B-25 Carrier Landings

evangilder · 05-25-2005, 07:13 AM

The original plan called for the planes to take off an land from the carrier. Two pilots tested this well before they started training the pilots. They said it was relatively easy to take off, but difficult to land.

Some of the guns in the Doolittle Raid were stripped out, but not all. The reason for this was to make room for the additional fuel that was in three additional tanks, one in the bomb-bay, one in the rear where the lower turret would have been (Yes, early mitchells had a lower turret), and one in the crawlspace above the bomb bay that could be collapsed when empty to move it out of the way. In addition to those, they also carried a bunch of 5 gallon gas cans.

They were approached by Japanese fighters and a couple of the bombers were actually hit by them. They took no serious damage and a few bursts from the .50 calibers discouraged further attacks.

B-25 landings took place just before the end of the war in a testing. As the war had progressed quite a bit, the idea was scrapped as they could reach Japan with land based bombers.

MP-Willow · 05-27-2005, 02:51 PM

The Doolittle raid to my knowledge was never to land back on the carrier, but to China. The early carriers were to small.

I liked the B-25 ventril turret, exept it was a remote sighting and worked like crap. If it would have been worked on they could have fixed it. i really like Belly turrets

evangilder · 05-27-2005, 10:35 PM

The original plan did in fact call for them to take off from and land back on the carriers. After it was tested, it was determined that landing back on the carrier was a difficult and dangerous task. 2 B-25s were tested at and off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia to determine if it was possible. That was the first plan.

The second plan was to take off from the Hornet, bomb Japan and then fly North to Vladivostok, Russia, which is only 600 miles from Japan. After negotiations with Russia failed for this mission, it was decided to fly to China after bombing Japan.

Doolittle's biography and the book First Heroes are great sources of info about the raid. There is also a website hosted by a son of one of the raiders that also has some great info at http://www.doolittleraider.com. Click on the link "First Joint Action" and there is some really good info.

The Ventral gun on the B-25 was pure crap. Jimmy Doolittle said that it would be easier to train a guy to play the fiddle good enough for Carnegie Hall before you could train him to fire the gun in that turret. It ended up being removed completely because not only was it difficult to use, but caused most gunner to get airsick. Plus it's location, under the fuselage, made it not very usable after takeoff from unimproved fields where mud and dust would cloud or take away all visibility through the siting system. Couple that with oil from the engines clouding the sites and it is just a really unusable piece of hardware.

Now if they had figured out a way to put the Sperry Ball Turret in there, that might have been a good thing.

HealzDevo · 05-31-2005, 05:58 AM

Ok, very interesting. I had been under the impression that all of the guns were taken out. I stand corrected thanks to this wonderful site. I do know that in the movie Pearl Harbour they show the B-25s being stripped down losing gun and things, and landing in China. It doesn't really make it clear in the movie whether all guns were removed or only some.

evangilder · 05-31-2005, 06:44 AM

That movie had the raid, and Doolittle very wrong. Alec Baldwin's portrayal of Doolittle couldn't be further off. I know some guys that knew him. He was not the foul-mouthed hothead they portray in the movie. He was very calculatimg and almost never cursed.

MP-Willow · 05-31-2005, 01:52 PM

Evenglider thanks for the help. I would not want to try to prove a B-25 could land on carrier, that must have been very hard.

A Sery on the b-25? That would be interesting. The added weight would do it in, but even if ut would only partly depress anything would be better then what they had. But the thought was good. It would have worked with the System from the B-29?

As for that film, I do not know much on Doolitle, but the fil shows that the nose and top turent guns were kept, they were fired to straf China.

evangilder · 05-31-2005, 02:01 PM

I personally don't think the Sperry would have been a good idea on the B-25, but it would have been a heck of a lot better than that contraption that they put in there. Without that, it still did a number on Japanese shipping.

MP-Willow · 06-03-2005, 11:04 AM

True, I did not think that the Sperry as it was on the Liberator would have worked, but maybe somthing like it

It did a grand job on shipping. If I had my pick I would like to be in a B-25 over a TBM.

evangilder · 06-03-2005, 11:57 AM

Me too!

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-04-2005, 11:58 AM

hey i love the TBM........

Blitzkrieg Bop · 06-04-2005, 06:03 PM

Another interesting carrier "visitor"

R Leonard · 06-04-2005, 09:50 PM

Jimmy Flatley, Jr. got the DFC for that little trick. Painted on the fuselage below the cockpit was "Look Ma, No Hook!!" Flatley eventually retired as a VAdm.

His father was a WWII USN fighter pilot, an ace, a squadron CO, a CAG, and the operations guru for TF-58. He was promoted to VAdm by DP about a month before he died of cancer in July 1958.

Rich

Nonskimmer · 06-04-2005, 09:58 PM

Well as I've said before about that pic, it's not something you see everyday.

Distinguished flying indeed. Or rather, landing.

evangilder · 06-04-2005, 10:43 PM

They actually did a whole show on Wings about the C-130 that included a clip of that very landing. My father and I watched it with our mouths agape. I couldn't believe they even tried it.

FLYBOYJ · 06-05-2005, 12:01 AM

I know a U-2 took off from a carrier. Landing?!?