Picture of the day

srdiver said:
watch same TBD1 video - wasn't so much the aircraft but the torpedo, plus some crappy tactics, especially if you compare it to a swordfish (which had a good torpedo).
Click to expand...

Just a fluke that a torpedo hit the Bismark, most of the Swordfish were lost. Then there's the tragic story of VT8, 15 planes lost, no hits. Ships had developed very good counter measures to plane launched torpedo attacks. In response the Americans went to dive bombing, which was much more successful, especially the Japanese aircraft carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT-8

Grizz
 
If ever their was a suicide mission, it was that of 'Torpedo 8' in their obsolete flying coffins. To their credit, they didn't falter and pressed in their attack relentlessly. Heroes all.
 
Smoke was used and could be laid by destroyers - but was a double edge sword. It was used in the defensive role but remember if they can not see you - you can not see them, and smoke is only effective at night if illuminated (a wee tidbit remembered from my leopard advanced gunnery course). Plus in the time of aviation not very effective against aircraft unless you can cover the whole flotilla.
 
CV32 said:
Yes, that was the point. The first Japanese capital ship receiving the first radar. Radar, and moreover, its effective use, remained very much in an evolutionary phase during the course of the war and much more so for the IJN than for the USN.
Click to expand...

Ahh, Ok.

Sometimes my responses are based on how much the rest of the world is annoying me at that exact moment.
 
Heard the USN top brass forbade the RN Pacific fleet from using the Sea Mosquito in Pacific warfare. I am unsure if this is true or untrue. Maybe they thought it would be at risk of friendly fire? too delicate for the demands of carrier use? After all, the Brits had some trouble with the delicate Seafires in Pacific use. I read the sea conditions were too rough to allow them to participate in the RN Fleet Air Arm raids on the Indonesian oil refineries.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Just a fluke that a torpedo hit the Bismark, most of the Swordfish were lost. Then there's the tragic story of VT8, 15 planes lost, no hits. Ships had developed very good counter measures to plane launched torpedo attacks. In response the Americans went to dive bombing, which was much more successful, especially the Japanese aircraft carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT-8

Grizz
Click to expand...

I am not an expert on the subject, but I think the information contained in the quote is wrong. I say this because a great deal of historical enquiry investigated why so few Swordfish were splashed by the Bismarck. The Bismarck made little or no impression on the Swordfish strikes because the Bismark's anti-aircraft artillery was meant to engage fast, modern aircraft. The Swordfish was so slow, the German range estimation and leads were wrong. The Swordfish were virtually untouched.

The quote is also wrong in alleging the US Navy abandoned the torpedo bomber after the disaster of American torpedo planes at Midway. The US Navy continued to use Avenger torpedo bombers until the last days of the war. Look at the destruction of the Battleship Yamato. Torpedo planes were instrumental in its destruction. That mighty warship was sunk in April 1945.

The old truism in the US Navy was, "if you want to burn em, bomb em. If you want to sink em, you torpedo em." The truism can be debated by advocates of bombers versus torpedoes. But the fact is that the US Navy never lost faith in torpedo bombers in WWII.
 
ALFREDS said:
I am not an expert on the subject, but I think the information contained in the quote is wrong. I say this because a great deal of historical enquiry investigated why so few Swordfish were splashed by the Bismarck. The Bismarck made little or no impression on the Swordfish strikes because the Bismark's anti-aircraft artillery was meant to engage fast, modern aircraft. The Swordfish was so slow, the German range estimation and leads were wrong. The Swordfish were virtually untouched.
Click to expand...

Thank You Alfreds for posting this. I also read this somewhere and was re-reading some books to find it again. Have not found it yet, but I believe it to be true.
 
HuskyDude said:
View attachment 282727
Click to expand...

Wonder what model of F86 these were. I worked on the last outfit that flew the Sabres in the RCAF in the late 60’s and I’m pretty sure they didn’t have leading edge wing slats. It was at Chatham and was called STU (Sabre Transition Unit) which future Starfighter pilots would get bombing training before going on the 104.
 
The bizarre and sharklike XF8U-3 Crusader III:

vod_thumb_56472866.jpg


Got enough fins there, buddy?

F8U3-Crusader.jpg


Ck_9tEpVAAAeWas.jpg


Crazy fast, wildly complicated, able to out-dogfight the F4 all day long and twice on Sunday (which is, granted, kinda like beating the garbage truck off the stoplight). Crippled by being a machine that did only one thing (air-to-air interception) really well and having a single crew member who had to do the work of the pilot and RWO on the Phantom. Five built.

When the Navy decided they didn't want them, they went to NASA. The NASA guys regularly intercepted and waxed USN Phantoms until the Navy formally protested.
 
bush1 said:
Wonder what model of F86 these were. I worked on the last outfit that flew the Sabres in the RCAF in the late 60’s and I’m pretty sure they didn’t have leading edge wing slats. It was at Chatham and was called STU (Sabre Transition Unit) which future Starfighter pilots would get bombing training before going on the 104.
Click to expand...

Mk 5 & 6 both had leading edge slats.

Do you happen to recall the name Hector MacGregor ?
 
dryfire said:
Mk 5 & 6 both had leading edge slats.

Do you happen to recall the name Hector MacGregor ?
Click to expand...

Had to do some digging to satisfy my own curiosity and wiki helped me out.
- Mk 5 improvements included improved maneuverability and low-speed characteristics achieved by increasing the wing chord by six in (15.2 cm) at the root and three in. (7.2 cm) at the wing tip along with fitting a small vertical wing fence. This modification, originated by North American on the F-86F, dramatically improved maneuverability, though the loss of the slatted leading edge increased landing speed and degraded low speed handling considerably.

I was pretty sure the Mk5 or Mk6 that I was working on in the late 60’s had no LE slats and I do recall the wing fence.

And no, I don’t recall that name.
 
Just judging by Hasegawa/Tamiya detailed models I think FJ-4 Fury doesn't have more than 20% parts common with F-86.Somewhere closer to 5-10% would be my guess.

Both of those are less related to each other than P-51K Mustang and F-82 Twin Mustang imho.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a cool plane :)
 
donor said:
Just judging by Hasegawa/Tamiya detailed models I think FJ-4 Fury doesn't have more than 20% parts common with F-86.Somewhere closer to 5-10% would be my guess.

Both of those are less related to each other than P-51K Mustang and F-82 Twin Mustang imho.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a cool plane :)
Click to expand...

Donor is quite right. By the time the Fury evolved to the "4" model it was a VERY different airplane with few common parts.

Perhaps I can redeem myself with a nice pic of the A-5 Vigilante:

a5-vigilante.jpg


Great looking bird. Here's an alternate paint scheme:

d769aa1d66a7ffc2abf7d4cefd1a3d83.jpg


I find it interesting that aircraft of a certain era tend to look like each other. Like today's cars that are beholden to crash survivability and mileage regulations, the tech available and misison requirements seem to shape the look of aircraft of each era. There's more than a passing resemblance between the A-5 and the F-111:

Vigilante.jpg


f-111-00000006.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom