F4F-7

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Many thanks. I expected the Dev's had their reasons. [:(]

One of the reasons is probably the five squadron limit on CVs. If you have one of the F-7s on board there goes an entire squadron slot (not in plane numbers - that is a different limit).

Maybe. For that kind of capability I'd seriously consider giving up a squadron on ONE of my CV's. You can check out the place you intend to hit without giving up the location of your TF before you are in range. ALL Japanese planes have a significant range advantage over pretty much all allied aircraft. I guess I was just hoping to be able to even the odds just once. [:)]

[Panther Bait]

Thanks AW1Steve and Leandros. I was thinking back to the troubles at Midway getting planes back to the carriers and that only after much shorter flights. Sounds like the technology advanced quite a bit over the timeframe of the war. Or at the very least people got better at using it.

Mike

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Thanks AW1Steve and Leandros. I was thinking back to the troubles at Midway getting planes back to the carriers and that only after much shorter flights. Sounds like the technology advanced quite a bit over the timeframe of the war. Or at the very least people got better at using it.

Mike

Here's a very rough and simplified explanation of a modern TACAN system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_ ... ion_system

The early war versions were often "powered down" so that once you got into "the neighborhood" you could "interrogate" the CV and then it might respond if it felt the conditions safe. But if you were interrogating , the CV knew pretty much were you were. It could send a narrow directional beacon with a reduced power output. This is about the same time that FM radio that operated on a short range "line of sight" system was being developed and would become TBS (Talk between ships) that allowed an inter task group communications with little risk of interception.

The biggest problem with the USN planes finding their own ships was largely due to a lack of experience. I would assume that for a special mission that a F4F-7 would fly , you'd put in a very , very experienced aviator.

Modern CV's have massive TACAN's and capabilities , but also can use a aircraft like a E-2D Hawkeye to control aircraft from several hundred miles away from the CV. Later in the war DD's or other ships could be used to direct aircraft (especially fighters) and minimize danger to "mother" (brevity code for the CV).

[Anthropoid]

Thanks Steve that is an interesting link!

As the wiki on Tacan points out, it is a system with inherent drawbacks because an intercepted signal (even if it was encrypted) could be used to draw a bearing on the source of the signal. But I guess with the onship system powered down, and using a narrow directional beam with reduced power the risk of interception (particularly in a massive theatre like the Pacific) would generally be pretty minimal.

Obviously signals intelligence and cryptography were enormously important in WWII, but I'm curious: were intercepted radio signals used for direction finding ever used decisively in WWII?

Another part of the wiki has me curious about the size of the gear for these systems, both on ship and on plane:

Past TACANs have relied on high output power (up to 10,000 watts) to ensure good signal in space to overcome nulls present in antenna design and to provide their required 200 mile range. With the advancement of technology, antenna design has improved with higher gain antennas, much shallower nulls, and lighter construction. Now it's feasible to have a 200 nmi range with a 400 watt TACAN DME transmitter, making the TACAN package much smaller, more portable and more reliable (decrease in power also reduces heat, which lengthens the life of electronics).
TACAN is getting smaller: full TACAN coverage can now be provided in a system that can be carried on a single trailer weighing less than 4000 lbs, and set up by two people in less than an hour. TACAN Transceivers can now be as small as lunch boxes (with full coverage and range) and the antennas can be reduced from 800 pounds to less than 100 pounds.

So, there has to be a special radio transceiver on board the aircraft itself? Or could the aircraft's 'general purpose' radio be adjusted to the specific frequency? I guess all of these aircraft must have had some big ass alternators in them to produce enough power from the engine rotation to keep electronics like this running eh?

[PaxMondo]

Yes. Fletcher was getting real time info on IJN positions at Coral Sea ... he didn't use them to his full advantage aqs it was new and not entirely trusted, but he did use the info somewhat.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Here's another such contraption.

Kraftwerk reunion CD cover?

