RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 4:23:47 AM)

quote:

One of the great ironies of Bismarck's saga was that her 1st class tracking systems for her AA guns were unable to get good solutions on the Stringbags because the planes were so slow!

That's probably another facet of the Bismarck myth. The Swordfish were coming in at about 200 mph. If Bismarck couldn't handle those speeds, then her FC certainly wasn't first-class.



marky -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 4:37:45 AM)

i thought that the turrets werent designed to move so slowly cuz the germans didnt think the brits would use such slow aircraft





Iridium -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 6:27:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

i thought that the turrets werent designed to move so slowly cuz the germans didnt think the brits would use such slow aircraft




So wait, the turret can't move slow enough to track a plane? That sounds like a joke to me. I tend to look at the Bismark as lacking a decent AA suite to begin with but this sort of talk just makes it look even more silly.



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 6:43:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

One of the great ironies of Bismarck's saga was that her 1st class tracking systems for her AA guns were unable to get good solutions on the Stringbags because the planes were so slow!

That's probably another facet of the Bismarck myth. The Swordfish were coming in at about 200 mph. If Bismarck couldn't handle those speeds, then her FC certainly wasn't first-class.


Really? The CHS database has the Swordfish max speed at 139 mph and cruise speed at 125 mph. What was the real max speed for the Swordfish?




Shark7 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 7:26:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

One of the great ironies of Bismarck's saga was that her 1st class tracking systems for her AA guns were unable to get good solutions on the Stringbags because the planes were so slow!

That's probably another facet of the Bismarck myth. The Swordfish were coming in at about 200 mph. If Bismarck couldn't handle those speeds, then her FC certainly wasn't first-class.


Really? The CHS database has the Swordfish max speed at 139 mph and cruise speed at 125 mph. What was the real max speed for the Swordfish?




225 kph, 140 mph, 120 kts. Hard to imagine anything that slow actually managing to stay airborne. I guess with the plane moving that slow it is possible that an electric turret could track to quickly to stay on target, but I'm having a really hard time accepting that.

This also brings up the question of: 'If the radar tracking wasn't working, why didn't they just switch to the Mk I Eyeball tracking system?'



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 8:23:26 AM)

quote:

The CHS database has the Swordfish max speed at 139 mph and cruise speed at 125 mph.

That applies to level flight, does it not?

quote:

i thought that the turrets werent designed to move so slowly cuz the germans didnt think the brits would use such slow aircraft

How fast do your turrets need to move when a 450mph plane is flying directly at you?

quote:

I tend to look at the Bismark as lacking a decent AA suite to begin with but this sort of talk just makes it look even more silly.

Dividing the heavy AA battery between two different types of mounts could not have helped matters. The marginal level of crew training that Bismarck received may be the major factor.



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 9:58:47 AM)

I really doubt that the Swordfish could make all that much more speed in a dive. They also have to fly level to drop torpedoes.

A plane launching a torpedo intended to strike your moving vessel would not fly straight at you, they would fly an intercept course. To answer your question directly, the change in bearing would be very gradual for a plane traveling 450 mph, but even more gradual for a plane traveling around 125 to 140 mph. I give the range because I am uncertain if the max speed for the Swordfish was when carrying a torpedo or unloaded.

The conventional history is that the tracking mechanism wasn't able to make such small increments. Now, I don't know if it was or wasn't, but that's the claim in every text I've ever seen on it and every documentary I've seen. If it's true it would make it more difficult to hit the attacking aircraft, but certainly not impossible. They might be wrong, but I am very skeptical about the claim of Swordfish coming in at 200 mph. Where did you come by that information?



wild_Willie2 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 1:49:44 PM)

The Bismarck's AA guns did not have speed setting that could be set slow enough to target the Swordfishes effectively....



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 1:52:03 PM)

Right. Note I didn't say the 450moh plane was a torpedo plane, just that it was flying directly at the ship. Even such a hot plane would require little elevating/training until it got close to its target. To say the German system was unable to handle such a scenario means that it can't handle strafing fighters. I have never seen any technical source saying the system was inadequate in this way.
I believe I got the 200mph figure from Mark Horan, who is probably my best source on all things FAA.



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 2:19:07 PM)

Could he have meant 200 kph?



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 2:21:30 PM)

No, definitely not. The planes would approach the target at 200 mph, then level off to make the drop at about 100mph.



Hortlund -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 2:41:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

No, definitely not. The planes would approach the target at 200 mph, then level off to make the drop at about 100mph.


wtf are you dense? The planes could not fly that fast.

And dont you dare try to come up with some "OMG LOLZ THE PLANES DIVED IN AND LEVELED OFF BEFORE LAUNCHING THEIR TORPEDOZ"-argument, because that will put you on my ignore list so fast your head will spin.



Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 2:51:56 PM)

While Hortlund should take a chill pill and remember he's not talking to Marky here, the Swordfish had a flat-out maximum unladen speed of 152mph, and is highly unlikely to have been able to get anywhere near that while lugging a fish around.



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 2:52:54 PM)

I just did a google search and looked at a bunch of sites. I failed to find 200 mph anywhere. I found one site that was a forum posting where the author seemed to say that he copied the stats from a book to answer another poster. The posters name is Trackend on the site ww2aircraft.net and he gives a citation. Here is that post:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/question-speed-swordfish-7041.html

quote:

This is the most comprehensive specs I have for the StringBag Del and is taken from the SwordFish Story by Ray Sturtivant although it does'nt give unladen performance.

Power Plant
Bristol Pegasus Mk IIIM3 (or MK 30) Nine Cylinder Radial air cooled supercharged engine rated at 775hp at 2300RPM at sea level and 690hp at 2300rpm at 3500ft (five minute combat rating 750hp at 2525rpm at 4750ft when fitted with Fairey Reed three bladed fixed pitch metal propeller)

Fuel Capacity
155 Imperial gallons in main fuselage tank and a further 12.5 Imperial gallons in gravity tank. Provision for 60 Imperial gallon auxiliary tank slung from torpedo crutches beneath centre fuselage.

Dimensions
Span (upper mainplane) 45ft 6in. (lower mainplane) 43ft 9in.
Width with mainplanes folded 17ft 3in.
Length (tail down) 36ft 1in, (flying attitude) 36ft 4in.
Height (tail down) 12ft 10.5in, (flying attitude) 13ft 5.75in.
Gross wing area 607 sq ft.

Weights (MK1 late production)
Empty 4,700lbs
Empty equpped 5,200lbs
Loaded 8,100lbs
Maximum loaded 8,700lbs
Maximum overload 9,250lbs

Armament
One fixed forward firing Vickers .303 machine gun x 600 rounds
One Lewis .303 machine gun x 6 magazines mounted on Fairey high speed.
fleximount
Loads included Optional, one 1,610 lb torpedo. one 1,500lb sea mine or 1,500lb of bombs (which could comprise of 2 500lb bombs beneath fuselage and 2 250lb bombs beneath lower main plane or one 500lb bomb beneath lower each lower main plane.
The MkII could instead carry four 60lb rockets underneath each lower mainplane.

Performance (MkI late production at 8,700lbs loaded weight)
Maximum speed 132mph at sea level, 139mph at 4,750ft.
Maximum cruising speed 128mph at 5,000ft with maximum weak mixture power.
Economical cruising speed 104mph at 5,000ft.
Range with 1,500lb bomb load at economical cruising speed & no external stores 546 miles. With 60 Imperial gallon external tank 1,030 miles.
Initial climb rate 1,200ft/min.
Time to 5,000ft at 8,700lbs weight 10 minutes.
Service ceiling (9,250lbs weight) 10,700ft, (8,700lbs weight) 12,400ft.
Maxmium unloaded ceiling 19,250ft.
Take off distance (to clear 50ft max load) 725yds.
Deck run into 20 kt wind 180yds, 30kt wind 115yds, 40kt wind 62yds.
Landing run (over 50ft at 8,700lbs) 550yds.

I have some other figures from issued middle east documents for the Swordfish in seaplane configuration but the ones above are about (as far as I can find out) the most accurate.
As for kills the Fleet Air Arm museum in Yoevilton seems to settle around 300,000 tonnes + of merchantile shipping excluding mine layed kills and 20 submarines through direct involvement as for naval vessels this list includes obviously several capital and numorous smaller vessels ranging from cruisers too gun boats, as for anti tank and air to air action I have not been very successfull in this but there are quite a few accounts in various articals of kills in this area.


I know that a bunch of guys on this forum have reference books - if someone has 200 mph for the Swordfish I hope they speak up.



Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 2:54:39 PM)

No Swordfish ever flew 200mph...



Hortlund -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 2:57:20 PM)

For it to reach 200 mph, you would have to strip it of its propeller and put it in a vertical dive. Then...maybe, just maybe it would hit 200 mph a few seconds before its wings tore off.



Shark7 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 4:43:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

For it to reach 200 mph, you would have to strip it of its propeller and put it in a vertical dive. Then...maybe, just maybe it would hit 200 mph a few seconds before its wings tore off.


This is more commonly called 'crashing.' [:D]

Still doesn't answer the real question. The Swordfish were going slow, they were also flying straight and level. Granted they were most likely incoming at a angle to put them dropping the torpedoes to run a bit ahead of the ship, but a torpedo bomber still has to stay straight and level on its torpedo run. It would not be that hard to track.

So the question remains, where was the Optical system for training the guns and why didn't it come into play?

It also makes you wonder why you wouldn't have a few manually aimed guns of 12.7mm - 20mm calibres that use the simplest and most relieable target tracking system known to man, the Mk I Eyeball. Even most modern warships still mount the 12.7mm machine guns.



Hortlund -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 5:00:26 PM)

The attacking aircraft were hit several times, but the flimsy construction of the airframes (wood and fabric) made the HE warheads set on contact to fly though the target instead of exploding, while the time-set warhead fuses detonated too far ahead of the aircraft since the directors assumed they would be flying faster and set the time-fuses accordingly.



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 5:15:06 PM)

Now that makes sense. Reality is much more satisfying than myth!



Shark7 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/1/2008 5:19:02 PM)

Yes that does make a lot more sense.  And still makes a good argument for putting a few .50 cals around the ship.



Big B -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 12:08:42 AM)

Fuse timing is exactly what I was thinking here as well.

As for a swordfish making 200mph - I believe that would have been be easy to manage...if the swordfish had been held in a shallow dive. They were fabric covered, but not wooden framed, so I would imagine that they could withstand that speed for a while.

I too have read that Bismark was not able to track a target moving that slow either (130 mph or so). It may be "urban legend" after appearing in a book, but I know I did read that statement.

What Tironu said about an approaching air speed of about 200mph makes sense, and it probably does speak volumes about the inexperience of the Bismark's crew.

Regardless, what happened - happened.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

The attacking aircraft were hit several times, but the flimsy construction of the airframes (wood and fabric) made the HE warheads set on contact to fly though the target instead of exploding, while the time-set warhead fuses detonated too far ahead of the aircraft since the directors assumed they would be flying faster and set the time-fuses accordingly.




Zebedee -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 5:17:23 AM)

Maybe the swordfish had a following wind? [:D]




rtrapasso -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 5:28:16 AM)

quote:


I too have read that Bismark was not able to track a target moving that slow either (130 mph or so). It may be "urban legend" after appearing in a book, but I know I did read that statement.


This is true... The Germans had an overly complex tracking system, and it was unable to track slow moving aircraft and the Swordfish avoided being shot down because of this.



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 7:07:40 AM)

quote:

wtf are you dense?

Hee! Was there ever an FAA plane called the Crow? Was it edible?
A laden Swordfish, whether African or European, could grab a torpedo by the husk...I mean could carry a torpedo in a dive to 200mph. I will not weep if you put me on your ignore list.
Does anybody have Lamb's To War in a Stringbag handy? Perhaps you could verify these quotes:
"Of all its many weapons the most devastating was the aerial torpedo. This weighed 1610 lb. and was capable of sinking a 10,000 ton ship within minutes of the moment of impact. To deliver this weapon in the face of intense opposition in daylight, pilots were taught to attack from a steep dive, at speeds of 180 knots and more."
"After straightening out and throttling back, the forward speed came right down to 90 knots very quickly, because of the drag provided by the fixed undercarriage, and all the struts and wires between the mainplanes. This violent alteration in speed made the aircraft a difficult target for the gun-aimer on the ground, or in the ship being attacked, and the sudden deceleration helped the pilot to deliver his weapon very accurately."

quote:

The Germans had an overly complex tracking system, and it was unable to track slow moving aircraft and the Swordfish avoided being shot down because of this.

I personally have not seen any reliable source stating this. I have yet to hear a technical explanation that shows why this would be the case. The best guess I've heard is that the fuze setter might be involved. I'll point out that the standard carrier-based torpedo plane for the expected foe of the German Navy (that would be the French Navy) at the time of Bismarck's design was a plane even slower than the Swordfish. What would be the motivation for the Germans to ignore slow aircraft?



Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 1:45:58 PM)

How the hell can you dive steeply in a Swordfish carrying a 1600-pound torpedo?



castor troy -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 2:27:00 PM)

there were 16x3,7cm (8xdouble), 12x2cm (single) and 8x2 cm (quadruple). Not amazing but as a crew member you should feel pretty save with those small armaments against a couple of slow moving biplanes...

though feelings can be misleading...



Hortlund -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 2:48:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

How the hell can you dive steeply in a Swordfish carrying a 1600-pound torpedo?


Well, you cant. I suggest paying as much attention to Tiornu on these matters that one would pay to Marky if he was giving his analysis of the Japanese economic model...



Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 2:53:23 PM)

You're misunderstanding me. I accept Tiornu's quote as correct; I just don't understand how the Stringbag would be up to it, structurally.




Howard Mitchell -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 3:16:21 PM)


The weather on the day the Bismarck was attacked seems to have been poor. Burkard Baron von Mullenheim-Rechberg, a survivor of the Bismarck where he was the fourth gunnery officer mentions this specifically.

At 19:15: The swordfish strike-force was launched ‘under low cloud and varying visibility’.

At 20:30: ‘Aircraft alarm! No sooner had the report that sixteen planes were approaching run through the ship than they were flying over us at high altitude. Then they were out of sight…in a few minutes another aircraft alarm sounded, and this was a different picture. The planes dived out of the clouds, individually and in pairs, and flew towards us. They approached even more recklessly than the planes from the Victorious had done two days earlier… the high cloud layer, which was especially thick directly over us, probably did not permit a synchronised attack from all directions… they flew low, the spray of the heavy seas masking their landing gear’.

So from the German view-point at least, the Swordfish attacked by diving down from a high cloud layer. Though they may have dived to increase their initial approach speed, they still had to fly at about 50 feet and around 75 knots to release their torpedoes however.

Von Mullenheim-Rechberg is also puzzled why no Swordfish were shot down: ‘the fact that the Bismarck did not shoot down a single one of the relatively large number of close, low-flying enemy planes has puzzled both experts and laymen. Ostensibly, such a complete failure ‘should not have happened’ and I cannot offer any plausible explanation for this apparently poor performance’.

Garzke and Dulin on their book on Axis battleship design mention that towards the end of the attack, two Swordfish approached the port side of the Bismarck so low that the 105mm and 37mm guns could not effectively maintain fire at them (remember that the Bismarck was manoeuvring violently at speed and so would have been heeling unpredictably). I find too low to be a more credible story than the targets being too slow, and it is noticeable that the latter claim does not tend to appear in more detailed or technical accounts.

My own view is that a Swordfish could probably dive at 200 mph. This is not really that fast, especially for an aircraft rugged enough to operate from small carriers in the north Atlantic in winter. Structurally it would have been plenty strong enough, and in terms of it being fabric covered, many aircraft such as the early Hurricane had fabric covered wings and fuselages and were able to fly much faster. The problem would have been the extreme drag caused by its design, but if you have enough altitude and are able to put the nose down for long enough 200 mph does not seem excessive.



Speedysteve -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/2/2008 3:43:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

How the hell can you dive steeply in a Swordfish carrying a 1600-pound torpedo?


Well, you cant. I suggest paying as much attention to Tiornu on these matters that one would pay to Marky if he was giving his analysis of the Japanese economic model...



Personally disagree with that. IMO Tiornu has made many a valid and accurate statement in the past on technical matters.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.46875