - I never said there was anything wrong with being a resident alien or naturalized citizen. I mentioned those as possible ways that a self-identified American could be an ESL speaker. (And, by the way - resident aliens are not "just as much American as you or I." They're foreign nationals living in this country, usually temporarily. That's what "resident alien" means.)

Third - The problem with "made it a bit misunderstanding" is not that it's dialect, the problem is that it makes no sense in English. (Your proposed "correction" isn't much better.) The reason this particular phrase was singled out was because a) it's a very good example of what I was talking about, and b) I didn't have to go looking for it because it was very close, on the screen, to where I was typing.

Fourth - Improper grammar in itself isn't the issue. It has become relevant to the discussion, though, because your writing skills are interfering with your ability to state your case. When you write one thing in one post, then in the next state that you believe you made it "perfectly clear" that you actually meant the opposite of that, then Yes, your inability to convey the points you're trying to make becomes a factor in the discussion. I very rarely make an issue of grammar or spelling (Does anyone on these boards remember me ever doing so before?), and I wouldn't be doing it this time either; but as I said, your writing skills are so poor that what you're actually typing is the opposite of what you're trying to get across. Do you see how that might be a problem?

Fifth - No, "the difference is" that when I occasionally slip in a phrase or sentence written in a more informal mode, the purpose is to relieve my own rather dry and boring writing style, and I try to make sure that the meaning is not lost. Using "lots" rather than "much," for example. I know it isn't good grammar, but it doesn't confuse the issue.

[Tankerace]

All I am going to say about my skills is the people I come into contact with every day, be they on other forums, college profs, teachers, whoever, have no problem for my writing. In fact, they usually cite me for excellent writings. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but their opinion of my skills means a lot more to me then yours. Oh BTW, yes, I know what a resident alien is. But they want to be Americans, and I consider them Americans.

And how does my usage make "no sense"? Made it a bit misunderstanding. The word "made" is the verb that the noun is doing, or that refers to the noun (postings, if memory serves). The word "it" is a pronoun that takes the place of the noun [postings]. Bit is a word that usually means little, or in this case somewhat, and is an adjective refering to the direct object. Misunderstanding is the direct object in this sentence, being what it is made to do, or rather what is happening. How does the not make sense? I just broke the sentence down on a level that a fifth grader could understand. Jeez.

Oh well, like I said, their opinion matters to me more than yours. Good day.

[RevRick]

Ace: I don't usually jump into this sort of ruckus, but this time I need to point out that your parsing of the sentence in question is in error. "It" is the direct object of the verb "made." What follows would appear to be an abortive attempt at an adverbial phrase intended to be used to modify the verb "made", but which uses a noun (misunderstanding) as the modifier, which can be done, but generally not very well. I taught English, and have written in the graduate level (Masters and Doctoral) and were I to have been grading that sentence, I would have found your sentence awkward at best. So, your great crime is that you fouled up on a sentence - that has been done by people before, and will be done by people later, and by me sometime in this post. I do not feel that the inquiry was directed toward your writing style or as a slight, but was directed toward a better understanding of what you were trying to say - and given the nature of the sentence in question, it is possibly understandable - as I hope I have demonstrated. The former anchor clanker in me would tell you not to jump salty. It generally ain't worth it, and you might find somebody saltier.

Now, so far as the damage to CV's - VB/VS types did substantial damage to surface ships, but unless there were other mitigating circumstances (such as the presence of armed and fueled aircraft on the flight deck, as at Midway), or unless a multitude of hits was obtained on the target, they were relatively ineffective against defended and protected (as in armored) ships. The old Navy addage was that "I'd rather let water in the bottom than air out the top." The IJN aircraft ships dreaded in 42-43 were the Kates.

Now, the Saratoga was withdrawn from service late in the war primarily because her elevators were not capable of handling the new generation of aircraft (physical dimensions as well as weight factors came into play,) and they were horribly placed. Enterprise, late in the war, took a bomb hit near the forward elevator which bulged her flight deck upward, and it was, IIRC, judged that she would not have been adequately repaired in time to resume combat operations, so she was withdrawn.