Secret Weapons of the Allies

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

You could operate 50 aircraft from a 15,000 ton CV.

 

You could operate more if it was a USN CV. Complements varied with type and date, but the "unsatisfactory" 14,535 ton Ranger, CV4, carried 76 as her first complement - 36 VF, 36 VB, 4 VJ.

 

The 14,700 ton Wasp, CV7, carried 76 in 1942 - 27 F4F, 37 SBD, 12 TBF. She was down to 63 by the Battle of Eastern Solomons, probably operational losses and a few while covering the Guadalcanal landings. Both could do 29+ knots if clean.

[Bob B]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

Eric Brown: IIRC, that was the guy who flew many of the german high-end aircraft and wrote a famous book about them. Don't know about his records.

<font size=1>[Edited by lastdingo (16 Dec 2003).][/i]

 

 

He wrote Wings of the LW, Wings of the Navy, and Duel In The Sky. IIRC he shot down two FW 200 Condors while flying Martlets of one of the early ecort carriers. As for his records, he probably flew more axis experimental types than most test pilots of the time.

[Simon Tan]

ULTRA

[Jim Martin]

Proximity fuses.

[lastdingo]

Originally posted by Jim Martin:

Proximity fuses.

 

88mm guns without proximity fuses were probably more efficient than 127mm L/38 with them.

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

88mm guns without proximity fuses were probably more efficient than 127mm L/38 with them.

 

There is a difference between trying to down naval torpedo bombers and kamikaze fighters and streams of B-17s and B-24s. The comparison between the guns would be interesting, but they had somewhat different emphasis--defending naval vessels at sea against dive-bomber and torpedo attack and acting as medium caliber surface fire vs. defending against medium & high altitude bombers. Mind you, I am not saying the 88 couldn't be used against fighters, or that the 5"/38 couldn't be used against level bombers--Warships1 lists the AA ceiling as 37,200ft for the 5"/38.

 

However, the USN anti-aircraft policy did not advocate high velocity. They were more interested in train rate, especially under manual power. Hence the 5"/25 AA gun. For surface fire, they used the high velocity 5"/51. When they started to develop a DP weapon, they chose the 38cal barrel as the midpoint between the low-inertia 25cal and the high velocity 51cal. At the time the 5"/25 was developed, the emphasis was on predicted fire with timed shells. In manual mounts, time of flight didn't matter as much as being able to rotate the mount fast enough to lead the target properly. Dive bombers and torpedo bombers were more of a threat to ships than level bombers and naval AA suites tended to reflect this. Both types of aircraft get a lot closer than 20,000ft from their target and have increased apparent velocities than level bombers due to the reduced range. You need a faster rate of train, and faster acceleration/deceleration of the mount, to properly target them. What you didn't need was a gun with a long barrel & slow train rate to blast away at an aircraft at 20-30,000ft, if you can't target the torpedo bomber that is coming in 6,000ft away, 50 feet of the water because your gun can't be trained fast enough. As mentioned, the 5"/38 was a compromise between muzzle velocity for surface fire and low moment of inertia for anti-aircraft fire. Also, as I posted on another thread, I recall reading that the US estimated it took 20,000 rounds of AAA to down a single airplane at the beginning of the war. Near the end of the war, the advent of radar fire control and the VT fuse had it down to 5,000 and getting lower. I don't remember the source, but I think it was a book titled "The Greatest Weapons of WWII" or some such.

 

Which reminds me, the 5"/54 might have gone into service in time for the fight in Japan. I'd also add the 3"/50 semi-auto mounts capable of firing VT-fused munitions to the list. These were replacing the 40mm Bofors on a 1 3" to 2 40mm basis. They were intended to bring aircraft under fire at longer ranges with radar control and pack enough punch to knock down Kamikazes with a direct hit.

 

For the AF, I'd add in the B-50, XB-42/XB-43 Mixmaster, and XB-45 Tornado. Also, the P-82, XP-79 flying wing (probably not), and P-61D/E. The Navy also had heavier attack aircraft under development, including the Douglas XBT2D-1 and AD Skyraider and Lockheed's P2V Neptune, along with the McDonnell FD-1 Phantom, McDonnell F2D-1, Vought XF6U-1, Vought XF5U Flying Flapjack, F7F, Ryan FR-1 Fireball, Boeing XF8B, and Goodyear F2G Super Corsair.

 

The US Army would have been pretty well equipped. They had the M26 in production and the invasion of Japan would also probably have seen the use of the Super Hellcat--an M18 with the M36 90mm turret. Then there was the Little David mortar (36" dia)... http://www.afji.com/AFJI/history/Mags/2002...02/october.html

 

There would have been a wider variety of helicopters in service, as well. R-5/HO2S, Bell 47, etc.

 

By the way, I believe a night-fighter Corsair also bagged a MiG-15.

 

Douglas

 

[edited to add comment about rounds/kill.]

 

[Edited by Ol Paint (17 Dec 2003).]

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by Jim Martin:

Proximity fuses.

