Best ship buster..... - Page 8 - Aircraft of World War II

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-22-2005, 09:24 AM

They were quite effective at taking out ships but at high prices. 2000 of them died to sink 32 ships and damage 368 during Okinawa. Quite a price to pay especially since it did not stop the allied advance or change the outcome of the war.

hellmaker · 03-22-2005, 09:28 AM

Indeed...High price to pay for this... But think at this... It had the most advanced guiding system at that time... and it wasn't a realy easy job to shoot one down... so... once a Kamikaze started it's dive there wasn't much to do...

cheddar cheese · 03-22-2005, 01:44 PM

Question...why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?

Gnomey · 03-22-2005, 02:54 PM

Beaufighter or B-25 both good at their job. Although the Kamakazi where properly the most effective their loss rate was to high compared to return to qualify them in my view as 'the best'.

hellmaker · 03-23-2005, 12:54 AM

Answer: so that they didn't loose their head...

trackend · 03-23-2005, 04:22 AM

I agree Alder that the Kamikaze was not as effective as it was costly to Japan and in the case of carriers, with the armoured flight decks employed by the RN they had ( many instances) a relatively hard time causing damage sufficient to prevent operations from stopping for more than a few hours although obviously the brunt of attacks where made against the USN.
So as for best ship buster
For weapon I would go with the Japanese type 93 (long lance) torpedo with a top range 40,000 metres a formidable device for aircraft i'm quite fond of the old Beaufighter.

hellmaker · 03-23-2005, 04:34 AM

I seccond that... Japan was USA's biggest threat... And because most of their battles took place at sea the japs must have developed a way to damage the USN Ships... My guess is they were the most advansed(along-side the USN) in Naval Battle Strategy and Weapons... They had to be in order to try winning against a superpower...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-23-2005, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Question...why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?

Because the radio headsets were in the helmet. In order to speak to other pilots and hear from other pilots you had to have a helmet on. This way they could also get the latest guidance of where the enemy ships were located at.

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-23-2005, 12:33 PM

and i suppose it would offer protection if the windscreen was hit, splinters of glass would often break of if the glass was hit...........

Andrew · 03-24-2005, 07:38 AM

Certainly one of the best ship busters had to have been the Torbeau , with 4 X 20mm Cannon 6 x .303 Machine Guns 1 21" Torpedo & 8 X 25lb Rockets, although a better ship buster would have been a Torbeau with 2 X 40mm Guns. *The 4th prototype R2055 was fitted experimentally with both the Rolls Royce & Vickers 40mm Guns, although I have only seen a photgraph to show 1 X 40mm Gun fitted to the Beaufighter, the book does state Rolls Royce & Vickers Guns*.

*Source of Info Bristol Beaufighter by Jerry Scutts*

NightHawk · 03-24-2005, 07:58 AM

How about this intaresting thing ?, Its not a plane, Its a Germen Anti-Shiping missle.
The "Henschel Hs 293 A-1 Anti-Shipping Missle"

Over-All Length: 381.9cm
Span Of Wing: 310.0cm
Span Of Horizontal Stabilizer: 113.6 cm
Span Of Vertical Stabilizer: 98.0 cm
Diameter Of Fuselage: 47.0 cm
Diameter Of Power Unit: 33.0 cm
Over-All Height (Approx.): 109.0 cm
Average Chord (Approx.): 79.3 cm
Wing Area (Total): 2.4 Sq. Meters
Wing Loading (Launch): 441.0 kg/sq. m.
Wing Loading (Target): 390.0 kg/sq. m.
Maximum Velocity: 260 m/sec
Average Velocity: 230 m/sec
Maximum Range At:
2.2 km alt.: 4.0 km
4.0 km alt.: 5.5 km
5.0 km alt.: 8.5 km

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radius Of Turn: 800.0 meters
Max. "G" Load: 3.0 g
Weight Of Warhead: 500.0 kg.
Weight Of Launching: 1045.0 kg.
Weight At Target: 967.0 kg.
Weight Of Fuel: 78.0 kg.

