Jump to content


Aichi B7A Ryusei


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
17 replies to this topic

sultan07 #1 Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
Posted Image


The Aichi B7A Ryusei (愛知 流星艦上攻撃機), Was a Multiple-purpose bomber serving in the Japanese imperial Airforce (navy and ground armies), Was arguably, and easily one/The Best Tactical/carrier-borne bomber of WW2. Built in only small numbers (114 total) and deprived of the aircraft carriers it was intended to operate from, the type had little chance to distinguish itself in combat before the war ended in August 1945.


It was intended for use aboard a new generation of Taihō-class carriers, the first of which was laid down in July 1941. Because the deck elevators on the Taihōs had a larger square area than those of older Japanese carriers, the longstanding maximum limit of 11 m (36 ft) on carrier aircraft length could now be lifted.


It was intended for use aboard a new generation of Taihō-class carriers, the first of which was laid down in July 1941. Because the deck elevators on the Taihōs had a larger square area than those of older Japanese carriers, the longstanding maximum limit of 11 m (36 ft) on carrier aircraft length could now be lifted.


The presence of an internal bomb bay with two high-load-capability attachment points allowed the aircraft to carry two 250 kg (550 lb) or six 60 kg (132 lb) bombs. Alternatively, it could carry a single 800 kg (1,764 lb) torpedo mounted externally.


The Bomber was nicknamed "Grace" by the Allies.



In June 1944, IJN Taihō, the only Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carrier then large enough to operate the B7A Ryusei in its intended role, was sunk during the Battle of the Philippine Sea before enough B7As were even available to embark. Thereafter, the B7A was relegated to operating from land bases, primarily with the Yokosuka and 752nd Kokutais. The Japanese completed only one other carrier capable of operating the B7A, IJN Shinano, but she was sunk by an American submarine




The bomber was extremely maneuverable, It had very strong armament consisting of 2× 20 mm Type 99 cannons in both wings and 13 mm (0.51 in) Type 2 machine gun in the rear cockpit. The bomber was extremely fast. only a few KMH slower than most USN carrier-borne fighters. Could go on terms to terms with the main USN carrier-borne fighter the hellcat and win (as did many japanese planes, but the F4U was a more dangerous foe)



the bomber boasted a very fast top speed of 567 km/h (306 kn, 352 mph) and a very high max. Service Ceiling of 11,250 m (36,910 ft)


The bomber was crewed by two, a Pilot and a rear-cockpit gunner.



Very elite plane, I would say also most likely enjoyed great dive-bombing accuracy as most japanese/Axis dive bombers (all aircraft in general) enjoyed many upper-hands and advantages over allied counterparts.

Edited by sultan07, 10 February 2013 - 06:18 PM.


_Luna #2 Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:49 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 1341 battles
  • 824
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Not impressive. A Corsair or Hellcat could carry more ordinance, at a higher speed, and were better armed.
The only thing this has is range.
While this is faster and has longer range than an Avenger or Helldiver, both carried more ordinance and had much greater survivability, especially the Grumman.

Quote

Could go on terms to terms with the main USN carrier-borne fighter the hellcat and win (as did many japanese planes, but the F4U was a more dangerous foe)

Thats why the Hellcat created more Ace's than any other allied plane, and had the best kill ratio of any fighter in WW2.


Please do more than copy stuff off wikipedia (some of this is word for word)

Old_Crow51 #3 Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:11 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012
Lol I like how you say the Axis had better bombers, when usually they didn't. I mean look at all the Japanese bombers and you will see most are lightly armed, lightly armored and could only carry a light load of bombs compared to its peers.

yes the Ki-67 Peggy was one of the best medium bombers of the war, but bombers have no use when you are on defense.and basically I agree with Luna. Why copy and paste from Wikipedia? We can read it there!

Edited by Old_Crow51, 10 February 2013 - 11:12 PM.



Proof of Ace: A6M2 A6M5 F4F F2G P-51A

sultan07 #4 Posted 11 February 2013 - 02:21 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

Quote

Thats why the Hellcat created more Ace's than any other allied plane, and had the best kill ratio of any fighter in WW2.


I know I coped most of this from Wikipedia, but I'm using it as a Source, i did not know it would motivate some disdain or people did'n like/do it, some other plane pages around here have stuff copied from over wikipedia.


