Allied CVs, early war

[pharmy]

The Japanese Peggy and Peggy (T) are absolutely the same - they both are level bombers, no stats are changed only torpedo ordnance is different. Either its hardcoded or based on the torpedo.

[LowCommand]

As I remember (I’m too lazy to look for sources right now) the B-26 was shipped with adaptors for 2 torpedoes (although the adapters had a tendency to get lost.) They did get used early war at Midway and against the diversionary attack in the Aleutians. There the Japanese had the rare joy of seeing a torpedo pass completely over a CVL due to the very rough weather. The B-26 went MIA.

The B-26 was judged unsuited for Pacific service because the B-25 operated out of rough fields much better. The B-26 also “mushed down” during a dive recovery, making it less than ideal for low level attacks. The B-25J used by the Navy was equipped for torpedo attacks.

The B-26 was faster and had slightly longer range than the B-25. It had a high enough speed (especially when in a shallow dive running after a bombing attack) that Zeros were confined to rear attacks. Note that most of the B-26s that attacked during Midway made it home. One fell apart on the runway, but did make it home, despite attacks by dozens of Zeros.

The Army Air Corps didn’t use torpedoes much because:

Ours didn’t work well at the start

They are finicky things requiring lots of maintenance. They don’t like mud, dirt and rough fields. That pretty much describes the all the Pacific airfields. Bombs don’t much care.

As noted above, once our torpedoes really started working there weren’t many targets.

Torpedo attacks require different tactics than bomb attacks. Given the poor Stateside training and total exhaustion In Theater, there wasn’t any time to practice such things.

[AW1Steve]

"They are finicky things requiring lots of maintenance. They don’t like mud, dirt and rough fields. That pretty much describes the all the Pacific airfields"..... And these are the same people who thought a P-39 was a really good idea to operate out of jungle airstrips? [:D]
Let's take an airplane with the most complex transmission system ever put into an aircraft and operate it without hangers or paved strips, and work on it in the open with an a-frame. Let's face it. The Army bombing mafia was dedicated to bombing. They may have used the "torpedo bomber" concept to sell the plane to an isolationist public (the same way they sold the B-17 as a "Destroyer of fleets"), but once the war started, they just didn't want to do it. Kind of like a lazy teenager. Let the Navy sink ships. [:D]

[Onime No Kyo]

Well the Russians operated P-39s is conditions that would have made the designers stare in bewilderment. And they kept up a pretty good service rate doing it too. I think that bird is tougher than you give it credit for.

[spence]

In the latter years of WWII, U.S. aerial torpedoes were fitted with plywood fixtures on both the nose and the tail. These were fashioned in the "ship's carpenters shop" and consisted of a plywood box fitted around the tail/propellors and a round plywood nose ring that fitted over the front of the torpedo. The tail fixture assured a proper angle of entry into the water. The nose ring helped with the same function during freefall and also protected the nose during water entry. Both fixtures were designed to break away as the torpedo entered the water. With these fixtures fitted the Mark 13 could be launched at speeds over 250 mph and altitudes up to 800 feet. Needless to say that was a considerable improvement over the launch parameters enjoyed by Torpedo 8. However, although the USN tested its medium bomber types as torpedo bombers it decided that in the main the missions desired could be accomplished just as well using bombs from low altitude.

[pharmy]

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... IJO-2.html

Q. Do you know of any ships which may have been hit by torpedoes from B-26's or PBY's?
A. Not a hit in those days of the battle on the carrier formation.

Q. Were you attacked with torpedoes on the morning of the battle of 4 June?
A. About an hour after sunrise, we were attacked by torpedo bombers.

Q. Were they single or twin-engined?
A. Mostly they were twin-engined, none of them hit. They were dropped at very great range and we were able to avoid them.

Q. Do you know if one of the twin-engined planes, after dropping the torpedo, flew into the deck of one of the carriers?
A. No, I was observing and know that did not happen.

[spence]

Not sure what your Q&A series is supposed to accomplish. If it is that history shows that none of the 12 B-26s which actually dropped torpedoes (or attacked IJN CVs with torpedoes) scored a hit; is not in dispute. If it is that none of the B-26s could have possibly have scored a hit then that is a different question.
From my experience the IJN attack on Pearl Harbor has been enhanced by a factor of around 3 and so far there has been little complaint from the IJN fanboys about how overwhelming such a result is.

It is too bad that the Allied Player has not been allowed to explore the possibilities of torpedo attack against the IJN. But since IRL the IJN doctrine proved to be pretty much a failure why would the Allied Player wish to indulge the same fantasy?