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-24-2005, 08:28 AM

they offered few advantages to normall unguided rockets used at short range...............

Mosin · 03-26-2005, 01:12 PM

I think there should be two classes of ship busters
one for convoy duty and one for anti-battleship duty.
My pick is
ANTI-BATTLESHIP---B6N JILL
The later japanese torpedoe bomber.
It had everything, good speed, maneuverability,heavy load
,and longe range
For convoy protection my pick is the B-24 LIBERATOR

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-26-2005, 01:19 PM

or for convoy protection the swordfish.........

Erich · 03-26-2005, 01:37 PM

Hs 293, Hs 294 and the Fritz-X yes ! thanks for including those nasties as ship killers. Kondor was excellent as well as the too little used Ju 290 though the latter was primarily used for Luftwaffe air recon with U-booten flottilles

E ~

03-22-2005, 09:24 AM	#106
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 34,086	They were quite effective at taking out ships but at high prices. 2000 of them died to sink 32 ships and damage 368 during Okinawa. Quite a price to pay especially since it did not stop the allied advance or change the outcome of the war. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

03-22-2005, 02:54 PM	#109
Gnomey "World Traveller" Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK Posts: 16,540	Beaufighter or B-25 both good at their job. Although the Kamakazi where properly the most effective their loss rate was to high compared to return to qualify them in my view as 'the best'. __________________ "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts" Sir Winston Churchill "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today" Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum My Photo Collections on Flickr

03-23-2005, 12:33 PM	#114
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	and i suppose it would offer protection if the windscreen was hit, splinters of glass would often break of if the glass was hit........... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

03-24-2005, 07:38 AM	#115
Andrew Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Slough Posts: 113	Certainly one of the best ship busters had to have been the Torbeau , with 4 X 20mm Cannon 6 x .303 Machine Guns 1 21" Torpedo & 8 X 25lb Rockets, although a better ship buster would have been a Torbeau with 2 X 40mm Guns. The 4th prototype R2055 was fitted experimentally with both the Rolls Royce & Vickers 40mm Guns, although I have only seen a photgraph to show 1 X 40mm Gun fitted to the Beaufighter, the book does state Rolls Royce & Vickers Guns. Source of Info Bristol Beaufighter by Jerry Scutts __________________ Short Back & Sides Please

03-24-2005, 08:28 AM	#117
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	they offered few advantages to normall unguided rockets used at short range............... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

03-22-2005, 09:28 AM	#107
hellmaker Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ploiesti Posts: 194	Indeed...High price to pay for this... But think at this... It had the most advanced guiding system at that time... and it wasn't a realy easy job to shoot one down... so... once a Kamikaze started it's dive there wasn't much to do...

03-22-2005, 01:44 PM	#108
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Question...why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?

03-23-2005, 12:54 AM	#110
hellmaker Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ploiesti Posts: 194	Answer: so that they didn't loose their head...

03-23-2005, 04:34 AM	#112
hellmaker Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ploiesti Posts: 194	I seccond that... Japan was USA's biggest threat... And because most of their battles took place at sea the japs must have developed a way to damage the USN Ships... My guess is they were the most advansed(along-side the USN) in Naval Battle Strategy and Weapons... They had to be in order to try winning against a superpower...

03-26-2005, 01:12 PM	#118
Mosin Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 35	I think there should be two classes of ship busters one for convoy duty and one for anti-battleship duty. My pick is ANTI-BATTLESHIP---B6N JILL The later japanese torpedoe bomber. It had everything, good speed, maneuverability,heavy load ,and longe range For convoy protection my pick is the B-24 LIBERATOR

03-26-2005, 01:19 PM	#119
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	or for convoy protection the swordfish......... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

03-26-2005, 01:37 PM	#120
Erich the old Sage Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere Posts: 11,113	Hs 293, Hs 294 and the Fritz-X yes ! thanks for including those nasties as ship killers. Kondor was excellent as well as the too little used Ju 290 though the latter was primarily used for Luftwaffe air recon with U-booten flottilles E ~ __________________ Rip it up !

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode