1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 15, 2020 4:43:13 GMT
I posted this over on the BC board, but the group here isn't the same as the group here, so I thought I'd gather some thoughts from this board as well
I recently reviewed Lisle A. Rose's book on USS Hornet, CV-8. In it, on pages 82 and 83, he mentions that after returning from the Doolittle Raid mission, before departing for the South Pacific on April 30th, 1942, Hornet and Enterprise each loaded 12 Marine F4F-3s to be flown off to the airfield at Efate in the New Hebrides (part of modern day Vanuatu)  The F4F-3 was the fixed wing version of the Wildcat, with four .50 cal. machine guns, two in each wing. These planes were from VMF-212. The NavWeaps OOB page for Midway lists Midway's fighter strength as 21 (20 operational) F2A-3 Buffaloes and 7 (6operational) F4F-3 Wildcats of VMF-221. What if the 24 Marine F4F-3s were sent to Midway instead? The TROM for Kaga lists the attack on Midway consisting of '36 B5N2 “Kate”, 36 D3A1 “Val” and 36 A6M2 “Zeke”'. What would an additional 24 fighters mean for the first attack? Only six Japanese aircraft are listed as lost in the attack on Midway; would the Marines have done better with more F4Fs? VMF-212 went on to participate in the Guadalcanal and Solomons campaigns. They could have easily been transferred to the South Pacific after Midway was defended. Regards,"> six Japanese aircraft are listed as lost in the attack on Midway; would the Marines have done better with more F4Fs? VMF-212 went on to participate in the Guadalcanal and Solomons campaigns. They could have easily been transferred to the South Pacific after Midway was defended. Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 15, 2020 8:50:21 GMT
I posted this over on the BC board, but the group here isn't the same as the group here, so I thought I'd gather some thoughts from this board as well I recently reviewed Lisle A. Rose's book on USS Hornet, CV-8. In it, on pages 82 and 83, he mentions that after returning from the Doolittle Raid mission, before departing for the South Pacific on April 30th, 1942, Hornet and Enterprise each loaded 12 Marine F4F-3s to be flown off to the airfield at Efate in the New Hebrides (part of modern day Vanuatu) The F4F-3 was the fixed wing version of the Wildcat, with four .50 cal. machine guns, two in each wing. These planes were from VMF-212. The NavWeaps OOB page for Midway lists Midway's fighter strength as 21 (20 operational) F2A-3 Buffaloes and 7 (6operational) F4F-3 Wildcats of VMF-221. What if the 24 Marine F4F-3s were sent to Midway instead? The TROM for Kaga lists the attack on Midway consisting of '36 B5N2 “Kate”, 36 D3A1 “Val” and 36 A6M2 “Zeke”'. What would an additional 24 fighters mean for the first attack? Only six Japanese aircraft are listed as lost in the attack on Midway; would the Marines have done better with more F4Fs? VMF-212 went on to participate in the Guadalcanal and Solomons campaigns. They could have easily been transferred to the South Pacific after Midway was defended. Regards,"> six Japanese aircraft are listed as lost in the attack on Midway; would the Marines have done better with more F4Fs? VMF-212 went on to participate in the Guadalcanal and Solomons campaigns. They could have easily been transferred to the South Pacific after Midway was defended. Regards, Would 24 F4F-3s make a difference compared to OTL, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 15, 2020 10:29:35 GMT
I posted this over on the BC board, but the group here isn't the same as the group here, so I thought I'd gather some thoughts from this board as well I recently reviewed Lisle A. Rose's book on USS Hornet, CV-8. In it, on pages 82 and 83, he mentions that after returning from the Doolittle Raid mission, before departing for the South Pacific on April 30th, 1942, Hornet and Enterprise each loaded 12 Marine F4F-3s to be flown off to the airfield at Efate in the New Hebrides (part of modern day Vanuatu) The F4F-3 was the fixed wing version of the Wildcat, with four .50 cal. machine guns, two in each wing. These planes were from VMF-212. The NavWeaps OOB page for Midway lists Midway's fighter strength as 21 (20 operational) F2A-3 Buffaloes and 7 (6operational) F4F-3 Wildcats of VMF-221. What if the 24 Marine F4F-3s were sent to Midway instead? The TROM for Kaga lists the attack on Midway consisting of '36 B5N2 “Kate”, 36 D3A1 “Val” and 36 A6M2 “Zeke”'. What would an additional 24 fighters mean for the first attack? Only six Japanese aircraft are listed as lost in the attack on Midway; would the Marines have done better with more F4Fs? VMF-212 went on to participate in the Guadalcanal and Solomons campaigns. They could have easily been transferred to the South Pacific after Midway was defended. Regards,"> six Japanese aircraft are listed as lost in the attack on Midway; would the Marines have done better with more F4Fs? VMF-212 went on to participate in the Guadalcanal and Solomons campaigns. They could have easily been transferred to the South Pacific after Midway was defended. Regards, Would 24 F4F-3s make a difference compared to OTL,