2nd of all, there was lots of Aerial overclaiming made by USN pilots over the pacific, So I Would'n trust those figures. you can look in the records yourself if you want, and compare what survived of japanese AARs and combat reports, aerial overclaiming was widely practiced in WW2.



Quote

While this is faster and has longer range than an Avenger or Helldiver, both carried more ordinance and had much greater survivability, especially the Grumman.

You ignore the fact this came in a bad time for japan, on better circumstances this would've performed better than even the D4Y and D3A. payload does'n really matter, the USN bombed sitting targets in the kure naval base for two days until they sunk them, accuracy matters more than payload. and most Axis dive bombers generally enjoyed great rates for accuracy in dive-bombing. speed and agility would've given a Dive bomber much more livability than having a massive payload that his really not much of a chance of even hitting.



Quote

Lol I like how you say the Axis had better bombers, when usually they didn't. I mean look at all the Japanese bombers and you will see most are lightly armed, lightly armored and could only carry a light load of bombs compared to its peers.

the D3A did'n seem to have that much of a problem sinking vessels with its 250kgs, Because it was successful in its attack, You should go look up pearl harbor and compare us Dive-bombing attacks to it, some Axis tactical bombers had superior records.

"Lightly armed"? and what are they suppose to carry than, 20mms in the back and 13-20mms in the front? bombers carried little armament, on all allegiances, and most japanese dive bombers enjoyed agility and speed which contribued to their successes greatly. the japanese never cared for payload, they cared for accuracy, the D3A achieved remarkable accuracy results, especially in training. it would sink more allied ships than any other Axis aircraft. despite just having a role early in the pacific war.




Quote

yes the Ki-67 Peggy was one of the best medium bombers of the war, but bombers have no use when you are on defense.and basically I agree with Luna. Why copy and paste from Wikipedia? We can read it there!


yes obviously not even the best aircraft in the world or jet aircraft can help you win a losing war (see: ME-242). sorry if the copying from wikipedia bothered you but I came from a forum where we tend to copy-paste from wikipedia/add wikipedia links as a Source.

Old_Crow51 #5 Posted 11 February 2013 - 02:52 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012
The D3A was inferior to the SBD dauntless in just about every way minus Turing ability. The dauntless had superior firepower, bomb load and ruggedness. You also have to remember that yes the D3A had great accuracy at the beginning of the war, but this decreased greatly as the best pilots got killed off with no replacement. Same can be said about the Dauntless regarding that it sank the most Axis ships during the war, as the Allied pilots generally got better.

Now yes, the Grace was actually a great aircraft, actually one of the best carrier bombers built, but considering how outdated the D3A and B5N was by 1942, its tough to say that all Axis aircraft were superior considering that the SBD and TBF were superior to their counterparts. The TBD was vastly inferior however.  

I was talking specifically about Japanese light/medium bombers. They were inferior in every way, because you said Axis aircraft were better, but I realize you said dive bombers so I apologize.


Proof of Ace: A6M2 A6M5 F4F F2G P-51A

sultan07 #6 Posted 11 February 2013 - 04:17 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

Quote

The D3A was inferior to the SBD dauntless in just about every way minus Turing ability. The dauntless had superior firepower, bomb load and ruggedness. You also have to remember that yes the D3A had great accuracy at the beginning of the war, but this decreased greatly as the best pilots got killed off with no replacement. Same can be said about the Dauntless regarding that it sank the most Axis ships during the war, as the Allied pilots generally got better.

the SBD was'n as good as the D3A in dive-bombing accuracy albeit still a generally good aircraft.

Accuracy largely does'n depend on experience, so let me get it, pilots first in the war were trained experts who knew what they were doing? The D3A Lasted until pretty much every major CV that operated it was sunk, it stopped from being used than and more effective replacements were brought in, Like the D4Y which was in many fields much better than even the SBD. Experience is extremely exaggerated in my opinion. knowing how to dive depends on your training and plane, 'Expereinced' USN pilots found it hard to hit IJN ships later in the war with their helldivers, The WW2 USN was not able to perform such a feat right until the end of war - by scoring a hit on fast-moving and zig-zagging ship in open sea, and they failed to learn the art of torpedo attack against harbor targets. The best they can do was to use overwhelming dive bombing which is a lot easier but risky, I see the Japanese was the only true master in accurate high-altitude bombing against moving ships, evidently they hit POW and Repulse with this method, as well as numerous cases in Java Sea and Ïndian Ocean, but we cannot see any good example imitated by the USN throughout the war!! In the final days the TF 58 had to overwhelm the Japanese mainland naval yards with dive-bombing and suffered heavy losses. The last TF 58 sortie against Kure resulted the lost of 133 aircraft and 102 aircrew, and the Kure Naval yard had been fighting the same enemy force for 5 months! This is completely sucks comparing the Pearl Harbor!! The USAAF's B-29 had radar-guided bombing but then it was proven to be a lot worse than visual bombing, many bombs were simply thrown miles away from the target, even though it was a large static ground target.




