Durability of the G4M Betty

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Durability of the G4M Betty

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Durability of the G4M Betty

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Durability of the G4M Betty - 7/17/2004 7:54:34 PM

Moquia

Posts: 174
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Well, im about to enter March in my campaign against the japanese AI. One thing I have noticed is the low lossrate of the Bettys and Nells against heavy AA. After a look in the database I can see the Bettys have a higher durability than the A-20B among others. A plane I think was considered rugged.

So is the 'one-shot lighter' a historical myth or is this about right. What do the grognards think?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Durability of the G4M Betty - 7/17/2004 8:18:29 PM

gunnergoz

Posts: 447
Joined: 5/21/2002
From: San Diego CA
Status: offline

IIRC, the Betty's got their nickname as "flying cigars" after US fighters found out how vulnerable their unsealed fuel tanks were to incendiary bullets.

AA shrapnel just punches holes in a plane but doesn't usually start fires. They were penty sturdy enough to handle a few flak holes. It was their vulnerability to tracers that did them in.

_____________________________

"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying

(in reply to Moquia)

Post #: 2

RE: Durability of the G4M Betty - 7/17/2004 8:29:57 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

G4M's are not nearly as vulneable as some histories paint. I first learned this reading up on interviews with Joe Foss and it was later confirmed from the writings of Lundstrom and Frank.

Are they still "vulnerable" in comparison to say, a B-25? absolutely. Without self sealing fuel tanks in particular your much more likely to see a G4M brew up and go down vs the latter. But unless its unusual circumstances (prior to 43 at least) your not going to see say 15 go down in one battle vs a moderate sized TF. They are after all, big twin engine units and airplanes in general dont go down nearly as much as gamers often expect when comparing force levels.

One area where the DUR factor really comes out is in damages. I just finished "defending" Lunga in an AI game. No fighter cover (thank god) but AA was fairly intense (for transports). Lost only 6 G4M's and i seemed to be doing ok but man, next turn when i checked the status of my units to consider pressing the attack.....3/4 of my surviving G4M's were unservicable so i wasn't able to continue the attack.

_____________________________

(in reply to gunnergoz)

Post #: 3

RE: Durability of the G4M Betty - 7/17/2004 8:58:25 PM

Moquia

Posts: 174
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

One area where the DUR factor really comes out is in damages. I just finished "defending" Lunga in an AI game. No fighter cover (thank god) but AA was fairly intense (for transports). Lost only 6 G4M's and i seemed to be doing ok but man, next turn when i checked the status of my units to consider pressing the attack.....3/4 of my surviving G4M's were unservicable so i wasn't able to continue the attack.

I had this one attack with Bettys and Nells against a task force with two CVs and plenty of escort. All seemed to get damaged by cap or flak, but later I could see only 1 Betty was lost to flak. But as you mentioned many was problaly unable to attack the next day (did not wait around to see

).

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 4

RE: Durability of the G4M Betty - 7/17/2004 9:41:08 PM

kev_uk

Posts: 288
Joined: 6/5/2004
From: South Wales, UK
Status: offline

The Betty was designed as a long range, fast moving bomber. I think its range outdid a B-17, but the trade off for the range was durability. It had a light airframe with no armour which made it vunerable to AAA and enemy fighters, plus the fact that they had poor self-sealing fuel tanks which made them catch fire all too easily. I think it was called 'Flying Cigar' due to its shape, 'Flying Cigarette lighter' by the Japs and 'Flying Zippo' by Allies.
The same design philosophy as the Zero, light, maneuverable airframe (although it was twin-engined), which just didnt stand up to heavy firepower later in the war. There was a severe lack of R&D in the Japanese camp which was another nail in their coffin.

_____________________________

(in reply to gunnergoz)

Post #: 5

RE: Durability of the G4M Betty - 7/17/2004 9:42:03 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

Don't forget the early war Betty and Nell pilots were still the cream of the pre-war crop. Very selective training etc. They also didn't shy away from a quality spread whereby each community: Fighter, Bomber, Dive-bomber, scout got an equal share of the talent. A highly skilled/experienced Bomber crew will be more likely to nurse that damaged airplane home after it is chewed up.

regards

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Moquia)

Post #: 6

RE: Durability of the G4M Betty - 7/17/2004 9:43:28 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz

IIRC, the Betty's got their nickname as "flying cigars" after US fighters found out how vulnerable their unsealed fuel tanks were to incendiary bullets.

Their fuselage was also cigar shaped. When allied pilots found that they burned well too... that just sealed the deal

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to gunnergoz)

Post #: 7

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Durability of the G4M Betty

Page: [1]