Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bangsbox on April 03, 2014, 02:07:06 PM
-
(http://i.imgur.com/1m7KrJM.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/1m7KrJM.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/1m7KrJM.jpg)
-
Nice photo of a Mitchell doing a masthead attack run.
ack-ack
-
Oh thats beautiful. :aok
-
And of course trying that in the game will get you one-pinged to the tower by the manned guns from 5000 yards.
-
Sweet!! :aok
-
And of course trying that in the game will get you one-pinged to the tower by the manned guns from 5000 yards.
Well maybe if we got IJN CV groups it would be different.
Also I dont believe the Naval versions of the B25s flew alone so attacks from different sides would lower the hazards, tho it was still dangerous and we did lose a lot of bombers. Im trying to remember the IJN troop transport convoy that was literally slaughtered by PBJ-1s of the USN. If I remember right the convoy was also hit by our allies in Beaufighters and what not.
That was it! The Battle of the Bismark Sea. http://www.airvectors.net/avb25.html
While prewar US air combat doctrine emphasized medium or high altitude bombing attacks on shipping, experience had shown that approach to be ineffective. Kenney's aircrews instead developed a new scheme known as "skip bombing", in which a B-25 came in low over the water, spraying the target with its nose guns to wipe out enemy gunners, and then released a bomb with a time-delay fuze to skip over the water and slam into the target, exploding after the bomber had made its getaway. Skip-bombing was dangerous, since the attacker had to fly into the teeth of a ship's flak at such low level that there were cases of bombers striking the ship's mast. The bomb could even skip back up and hit the bomber.
However, skip bombing was also murderously effective. This was proven in early March 1943, when the Japanese attempted to ship 7,000 troops in a convoy from their major base at Rabaul in New Britain to Lae in New Guinea. The Japanese did not have air superiority, but they hoped bad weather would protect the convoy, which consisted of about eight transports and eight destroyers.
The convoy was spotted on 1 March, and was attacked by B-17s the next day. The Fortresses claimed several hits. On 3 March, the convoy was attacked by everything the Allies had: Fortresses, Bristol Beaufighters, and skip-bombing A-20s and B-25s. The result was a massacre, with ships blasted and sunk while the attackers mercilessly strafed the survivors in the water. All eight transports and four destroyers were sunk, and only about 800 Japanese soldiers made it to Lae. More than 3,600 were killed, at a loss to the Allies of 13 dead and 12 wounded. The Japanese still alive after the slaughter were ferried back to Rabaul on surviving destroyers. The "Battle of the Bismarck Sea", as it would be known, was a dramatic demonstration of air power.
Of course our CV groups are modeled on the USN Essex class groups. They had the best AA in the world at the time, tho the Brit CVs were probably tougher.
-
Brit CV's were armored deck while ours, not so much, if I recall correctly. :headscratch:
-
Im trying to remember the IJN troop transport convoy that was literally slaughtered by PBJ-1s of the USN. If I remember right the convoy was also hit by our allies in Beaufighters and what not.
That was it! The Battle of the Bismark Sea. http://www.airvectors.net/avb25.html
The Battle of the Bismarck Sea involved B-25s from the USAAF, not USN. On a side note, the majority of the 3rd Attack Group's crew flying A-20s and B-25s were manned by RAAF crews due to shortages of USAAF crews.
ack-ack
-
Brit CV's were armored deck while ours, not so much, if I recall correctly. :headscratch:
Only one I recall having an armored deck was Taiho, it being specifically mentioned because when she exploded after being torpedoed by Albacore the armored deck partially contained the blast and caused her sides to blow out, instead.
Wikipedia, at least, describes her as the first Japanese carrier with the armored deck.
-
Note that the vessel in the images is NOT a destroyer. Some websites have claimed that it is the IJN Destroyer, Amatsukaze. They are incorrect.
The ship is IJN Coastal Defense Vessel No. 134.
-
Brit CV's were armored deck while ours, not so much, if I recall correctly. :headscratch:
Ive read this numerous times over the years, but i don't believe i've ever seen a name attributed to the source, so i'm unsure of the authenticity. The sentiment is definetly true however:
The USN liaison officer on Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a US carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it's just a case of 'Sweepers, man your brooms.'”
-
:rofl
-
On the other hand American and Japanese fleet carriers carried a lot more aircraft than British fleet carriers.
-
On the other hand American and Japanese fleet carriers carried a lot more aircraft than British fleet carriers.
Very true of the earlier carriers, but i think the Implacable class had comparable air wings to the US counterparts, at the expense of some of their armor however. I think the brits used a double level hanger deck.
-
I read some interesting facts on these "coastal defense vessels".
Anyway apparently there is a print made from the attack http://irandpcorp.com/products/bats-outta-hell/
An interesting record of movements for this particular ship. http://www.combinedfleet.com/CD-134_t.htm
It appears two ships of this type were sunk that day and the convoy was attacked fiercely for days.
