1,492
edits
(Create Page with General, Airplane Design, Specifications, Other Questions & References Sections and 25 Subsections – Copied from Word document) |
(Add 16 References & Delete Extra Spaces) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== General == | == General == | ||
=== Could the turret gunner in the TBM shoot the tail of the airplane? === | === Could the turret gunner in the TBM shoot the tail of the airplane? === | ||
Not unless the gun is being fired manually. The TBM Avenger was equipped with an electrically operated Grumman 150SE-1 or -2 Ball Turret which has a built in mechanism in the turret ring that prevents firing through a certain arc. | Not unless the gun is being fired manually. The TBM Avenger was equipped with an electrically operated Grumman 150SE-1 or -2 Ball Turret which has a built in mechanism in the turret ring that prevents firing through a certain arc.<ref>{{cite book |title=Aircrewman's Gunnery Manual |date=1944 |page=T-19}}</ref> | ||
According to the TBM Pilot’s Handbook: “Interrupter cams actuate a micro switch in the gun firing circuit automatically stop the firing of the turret gun when the tail and wing surfaces are in [the] line of fire. | According to the TBM Pilot’s Handbook: “Interrupter cams actuate a micro switch in the gun firing circuit automatically stop the firing of the turret gun when the tail and wing surfaces are in [the] line of fire.<ref name="PHFOITBM">{{cite book |title=Pilot’s Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions: Navy Model TBM-3 Airplane |date=1945 |page=53}}</ref> | ||
A track around the circumference of the turret is shaped to follow the contour of the fuselage. A moveable arm which is electrically connected to the main turret control switch will ride on the track, when the gun is depressed, automatically limiting the angle of depression of the gun as the turret revolves.” | A track around the circumference of the turret is shaped to follow the contour of the fuselage. A moveable arm which is electrically connected to the main turret control switch will ride on the track, when the gun is depressed, automatically limiting the angle of depression of the gun as the turret revolves.”<ref name="PHFOITBM" /> | ||
However, in the event of an electric failure, the turret can be operated manually. If this occurs, the Handbook warns: “No fire interruption is provided when the turret gun is fired manually, consequently the gunner must exercise care in pointing the gun so as not to fire into tail and wing surfaces.” | However, in the event of an electric failure, the turret can be operated manually. If this occurs, the Handbook warns: “No fire interruption is provided when the turret gun is fired manually, consequently the gunner must exercise care in pointing the gun so as not to fire into tail and wing surfaces.”<ref name="PHFOITBM" /> | ||
There is one other scenario in which a gunner could inadvertently shoot his own airplane: ammunition cook off. This refers to the situation in which the heat the guns build up from firing could ignite the powder in the bullet casing. While there was no protection against this in the TBM, the B-25 did incorporate an additional safety feature in the event this occurred. On the top of the fuselage there were two small bumps that were directly in line with the guns from the top turret when it was trained directly rearwards. If cook off occurred, these devices – known as “ricochet generators” – would hopefully cause the bullet from the gun to be deflected away from the airplane. The reason this extra effort was taken in the B-25 and not the TBM was because the tail gunner was in the top turret’s field of fire – and while it is one thing to accidentally hit one’s own plane, it is quite another to accidentally shoot one’s own crew. | There is one other scenario in which a gunner could inadvertently shoot his own airplane: ammunition cook off. This refers to the situation in which the heat the guns build up from firing could ignite the powder in the bullet casing. While there was no protection against this in the TBM, the B-25 did incorporate an additional safety feature in the event this occurred. On the top of the fuselage there were two small bumps that were directly in line with the guns from the top turret when it was trained directly rearwards. If cook off occurred, these devices – known as “ricochet generators” – would hopefully cause the bullet from the gun to be deflected away from the airplane. The reason this extra effort was taken in the B-25 and not the TBM was because the tail gunner was in the top turret’s field of fire – and while it is one thing to accidentally hit one’s own plane, it is quite another to accidentally shoot one’s own crew. | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
When the outer wings unfold they swing out and around until they are in line with the inner stub wing. The hinge is mounted on a diagonal, so that as they move forwards they also “rotate” to be parallel with the ground. A tab on the outer wing fits into a slot on the inner stub wing. A pin then slides through a hole in the tab, locking the wing into place. Simultaneously, red “flags” sticking out of the top of the wing are retracted to let the pilot know the wings are locked in position and he is free to takeoff without fear of them folding up in flight. | When the outer wings unfold they swing out and around until they are in line with the inner stub wing. The hinge is mounted on a diagonal, so that as they move forwards they also “rotate” to be parallel with the ground. A tab on the outer wing fits into a slot on the inner stub wing. A pin then slides through a hole in the tab, locking the wing into place. Simultaneously, red “flags” sticking out of the top of the wing are retracted to let the pilot know the wings are locked in position and he is free to takeoff without fear of them folding up in flight. | ||
Roy Grumman, the TBM’s designer, came up with the idea by sticking two paperclips in a soap eraser. Known as the Sto-Wing, it was used on other Grumman designs such as the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, as well as the postwar E-1 Tracer, C-2 Greyhound, and E-2 Hawkeye. | Roy Grumman, the TBM’s designer, came up with the idea by sticking two paperclips in a soap eraser.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Thruelsen |first1=Richard |title=The Grumman Story |date=1976 |publisher=Praeger |location=New York |pages=124–126}}</ref> Known as the Sto-Wing, it was used on other Grumman designs such as the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, as well as the postwar E-1 Tracer, C-2 Greyhound, and E-2 Hawkeye. | ||
=== Why are the wings on the Corsair “bent”? === | === Why are the wings on the Corsair “bent”? === | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
=== How many planes did an aircraft carrier have? === | === How many planes did an aircraft carrier have? === | ||
The most common American aircraft carrier in World War II, the Essex class, carried a total of 90 planes. This was broken down into 36 fighters, 36 dive bombers, and 18 torpedo bombers. This combination of aircraft was known as the “Sunday punch”. | The most common American aircraft carrier in World War II, the Essex class, carried a total of 90 planes. This was broken down into 36 fighters, 36 dive bombers, and 18 torpedo bombers. This combination of aircraft was known as the “Sunday punch”.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Reynolds |first1=Clark G. |title=The Fast Carriers: The Forging of an Air Navy |date=1968 |publisher=McGraw–Hill Book Company |location=New York |page=56}}</ref> | ||
The number of airplanes carried increased throughout the war. At the beginning of 1942, the standard was a total of about 70 airplanes. By mid-1945, that number had risen to approximately 100. | The number of airplanes carried increased throughout the war. At the beginning of 1942, the standard was a total of about 70 airplanes. By mid-1945, that number had risen to approximately 100. | ||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
A total of 22 B-25s attended the 2012 Doolittle Raider Reunion at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. It was quite likely the largest gathering of B-25s since World War II – surpassing even the 17 flying airplanes assembled in 1970 for the filming of the movie Catch-22. | A total of 22 B-25s attended the 2012 Doolittle Raider Reunion at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. It was quite likely the largest gathering of B-25s since World War II – surpassing even the 17 flying airplanes assembled in 1970 for the filming of the movie Catch-22. | ||
11 TBMs attended the 2018 TBM Avenger Salute to Veterans in Peru, Illinois. | 11 TBMs attended the 2018 TBM Avenger Salute to Veterans in Peru, Illinois.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Morehead |first1=Greg |title=3rd Annual TBM Gathering – Avengers and Veterans, Warbirds and Patriots Invade Illinois |url=http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/3rd-annual-tbm-gathering-70-tons-of-turkeys-invade-illinois.html |website=Warbirds News |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=24 May 2018}}</ref> Although only 7 TBMs ended up actually being able to make it, for the 2017 reunion as many 16 airplanes originally verbally committed, meaning the total number of flying TBMs was at least that high.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Conrad |first1=Hank |title=TBM Avenger at the 2017 Gathering |url=http://www.hankconrad.com/tbm-avenger-2017-gathering |website=Hank's Blog |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=20 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=TBM Avenger Gathering Promises To Be Even Bigger In 2017 |url=http://airshowstuff.com/v4/2017/tbm-avenger-gathering-promises-to-be-even-bigger-in-2017 |website=AirshowStuff |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=23 April 2017}}</ref> | ||
34 DC-3s, C-41s, C-47s, C-53s, and Li-2s confirmed participation for the Daks Over Normandy event in 2019. While it isn’t clear if all of the aircraft were able to attend, it does mean that there were likely at least that many airworthy. | 34 DC-3s, C-41s, C-47s, C-53s, and Li-2s confirmed participation for the Daks Over Normandy event in 2019. While it isn’t clear if all of the aircraft were able to attend, it does mean that there were likely at least that many airworthy. | ||
7 Hawker Hurricanes flew in formation at the Shuttleworth Collection Military Airshow in Old Warden, Bedfordshire, England on 7 July 2019. | 7 Hawker Hurricanes flew in formation at the Shuttleworth Collection Military Airshow in Old Warden, Bedfordshire, England on 7 July 2019.<ref>{{cite web |title=Hawker Hurricane Seven-Ship Formation at Old Warden |url=http://warbirdsnews.com/airshow-news/hawker-hurricane-seven-ship-formation-at-old-warden.html |website=Warbirds News |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=10 July 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Shuttleworth Collection Military Airshow 2019 |url=http://britishairshows.com/shuttleworth-old-warden-military-airshow-july.html |website=BritishAirshows.com |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref> | ||
11 Corsairs took part in the 2019 Thunder Over Michigan air show hosted by the Yankee Air Museum in Ypsilanti, Michigan – although 14 were originally scheduled to attend. | 11 Corsairs took part in the 2019 Thunder Over Michigan air show hosted by the Yankee Air Museum in Ypsilanti, Michigan – although 14 were originally scheduled to attend.<ref>{{cite web |title=Thunder Over Michigan – Eleven Corsairs!!! |url=http://warbirdsnews.com/airshow-news/thunder-over-michigan-eleven-corsairs.html |website=Warbirds News |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=5 August 2019}}</ref> | ||
=== Did the Tuskegee Airmen actually never lose a bomber they were escorting? === | === Did the Tuskegee Airmen actually never lose a bomber they were escorting? === | ||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
The legend of the Norden bombsight’s accuracy results from the famous claim that a bombardier using the device could “drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from several thousand feet”. | The legend of the Norden bombsight’s accuracy results from the famous claim that a bombardier using the device could “drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from several thousand feet”. | ||
It is illustrative that as early as December 1940 this claim was both being exaggerated and questioned. One news article notes that in recent retellings, the altitude in the quote had increased from 10,000 to 30,000 feet and the pickle barrel had been replaced with a “flower pot”. | It is illustrative that as early as December 1940 this claim was both being exaggerated and questioned. One news article notes that in recent retellings, the altitude in the quote had increased from 10,000 to 30,000 feet and the pickle barrel had been replaced with a “flower pot”.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wiley |first1=Don |title=Wings for America |work=Auburn Journal and Placer County Republican |date=12 December 1940 |page=10}}</ref> Another states that “the accuracy claims in stories published six months or so ago about the Sperry bombsight seems to have been greatly overdrawn”.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Pickle Barrel Upsets |work=Billings Gazette |date=6 December 1940 |page=4}}</ref> A third from February 1940 – presumably one of the ones being referred to above – makes the unrealistic claim that the Sperry bombsight allows a bomber to drop bombs “while the plane is actually maneuvering, banking, rolling, etc.”<ref>{{cite news |last1=Reed |first1=Paul L. |title=How Anti-Aircraft Guns Outsmart Bombing Planes |work=Nebraska State Journal |date=12 December 1940 |page=10}}</ref> | ||
While these stories apparently describe the earlier “Sperry [S-1] bombsight” and not the later “Norden”, they do capture the general spirit of the times and the sense that the rumor mill surrounding both of them had taken off. | While these stories apparently describe the earlier “Sperry [S-1] bombsight” and not the later “Norden”, they do capture the general spirit of the times and the sense that the rumor mill surrounding both of them had taken off. | ||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
The Norden bombsight was actually compromised before World War II ever began. Herman W. Lang, an inspector in the Norden factory, passed blueprints to the Germans in 1938. | The Norden bombsight was actually compromised before World War II ever began. Herman W. Lang, an inspector in the Norden factory, passed blueprints to the Germans in 1938. | ||
As a matter of fact, it is likely that the secrecy surrounding the Norden bombsight stemmed more from Carl Norden’s desire for exclusive government contracts then any attempt at preventing the device from falling into enemy hands. By ensuring the bombsight’s secrecy, he made sure that his competitors – mainly the Sperry company – could not obtain a license to build it. Eventually, the secrecy “took [on] a life of its own” and mushroomed into the myth that is common today. | As a matter of fact, it is likely that the secrecy surrounding the Norden bombsight stemmed more from Carl Norden’s desire for exclusive government contracts then any attempt at preventing the device from falling into enemy hands. By ensuring the bombsight’s secrecy, he made sure that his competitors – mainly the Sperry company – could not obtain a license to build it. Eventually, the secrecy “took [on] a life of its own” and mushroomed into the myth that is common today.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hart |first1=Dan |title=The Politics, Pickle Barrels, and Propaganda of the Norden Bombsight |url=http://www.museumofaviation.org/blog/the-politics-pickle-barrels-and-propaganda-of-the-norden-bombsight |website=Museum of Aviation |access-date=13 March 2022 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20190423145610/http:/www.museumofaviation.org/blog/the-politics-pickle-barrels-and-propaganda-of-the-norden-bombsight |archive-date=23 April 2019 |date=23 April 2016}}</ref> | ||
It is important to note, however, that despite the excessive secrecy, the security measures during the war were taken seriously and sincerely believed by most servicemen. | It is important to note, however, that despite the excessive secrecy, the security measures during the war were taken seriously and sincerely believed by most servicemen. | ||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