 

James V. Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy said, "The proximity fuze has helped blaze the trail to Japan. Without the protection this ingenious device has given the surface ships of the Fleet, our westward push could not have been so swift and the cost in men and ships would have been immeasurably greater."

 

Prime Minister, Winston S. Churchill was quoted with "These so-called proximity fuzes, made in the United States.., proved potent against the small unmanned aircraft (V-1) with which we were assailed in 1944."

 

And Commanding General of the Third Army, George S. Patton said, "The funny fuze won the Battle of the Bulge for us. I think that when all armies get this shell we will have to devise some new method of warfare."

 

From:

 

http://warships1.com/index_tech/tech-075.htm

 

An even better article:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm

 

 

 

[Edited by Chris Werb (17 Dec 2003).]

[Scott Cunningham]

I think the US deployed the ultimate secret weapon over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Other advances on existing weapons were just bigger/faster/stronger versions of what was already available.

 

I imagine that the US radar would have been much improved, jets would have arrived (along with Bearcats), 3" AA guns, 5"/54, and possibly the first guided ASMs and ADA missiles. I think improved sub torpedoes were also on the way.

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

What year was it the B50 made an appearance? Despite its numeric, I recall reading about spyflights in them pre 1960. A fine aircraft, though when you get down to it, pretty much a b29 with the flaws ironed out.

 

The B-50A made its first flight on 25 June 1947. First delivery was in June of '48. 200 B-29Ds (4360 powered B29s) were ordered in July 1945, so I suspect they would've been available in time for the campaign in Japan, barring serious trouble.

Info from: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b50_1.html

 

Also worthy of note are the XB-35 and YB-49 flying wings. The first YB-49 flew on 21 October 1947, while the XB-35 flew on 25 June 1946.

 

Douglas

[zakk]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

About jap. guided ordnance: I'm waiting for every bit of information on this, since even the webmaster of Nihon Kaigun doesn't know about japanese guided weapons (I think of those without crew)!!!!!!!!!!

 

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Worlds Rockets & Missiles by Bill Gunston, Salamander Books 1979, has some good information about Japanese guided weapons of WWII, also pictures. It mentions the Funryu 1, I-GO-1-A, I-GO-1-B, I-GO-1-C ASM and Funryu 2 and 4 SAM. Pictures of an I-GO-1-A under a Ki-67 Peggy and an I-GO-1-B under a Ki-48 Lily.

[Rickard N]

I don't remember what might have been written about the eventuality of tank battles in 1946. But would how would the 20 pounder of the early Centurions match the armor of Tigers and perhaps later monsters of the German army?

 

/Rickard

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Rickard N:

I don't remember what might have been written about the eventuality of tank battles in 1946. But how would the 20 pounder of the early Centurions match the armor of Tigers and perhaps later monsters of the German army?

 

/Rickard

 

The 20pdr did not appear until the Mk 3 which was not available in 1946.(afaik).

[Rickard N]

Ok, my memory is worse than ever, I suppose it was the 17 pounder originally then . So same question with gun downgrade

 

/Rickard

[lastdingo]

Originally posted by zakk:

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Worlds Rockets & Missiles by Bill Gunston, Salamander Books 1979, has some good information about Japanese guided weapons of WWII, also pictures. It mentions the Funryu 1, I-GO-1-A, I-GO-1-B, I-GO-1-C ASM and Funryu 2 and 4 SAM. Pictures of an I-GO-1-A under a Ki-67 Peggy and an I-GO-1-B under a Ki-48 Lily.

 

 

 

Thanks!

[nitflegal]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

Thanks!

 

Some good information at this website http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft/edito/2149.html

 

Matt

[Dan Robertson]

Originally posted by MiloMorai:

The 20pdr did not appear until the Mk 3 which was not available in 1946.(afaik).

 

Centurion development was frozen in 1945 (it was restarted in 1947, Mk III appeared one year later), all the requisite parts that make up an Mk III were available in 1945/6 timeframe. Had the war continued the Centurion Mk II and III would have been in service by 1946 in limited numbers.

 

Verses the German super heavies:

 

Jadgtiger: Interestingly enough the flat front of the Jadgtiger despite being exceptionally thick is actually a pretty good target for the 20pdr APDS this would be vulnerable at 1200-1500m, the glacis is not vulnerable. Sides and rear offer minimal protection to 20pdr even at high angles.

 

Tiger II: Probably better off armour wise than the Jadgtiger. The front turret is vulnerable but actually only a small portion of frontal protection. Most of the front profile is the front hull, top and side turret, all are sloped and hard to penetrate with APDS. Again side protection is minimal.

 

Against the long 88 and 128mm gun the protection of the tank was variable with part of the turret and mantle having the slope/thickness to deflect them, others being penetrable at combat ranges.

 

Against the Tiger, Panther and Panzer IV its armour was effective against their main guns at all but short ranges, the 17pdr was effective against them, the 20pdr was an over matching weapon.

 

Centurion Mk III would have been a fair match in arms and armour terms verses the late war German super heavy tanks, with later uparmourings it would be superior to them.