More interesting facts on the destruction of the Japanese convoy system. http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/japaneseshiploss.htm#pageiv
-
Note that the vessel in the images is NOT a destroyer. Some websites have claimed that it is the IJN Destroyer, Amatsukaze. They are incorrect.
The ship is IJN Coastal Defense Vessel No. 134.
That was the first thing I noticed too, that is NOT a destroyer. None the less, it is a neat photo showing the action and aftermath.
-
Anyone know what type of ordnance was used in those pictures? In Walter J Boyne's excellent book "Clash of Wings", those very pictures are used in the book, and I've always wondered what type of bomb, and what type of attack run was used in this specific attack.
Also, in reality, how effective was that 75mm in the B25 during the war vs the Japanese navy? What was the SOP so far as using it vs the massive 50 cal armament, not to mention the bomb load out? It's a very interesting segment of the war in the Pacific for me, the use of medium weight twin engine bombers in an attack role vs Japanese naval ships and the like. Does anyone have good source/link recommendations regarding this, or even some books on the subject?
-
Warpath across the Pacific is a great book. Tons of pictures (including the one sinking the coastal defense ship) along with lots of first hand accounts.
-
That was the first thing I noticed too, that is NOT a destroyer. None the less, it is a neat photo showing the action and aftermath.
The life and times of coastal defense ship 134 http://www.combinedfleet.com/CD-134_t.htm the ship itself http://www.combinedfleet.com/Type%20D.htm Check out when most of these "very important" ship types were laid down and launched http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kaibokan.htm Basically when the jig was up and the war was lost.
-
Anyone know what type of ordnance was used in those pictures? In Walter J Boyne's excellent book "Clash of Wings", those very pictures are used in the book, and I've always wondered what type of bomb, and what type of attack run was used in this specific attack.
For the B-25s, 500 and 1,000 pound bombs were the usual bomb loads. Sometimes though smaller ordnance was used like 150 and 100 pound fragmentation anti-personal bombs.
Also, in reality, how effective was that 75mm in the B25 during the war vs the Japanese navy? What was the SOP so far as using it vs the massive 50 cal armament, not to mention the bomb load out?
Not as effective as one would think. The 5th AF determined that the B-25H with the 75mm cannon offered no advantages over specially adapted strafers outfitted with machine guns. At the time the B-25H entered into production, enemy targets in the SWPA that required cannons to destroy were few and far inbetween and those targets vulnerable to cannon fire were also vulnerable to mass fire power of the strafers and/or bombs. Most were passed to the 38th BG (which liked the B-25H) or returned to depots. Some B-25Hs were used in the CBI with the 341st BG and 1st Air Commando Group which were first used on river sweeps and then on any targets of opportunity.
It's a very interesting segment of the war in the Pacific for me, the use of medium weight twin engine bombers in an attack role vs Japanese naval ships and the like. Does anyone have good source/link recommendations regarding this, or even some books on the subject?
The B-25 proved to be very effective against Japanese naval targets, especially when using the masthead bombing technique as it was more accurate then skip bombing. You'll find this report interesting, it goes over the use of skip bombing and masthead bombing during the Battle of the Bismark Sea.
UNITED STATES PACIFIC FLEET - AIRCRAFT SOUTH PACIFIC FORCE - REPORT OF MASTHEAD BOMBING (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/1943TacticalBulletins/3-43_MastheadBombing.html)
This is a cool video of the B-25H in action with the 41st BG/48th BS in the SWPA.
WWII B-25 Squadron in Action part 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXRuby0OXao)
ack-ack
-
Nice links, Akak. Thanks. :aok
-
Nice links, Akak. Thanks.
Agreed.
- oldman
-
Perfect, thanks AckAck, going to read/watch that now.
-
One interesting comment in the report I linked dispells the myth that heavy bombers were ineffective against maneuvering ships when level bombing.
One heavy bomb group in the Fifth Air Force has employed high level daylight bombing at 6500 to 7500 feet on practically all targets (land and sea) and has achieved remarkable results.
B-17's led the attack and were given pursuit protection by P-38's. The B-17's bombed from about 7500 feet, apparently causing considerable confusion among the vessels attacked, as well as scoring several direct hits starting fires on the vessels.
ack-ack
-
A PDF of interest http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Faupress.au.af.mil%2Fdigital%2Fpdf%2Fpaper%2Ft_gann_fifth_air_force.pdf&ei=jIpOU_XdBoOcyQHzmoHwDw&usg=AFQjCNERTR48kJXm7VbU_q3rcEa2jEnEzg&sig2=AQmxygpZLaYfLtyOxe6bHQ&bvm=bv.64764171,d.aWc
Let me know if your unable to download it. It goes into great detail how the operational doctrine evolved. Even the multi HMG gun packs in the medium bombers were originally field mods.
Interesting to note how much code breakers help the shipping air war in SWA.
1st time Ive ever seen actual video of the B-25s 75mm cannon ever go off.
I know what kind of AA they were flying into when they attacks shipping protected by the IJN but does anyone have references to the types of AA they flew into when attacking IJA bases?