Author Topic: More Navy Planes  (Read 1518 times)

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
More Navy Planes
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2007, 09:01:24 PM »
How significant was the Judy?  I've read the production numbers at around 1600, but haven't read a lot about them in most history books--at least in the major naval battles.  For instance, a lot of the kamikazes being flown into the Okinawa AO were still Kates and Vals...

I saw that they were used for reconnaissance duty.  Was that a more prevalent role for the Judy than dive bombing?

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
More Navy Planes
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2007, 09:45:38 PM »
There were plans for a carrier based P-38... It never left paper, but it was thought of. Therefore, add the P38 to the CV capable planes!

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
More Navy Planes
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2007, 12:54:19 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Apeking
The F4F was called the Martlet, and it was one of the rare cases where the British name for an American import did not catch on (in contrast to Sherman, Mustang, etc).


Sorry to bust out all Cliff Claiborne on ya but,

In March of '44, RNAF aircraft standardized their designations with the U.S. equivalent.  The Martlet became known as the Wildcat and the Tarpon became known as the Avenger.

:)

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
More Navy Planes
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2007, 01:25:29 AM »
Wasn't there a navalized P-40 variant? Limited production, but DID see combat?
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
More Navy Planes
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2007, 02:03:34 AM »
You're not talking about the USAAF guys that took off the USS Ranger during Operation Torch are you?  That was a one way trip--they didn't return to the ship--kinda like the P-47's that supported the Marianas invasisons.

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
More Navy Planes
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2007, 02:09:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stoney74
How significant was the Judy?  I've read the production numbers at around 1600, but haven't read a lot about them in most history books--at least in the major naval battles.  For instance, a lot of the kamikazes being flown into the Okinawa AO were still Kates and Vals...

I saw that they were used for reconnaissance duty.  Was that a more prevalent role for the Judy than dive bombing?


Over 2000 Judy's were built, which were more than the Kates, Vals, or Jills produced, respectively.

Some were converted to night fighters vs B-29's, but not very effective.  Carried over twice the load of a Val (up to 800kg compared to 370kg) and had a higher service ceiling and was about 100 mph faster, and had a similar range.  Some late models had RATO boosters to get off short runways.  Of course, lacking self sealing tanks hurt them like many Japanese planes.

The CV's Franklin and Essex both hit by Judy's.

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
More Navy Planes
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2007, 08:44:00 AM »
http://www.combinedfleet.com says it could only carry 800kg of bombs in the suicide configuration.  Normal bomb load was 310kg.  

And, didn't look it up, but I'm guessing those Judys that hit the Franklin and Essex didn't pickle their bombs either?

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
More Navy Planes
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2007, 01:48:04 PM »
Judy first saw use in Recce at the Battle of Midway. From 1942 on, she was the premier divebomber of the IJN. Although her bombload was the same as the Val, she was considerably faster than any other Carrier born divebomber of the time (of course, the USN JABOs render this pointless during the course of the war).

In 1942-1943 events, Judy would give the Japanese a much needed strike platform that would be able to actually make it to the target, and have a decent chance of getting home. As it stands, flying Vals v. Hellcats and Coursairs is less than useless.

Granted, there wouldn't be much use in the MA.

-Sik
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
More Navy Planes
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2007, 01:50:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stoney74
http://www.combinedfleet.com says it could only carry 800kg of bombs in the suicide configuration.  Normal bomb load was 310kg.  

And, didn't look it up, but I'm guessing those Judys that hit the Franklin and Essex didn't pickle their bombs either?

I don't know about the Essex, but the Franklin was hit by a bomb.  The Judy in question got away.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
More Navy Planes
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2007, 04:17:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by pwnt
Sorry to bust out all Cliff Claiborne on ya but,

In March of '44, RNAF aircraft standardized their designations with the U.S. equivalent.  The Martlet became known as the Wildcat and the Tarpon became known as the Avenger.

:)


Cliff Claven:D :D :D :D :D :D :cool: :cool: :rofl

Offline Apeking

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 134
More Navy Planes
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2007, 05:43:06 PM »
"I think the 109E-3 was to be a carrier fighter"

It was the Bf-109T. It had several modifications including a slightly wider landing gear track and a greater wingspan. It would be interesting to know how this altered its performance.

There's a brief profile of the 109T, and a drawing, in Osprey's "BF 109 F/G/K Aces of the Western Front". They were stationed in Norway. I have no idea what they achieved, or if any survive today. Norway survives today.

There's a short article about them here:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avbf109_2.html

Just do a text search for "toni". Toni Basil is famous for her novelty one-off hit single "Mickey". Mickey is a mouse. Bark comes from trees. Thank you.

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10470
More Navy Planes
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2007, 06:08:04 PM »
===>    "Norm"

Offline titanic3

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4235
More Navy Planes
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2007, 06:17:38 PM »
just take a B24 or 17, it's real easy if u know how to do it. 25% gives you about 20-30 mins of flying time(so i believe) and 12x 500lb in a b24 is enough. or take a ki67 or B26. B26,B24,and B17 isn't made for Cv but it still take off from it.:aok

  the game is concentrated on combat, not on shaking the screen.

semp

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
More Navy Planes
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2007, 12:03:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Debonair
Cliff Claven:D :D :D :D :D :D :cool: :cool: :rofl


Sorry, didn't know the exact spelling of the last name :aok

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
More Navy Planes
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2007, 12:08:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't know about the Essex, but the Franklin was hit by a bomb.  The Judy in question got away.


Picture posted at http://www.navsource.org shows the Franklin shortly after the impact.  I couldn't get a link to work to post the picture.

Caption posted with this picture:

"A Japanese kamikaze hits the flight deck of USS Franklin (CV-13), October 30, 1944.

Official U.S. Navy Photograph."

According to the website, three kamikazes attacked.  One hit the water, one hit the Franklin, and the third missed the Franklin and hit the Belleau Wood

According to the U.S. Navy history website, she was actually struck 3 different times.  The first was bomb that did little damage.  The second was the suicide attack, and the third was again bombs.  I suppose we could be talking about different incidents.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2007, 12:20:13 AM by Stoney74 »