The sinking of the Konigsberg

[Gopher]

The US maritime strike a/c was the B-17. The Air Corp assured everyone that they would have no trouble hitting ships from high altitude using the Norden bombsight. Of course it didnt quite work out that way. The mere fact that they couldnt hit ships from altitude didnt stop the AC from making some pretty outrageous claims tho...........even as late as Midway they were claiming a great deal of damage to the Japanese CV force was done by Army bombers.

The USAF had a 100 mile maritime restriction placed on their aircraft by the Navy pre war and required exemptions to operate beyond that limit so even though the B17 was a ludicrous weapon for anti shipping strikes they could not practice them. The Army continually tried to undercut the B17 program to get smaller close support bombers and wernt interested in anything to do with maritime strike.The Navy finally woke up and got the B25 operational as a shipping strike aircraft in 44!!!!!!! As for the airforce Kennys airgroup famously improvised with Havoc's and B25's which shows what might have been achieved had their been any kind of foresight.

[RF]

I take your point, but I would make the observation that Goering did appoint an Air Commander Atlantic for the Luftwaffe operations in Biscay and North Atlantic, indicating that he was aware of a scope for the Luftwaffe in the war at sea. The main problem I think was one of ego's and a personality clash with both Raeder and Donitz.

[lwd]

The navy did use Catalina's in the strike role pretty much from the beginning of the war.

[Gopher]

I take your point, but I would make the observation that Goering did appoint an Air Commander Atlantic for the Luftwaffe operations in Biscay and North Atlantic, indicating that he was aware of a scope for the Luftwaffe in the war at sea. The main problem I think was one of ego's and a personality clash with both Raeder and Donitz.

In inter service rivalries no nation really comes out looking well. Failure usually occurs down demarcation lines. To be fair on the Luftwaffe the resources nessecary to support the KM to the extent it required was beyond it. JU88 fighters to defend the UBoats in Biscay were needed for home defence, 4 engined long range aircraft for recon were expensive and hard to justify again against the needs of home defence and the logistics hell of Africa and the Eastern Front. The Luftwaffe none the less achieved spectacular success with Cerebus and PQ-17 in conjuction with the KM so relations wernt always disastrous. Again this makes the USAF and USN performance all the more dissapointing in this field. 1944, Essex Class Carriers and submarines with working torpedoes hide alot of deficencies prior to this point.

[lwd]

.... Again this makes the USAF and USN performance all the more dissapointing in this field. ...

I'm not sure why you think their performance was all that disapointing. There is the minor point that there was no USAF during WWII. But aside from that the US Army and Navy cooperated fairly well in the Pacific from what I can see.

[Gopher]

The navy did use Catalina's in the strike role pretty much from the beginning of the war.

Whilst an excellent aircraft it would only be useful against submarines and for long ranged recon it would hardly be in the class of the JU88, SM 79, or Betty in the role of strike aircraft. The effectiveness of the former two was no secret even the lowly Beaufort had its moments which makes Americas omission in this field given the theatre she would be fighting in all the more bizarre.

[lwd]

Whilst an excellent aircraft it would only be useful against submarines and for long ranged recon it would hardly be in the class of the JU88, SM 79, or Betty in the role of strike aircraft.

Yet it was used as a strike aircraft and did quite well in that role when properly used. For instance the only torpedo hit at Midway by a US aircraft was from a Catalina.

The effectiveness of the former two was no secret even the lowly Beaufort had its moments which makes Americas omission in this field given the theatre she would be fighting in all the more bizarre.

B-25's also perforemed that role very well in the Pacific as did P-38 and later cosairs I believe. Multi engine bombers were viewed for the most part as an Army area and the Navy didn't go there.
Not sure why you refer to the Beaufort as "lowly" looking at the stats it has a bit of range advanage on both the Betty and the Ju88 and is faster than the former if not the latter. The Ju88 does have a signifcant advantage in bomb load over the other two. The Italian plane looks very comparable to the Ju88. Looks to me like the Beaufort may have been overshadowed by better allied planes but not by better axis ones.

[lwd]

I was thinking about this some more.

The Luftwaffe none the less achieved spectacular success with Cerebus and PQ-17 in conjuction with the KM so relations wernt always disastrous. Again this makes the USAF and USN performance all the more dissapointing in this field. ....

Was Cerebrus all that spectacular a success for the LW? Impressive operation but I don't see that the LW performance was all that supectacular and especially when compared to the Guadalcanal Campaign and the exploits of the "Cactus" air force or some of the RN operations in the Med.

PQ-17 was a spectacular success but compare it to say the Battle of the Bismarck Sea or again the air ops vs the Japanese resupply convoys to the 'Canal and it's got company.

[Gopher]

.... Again this makes the USAF and USN performance all the more dissapointing in this field. ...