Quote

Now yes, the Grace was actually a great aircraft, actually one of the best carrier bombers built, but considering how outdated the D3A and B5N was by 1942, its tough to say that all Axis aircraft were superior considering that the SBD and TBF were superior to their counterparts. The TBD was vastly inferior however.



The B7A was superior to the TBF in my opinion, production counts don't interfere with my argument, as that depends on the ability of the producer.

the B5N and D3A were the gold stuff of their age but by 1943-44, not 42 were obsolete, in 42 the USN was still using the same old Wildcats they used to stop previous Japanese attacks, theres no sense or good reason it would become obsolete unless the USN was cracking out some superior carrier-borne aircraft and interceptors that we don't know about  :Smile_veryhappy:



by the time the TBF and SBD and SBC-2 were taking over the japanese also had thier own, technologically superior aircraft, The D4Y and B7A and B6N. But Like I mentioned ,they were'n in the circumstance to be used.



Quote

I was talking specifically about Japanese light/medium bombers. They were inferior in every way, because you said Axis aircraft were better, but I realize you said dive bombers so I apologize.

the G8N Renzan Was a superior counterpart to the B-17 But it was only produced in very tiny numbers (8 aircraft)

Axis aircraft in general as a whole were mostly better, the KI-84, Some varaints of the FW-190, The last variants of the BF-109, The ME-242, The list goes on, but I'm talking about bombers here, the germans used the HE-111 For guided air-to-ground rockets, which were used in the sinking of an italian capital Ship Roma.

I'm not saying the HE-111 was a good bomber, but it certainly came with highly technological equipment.

on the other hand, back to tactical bombers, the Axis generally possessed the better of those including the JU-87 which was a successful ground-attack aircraft and Anti-tank, possessing good accuracy, airbrakes, gulled wings, later variants were equipped with two large 37mm cannons for Anti-tank, by that time the plane was available in small numbers and very obsolete but they still managed to make very deadly use of it over the eastern front.

Old_Crow51 #7 Posted 11 February 2013 - 07:43 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012
But how can you overlook the bad Axis aircraft?

Every German bomber of the war, minus the Ar-234, Ju-88 and the Do-217, was poorly armed and inferior to their allied counterpart. I could include the Ju-188, Ju-388S all day but how can you include aircraft that made no impact? The Roma sinking does not make the He-111 a better aircraft, as you stated, but remember, after that sinking, the Allies threw up more fighters in the air, making sure no German bombers came within range of using their smart weapons.

Compare
  • Ju-88A
  • Speed:292mph
  • Range:1696 miles
  • Armament: 5 13mm or 7.62mm hand held guns, Max bombs 4409lbs

  • B-26G
  • Speed:283mph
  • Range:1100 miles
  • Armament: 11 .50 powered turret guns, max bombs 4,000lb
Note similar stats, the Ju-88 has a much better range, but much worse defensive armament. Now mind you that is the best German medium bomber the Germans fielded in a numerical number, the best as the He-111, Do-17Z, and Ju-86 were markedly inferior. The B-26 had the lowest combat losses out of all American bombers, but for the Allies, the better bomber would be the Mosquito, and I don't think you need the stats on that one.

Every Japanese bomber USED during the war, minus the Ki-67 Peggy, was vastly inferior to their Allied counterpart. All of them were poorly armed, poorly armored and carried a small bomb load. The Betty was nicknamed the 'one shot lighter!' Not a good name to pick up.

The Ju-87 was completely outclassed. The Battle of Britain showed that. How do a couple of Ju-87G's make up for the rest of the Ju-87's poor showing after the Blitz? Could they take out tanks, yes very much so. Were they hacked out of the sky right and left, you bet.

The Bf-109G, A6M Zero, and Ki-43 Oscar, all the most numerically important fighters, were outclassed by 1944. The Bf-109G not so much as explained below, but the Zero and Ki-43 certainly were.

Now I use bad in a general sense. Yes the Zero and Bf-109G could be flown by great aces against better aircraft and come out on top, but by 1943 and esp 1944 there was a dwindling pool of good pilots for the Axis. Even if say they matched the Allies in pilots, the Axis pilots are still flying aircraft that reached their airframes limits by 1944. The Zero A6M5's max speed is 360mph, the Hellcat is 380mph, but the Hellcat had better armor, could dive faster, and was more of a pilots aircraft. The Bf-109G had a similar if not better climb rate then the Mustang, but a mustang could turn inside it, and certainly outrun it, and on the western front, the Mustang was superior at altitude, where most of the battles took place.

You bring up late war Axis aircraft that were rushed, or barely off the drawing board while if the Allies had to rush their aircraft into battle (which when you are winning, there is no point) look at what they were bringing to the table:
  • A-1 Skyraider
  • Hawker Fury
  • F8F Bearcat
  • F2G super Corsair
  • P-51H (487mph!)
  • Griffon powered Spitfires
  • and the Lockheed P-80 just arrived in Italy before the war ended.

Basically the Allies would have easily stacked up if need be, but since they never needed too, none of these aircraft minus the Spitfires saw combat in WWII.

How the hell does the G8N compare to a B-17?? The B-17 was first flown in 1936, when the G8N wasn't even a daydream by Mitu.

I will not argue that the B7N, or D4Y were worse aircraft, they were superior to the SBD, TBF and SB2C (which was a terrible aircraft) but its a case of too little, too late. At any rate the A-1 Skyraider was a superior product to each of these aircraft, and it would have replaced both the TBF and SB2C.

Well damn that's alot of writing  :Smile_veryhappy: . I think its safe to say who's aircraft we like the best (You Axis, Me Allies lol), and I will agree to disagree and say this: Both sides made good, and bad aircraft, but isn't it cool that we know all this stuff about these great flying machines  :Smile_honoring:


Proof of Ace: A6M2 A6M5 F4F F2G P-51A

sultan07 #8 Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:05 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

Quote

But how can you overlook the bad Axis aircraft?

I Do not overlook the bad Axis aircraft, but I guess you are right mostly on the large, double-engine bomber argument, But again I'm talking about the tactical bombers. D3A, JU-87, D4Y, I Know how bad the JU-88 was.



Quote

Every German bomber of the war, minus the Ar-234, Ju-88 and the Do-217, was poorly armed and inferior to their allied counterpart. I could include the Ju-188, Ju-388S all day but how can you include aircraft that made no impact? The Roma sinking does not make the He-111 a better aircraft, as you stated, but remember, after that sinking, the Allies threw up more fighters in the air, making sure no German bombers came within range of using their smart weapons.


"Poorly armed" is as I stated not a valid argument, the JU-88 Was'n a four engine superbomber, it could'n carry 11 50.cal barrels, theres no "poorly armed" in most bombers, anything below a 2 engine fixed wing usually had one or two barrels in the rear (occasionally a second turret under the plane, but that was fairly rare) anything above that would have the general layout, tail gunners, waist gunners, nose gunners, etc, "Poor armament" means a 2 engine bomber with one or two poorly placed turrets, its really just does'n make sense to call a bomber poorly armed, they were'n intended to be armed to engage enemy aircraft, all their armament was placed throughout the plane as a defensive measure.

as much as the TBD Devestators were decisively defeated by interceptors when making bombing runs on IJN Cvs in midway, the German bombers would've been in a fairly similar situation with enemy interceptors. this is'n surprising stuff.



Quote

Note similar stats, the Ju-88 has a much better range, but much worse defensive armament. Now mind you that is the best German medium bomber the Germans fielded in a numerical number, the best as the He-111, Do-17Z, and Ju-86 were markedly inferior. The B-26 had the lowest combat losses out of all American bombers, but for the Allies, the better bomber would be the Mosquito, and I don't think you need the stats on that one.

because it was'n extensively used? the B-26 had teething problems which made it a scary beast to use, the B-25 mitchell was used more than the B-26 & the B-32 and was more produced.


Here are the stats on the B-25.
Crew: six (one pilot, one co-pilot, navigator/bombardier, turret gunner/engineer, radio operator/waist gunner, tail gunner)
Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.13 m)
Wingspan: 67 ft 7 in (20.60 m)
Height: 16 ft 4 in (4.98 m)
Wing area: 610 sq ft (56.7 m²)
Empty weight: 19,480 lb (8,855 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,910 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-2600-92 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 1,700 hp (1,267 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 272 mph (237 kn, 438 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,960 m)
Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)
Range: 1,350 mi (1,174 nmi, 2,174 km)
Service ceiling: 24,200 ft (7,378 m)



Quote

Every Japanese bomber USED during the war, minus the Ki-67 Peggy, was vastly inferior to their Allied counterpart. All of them were poorly armed, poorly armored and carried a small bomb load. The Betty was nicknamed the 'one shot lighter!' Not a good name to pick up.

Again, not seeing where you're going with poorly armed, the D3A val carried two 7.7mms synchronized MG's and a single Type 1 MG in the rear. what more is it supposed to carry? would you look at what the SBD carried and compare? nothing much different. but than again, The only way you could improve a tactical bomber's livability was agility and speed and most importantly escort protection. could the SBD or helldiver or TBF hold out on their own without escorts? they'd get eaten like breakfast, they need escorts to survive, now what about the japanese bombers, D4Y, D3A, B7A, They are all dogfighters unlike the general-purpose USN bombers.



Quote

The Ju-87 was completely outclassed. The Battle of Britain showed that. How do a couple of Ju-87G's make up for the rest of the Ju-87's poor showing after the Blitz? Could they take out tanks, yes very much so. Were they hacked out of the sky right and left, you bet.

you are stating that the bomber is a poor bomber for being shot down like any bomber would be shot down? I'm talking accuracy, later models, tech advents, the JU87 possessed an early crude form of autopilot and dive brakes, it was gold for its age but it was slow and like the SBD or helldiver cant turn or waltz around the skies, it'll drive home and take the bullets, now lets re-mention armament here, it has a single MG in the rear and two in the front, wheres the poor armament?



Quote

Now I use bad in a general sense. Yes the Zero and Bf-109G could be flown by great aces against better aircraft and come out on top, but by 1943 and esp 1944 there was a dwindling pool of good pilots for the Axis. Even if say they matched the Allies in pilots, the Axis pilots are still flying aircraft that reached their airframes limits by 1944. The Zero A6M5's max speed is 360mph, the Hellcat is 380mph, but the Hellcat had better armor, could dive faster, and was more of a pilots aircraft. The Bf-109G had a similar if not better climb rate then the Mustang, but a mustang could turn inside it, and certainly outrun it, and on the western front, the Mustang was superior at altitude, where most of the battles took place.

And the KI-84? There was no such thing as "Armor" on aircraft, just thick metal, naval aircraft would generally posses the thickest metal plating of most aircraft, the hellcat enjoyed the typical USA 14mm thick metal, what is it supposed to do? bounce of every bullet? sure, it would bounce a few bullets but based on my own assumption one in every 10 7.7mm bullets will pass through, the hellcat was an all metal fighter like the F4F, its turn rate was improved but it still had nothing on most japanese fighter's turn-rate.


Quote

You bring up late war Axis aircraft that were rushed, or barely off the drawing board while if the Allies had to rush their aircraft into battle (which when you are winning, there is no point) look at what they were bringing to the table:

aircraft I Brought up: JU-87, D4Y, D3A, Japanese fighters and bombers in general, FW190, BF109, The only few late-war aircraft I brought were the G8N And A 324. Admittedly.


Quote

How the hell does the G8N compare to a B-17?? The B-17 was first flown in 1936, when the G8N wasn't even a daydream by Mitu.
As much as your comparsion of a 1941 B-26 to a 1939 JU-88, That does'n hold much sway anyways, the B-17 first took off in the 30's, but did it mean the USAAF showed up in the skies of europe with the same stuff from 1936? like the JU-88 The B-17 Was upgraded into newer varaints, as much as, probably 80-90% of all aircraft in WW2


the BF-109 First flown in 1935 and was still in full use in 1945 and made a peer for the P-51, why? because they upgraded it into new variants



Quote

I will not argue that the B7N, or D4Y were worse aircraft, they were superior to the SBD, TBF and SB2C (which was a terrible aircraft) but its a case of too little, too late. At any rate the A-1 Skyraider was a superior product to each of these aircraft, and it would have replaced both the TBF and SB2C.



Agreed in general.



Quote

Well damn that's alot of writing   . I think its safe to say who's aircraft we like the best (You Axis, Me Allies lol), and I will agree to disagree and say this: Both sides made good, and bad aircraft, but isn't it cool that we know all this stuff about these great flying machines

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just arguing unbiasdly, I'm not stating that the axis had all in all superior aircraft but in general had better/good aircraft, ofcourse the Allies had better counterparts here and there, now or later, but in general the A6M reigned over the F4F, P-40, F2A, while the B5N ruled over the TBD, the D3A in someways better than the SBD, the SBD was a general purpose aircraft, it would've done its job accordingly and smoothely, divebombing a target, the D3A was more than that, it could fill in as a dogfighter aswell, but naturally that comes with sacrifices in armoring, payload, etc etc. all in all both sides had good aircraft in WW2, i'm not saying the allied ones were crap, and agreed, I love history ;)

von_Krimm #9 Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:30 AM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Community Ace
  • 3136 battles
  • 1,258
  • Member since:
    01-09-2012
sultan07, you keep asserting that the D4Y, D3A and B7a were capable "dogfighters", that is completely laughable; sure, those aircraft were nimble/agile, but being able to engage enemy fighters and have a chance of wining is not realistic, for id f it were true the IJN would never have bothered to escort formations of those planes with formations of A6m2/3/5.  Secondlt, all your talk of "accuracy" as pertaining to an aircraft is incorrect, it is not the aircraft that is accurate, but the training of the pilot/bombadier that gives the aircraft its accuracy.  Now this talk of training brings me to a third point that takes us full circle back to point #1:  Those D4Y, D3A,and B7a pilots were not trained, beyond the basics, in fighter tactics (yes, there were some trained fighter pilots that were transfered to those aircraft) and would have suffered horrible casualties if used against allied fighters.

Now, to the most salient point:  It does not matter if one aircraft was supeior on a tactical level to its rival during the war.  What does matter is that the Allied strategic and operational employment of those tactical assets allowed the allied planes weakness to be minimized and the axis powers to be soundly beaten in the air war...in fact, the axis powers were thrashed completly on all levels!  Try and re-write that fact.
I like my <CENSORED> like I like my <CENSORED> ; aged <CENSORED> to <CENSORED> years and mixed-up with <CENSORED> .If you take fire from the spouse-AA about the former, launch flares and dump chaff: $$$visa$$$amex$$$vonKrimm2.png

_Luna #10 Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:51 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 1341 battles
  • 824
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
There are truths here, but there are so many that are opinion, half truths, or just plane wrong. Im not going to touch on everything, just a few things.

Quote

in general the A6M reigned over the F4F, P-40
Now, I'm not going to argue that the F2A was a good fighter, and the A6M enjoyed some success against the F4F and P-40 early in the war, but in general, the F4F and P-40 reigned over the A6M, not the other way around. While the Zero could be deadly, if you didn't play its game, there really wasn't much it could do. As soon as pilots learned to boom and zoom the Zero, it was done.

Quote

the B-26 had teething problems which made it a scary beast to use, the B-25 mitchell was used more than the B-26 & the B-32 and was more produced.

Yes, it was a bit of a handful when new, but they over came those problems and the B-26 became the medium bomber with the best survival rate in Europe. And yes, while they made more B-25's, they still made a not insignificant number of 5300 B-26's over a 4 year period. I do not know where you are getting your B-32 info, as they made less than 200 of those.

Quote

the JU-88 Was'n a four engine superbomber, it could'n carry 11 50.cal barrels

You didn't need 4 engines to carry mass .50's. Most B-26's had 12 .50's, 8 either in turrets or flexible, and 4 fixed forward for strafing. The B-25 would received even more with 6 .50's turret or flex mounted, and up to 12 fixed forward for strafing. Some models replaced 8 of those fixed .50's with a 75mm cannon.

sultan07 #11 Posted 11 February 2013 - 01:37 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

Quote

sultan07, you keep asserting that the D4Y, D3A and B7a were capable "dogfighters", that is completely laughable; sure, those aircraft were nimble/agile, but being able to engage enemy fighters and have a chance of wining is not realistic, for id f it were true the IJN would never have bothered to escort formations of those planes with formations of A6m2/3/5.  Secondlt, all your talk of "accuracy" as pertaining to an aircraft is incorrect, it is not the aircraft that is accurate, but the training of the pilot/bombadier that gives the aircraft its accuracy.  Now this talk of training brings me to a third point that takes us full circle back to point #1:  Those D4Y, D3A,and B7a pilots were not trained, beyond the basics, in fighter tactics (yes, there were some trained fighter pilots that were transfered to those aircraft) and would have suffered horrible casualties if used against allied fighters.


So I guess thats why those Aichi D3A's had little trouble dealing with british interceptors over the indian ocean? Have you even heard of the indian ocean raid? do you have any basic information on Japanese aricraft in WW2? Did you know the D4Y was more nimble and had a better turn rate than even the A6M2 Zero when it does'n have a payload?


So I Guess thats why the IJN dive-bomber pilots scored better hits than USN dive bombers ever have? just, training? yeah your right, why bother escort the planes, they'r gonna enter the enemy's cap and try to dogfight with 250kg bombs in their bellies, lets not forget the japanese B5N bombers, they will try to intimidate the enemy by firing imaginary guns from the wings :lol:  (The B5N had no forward firing armamet)



Quote

Now, to the most salient point:  It does not matter if one aircraft was supeior on a tactical level to its rival during the war.  What does matter is that the Allied strategic and operational employment of those tactical assets allowed the allied planes weakness to be minimized and the axis powers to be soundly beaten in the air war...in fact, the axis powers were thrashed completly on all levels!  Try and re-write that fact.

Now I don't know what provoked such a remark but I could tell you interfere your personal emotions/Political allegiance in history; I never said the axis had a chance of winning late in the war because they had superior aircraft, the Axis powers, especially the european ones took a considerable thrashing while returning hits to a much larger enemy army in the eastern front while also trading blows in the western front, they were beaten but it sure took hell for them to get beaten.


and As I Said, the allies did'n care about their tactics or air deployment late in the war, thats why their dive-boming and strategic bomber raids on docked IJN ships towards the end of the war failed. ever heard of the bombing of Kure?



Quote

Now, I'm not going to argue that the F2A was a good fighter, and the A6M enjoyed some success against the F4F and P-40 early in the war, but in general, the F4F and P-40 reigned over the A6M, not the other way around. While the Zero could be deadly, if you didn't play its game, there really wasn't much it could do. As soon as pilots learned to boom and zoom the Zero, it was done.

"As soon as pilots learned to zoom on the zero, it was done" is a bit of an exaggeration, the F4F was an all metal and slow plane, it Could'n turn a D3A, let alone an A6M which was also faster. the P-40 was much better but it was land based.



Quote

Yes, it was a bit of a handful when new, but they over came those problems and the B-26 became the medium bomber with the best survival rate in Europe. And yes, while they made more B-25's, they still made a not insignificant number of 5300 B-26's over a 4 year period. I do not know where you are getting your B-32 info, as they made less than 200 of those.

I highly suspect this statment, its skeptical to say a nothing much B-26 two engine with typical armament that was'n deployed as many other bombers were had high survivablitiy over europe, theres no good reason backing this ,why does'n the Much better B-17 or B-24, more armed and armored and escorted have a better livability? it was'n deployed extensively, and if it was ever was it would've been most likely in the later parts of the war, when the enemy could'n do much against them.




Quote

You didn't need 4 engines to carry mass .50's. Most B-26's had 12 .50's, 8 either in turrets or flexible, and 4 fixed forward for strafing. The B-25 would received even more with 6 .50's turret or flex mounted, and up to 12 fixed forward for strafing. Some models replaced 8 of those fixed .50's with a 75mm cannon.

just a question, can you show me where I can see this 75mm cannon variant? it would be interesting to find out.

Old_Crow51 #12 Posted 11 February 2013 - 02:38 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012
B-25H
Posted Image

The B-26 was deployed as the "standard tactical bomber in Europe by 1943, and served in large numbers in Italy"  Citation: Wilson, Stewart. (1998). Aircraft of World War II, ISBN 1-875671-35-8

the B-26A was powered by two 1850hp P&W R-2800 Double Cyclones. Later version had more powerful engines

The B-32 Dominator was built as a safety net in case the B-29 was cancelled. It had four engines, a tall vertical stabilizer, and was heavy armed. Like Luna said tho only about 200 were made and only saw little use before the war ended.

also you mention the losses at Kure, but fail to mention "were the result of the heavy anti-aircraft defences around Kure" Comparing Pear Harbor, a plan that took almost a full year to complete, was extensively trained for, and started with no declaration of war, is hard to compare to a plan on the fly, during wartime, against a heavily defended target.