Well their a lot more capable than the F2a Buffalos, all other things being equal. Saying that because I don't know about the quality of the pilots and ground crew and also if there is enough room and facilities at Midway. Almost certainly the latter wouldn't be a problem but mentioning for completeness. Assuming that the F4fs aren't totally raw recruits its likely that the Japanese attack on Midway is going to suffer markedly higher losses. This could make the Japanese even more determined they need to hit Midway again immediately so could have a lot of butterfilies. Possible they might realise that the US is aware of their plans and their walking into a 'trap' but given the viewpoint of the Japanese military I'm not sure this would change their approach much?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 15, 2020 13:53:12 GMT
Would 24 F4F-3s make a difference compared to OTL, Well their a lot more capable than the F2a Buffalos, all other things being equal. Saying that because I don't know about the quality of the pilots and ground crew and also if there is enough room and facilities at Midway. Almost certainly the latter wouldn't be a problem but mentioning for completeness. Assuming that the F4fs aren't totally raw recruits its likely that the Japanese attack on Midway is going to suffer markedly higher losses. This could make the Japanese even more determined they need to hit Midway again immediately so could have a lot of butterfilies. Possible they might realise that the US is aware of their plans and their walking into a 'trap' but given the viewpoint of the Japanese military I'm not sure this would change their approach much?
Why not some Army P-40s. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 15, 2020 19:25:16 GMT
Well their a lot more capable than the F2a Buffalos, all other things being equal. Saying that because I don't know about the quality of the pilots and ground crew and also if there is enough room and facilities at Midway. Almost certainly the latter wouldn't be a problem but mentioning for completeness. Assuming that the F4fs aren't totally raw recruits its likely that the Japanese attack on Midway is going to suffer markedly higher losses. This could make the Japanese even more determined they need to hit Midway again immediately so could have a lot of butterfilies. Possible they might realise that the US is aware of their plans and their walking into a 'trap' but given the viewpoint of the Japanese military I'm not sure this would change their approach much?
Steve, lordroel,
First, I think with 24 additional Wildcats, we push the number of USMC fighter over the number of Zeros. That means some, even if it's only a few, US fighters will be able to attack the Japanese bombers.
I do think VMF-212 will be like VMF-221, inexperienced, and they may suffer heavy losses because of it as well.
This might be of interest:
Regards,
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 15, 2020 19:27:06 GMT
See the Midway OOB link I provided. There were some P-40Es in the Aleutians/Alaska, as well as some P-36s, P-38s and P-39s
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 16, 2020 3:48:08 GMT
See the Midway OOB link I provided. There were some P-40Es in the Aleutians/Alaska, as well as some P-36s, P-38s and P-39s Regards, But it seems only The US Army had B-17s on Eastern Island Airfield, only after the battle did P-40 Warhawk-equipped 73d Fighter Squadron (18th Fighter Group) arrive on then renamed Henderson Field to provide air defense. Also i think B-17s for fleet attack is not needed, yes good range to be use for long range scouting but bombing enemy ships is something the torpedo bomber and dive bombers of the navy can be used for. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 20, 2020 16:22:50 GMT
Also i think B-17s for fleet attack is not needed, yes good range to be use for long range scouting but bombing enemy ships is something the torpedo bomber and dive bombers of the navy can be used for. Got to agree. The B-17's were ineffective when it came to sinking warships and only marginal attacking merchies underway. SOP was for the ship to watch the bombs leave the high altitude bombers and just put the helm hard over and clear the aim point.
If the heavy bombers tried bombing at low altitude their size and lack of maneuverability on the bomb run made them dead meat for the AA gunners.
I found it interesting that slow moving, ungainly PBY flying boats were the most effective "heavy" air craft at warship sinking. The Black Cats were equipped with radar, bombs and torpedoes.
To survive the PBY Black Cat missions were only flown at night. According to Samuel Eliot Morison's "The Struggle For Guadalcanal," the "Black Cats" were a game-changer.
I don't agree with Morrison about them being "A game changer" but they did make very good use of radar directed low level night attacks. Had their torpedoes been reliable I'd bet the ship sinking score would have been much higher.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 20, 2020 17:23:58 GMT
Also i think B-17s for fleet attack is not needed, yes good range to be use for long range scouting but bombing enemy ships is something the torpedo bomber and dive bombers of the navy can be used for. Got to agree. The B-17's were ineffective when it came to sinking warships and only marginal attacking merchies underway. SOP was for the ship to watch the bombs leave the high altitude bombers and just put the helm hard over and clear the aim point.
The USAAF should have deployed 1 ore 2 fighter squadrons, leave the B-17s at home, which would allow the US Navy to send its fighters and dive/torpedo bombers to join the fight against the Japanese carriers while the USAAF could defend Midway. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 20, 2020 19:41:28 GMT
Got to agree. The B-17's were ineffective when it came to sinking warships and only marginal attacking merchies underway. SOP was for the ship to watch the bombs leave the high altitude bombers and just put the helm hard over and clear the aim point.
The USAAF should have deployed 1 ore 2 fighter squadrons, leave the B-17s at home, which would allow the US Navy to send its fighters and dive/torpedo bombers to join the fight against the Japanese carriers while the USAAF could defend Midway. Might have been better to leave the TBDs at Pearl also and fill the carrier decks with SBDs and F4Fs. The Mark 13 aerial torpedo at Midway was nothing short of criminal. 42 out of 51 torpedo bombers were lost at the Battle of Midway without scoring a single hit.
Would you like to know more about the MK-13?
Development of the Mark 13 was retarded by a lag in the completion of the torpedo planes for which it was designed, by the Bureau of Aeronautics pressure for a 1000 pound weapon with great tactical flexibility, and by the inevitable process of weeding out successive defects. After war started again in Europe, however, uncertainty about the value of torpedoes as an aircraft weapon vanished and considerable strides were made to ready the unproved weapon for possible use. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Mark 13 was issued to the service in a form that closely resembled the original specifications. While the General Board weight recommendations could not be met, the range of the torpedo was increased to 5000 yards at 33.5 knots and the weapon could be dropped at least 60 feet by a plane flying at 115 knots.
Although the Mark 13 was available when the Pearl Harbor attack came, it was not used effectively or extensively until almost 3 years later. The relatively low speeds and altitudes required for successful release were not destined to win popularity for the weapon. The operations at Midway emphasized the dangers involved and airmen complained bitterly of "the handicaps of obsolete tactical training, obsolete torpedo planes, and obsolete equipment." The last item in their indictment was a continual concern to the Bureau of Ordnance; although the basic similarity between the Mark 13 Mod 1 and the Mark 10 showed that the charge was overdrawn, the torpedo was not adequate for modern warfare until a series of alterations were effected.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 20, 2020 19:56:11 GMT
The USAAF should have deployed 1 ore 2 fighter squadrons, leave the B-17s at home, which would allow the US Navy to send its fighters and dive/torpedo bombers to join the fight against the Japanese carriers while the USAAF could defend Midway. Might have been better to leave the TBDs at Pearl also and fill the carrier decks with SBDs and F4Fs.
So only dive bombers and fighters for the US navy carrier fleet. Battle of Midway: Timeline of significant events |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 20, 2020 21:13:43 GMT
Might have been better to leave the TBDs at Pearl also and fill the carrier decks with SBDs and F4Fs.
So only dive bombers and fighters for the US navy carrier fleet. Battle of Midway: Timeline of significant eventsYes I believe so. As it happened SBD's with 500 and thousand pound bombs sunk four carriers and two cruisers, So there is no doubt those weapons worked. The SBDs took light losses with 131 total SBDs from carriers and Midway Island only 35 were lost.This is not all 20/20 hindsight either. Both the Mk 14 Submarine torpedo and the Mk 13 aerial torpedo were criticized by the sailors who used them by June 1942 based on actual experience. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 20, 2020 21:20:04 GMT
The USAAF should have deployed 1 ore 2 fighter squadrons, leave the B-17s at home, which would allow the US Navy to send its fighters and dive/torpedo bombers to join the fight against the Japanese carriers while the USAAF could defend Midway. Remember lordroel, we're an Air Corps dedicated to the manned bomber, especially the high-level, heavy bomber, just like the RAF!!
AIGF,
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jun 20, 2020 21:28:43 GMT
Might have been better to leave the TBDs at Pearl also and fill the carrier decks with SBDs and F4Fs. The Mark 13 aerial torpedo at Midway was nothing short of criminal. 42 out of 51 torpedo bombers were lost at the Battle of Midway without scoring a single hit.
Would you like to know more about the MK-13?
Development of the Mark 13 was retarded by a lag in the completion of the torpedo planes for which it was designed, by the Bureau of Aeronautics pressure for a 1000 pound weapon with great tactical flexibility, and by the inevitable process of weeding out successive defects. After war started again in Europe, however, uncertainty about the value of torpedoes as an aircraft weapon vanished and considerable strides were made to ready the unproved weapon for possible use. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Mark 13 was issued to the service in a form that closely resembled the original specifications. While the General Board weight recommendations could not be met, the range of the torpedo was increased to 5000 yards at 33.5 knots and the weapon could be dropped at least 60 feet by a plane flying at 115 knots.
Although the Mark 13 was available when the Pearl Harbor attack came, it was not used effectively or extensively until almost 3 years later. The relatively low speeds and altitudes required for successful release were not destined to win popularity for the weapon. The operations at Midway emphasized the dangers involved and airmen complained bitterly of "the handicaps of obsolete tactical training, obsolete torpedo planes, and obsolete equipment." The last item in their indictment was a continual concern to the Bureau of Ordnance; although the basic similarity between the Mark 13 Mod 1 and the Mark 10 showed that the charge was overdrawn, the torpedo was not adequate for modern warfare until a series of alterations were effected.
Well said, Senior Chief.
Yup, if the USN had an Achilles Heel in the interwar period, it was torpedo development. I've pointed out over on the BC board that the whole reason we have a victory at Balikpapan was the old US Four-Pipers were using MK 8 torpedoes that actually worked! Had their more modern counterparts been present, they would have had the Mk 15, which inherited legions of problems from the submarine Mk 14 torpedo....
As an aside, I just finished a book called "My Carrier War' by Norman E Berg. He was supposed to be a dive-bomber pilot but wound up in Avengers. He says that his training included glide bombing in the Avenger, and when his air group off Chenango deployed to Guadalcanal, they bombed several targets on New Georgia and Bouganville, and mined a harbor on Bouganville. I'm planning on posting a review of the book on the BC board in the near future.
Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 21, 2020 7:24:59 GMT
The USAAF should have deployed 1 ore 2 fighter squadrons, leave the B-17s at home, which would allow the US Navy to send its fighters and dive/torpedo bombers to join the fight against the Japanese carriers while the USAAF could defend Midway. Remember lordroel, we're an Air Corps dedicated to the manned bomber, especially the high-level, heavy bomber, just like the RAF!! AIGF, Ore was it that Midway was a US Navy show and the Army got a guest role in it. |
|