 

However on the scale of fightability the Centurion is widely praised where as the German heavies were often criticised.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Originally posted by DesertFox:

Concerned with it being able to deal with the theoretical Japanese jet fighters. Still, wan't there a few examples of Mustangs in Korea shooting down Mig-15s?

 

No official confirmed victories by F-51's v. MiG's, nor offical probables, 8 credits for MiG's damaged. Some accounts suggest some of those MiG's were likely downed but none actually were per Soviet records (all the encounters seem to have been v. Soviet MiGs). The offical loss number for F-51's in combat with MiG's is 8.

 

The Sea Fury kill of a MiG probably happened from the description and some suggestion in Chinese accounts (the unit very likely Chinese). It's not often mentioned though that the MiG's downed a Sea Fury too and damaged another.

 

A Marine F4U-4B was also credited with a MiG, though another MiG in turn immediately shot it down. That MiG was almost certainly actually lost, its unit can be identified. But MiG's also shot down two USN F4U's on separate occasions during the war.

 

A/c like the MiG-15 were an altogether different proposition for late props than the Me-262 (or the Nakajima Kikka which was really a somewhat different plane patterned after the 262, not a clone) against which the P-51D had a highly favorable exchange ratio as would probably the F4U-4 have had and perhaps even more so too-late-for-WWII props like the Sea Fury.

 

Joe

[gewing]

Since we are on the topic of developmental aircraft...

 

 

If the engines had ever been working, would the Flying Flapjack have been an effective aircraft?

 

I always liked that beast.

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by JOE BRENNAN:

the 262, not a clone) against which the P-51D had a highly favorable exchange ratio (snip)

Joe

 

Was that exchange ratio at least partly the result of catching returning 262s in the landing pattern or actually landing?

[JOE BRENNAN]

Originally posted by Chris Werb:

Was that exchange ratio at least partly the result of catching returning 262s in the landing pattern or actually landing?

 

I agree the difference in tactical situation was also important. P-51's in 1944-45 were on the offensive and numerous enough to press their advantage in persistence (even at such distances from their bases), but if you leaf through incident by incident in books like "Me 262 Combat Diary" by Foreman and Harvey and "German Jets v. the USAAF" of the well over 100 262's downed by P-51's, for quite few P-51's confirmably downed by jets, it doesn't seem that that many literally fit the stereotype of while landing. It seems P-51's could also dive and catch cruising 262's. But the P-51's were able by numbers to press the 262's all the time including near their fields.

 

In Nov 1950 F-51's were flying CAP's against a numerically equal enemy with a sanctuary, but at that time MiG's didn't manage to down any, though they claimed a number; most of the MiG's claimed hit by F-51's were also at this time but again none were actually downed. In this "pure" fighter-fighter matchup alert 51's seemed to usually be able to avoid trouble, as in '44-45 when on the defensive v. jets, but had much less offensive ability because of the ~150mph step up in speed from 262 to MiG-15. Later, in 51-52 MiG's eventually picked off F-51's serving as fighter bombers or in one case pre-occupied decimating a Communist prop formation, for the 8 or so total kills.

 

It always helps a lot to be constantly on the attack against the enemy even near his fields, whether similar or dissimilar a/c. That helped F-86's too against the MiG's once they became freer (secretly, from spring '52) to cross the border and stake out the main MiG field complex.

 

Joe

[hojutsuka]

Originally posted by Sargent:

"Theoretical" is the operative word. AFAIK, the Japanese never flew a jet, nor did they have the fuel.

 

 

They had no fuel, but they did fly a jet. Nakajima Kikka single seat attack bomber (looks like a small Me262) flew 7 August 1945.

 

Sorry, should have looked at all the postings. Apologies for repeating information...

 

[Edited by hojutsuka (20 Dec 2003).]

[Guest Murph]

But would they have made a difference? Doubtful.

 

They had no fuel, but they did fly a jet.  Nakajima Kikka single seat attack bomber (looks like a small Me262) flew 7 August 1945.

 

Sorry, should have looked at all the postings.  Apologies for repeating information...

 

<font size=1>[Edited by hojutsuka (20 Dec 2003).]

2772[/snapback]

[hojutsuka]

But would they have made a difference?  Doubtful.

126930[/snapback]

 

I agree that the Japanese having a few more jets like the Kikka would have made no difference. The Germans had hundreds of Me262, some in fighter bomber configuration, and they lost anyway.

 

Hojutsuka

[nigelfe]

In terms of the relative sophistication of the technology, Allied radar vis-a-vis that of the Japanese (but not the Germans) might not have been a secret, but was certainly an advantage almost as big as true technical surprise.

2725[/snapback]

 

However, it's useful to remember that the Japanese independently invented the cavity magnetron which suggests they weren't entirely unsophisticated.

[nigelfe]

As already pointed out:

 

VT - tactically very important and remained a 'secret' in the sense that neither Germans or Japanese knew what was hitting them.

 

ULTRA (etc) - very important at the operational level, but didn't give much insight into the strategic stuff.

 

And I'd add:

 

Mulberry - undermined the German assumption that the Allies had to capture port(s) very quickly which significantly determined German operational thinking.