History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Light Bombers US/Japan
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:37 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
USAAF/USAF Rating Introduction
A-3 25.00 1925
A-8 29.93 1932
A-12 31.09 1933
A-17 39.02 1935
A-18 51.72 1937
A-19 53.26 1937
A-24A 52.98 1940
A-24B 60.04 1943
A-27 49.70 1941
A-31 72.91 1942
A-36 77.08 1942
OV-10 54.31 1969
A-29 96.92 1999
A-37 142.62 1966
PA-48 98.03 1971
USN
Dive Bomber
BG-1 36.87 1933
BF2C-1 51.89 1933
SBU 38.93 1935
BT-1 51.37 1935
SBC-1 43.14 1937
SBC-4 44.45 1939
SB2U-1 45.75 1937
SBA/SBN 52.92 1940
SBD-2 56.81 1940
SBD-3 62.98 1941
SBD-4 67.88 1942
SBD-6 74.80 1944
SB2A 61.49 1943
SB2C-1 84.41 1944
SB2C-4 87.41 1944
A4D-1/A4A 201.99 1957
A4D-2/A4B 194.57 1957
A-4C 209.60 1959
A4D-5/A-4E 227.47 1962
A4-F 230.51 1967
A4-M 266.56 1973
A-7A 292.92 1967
A-7E 332.55 1970
AV-8A 371.50 1969
AV-8B 365.18 1985
AV-8B+ 448.78 1992
Torpedo Bomber
DT 12.29 1925
T2D 26.41 1927
T3M 22.24 1927
T4M 17.96 1928
BM 27.12 1933
TBD-1 39.62 1937
TBF-1 69.05 1942
TBM-1 75.72 1944
TBU-1 87.72 1945
AD-1 113.39 1946
AD-4 140.00 1948
AD-5 134.20 1952
AM-1 110.15 1948
Japan Army
Ki-3 32.58 1933
Ki-30 53.79 1938
Ki-32 54.65 1938
Ki-51-I 49.56 1940
Ki-51-II 53.31 1942
Ki-115 68.46 1945
Japan Navy
Dive Bombers
D1A1 30.52 1934
D1A2 36.13 1936
D3A1 50.29 1940
D3A2 56.25 1942
D4Y2 68.47 1942
Torpedo Bombers
1MT 23.02 1922
B1M 22.21 1923
B2M1 34.86 1932
B4Y1 39.63 1936
B5N2 53.96 1938
B5M1 54.80 1938
B6N2 78.44 1943
B7A2 94.13 1945

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Last edited by Francis Urquhart on Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 1127
Location: SSN-766, BB-55
The much maligned Helldiver does come in substantially ahead of the Dauntless.

Jeff

_________________
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:48 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
JPaulMartin wrote:
The much maligned Helldiver does come in substantially ahead of the Dauntless.

Jeff

It does indeed. The TBD Devastator also shows how that aircraft was acceptable when it came out but was quickly outdated. Another interesting one was the BF2C1. This was a fighter that got exclusively used as a dive-bomber and it dominates the rankings of its time (it didn't last very long because it was overloaded and its undercarriage kept collapsing. It's a very early sign that bomb-carrying fighters were a better investment than light bombers. Sadly nobody seemed to get the hint.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:31 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7250
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
The BF2C seems suspiciously high. For an airplane with almost the same empty weight and only a little more power than the SBU, it does an awful lot better. How did it do as a fighter?

Also, you've got weird hyphenation on the A-4.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 1593
Retractable gear, 700hp and 500lb bomb +220mph speed gives it simmiler performance to Skua and BT-1, despite the configuration. So similar scores, around 50 might be expected if the model does not incorperate the operational robustness issue, which might be difficult to model uniformly across all aircraft types anyway.

(BT-1 of course, could carry 1000lb bomb in some situations)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:50 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
NewGolconda wrote:
Retractable gear, 700hp and 500lb bomb +220mph speed gives it simmiler performance to Skua and BT-1, despite the configuration. So similar scores, around 50 might be expected if the model does not incorperate the operational robustness issue, which might be difficult to model uniformly across all aircraft types anyway. (BT-1 of course, could carry 1000lb bomb in some situations)


The performance penalty on the light bombers as compared to fighters of the same time period really seems to be attributable to the second seat. The fighters and light bombers usually had the same or similar engine and power output, were roughly similar in size etc but that second seat/rear gunner really paralyzed them. Its notable that when the second seat was dumped, the aircraft came up to near-fighter standards (the AD-4 for example is not far off the F4U even though the two are calculated different ways, One might suspect that the greater payload capability of the AD-4 balances out the performance edge of the F4U. The use of the SBD and the A-4 as fighters is also interesting.

The same calculus can be applied to the Defiant and Hurricane; the former was crippled by its second seat and added weight. It's intriguing that the proposed single-seat versions of the Defiant were actually superior in performance to the Hurricane.

Looking at the situation slightly differently, the BF2C was a very early indicator of what happened if we had a single-seat light bomber - and the answer seems to be that it comes in very close to the fighter version of the same aircraft. I have a feeling that had it not been for the undercarriage problems of the BF2C drawing unwelcome attention, that aircraft may have started the single-seat light bomber trend a decade or more earlier than was actually the case. This leads to a "Mr. Smith" possibility; there was an attack version of the F4U, the AU-1 (its very hard to get good data on the AU-1, most figures quote it in its most heavily loaded configuration) so its quite plausible that if the US Navy had looked at the BF-2C more carefully, they might have had the AU-1 replacing the SBD and TBD from an early point in the war.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group