I'm not sure why you think their performance was all that disapointing. There is the minor point that there was no USAF during WWII. But aside from that the US Army and Navy cooperated fairly well in the Pacific from what I can see.

From an operational point of view it meant Japanese ships required no CAP unless they were within single engined aircraft range, conversely try doing that within Betty range. The Japanese had complete logistical freedom until 1943 compare that to the RN and USN trying to resupply Malta.

[Gopher]

Whilst an excellent aircraft it would only be useful against submarines and for long ranged recon it would hardly be in the class of the JU88, SM 79, or Betty in the role of strike aircraft.

Yet it was used as a strike aircraft and did quite well in that role when properly used. For instance the only torpedo hit at Midway by a US aircraft was from a Catalina.

The effectiveness of the former two was no secret even the lowly Beaufort had its moments which makes Americas omission in this field given the theatre she would be fighting in all the more bizarre.

B-25's also perforemed that role very well in the Pacific as did P-38 and later cosairs I believe. Multi engine bombers were viewed for the most part as an Army area and the Navy didn't go there.
Not sure why you refer to the Beaufort as "lowly" looking at the stats it has a bit of range advanage on both the Betty and the Ju88 and is faster than the former if not the latter. The Ju88 does have a signifcant advantage in bomb load over the other two. The Italian plane looks very comparable to the Ju88. Looks to me like the Beaufort may have been overshadowed by better allied planes but not by better axis ones.

The point of my arguement throughout this whole thread is not that the US did not produce good machines they did, (eventually). The Beaufort, Nell and JU88 were operational in 1940. The Betty from Summer of 1941 the Naval strike Beaufighter from May 41. Where was the P38 in 1940? Where was the Corsair? Where were they in 1941? How many P38's were at Midway? How Many B25's? America had two years grace and the benefit of everyones elses experience and entered the war with serious deficency in aircraft types that is the point.

[19kilo]

So? Its not much of a point at all. Study up on the times.......there are so many factors there that the point you are making is really moot.

[Gopher]

So? Its not much of a point at all. Study up on the times.......there are so many factors there that the point you are making is really moot.

I think timing is actually the point and I think you will find operational service is what counts, you can criticise the the FAA for its size and the vintage of the machines it entered WWII with and the volume it was forced to send on raids due to operational circumstance but no navy seems to have been in a more advantagous position in 39.

[lwd]

...The point of my arguement throughout this whole thread is not that the US did not produce good machines they did, (eventually). The Beaufort, Nell and JU88 were operational in 1940. The Betty from Summer of 1941 the Naval strike Beaufighter from May 41. Where was the P38 in 1940? Where was the Corsair? Where were they in 1941? How many P38's were at Midway? How Many B25's? America had two years grace and the benefit of everyones elses experience and entered the war with serious deficency in aircraft types that is the point.

Indeed and look what was being fielded in 41 P-38, B-25, B-24, P-39, A-20, PV-1, and B-26.
Followed in 42 by the P-47, P-51, TBF, A-31, and F4U.
And of course the P40, B-17, F4F, SBD, TBD, A-28/29, and A-17 had been previously fielded and none of the above include a number of planes produces solely for other countries. The economy of the US in the early and mid 30's combined with it's goegraphical position rather mititaged against a significant military build up but the equipement designed in the mid to late 30's and early 40's wasn't far behind anywhere and in many areas was on a parr or supperior to that of other powers.

The example of Midway is a rather iffy one at best as well. It was a navy base and was not really well suited to basing large bombers. Note that the ones that the B-17's that took part in the battle were mostly if not all based in Hawaii and had deployed to Midway specifically for that battle. Note also that the geographical position of the US means that deploying planes to the front is rather more invovled than it was for European powers.

As for your point of the US entering the war deficent in aircraft types the above rather handily refutes that especially as I haven't mentioned some of the planes in service at the time.

[19kilo]

So? Its not much of a point at all. Study up on the times.......there are so many factors there that the point you are making is really moot.

I think timing is actually the point and I think you will find operational service is what counts, you can criticise the the FAA for its size and the vintage of the machines it entered WWII with and the volume it was forced to send on raids due to operational circumstance but no navy seems to have been in a more advantagous position in 39.

I would say the RN was right up there in the top three of carrier operating nations, and was probably the best equiped carrier navy in Europe at that time, indeed the only real deficiancy I could find would be distressing lack of development of a high performance single engine single seat shipboard fighter.

[Gopher]

I tend to base my opinions on when aircraft actually became operational or started in a definite role. For example I would not claim an SM79 as a torpedo bomber from 1936 or a Beaufighter as a strike aircraft from 40. That would just be plain silly. Likewise I would not claim an Allison powered P51 had the Luftwaffe trembling nor would I imagine the Japanese could tell you what a Corsair looked like in 1942. I'm glad geographical position was mentioned, Alexandria was not the easiest place to replenish your carriers airgroup