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

WOW....just doing a little research says we'd need to do an a lot to even begin to nail this down. It appears that the Army specs required the plan to be able to preform torpedo attacks from the begining. Supposedly the B-26a could carry an internal fish, but I can't find which model.The B-26's at Midway , from the 22nd and 35th BG's were B-26B's , which had longer wings and bigger tails for more stability and better handling.

I've found an account where VT-13 tested Mk 13's , operating under extremes succesfully , such as 280kts (which must have been quite a trick in a TBM/TBF, requiring a dive!) and as high as 800 feet! (That is to say , operating , working,functional torpedos. Obviously you could drop from 20,000 if you don't mind the fish hitting the water and turning into a million parts!). [:D]

My gut feeling is that B-26's , with well trained crews , could do this , but the USAAF really wasn't that hot on the idea. And the USN wasn't all that hot on landbased naval air strike forces. I would expect that the USMC , if anyone , would take this and run with it.....[&:]

I dont see where the original specs asked for torpedo capability, given the split bomb bay carring an internal torp would be awkward.
The B26B was capable of carrying torpedos. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b26_4.html
The B version introduced self-sealing fuel lines and a rearrangement of various internal equipment items. The engines were switched back to R-2800-5s. The large propeller spinners were deleted. The oil cooler air scoop under the engine cowling was enlarged. Torpedo racks underneath the fuselage were fitted as factory-installed equipment. Fuel supply included two 350-gallon main fuel tanks in the wings, two 121-gallon auxiliary tanks, and up to four 250-gallon bomb bay ferry tanks, for a total capacity of 1962 gallons. Normal bomb load consisted of two 2000 lb or 1600 lb bombs, eight 500-pound, sixteen 250 lb, or thirty 100-lb bombs. Maximum short-range bombload was 5200 pounds, which was seldom carried. This could be two 1600-lb bombs plus a 2000-pound torpedo on the external rack.

Early models of the B-26 had two separate bomb bays, but the rear one was only used infrequently for light loads in the South Pacific. Eventually, the rear bomb bay racks were discontinued altogether, followed by the deletion of the rear bomb bay doors and actuating mechanisms as well. The space and weight factors had become too critical, and the space was more valuable as a gunner's station after two flexible 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in the waist window area and ammunition storage boxes were installed for the tail and waist guns. Provisions for the two rear bay tanks were deleted from the B-26B-25-MA and later blocks.

Plus a bit about the widow maker reputation
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b26_5.html

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

WOW....just doing a little research says we'd need to do an a lot to even begin to nail this down. It appears that the Army specs required the plan to be able to preform torpedo attacks from the begining. Supposedly the B-26a could carry an internal fish, but I can't find which model.The B-26's at Midway , from the 22nd and 35th BG's were B-26B's , which had longer wings and bigger tails for more stability and better handling.

I've found an account where VT-13 tested Mk 13's , operating under extremes succesfully , such as 280kts (which must have been quite a trick in a TBM/TBF, requiring a dive!) and as high as 800 feet! (That is to say , operating , working,functional torpedos. Obviously you could drop from 20,000 if you don't mind the fish hitting the water and turning into a million parts!). [:D]

My gut feeling is that B-26's , with well trained crews , could do this , but the USAAF really wasn't that hot on the idea. And the USN wasn't all that hot on landbased naval air strike forces. I would expect that the USMC , if anyone , would take this and run with it.....[&:]

I dont see where the original specs asked for torpedo capability, given the split bomb bay carring an internal torp would be awkward.
The B26B was capable of carrying torpedos. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b26_4.html
The B version introduced self-sealing fuel lines and a rearrangement of various internal equipment items. The engines were switched back to R-2800-5s. The large propeller spinners were deleted. The oil cooler air scoop under the engine cowling was enlarged. Torpedo racks underneath the fuselage were fitted as factory-installed equipment. Fuel supply included two 350-gallon main fuel tanks in the wings, two 121-gallon auxiliary tanks, and up to four 250-gallon bomb bay ferry tanks, for a total capacity of 1962 gallons. Normal bomb load consisted of two 2000 lb or 1600 lb bombs, eight 500-pound, sixteen 250 lb, or thirty 100-lb bombs. Maximum short-range bombload was 5200 pounds, which was seldom carried. This could be two 1600-lb bombs plus a 2000-pound torpedo on the external rack.

Early models of the B-26 had two separate bomb bays, but the rear one was only used infrequently for light loads in the South Pacific. Eventually, the rear bomb bay racks were discontinued altogether, followed by the deletion of the rear bomb bay doors and actuating mechanisms as well. The space and weight factors had become too critical, and the space was more valuable as a gunner's station after two flexible 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in the waist window area and ammunition storage boxes were installed for the tail and waist guns. Provisions for the two rear bay tanks were deleted from the B-26B-25-MA and later blocks.

Plus a bit about the widow maker reputation
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b26_5.html

Damned if I know. Let me get back to you when I can lay my hands on a B-26 "operators manual". [:)]

[pharmy]

ORIGINAL: LowCommand

As I remember (I’m too lazy to look for sources right now) the B-26 was shipped with adaptors for 2 torpedoes (although the adapters had a tendency to get lost.) They did get used early war at Midway and against the diversionary attack in the Aleutians. There the Japanese had the rare joy of seeing a torpedo pass completely over a CVL due to the very rough weather. The B-26 went MIA.

Absolutely nothing, just found a Japanese source, while looking around for other material. I myself did not know that it was Marauders that carried those torps, and that they reverted the next day to level bombing. Always assumed it was just the PBYs, since books often state, incorrectly that both the B-25 and B-26 had their baptism of fire in Australia/SWPAC By the way it probably had to do with the fact that Midway was a marine base and actually had torpedoes on hand.

[gpannell]

I know I'm late to the forum, but I just had to comment. I fight in a very unorthodox manner and because of it I am almost always out of Political Points. I refuse to return my Brit CVs. I move them to Brisbane and combine my USN CVs to balance my force against the KB. I also remove the Devastators and Brit Stringbags (Swordfish) from the CVs and replace with USN and USMC VB and VMB squadrons as they come available. I also add USMC VMF Wildcats to my carriers for extra CAP until the CV air groups increase. I try to max out capacity on each carrier when possible. To avoid running out of gas, I create an escort TF with any CVE or CVL I may have (Long Island and Hermes if not sunk with just fighters on board), and 6 or 7 DD with as many oilers as I have. This TF trails my main CV force. I have even sacrificed this force (when the Long Island or Hermesis are present) by putting them in front of my CVs in sort of an homage to the IJN CVs at Leyte Gulf. In this unorthodox manner I usually loose two of my CVs, but rarely leave more than 1 of the KB's CVs operational. Mine are replaceable the Japanese are irreplaceable. I think the real key is removing the POS Devastators and replacing them with Marine and Navy Dauntlesses. I know this is very risky and the first couple of times I had my butt handed to me, but for the most part it works very well.

[Miller]

I would leave the British torp planes onboard, they seem to perform much better than their pilot exp would suggest.......

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Miller

I would leave the British torp planes onboard, they seem to perform much better than their pilot exp would suggest.......

pilot quality on any of those carriers shouldn't be a problem, not even early on. There are enough skilled pilots around that can be transferred to the carriers if someone wants to. None of my carriers moves around with pilots not having 70 of their needed skill(s).

[gpannell]

It's not so much the Pilot quality as the attrition of the Swordfish in Air-to-Air and vs Flak. I tried using them, but so few made it through and got hits, it was just much more economical to use the Marine SBD squadrons.

[EUBanana]

The Swordfish torpedoes are very good, much better than the rubbish dropped by the Devastators. I think thats why, at least if air defence is light, the stringbags prove surprisingly dangerous.

[The Gnome]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

So does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong in trying to mod this so that I can "play" with the Idea of an "American Betty"? [&:]

Please keep us informed as to how this proceeds, I'm really curious to see if you can pull this off - and even more interested in playing it if you do. I'm really interested in seeing if much of anything changes early-war, given the USN torpedo dud rates.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

So does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong in trying to mod this so that I can "play" with the Idea of an "American Betty"? [&:]

Please keep us informed as to how this proceeds, I'm really curious to see if you can pull this off - and even more interested in playing it if you do. I'm really interested in seeing if much of anything changes early-war, given the USN torpedo dud rates.

So far not so good. I've tried modifying the DB in every manner that I can think of and still no workie. Any assitance for those more technologically inclined would be appreciated and greatfully received. [:)]

[pharmy]

and you gotta love their slow speed, the stringbags will always arrive after the main fight with next to no CAP left and put a couple of fish into your Malaya invasion fleets. Since flak improved though they are not much use against warships

[pharmy]

which device number torpedoes did you use? 89-102 seem to be the hard coded airborne ones, with the exception of the Russian planes all other torpedo planes use those while ships/subs use devices numbered in the 1000s

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: icepharmy

which device number torpedoes did you use? 89-102 seem to be the hard coded airborne ones, with the exception of the Russian planes all other torpedo planes use those while ships/subs use devices numbered in the 1000s

95? The same as other USN planes use.