Single-seat torpedo planes post-WW2

[KDR]

Just wondering how come post-WW2 carrierborne torpedo planes such as
Firebrand, AM Mauler, Wyvern were all single-seaters. Only a few years
ago during the WW2, carrierborne torpedo planes required three crews -
pilot, bomber/navigator & radioman/gunner - without exception. What
brought this change?

[Tiger]

KDR wrote:

>Just wondering how come post-WW2 carrierborne torpedo planes such as
>Firebrand, AM Mauler, Wyvern were all single-seaters. Only a few years
>ago during the WW2, carrierborne torpedo planes required three crews -
>pilot, bomber/navigator & radioman/gunner - without exception. What
>brought this change?
>
>
By the wars end, air gunners were obsolete. Most bombers were starting
to delete them to the point that by the time The jet age came, only a
few heavies had tail guns. By the same token the torpedo bomber was
kind of dead too. By the deleting the 2nd man, you can make a smaller,
faster, plane.

[old hoodoo]

I thing a school of thought developed that such planes with machine gun
defensive armament still could not economically operate in an
environment with cannon armed enemy aircraft present without fighter
protection and that the weight of gunners, radiomen, and navigators were
not worth the loss in performance/payload....of course, events might
have proven that rationale wrong and like the Il-2, a decision might
have been made to add a crewman and defensive armament. Just because
the decision was made didn't make it correct. Under actual combat
conditions a .5 cal turret still might have been quite useful.

Of course, technology also helped get rid of the navigator/radioman for
some applications.

Look out the Air Force and Navy have bounced around with single and
muliseat figther and attack aircraft for various reasons.

KDR wrote:

> Just wondering how come post-WW2 carrierborne torpedo planes such as
> Firebrand, AM Mauler, Wyvern were all single-seaters. Only a few years
> ago during the WW2, carrierborne torpedo planes required three crews -
> pilot, bomber/navigator & radioman/gunner - without exception. What
> brought this change?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> KDR wrote:
>
>>Just wondering how come post-WW2 carrierborne torpedo planes such as
>>Firebrand, AM Mauler, Wyvern were all single-seaters. Only a few years
>>ago during the WW2, carrierborne torpedo planes required three crews -
>>pilot, bomber/navigator & radioman/gunner - without exception. What
>>brought this change?
>>
> By the wars end, air gunners were obsolete.

Oddly enough, the USAF still had gunners serving for a number of years after
WWII.

Most bombers were starting
> to delete them to the point that by the time The jet age came, only a few
> heavies had tail guns.

Not quite. The B-29's that went into Korea still carried their guns (though
their old GE central fire control system computer was not able to adequately
cope with the more rapid closing speeds of attacking Mig-15's), and the B-36
had them (lots of them, at 20mm no less). The B-36B had eight twin 20mm
turrets, and was delivered between 1948 and 1950. Likewise, the D model
(with its auxilliary jet engine pods) carried the same armament package, and
it did not begin showing up in active service until the B's stopped
appearing in 1950. According to what I have available, the removal of most
of the armament did not take place until the "Featherweight" program began,
reportedly in 1954 (well into the "jet age"), and even then did not apply to
the entire B-36 force.

Brooks

By the same token the torpedo bomber was
> kind of dead too. By the deleting the 2nd man, you can make a smaller,
> faster, plane.
>

[Guy Alcala]

KDR wrote:

> Just wondering how come post-WW2 carrierborne torpedo planes such as
> Firebrand, AM Mauler, Wyvern were all single-seaters. Only a few years
> ago during the WW2, carrierborne torpedo planes required three crews -
> pilot, bomber/navigator & radioman/gunner - without exception. What
> brought this change?

The knowledge that attack a/c would in future always be escorted (this
wasn't the case pre-war, when the wartime a/c were designed) so they could
do without the gunner(s). The B/N, sometimes the radioman, disappeared
partly because of that and partly for a different reason -- the USN
decided to forgo level bombing by torpedo planes in favor of glide
bombing, so the need to carry a bombardier (to operate the Norden
bombsight) disappeared (when making torpedo attacks, it was usual practice
in other air forces to leave the third crewman behind). Improvements to
radios also reduced the need for a separate crewman to operate them, and
the widespread adoption of A/S radar eliminated most of the need for
separate navigators (not that USN carrier a/c normally employed them in
WW2; that was the pilot's job).

Guy

[JJ McIntyre]

The experience of the Navy when it first seriously acquired and prosecuted
the clandestine electronic surveillance mission along the China Coast and in
the Black Sea beginning in 1950 and extending through the service life of
the P4M-1Q in 1959 is illustrative. We were damn glad to have forward and
aft twin .50 mounts on the aircraft, despite several operational losses to
hostile fire on the Pacific side. By the time the P4M was supplanted by the
A3D-1Q(EA-3) and then the WV’s (EC121) a decade later, it was indeed a new
ballgame. But in the process of getting there, those of us who did the
deeds by the dark of the moon were grateful as hell we had what we had!

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > KDR wrote:
> >
> >>Just wondering how come post-WW2 carrierborne torpedo planes such as
> >>Firebrand, AM Mauler, Wyvern were all single-seaters. Only a few years
> >>ago during the WW2, carrierborne torpedo planes required three crews -
> >>pilot, bomber/navigator & radioman/gunner - without exception. What
> >>brought this change?
> >>
> > By the wars end, air gunners were obsolete.
>
> Oddly enough, the USAF still had gunners serving for a number of years
after
> WWII.
>
> Most bombers were starting
> > to delete them to the point that by the time The jet age came, only a
few
> > heavies had tail guns.
>
> Not quite. The B-29's that went into Korea still carried their guns
(though
> their old GE central fire control system computer was not able to
adequately
> cope with the more rapid closing speeds of attacking Mig-15's), and the
B-36
> had them (lots of them, at 20mm no less). The B-36B had eight twin 20mm
> turrets, and was delivered between 1948 and 1950. Likewise, the D model
> (with its auxilliary jet engine pods) carried the same armament package,
and
> it did not begin showing up in active service until the B's stopped
> appearing in 1950. According to what I have available, the removal of most
> of the armament did not take place until the "Featherweight" program
began,
> reportedly in 1954 (well into the "jet age"), and even then did not apply
to
> the entire B-36 force.
>
> Brooks
>
> By the same token the torpedo bomber was
> > kind of dead too. By the deleting the 2nd man, you can make a smaller,
> > faster, plane.
> >
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"JJ McIntyre" > wrote in message
...
> The experience of the Navy when it first seriously acquired and prosecuted
> the clandestine electronic surveillance mission along the China Coast and
> in
> the Black Sea beginning in 1950 and extending through the service life of
> the P4M-1Q in 1959 is illustrative. We were damn glad to have forward and
> aft twin .50 mounts on the aircraft, despite several operational losses to
> hostile fire on the Pacific side. By the time the P4M was supplanted by
> the
> A3D-1Q(EA-3) and then the WV's (EC121) a decade later, it was indeed a new
> ballgame. But in the process of getting there, those of us who did the
> deeds by the dark of the moon were grateful as hell we had what we had!

Good point; I had forgotten the armament on the Ferret aircraft that were
used throughout the fifties. Likewise, there is mention of some B-47 (or
were they RB's?) that used their tail guns to good effect against MiGs while
engaging in some sneaky affairs during that same time period.

Brooks

>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > KDR wrote:
>> >
>> >>Just wondering how come post-WW2 carrierborne torpedo planes such as
>> >>Firebrand, AM Mauler, Wyvern were all single-seaters. Only a few years
>> >>ago during the WW2, carrierborne torpedo planes required three crews -
>> >>pilot, bomber/navigator & radioman/gunner - without exception. What
>> >>brought this change?
>> >>
>> > By the wars end, air gunners were obsolete.
>>
>> Oddly enough, the USAF still had gunners serving for a number of years
> after
>> WWII.
>>
>> Most bombers were starting
>> > to delete them to the point that by the time The jet age came, only a
> few
>> > heavies had tail guns.
>>
>> Not quite. The B-29's that went into Korea still carried their guns
> (though
>> their old GE central fire control system computer was not able to
> adequately
>> cope with the more rapid closing speeds of attacking Mig-15's), and the
> B-36
>> had them (lots of them, at 20mm no less). The B-36B had eight twin 20mm
>> turrets, and was delivered between 1948 and 1950. Likewise, the D model
>> (with its auxilliary jet engine pods) carried the same armament package,
> and
>> it did not begin showing up in active service until the B's stopped
>> appearing in 1950. According to what I have available, the removal of
>> most
>> of the armament did not take place until the "Featherweight" program
> began,
>> reportedly in 1954 (well into the "jet age"), and even then did not apply
> to
>> the entire B-36 force.
>>
>> Brooks
>>
>> By the same token the torpedo bomber was
>> > kind of dead too. By the deleting the 2nd man, you can make a smaller,
>> > faster, plane.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Leanne]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JJ McIntyre" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The experience of the Navy when it first seriously acquired and
prosecuted
> > the clandestine electronic surveillance mission along the China Coast
and
> > in
> > the Black Sea beginning in 1950 and extending through the service life
of
> > the P4M-1Q in 1959 is illustrative. We were damn glad to have forward
and
> > aft twin .50 mounts on the aircraft, despite several operational losses
to
> > hostile fire on the Pacific side. By the time the P4M was supplanted by
> > the
> > A3D-1Q(EA-3) and then the WV's (EC121) a decade later, it was indeed a
new
> > ballgame. But in the process of getting there, those of us who did the
> > deeds by the dark of the moon were grateful as hell we had what we had!

I was at Iwakuni Japan in the 57/58 time period when a sqdn of P4M's were
there and there was a lot of talk when one of them returned from a mission
with a bunch of holes in it.

Leanne