Proof of Ace: A6M2 A6M5 F4F F2G P-51A

sultan07 #13 Posted 11 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

Quote

large numbers in Italy

5,288 total were produced.



Quote

also you mention the losses at Kure, but fail to mention "were the result of the heavy anti-aircraft defences around Kure" Comparing Pear Harbor, a plan that took almost a full year to complete, was extensively trained for, and started with no declaration of war, is hard to compare to a plan on the fly, during wartime, against a heavily defended target.

Valid point but my point is that the supposedly called "Experiencd" dive bomber pilots had trouble sinking large static targets with their "superior" aircraft. thats my point.

Old_Crow51 #14 Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012

View Postsultan07, on 11 February 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Valid point but my point is that the supposedly called "Experiencd" dive bomber pilots had trouble sinking large static targets with their "superior" aircraft. thats my point.

Good point, but still, heavy AA and AAA fire makes accuracy that much harder. Same reason it was tough for most Japanese bombers to get through carrier's flak screens, until they started  the kamikaze, at which point they didn't care to take hits.


Proof of Ace: A6M2 A6M5 F4F F2G P-51A

_Luna #15 Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:15 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 1341 battles
  • 824
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I got home from work early today, so I decided to look some stuff up.

Now I am not saying the Val has a bad plane, because it wasn't. It was a solid, effective dive-bomber, but you are not giving the SBD enough credit.
Throughout WWII, the Val was credited with sinking 16 Allied warships, with the top of the list being 2 Heavy Cruiser's and 1 Aircraft Carrier.
The SBD is credited with sinking a similar number, 18 IJN warships, but its list is topped with 1 Battleship and 6 Aircraft Carriers.
If used intelligently, the SBD was also far from useless in a dogfight. Its airframe could withstand 11G's, allowing a pilot to turn as tight as his body could handle (typical pilot endurance is 9G for short periods of time). If a Zero tried to pull 9G's it would rip its own wings off.

He is an exception, but look up Stanley W. "Swede" Vejtasa. In May 1942, the day after he helped sink the IJN carrier Shoho, while on anti torpedo bomber patrol (fighter were in short supply), his squadron of SBD's was jump by a 9 (some accounts say 12, but I'm more inclined to believe 9 is correct) A6M3 Zero's. The ensuing dogfight lasted over 20 minutes, during which he manged to shoot down 2 Zero's with his forward .50s, and while avoiding an attempted ram by the 3rd Zero, clip wings with it and severely damage the Zero. His SBD suffer no debilitating damage from the collision  (the SBD was built extremely robust, so much so that the wings did not fold, uncommon for a US carrier plane of the era so they could be built stronger).

On a side note, 3 months later, now flying an F4F off the USS Enterprise, during one sortie Vejtasa shot down 2 IJN dive bombers and 5 torpedo bombers trying to attack the Enterprise. This action earned him is 3rd Navy Cross, and make him the only pilot to earn a Navy Cross for both dive bombing and fighter action. He had earned his1st in April 1942 during combat near Tulagi.

hathuson2410 #16 Posted 24 February 2013 - 11:26 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 1
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013
ehm...

stealth250 #17 Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:02 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 5,251
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
b-32 production
wiki

Quote

Number built 118
http://www.nationalm...eet.asp?id=2535

Quote

Type Number built/
converted Remarks
B-32 75 Production version
happy now?

from wiki

Quote

Douglas SBD Dauntless
Armament
Guns:
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) forward-firing synchronized Browning M2 machine guns in engine cowling
2 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) flexible-mounted Browning machine gun in rear
Bombs: 2,250 lb (1,020 kg) of bombs
Aichi D3A
Armament
2 × fixed, forward-firing 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 machine guns
1 × flexible, rearward-firing 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 92 machine gun
1 × 250 kg (551 lb) or 2 × 60 kg (132 lb) bombs
there.'
enough information yet?


President and Founder of FRAG
FRAG came, FRAG saw, FRAG countered, FRAG accomplished mission

stealth250 #18 Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:04 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 5,251
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
also watch this



President and Founder of FRAG
FRAG came, FRAG saw, FRAG countered, FRAG accomplished mission