Best anti-shipping aircraft?

carpenoctem1689 · 09-11-2005, 05:10 PM

Ive heard many claims for this role, of the best anti-shipping aircraft to see service in all theaters. From the Ju-87, Sm.79, D3A, SBD, and TBM?TBF, among many others. I was just wondering what everyone thought about this, and what theyre favorite, out of all theaters and operators was.

Ive come to a stalemate on my own question to be honest. Ive heard of great claims by the D3A, especially against the british battleships that were sunk, the Prince of wales, and repulse i believe. I heard around 80% of bombs were delivered on target by D3A's, and even some sources saying no D3A's even took part. Ive heard also about the Stuka, Ju-87 being the best anti shipping platform, sinking many convoy and warships around malta, and everywhere north from there. I would, overall however, have to choose the SBD, in the PTO...How about you?

syscom3 · 09-11-2005, 05:20 PM

The B25's strafers of the 5th AF proved they were the best aircraft. Even though they only flew in the PTO, the impact on the Japanese navy was devestating.

Skip bombing at wave top height minimized the number of AA guns that could shoot at you, while the heavy MG would give the ship gunners something to think about.

Dive bombers had their limits as they could only carry 1 bomb at a time. Torpedo attacks required a slow vulnerable approach in which the torpedo usually missed.

NAVAIR · 09-11-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

Ive heard many claims for this role, of the best anti-shipping aircraft to see service in all theaters. From the Ju-87, Sm.79, D3A, SBD, and TBM?TBF, among many others. I was just wondering what everyone thought about this, and what theyre favorite, out of all theaters and operators was.

Ive come to a stalemate on my own question to be honest. Ive heard of great claims by the D3A, especially against the british battleships that were sunk, the Prince of wales, and repulse i believe. I heard around 80% of bombs were delivered on target by D3A's, and even some sources saying no D3A's even took part. Ive heard also about the Stuka, Ju-87 being the best anti shipping platform, sinking many convoy and warships around malta, and everywhere north from there. I would, overall however, have to choose the SBD, in the PTO...How about you?

Simple....

Mosquito, Beaufighter, B-25 Mitchell and A-20G Havoc. For the Axis, the Focke Wulf 200 Condor devastated shipping in the north Atlantic.

Operations of Mosquitos and Beaufighters (which was used by the USAAF too) in the MTO and off Norway are legendary. In the SWPA, the operations of the "Air Apaches" and their Mitchells are equally legendary. Just check out how Mitchells butchered the Japanese in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. A-20Gs were also extremely effective and could out-run most Japanese fighters on the deck.

Oh, and the PoW and Repulse were attacked by land-based bombers of the 22nd Air Flotilla, not carrier-based dive bombers. 26 G4M-1 (Betty) and 60 G3M (Nell) were involved in the attack, which combined level bomb attacks and torpedo attacks.

My regards,

NAVAIR

carpenoctem1689 · 09-11-2005, 05:51 PM

Thanks for that information about the sinking of the POW and Repulse, ive heard so may mixed claims, even on the history channle at one point, that i didnt know what to believe, thanks.

carpenoctem1689 · 09-11-2005, 05:53 PM

Wasnt it the B-25H mitchell that was armed with a 75mm cannon in the nose for AS duties? ive heard some, though i dont remember the model letter, that carried up to 12 .50 cal brownings up front in a solid nose, that made attacks on merchant ships, and even destroyers and light cruisers with great success.

Glider · 09-11-2005, 05:54 PM

If I had to pick one aircraft then it would be the Beaufighter. No other plane carried such a variety of weapons the options were almost never ending.

Gnomey · 09-11-2005, 06:15 PM

I'd agree with you Glider
Beaufighter or Mosquito both carried a wide variety of weaponary from light and Heavy MG's to 20mm Cannon, rockets, bombs as well as a 57mm Cannon in some versions of the Mossie.

syscom3 · 09-11-2005, 07:30 PM

As good as the Beaufighter was, only the B25 had the capability to swoop into the heavily defended harbor at Rabaul. Against lightly defended targets, the Beaufighter and A20's made a good 1-2 punch. Beaufighter leads and hoses down the ship disabling the AA crews, with the A20 coming in to put the bombs on target. That technique was used in the Battle for the Bismark Sea.

I dont think the Mosquito could have survived the conditions of combat in the SW Pacific. A wooden airframe just couldnt cope with the light AA and shell fragments that would pepper it, let alone the jungle rot. I wonder if the many varieties of voracious termites would have eaten them up too?

If you look close at the pix, it looks like a bomb had gone off at the waterline before this B25 flew over. Look at the shockwave in the water.

Jabberwocky · 09-11-2005, 08:41 PM

The low level speeds of the Mosquito were what kept is safe, rather than the heavier construction and armour of the B-25. Its a matter of building philisophy more than anything else.

Both were excellent straffers and antiship A/c. Actually, pretty much all of the Allied twin engine anti shippping aricraft had devestating foward firpower;

B-25: up to 12 forward firing 12.7 mm Hmgs (thats about 160 rounds per second!), or
1 75mm cannon and 8 forward firing HMG

Mosquito: 4 20mm cannon and 4 .303 Mmgs, (about or
1 57mm cannon 4 20mm cannon and 2 .303 Mmgs

A-20: 6 forward firing 12.7mm Hmgs

A-26: 6 foward firing 12.7 Hmgs

Beaufighter; 4 20mm cannon and 6 .303 Mmgs, or
4 20mm cannon and 4 12.7 Hmgs

The main sriking weapon of the twins wasn't really the machine guns or various calibre of cannon. It was rockets and skip-bombing that had the most devestating effect on Axis shipping.

The Beaufighter was the first plane to conducts anti-shipping strikes with rockets, debuting against German shipping in Norway in May of 1943. The standard tactic was to mix striking forces of Mosquitos and Beaufighters. Mosquitos would be used in flak supression and Beaufighters would act as strike aircraft.

syscom3 · 09-11-2005, 08:58 PM

Could you imagine if some B25 strafers were converted to use a mix of 20mm and 30mm cannons?

That would have ruined some Japanese skippers day.

carpenoctem1689 · 09-11-2005, 09:10 PM

A b-25, converted to carry two 30mm cannon in mid nose, and two 20mm cannon on each side, with rockets on the wings and droppable fuel tanks in the bomb bay would have been the ultimate maritime strike aircraft.

evangilder · 09-11-2005, 09:17 PM

Both the G and H models of the B-25 carried the 75mm cannon. Due to it's low rate of fire, it wasn't as effective as it could have been. It had a low rate of fire because it was hand loaded by a loader who sat behind and below the cockpit.

Jabberwocky · 09-11-2005, 09:34 PM

sIts an interesting mental exercise to attempt to plan out the ultimate WW2 style shipping strike aircraft.

During the war it was shown that high-altitude, level bombing of moving ships was completely ineffective. Similarly, torpeedo bombing was also a highly ineffective approach because it required a slow speed approach, with a usually less than reliable weapon, right into the middle of the flak envelope.

Dive bombing was shown to be a little less suicidal, but most dive bombers were single seaters with relatively limited range/endurance and bombload. Most dive bombers were relatively slow and cumbersome and were at the mercy of any fighter opposition that the enemy carrier/convoy/shore defenses could put up.

So my ultimate strike A/C must have a few features.

1. Long range and endurance; its important to be able to hit the enemy a long way from home. Oceans are VERY large. Endurance includes having a second crew member to act as copilot/navigatior, something essential for long overwater flights.

2. Good speed; particularly at low level. The less time spent in the target zone, means the less exposure to flak, fighters and the dangers of low level flight. It also give the enemy less warning of attack.

3. Twin engines; goes hand-in-hand with range and endurance. Also provides a large measure of redundancy. Shiping strikes are high risk operations so damage is probably to be expected.

4. Internal bomb bay; Hauling external ordanace decreases range, speed and increases vulnerability and the risk of malfunctions. Internal weapons bays do increase the size of the aircraft.

5 Ability to carry rockets. A rocket strike was similar in effect to a full broadside from a destroyer. Eight 60lbs or 5 inch rockets in a salvo would have a devestating effect on a target

6. Heavy foward firepower. Straffing was highly effective in decreasing enemy flak, sweeping the decks clear of opposition and generally causing havoc on the upper decks of a target ship. Whether machine guns or cannon are better is debatable, but a concentrated foward armament of at least 4 cannon or 8 HMG would be preferable.

7. Radar capably. Oceans are often very difficult places to find targets. ASV radar was very effective in pinpointing convoys/ships for the strike group.

For my money the two best aircraft seem to be the Mosquito FB variants and the A-26 Invader. The Invader wasn't as fast at low level but had higher internal bombload (4000lbs!) and could mount up to 8 foward firing HMGs. It also has defensive armament, something that the Mosquito lacks. Both were rocket capable, both had very long range (here the Invader wins out again) and were decently manuverale. [/code]

Jabberwocky · 09-11-2005, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

A b-25, converted to carry two 30mm cannon in mid nose, and two 20mm cannon on each side, with rockets on the wings and droppable fuel tanks in the bomb bay would have been the ultimate maritime strike aircraft.

Did the USAAF or USN ever use a 30mm? I thought they had enough trouble getting the 20mm right.

I think that a 30mm might actually not be that effective. The lower rate of fire and generally poorer balistics of 30mm weapons might rule it out in a straffing role.

About the only suitable 30mm that I can think of is the German Mk 103. The high m/v and heavy round combination would of been excellent. Belt loading of HE(M), API, AP, HE(M), API, or something similar would be suitable, particularly with the blast/fragmentation effect of the mingenschloss shells. Then again, a warship is a lot more heavily armoured than a 4 engined bomber.

If we are going for theoreticals, maybe a nose package of 4 Soviet VYa 23mm cannon would be best; high rate of fire, very, very powerful round, excellent reliability, high M/V and quite a compact weapon to boot. Better AP perfromance than any other weapon under the 30mm class as well.

syscom3 · 09-11-2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

Both the G and H models of the B-25 carried the 75mm cannon. Due to it's low rate of fire, it wasn't as effective as it could have been. It had a low rate of fire because it was hand loaded by a loader who sat behind and below the cockpit.

Bet you didnt know that the only officers in the US Army who were cannon loaders were the co-pilots of the B25 with the 75mm cannon.

The A-26 wouldnt have made that good of a maritime strike plane. The pilot had limited visibility. Gen Kenny rejected the use of A26's when it was offered to him. The pilots who tested it said they couldn't see their targets correctly from the side.