[Ostwindflak]

The Japanese primarily used float planes and the Kawanishi flying boats for their naval recon from most accounts I have read.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

So, there has to be a special radio transceiver on board the aircraft itself? Or could the aircraft's 'general purpose' radio be adjusted to the specific frequency? I guess all of these aircraft must have had some big ass alternators in them to produce enough power from the engine rotation to keep electronics like this running eh?

The "homing" receiver was relatively small, weighing only around 10lbs and was integrated into the aircraft's standard comms package. The unit's power requirement was no greater than any of the other 5 radio receivers carried as standard by a navy fighter in 1942. The "homing" receiver did require a dedicated external antenna though, normally located somewhere beneath the wing or fuselage.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

The Japanese primarily used float planes and the Kawanishi flying boats for their naval recon from most accounts I have read.

The Japanese used several types for RECON..The MYRT was used on their carriers.



http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/6/C6N_Myrt.htm

[Ostwindflak]

Indeed they did, but all I was saying is that from what I have read their recon plane of choice while at sea seemed to be their Aichi floatplanes. Those seemed to be what the U.S. carrier CAPs seemed to shoot down the most around the U.S. battle groups. I have heard of other types of Japanese recon planes like the picture you provided, but how often were they employed?

[MakeeLearn]

They never had a Zero recon airframe?

besides the Rufe

[Anthropoid]

@ Buckrock and PaxMondo: thanks for clarifying!

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

Indeed they did, but all I was saying is that from what I have read their recon plane of choice while at sea seemed to be their Aichi floatplanes. Those seemed to be what the U.S. carrier CAPs seemed to shoot down the most around the U.S. battle groups. I have heard of other types of Japanese recon planes like the picture you provided, but how often were they employed?

Generally, the FAA, USN and IJN deployed 2 recon types from their larger carriers thruout the war, as needed.
The IJN did not want to depend on IJA land-based recon units.
The Myrt I provided was a later war type and the notes I have seen indicate it WAS used on their carriers, but the majority of the ships were sunk before deployment.

If WITP-AE allows 5(five) squadrons per carrier, we may consider using the recon units as they certainly had a role.
With only 2 planes for that recon, I would imagine they were used to spot exact targets, rather then used as "general search", for obvious reason?

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/ijnaf.htm

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It was overweight and not a successful carrier aircraft.

Quite a conscious decision by the devs to not make it "carrier capable".

Alfred

In support of this... perhaps more specific to the F6 Hellcat and F4F7... I note some CVE are capable of flying at least the F6.

I was "under the impression" that a number of / all the CVE for example could not fly the heavier planes.

In fact at Leyete Gulf local CAP was the F4 Wildcat (still).

I cannot recall the specific references that gave me this impression; perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me?


Ooops.. this... I did not know this:

Saratoga, Enterprise and Hornet each carried a single F4F-7 in addition to their normal CAG complement as a trial during the period
Jul-Sep '42. The F4F-7 was considered a recon-utility aircraft to be used by the VF squadrons if a relevant mission was required. No
use was found for this unarmed recon "fighter" during the trial period and since it was disliked by both the pilots and the deck crews,
the F4F-7s were off-loaded in September '42 and handed over to the Marines for land based use in the Guadalcanal campaign.

So while it was historically carrier capable, it appears not to be carrier wanted by the USN.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The Myrt I provided was a later war type and the notes I have seen indicate it WAS used on their carriers, but the majority of the ships were sunk before deployment.

I've yet to see a source that confirms the operational IJN CVs (Zuikaku and the three Unryu class) that could use the Myrt when available, actually did so. If you've seen one (a source, that is), let me know as I'd be quite interested.

The dedicated recon type that the Japanese definitely did use operationally from their carriers was the Judy variant. The D4Y1-C took part in the battles of Midway and Santa Cruz, the D4Y2-C was used at Cape Engano.

[bomccarthy]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


In support of this... perhaps more specific to the F6 Hellcat and F4F7... I note some CVE are capable of flying at least the F6.

I was "under the impression" that a number of / all the CVE for example could not fly the heavier planes.

In fact at Leyete Gulf local CAP was the F4 Wildcat (still).

I cannot recall the specific references that gave me this impression; perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me?

F6Fs did operate from CVEs throughout the war, with some F6F squadrons flying from CVEs during the Tarawa operation. From USN records, it appears that the Sangamon class CVEs operated F6F squadrons for most of the war (you can browse photocopies of the weekly records here: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/location-of-us-naval-aircraft-world-war-ii.html). USN F6Fs operating from CVEs provided air cover for ANVIL in southern France, shooting down a few Luftwaffe planes in the weeks after the invasion.

The Casablanca class CVEs had some problems operating Hellcats (relatively short flight deck), so they stuck to FM Wildcats for most of the war, but the Commencement Bay class CVEs operated Marine F4U squadrons in 1945.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

How could it? Extra fuel storage for one. A young whippersnapper like you should know that the kind of cameras we're referring to were a lot heavier than a 50 cal or even a number of them. Here's an interesting site:

http://www.airrecce.co.uk/cameras/raf_ww2_cameras.html

The cameras were not so heavy. Big and cumbersome, but not nearly as heavy at 21lbs as one 50cal M2 at 61lbs.

Fuel.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

How could it? Extra fuel storage for one. A young whippersnapper like you should know that the kind of cameras we're referring to were a lot heavier than a 50 cal or even a number of them. Here's an interesting site:

http://www.airrecce.co.uk/cameras/raf_ww2_cameras.html

The cameras were not so heavy. Big and cumbersome, but not nearly as heavy at 21lbs as one 50cal M2 at 61lbs.

Fuel.

I think the film was the greatest weight factor. The strips were quite wide and presumably many yards long. Recon aircraft usually had at least two cameras to get the stereoscopic effect when the pictures were analyzed.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

In support of this... perhaps more specific to the F6 Hellcat and F4F7... I note some CVE are capable of flying at least the F6.

I was "under the impression" that a number of / all the CVE for example could not fly the heavier planes.

In fact at Leyete Gulf local CAP was the F4 Wildcat (still).

I cannot recall the specific references that gave me this impression; perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me?

The FM Wildcat was kept in production for the CVEs because of a few factors. CVEs either operated a long ways from enemy air and their fighters only had to deal with long range patrol aircraft or they were used for invasion support where the fast carriers were around and tasked with keeping enemy air at bay so the CVEs could do their job of flying ground support. The fighters were there in case something slipped through.

Additionally Grumman was maxxed out building F6F for the fast carriers. Supply was just meeting demand and there wasn't a lot of extra production to fill out other squadrons that were unlikely to encounter a lot of enemy air. The Wildcat was also significantly smaller than the F6F, so it worked better in the tight spaces on a CVE. The FM-2 had a more powerful engine that allowed Wildcats to get off a loaded deck (short run) without having to be hooked up to the catapult as well as quickly intercept enemy aircraft. The FM-1 could make a rolling launch in most situations too. Avengers usually had to be launched by catapult, even on search missions because they were too heavy to make a deck run.

The US went with a "good enough" doctrine throughout the war. This was the case with the Sherman, the use of Hellcats on the fleet carriers, the use of Wildcats on the CVEs, and even to the design of the CVEs to begin with.

Bill

[geofflambert]

I think the Sherman was an outstanding medium tank. Its reliability and speed were exemplary. The US just didn't have a heavy tank til almost the end of the war. I know the Hellcat was a great advance but thank g we had Wildcats at Midway.

I have a question. I just don't happen to know about this. I'm not asking about a specific model or nationality. Fighters with mixed armament, say two different calibers of MG or a mix of MG and cannon, did the pilot have the ability to choose which group of guns fired or even, beyond that, could he choose which individual gun would fire when he pulled the trigger?