An illustrative example of the difference between fact and fiction can be found in the instructions on what to do with the bombsight in the event the bomber was shot down. The bombardier handbook did dictate that the bombsight be destroyed and that the correct method was to shoot it three times with a pistol and then throw it overboard. However, contrary to what is often claimed, the bombsight itself incorporated no provision for an incendiary device to “melt it into an unusable lump of metal”. Aircraft did sometimes carry such AN-M14 incendiary grenades, but the manual clearly states that they are intended for “DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PLANE”, not the bombsight. | An illustrative example of the difference between fact and fiction can be found in the instructions on what to do with the bombsight in the event the bomber was shot down. The bombardier handbook did dictate that the bombsight be destroyed and that the correct method was to shoot it three times with a pistol and then throw it overboard. However, contrary to what is often claimed, the bombsight itself incorporated no provision for an incendiary device to “melt it into an unusable lump of metal”. Aircraft did sometimes carry such AN-M14 incendiary grenades, but the manual clearly states that they are intended for “DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PLANE”, not the bombsight. | ||
Furthermore, it is worth noting that these type of instructions are in no way isolated to the Norden bombsight or heavy bombers. For example, handbooks for ground based radio sets included similar language on when and how to destroy the equipment to prevent enemy capture. | Furthermore, it is worth noting that these type of instructions are in no way isolated to the Norden bombsight or heavy bombers. For example, handbooks for ground based radio sets included similar language on when and how to destroy the equipment to prevent enemy capture.<ref>{{cite book |title=Handbook of Maintenance Instructions for Radio Transmitter BC-640-A and Radio Transmitter BC-640-B |date=1943 |page=vi |url=http://www.bunkerofdoom.com/mil/BC640AB1943.pdf}}</ref> | ||
== Airplane Design == | == Airplane Design == | ||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
Generally speaking, you are far better off trying to avoid the hit than absorbing the damage it causes. Additional armor meant additional weight, which meant reduced speed and maneuverability. For that reason, armor was normally kept to a minimum. | Generally speaking, you are far better off trying to avoid the hit than absorbing the damage it causes. Additional armor meant additional weight, which meant reduced speed and maneuverability. For that reason, armor was normally kept to a minimum. | ||
However, certain aircraft did carry additional armor. Usually, it was those that operated in conditions where being hit was seen as unavoidable. The first type of aircraft that fell into this category were those that couldn’t maneuver. This encompassed aircraft such as heavy bombers, that had to remain in formation. The other category were aircraft that flew in areas where the volume of fire was so high that the aircraft would inevitably be hit. These were ground attack aircraft, where multiple anti-aircraft guns would be firing at a single target. This resulted in aircraft like the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which famously had heavy steel plate around the engine, fuel tanks, and all sides of the pilot. | However, certain aircraft did carry additional armor. Usually, it was those that operated in conditions where being hit was seen as unavoidable. The first type of aircraft that fell into this category were those that couldn’t maneuver. This encompassed aircraft such as heavy bombers, that had to remain in formation. The other category were aircraft that flew in areas where the volume of fire was so high that the aircraft would inevitably be hit. These were ground attack aircraft, where multiple anti-aircraft guns would be firing at a single target. This resulted in aircraft like the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which famously had heavy steel plate around the engine, fuel tanks, and all sides of the pilot.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gustin |first1=Emmanuel |title=Emmanuel Gustin’s Home Page |url=http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=1999}}</ref> | ||
== Specifications == | == Specifications == | ||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
The most common gun used on American aircraft during World War II was the Browning AN/M2 .50 caliber machine gun. It had a fire rate of 750 to 850 rounds per minute. The number of rounds carried varied based on the type of aircraft and mounting. The P-51D, for example, carried 400 rounds on each of the inboard guns and 270 rounds for each of the center and outboard guns. So a P-51D pilot had a maximum firing time of 30 seconds (400 rpg / [800 rpm / 60 s]) – although four of the six guns would only last just over 20 seconds. | The most common gun used on American aircraft during World War II was the Browning AN/M2 .50 caliber machine gun. It had a fire rate of 750 to 850 rounds per minute. The number of rounds carried varied based on the type of aircraft and mounting. The P-51D, for example, carried 400 rounds on each of the inboard guns and 270 rounds for each of the center and outboard guns. So a P-51D pilot had a maximum firing time of 30 seconds (400 rpg / [800 rpm / 60 s]) – although four of the six guns would only last just over 20 seconds. | ||
In the Pacific, pilots complained when the new “-4” variant of the F4F was introduced. Compared to the “-3” variant it added two additional guns, bringing the total to six. The additional guns reduced the total number of rounds per gun, and therefore the total firing time. | In the Pacific, pilots complained when the new “-4” variant of the F4F was introduced. Compared to the “-3” variant it added two additional guns, bringing the total to six. The additional guns reduced the total number of rounds per gun, and therefore the total firing time. Noted pilot Jimmy Thatch argued that, “the pilot who will miss with four .50-caliber guns won't be able to hit with eight.” | ||
== Other Questions == | == Other Questions == |