![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |
PFC Lynch gets a Bronze Star? | Brian | Military Aviation | 77 | August 2nd 03 11:15 AM |
DK-1 All Metal single seat biplane | Michael | Home Built | 0 | July 28th 03 05:16 PM |