Page 4 of 4
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
No way could a B-17 carry 17,600 lbs of ordinance as the quote comparing its bomb load to a B-52 said. The bomb bay could carry about 4000 pounds of bombs and IIRC no wing loaded ordinance was ever attempted other than some experimental guided bombs late in the war.
Having said that, though, the B-17 was a damn fine plane for her time. The photo that sticks in my mind the most was of the B-17 with the fuselage cut diagonally almost in two from a German fighter's collision. The cut started behind the radio operator's position and sliced down to the base of the dorsal fin; only the floor bracing kept the tail on the plane, but she got her crew home safely (other than the waist gunners who were probably killed).
The B-24 managed a heavier bomb load by higher wing loading than the B-17 had. B-24 pilots knew that any significant damage to their wings meant a catastrophic failure and collapse of the entire structure, while a B-17 could fly home with holes and chunks taken out of the wings. Oh yes, the B-24 was also a later design than the B-17, which IIRC was designed back in the 20's and the original design/concept retained through WWII with upgrades.
John!!..The B 17 was designed in the THIRTIES!..Please...let's keep it modern!..[:D]
(I also looked at thet B 17 quote with "the chicken look"..)
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:21 pm
by Shark7
ORIGINAL: Dixie
ORIGINAL: joliverlay
This is an truely a tough group. Are you guys going to continue to post facts about the B-52 until I concede that the B-52 is so good that it shames the B-17 by comparison? I don't expect everyone to fall all over themselves to agree with me, but I did expect at least one poster to agree that the B-17 was good enough not to be "shamed" by other aircraft.
Now I remember why I don't post alot in these forums.
Of course the B-52 "shames" the B-17 by comparison, it's at least two generations ahead [:D] Just as the B-17 would shame a Gotha bomber [;)] You can't compare the two, apart from their primary role they are totally different beasts with nothing in common.
If it'll make you feel better, I'll agree with you. The B-17 wasn't a terrible aircraft for it's time [:)]
For its era, it was actually one of the best. [;)] Still in terms of range and bombload it was superceded by 1943. And WiTP is a bit off, because according to the research I did, there were never more than 168 B-17s in the Pacific Theatre at any given time. B-17 ruled the skies over Europe no doubt, but the B-17 just didn't have the range needed for the vast expanses of the Pacific, hence the B-24 and the B-29 (With B-32s and B-36s under development at the end stages of the war).
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:50 pm
by Splinterhead
Of course, his point was that the Japanese never had a bomber that could "shame" the B-17 in WW2. Especially the G10N Fugaku, which never existed except as a pretty picture.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:16 am
by Wirraway_Ace
Did Betty's or Nells ever hit anything with a torp after their brilliant success against Force Z?
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:51 am
by rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
Did Betty's or Nells ever hit anything with a torp after their brilliant success against Force Z?
Yes - they managed a few successes including one CA: USS Chicago, iirc.
EDIT: yes - she was sunk in the Battle of Rennell Islands Jan 1943 by aerial torps - iirc Bettys not Nells.
reedit - original hits (2) by Nell, 4 more by Ms. Betty finished her off.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:44 am
by DivePac88
Yes there was numerous anti-shipping missions launched by Betty’s armed with torpedoes in the Guadalcanal campaign. In fact some of the Betty Groups involved in the campaign around Guadalcanal were the same ones that taken part in the attack on Force Z, namely; 1st Kokutai and Kanoya Kokutai belonging to the 21st Koku Sentai. The best known incident in this campaign was of course the sinking of the USS Chicago in the two day battle of Rennell Island from the twenty-ninth of January 1943. The Betty attacks off Rennell Island were in fact night torpedo attacks, and although there were some successes, the cost was high; with 10 out of the 40 or so Betty’s involved being lost.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:03 am
by Wirraway_Ace
Yes, I am reading Lundstrom's "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign" now, but I continue to be struck how ineffectual the Nell/Betty's were after seemingly effortlessly sinking a modern BB and a modernized BC only 9 months before. There impact during the battles around Java on Allied shipping also seemed very, very small. My assumption is that once the Allies realized the capabilities (e.g. range and payload) of these aircraft, they adjusted there tactics to limit their effectiveness.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:23 am
by DivePac88
Could it have been that in the Java campaign, that most of the Betty anti-shipping attacks were bomb runs, because the torpedoes and handling faculties could not keep-up with the fast moving operations?
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:52 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: DivePac88
The Betty attacks off Rennell Island were in fact night torpedo attacks, and although there were some successes, the cost was high; with 10 out of the 40 or so Betty’s involved being lost.
A point almost everybody seems to miss is that the reason Japanese Torpedo Bomber attacks (Nells, Betties, Kantes, whatever) were so successfull was that the pilots closed to suicidally short ranges to launch their weapons. Which ensured the targets had minimum time to "dodge the bullet". What it also ensured was that as defenses got better their losses skyrocketed, and the veterans could not be replaced. And when forced to operate as "level bombers" their success rate against shipping plummeted to B-17 levels.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:59 am
by Dili
That is a good point. In Mediterranean in 1941 the Italian torpedo bombers(like that S.79 in my signature) had 8 torpedo hits per loss of one plane, in 1943 that had dropped to 2,5.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:53 am
by DivePac88
In fact the Guadalcanal campaign could be considered the swansong of the experienced Betty groups. The IJNAF lost 18 Betty’s and their crews on an attack on American shipping at Lunga Point on the second day of the campaign alone. The Japanese lost another 100 or so Betty’s and their veteran crews in the battles around Guadalcanal between August and October. These heavy losses in veteran crews could go some way to explain the lack of effectiveness of this type of attack, later in the war.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:28 pm
by Kereguelen
ORIGINAL: DivePac88
In fact the Guadalcanal campaign could be considered the swansong of the experienced Betty groups. The IJNAF lost 18 Betty’s and their crews on an attack on American shipping at Lunga Point on the second day of the campaign alone. The Japanese lost another 100 or so Betty’s and their veteran crews in the battles around Guadalcanal between August and October. These heavy losses in veteran crews could go some way to explain the lack of effectiveness of this type of attack, later in the war.
Yes, but Guadalcanal was not the first time when the JNAF suffered heavy Betty losses. The 4th Kokutai had already lost 16 G4M1 to Wildcats from VF-3 when attacking CV Lexington on 20th February 1942.