>1935. >You are to design an escort destroyer. >its primary trait should be speed

>1935
>You are to design an escort destroyer
>its primary trait should be speed
>its primary purpose is submarine hunting (i guess it needs a ton of space for depth charges?)
>its secondary purpose is anti-aitcraft defence

So, what engine do you use, what is overall weight and what weapon systems do you use and how many? What are non-US examples of such ships?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look for excuses to give it good torpedoes. High speed is the opposite of what you want for convoy escort style sub-hunting. No, this procurement mess will wind up screening the battleline so it might as well be good at what the admirals will try using it for.
    Use the biggest reliable machinery our navy can procure, 50k shp or so and at least 1600tons standard displacement, pushing 2000+ if we can afford the machinery in the desired quantity. Everything else about the design derives from how much metal we can afford to have steaming at 35+ knots.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >its primary trait should be speed
      Why? All I'm going to be doing is escorting freighters and tankers, which are slow as shit.

      Speed is essential so the DD can operate as a transport in situation freighters can't be escorted to.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >1935
        okay, but you are necessarily assuming perfect hindsight here
        >escort destroyer
        "escort" implies a convoy escort, "destroyer" implies a fleet escort, which is it?
        >inb4 both
        Fletchers and Tribals, accept no substitutes
        >speed
        is for fleet escorts, not convoy escorts
        >submarine hunting
        is for convoy escorts; fleet escorts had to be more balanced in design as they were equally likely to engage enemy destroyers and aircraft
        >anti-aircraft
        once again this implies fleet escort, because Allied convoys rarely dealt with concerted aircraft attacks

        based Admiral Fukyuhomieh

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think that he means a DE or Destroyer escort, which is a type of ship that does what he is talking about.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer_escort

          >"escort" implies a convoy escort, "destroyer" implies a fleet escort, which is it?

          These by and large did not get used in fleet actions, rather they were made to free up real destroyers for that duty. Think of them being a cheaper means to sub hunt.

          https://i.imgur.com/yb9MFxe.jpeg

          >1935
          >You are to design an escort destroyer
          >its primary trait should be speed
          >its primary purpose is submarine hunting (i guess it needs a ton of space for depth charges?)
          >its secondary purpose is anti-aitcraft defence

          So, what engine do you use, what is overall weight and what weapon systems do you use and how many? What are non-US examples of such ships?

          >its primary trait should be speed

          That is for real DDs, not DEs. Early American WWII DE did 21 knots, laters ones did 24.

          The whole point of DEs is to be cheaper in operation then a DD, big engines get in the way of that. Fights Subs is fighting a low cost weapons system that tries to hit above its cost. A lest in WWII. The main foe of DDs in a fleet action is enemy scouts, be they torpedo boats, scout planes, other DDs, Subs, or LCs. They are there to prevent the enemy from finding your important vessels.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is that ai image?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Half AI image based on a thread discusing the mighty Admiral Fukyu homieh.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Everything below the "reviews" was generated from Bing
          >t. I made dis

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You want to do too many things in 1935.
        Pick one main trai and one secondary trait. More than that wouldn't really be viable.

        Fuel efficiency is usually pretty important for escort ships, too, who can't rely as luch on massive stocks of fuel like the capital ships.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >its primary trait should be speed
    Why? All I'm going to be doing is escorting freighters and tankers, which are slow as shit.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What are non-US examples of such ships?
    The destroyer escort is a British concept and most of the US ones were built to those specs, so most of the US ships are also inherently non-US examples. The only difference is the British ones are designated as frigates to avoid confusion with real destroyers.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Several smaller boats, each with a fat boy nuke on board. Hang signs on the stating everyone in a few mile radius will die when fired upon.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what engine do you use
    For a destroyer in 1935? Steam turbines and the best, highest pressure boilers I can reasonably acquire. There really isn't another choice.
    >and what weapon systems do you use and how many
    since the next question is for non-US examples I'll just say build a Fletcher
    >What are non-US examples of such ships?
    Tribal class destroyers were rather nifty

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Tribal class destroyers were rather nifty
      My grandfather was on one of the Canadian ones. It was sunk off France and he spent the rest of the war in a German POW camp.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did they hear about D-Day in the camps? (80th anniv. coming up).

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Some of the British sailors in the same camp had a hidden radio.
          The main problem was not enough food, lots of sailors lost 40-50lbs. My Dad said that was why my grandfather got fat, he literally couldn't stand seeing any food wasted.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Tribal class
      Had shit AA. Get a Dido with ASW ability.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it was excellent for mid 30s
        >Dido
        is a cruiser and 40s

        Commanders who appreciated the severity of the air threat were a minority, generally more junior, less influential officers who'd liaised with naval or army air services earlier in their career. Service rivalries existed on a level unfathomable today, and as late as 1937-38 (Joint Air Exercise 4 for example) anti-aircraft defense was still perceived as an academic question rather than a gravely underestimated tactical threat. Force Z opting to sail without the RAF, operable radar or serviceable AA shells as the ultimate example of such pigheadedness (and an ironic foreshadowing of recent events).

        there simply weren't enough resources in the mid-late 30s to quickly build DP AA main battery guns for the entire escort fleet, although it existed. the manufacturing capacity was going flat out just fitting the capital ships and cruisers with these weapons
        >Force Z
        we don't know the tactical decision because the admiral died with the ship, but it was very likely the thought that two battleships are worth losing for what was reckoned to be the entire Japanese amphibious capability and maybe half the invasion force

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Admiral Phillips turned down two proposals for daytime fighter escort and could've called for the RAAF squadron tasked with standby air cover at any point. Even once it was obvious Force Z had been spotted + tracked and thus continued radio silence was pointless. Even as bombers of the Mihoro Kokutai loomed above the horizon shortly after 11am. Not until after a second wave of attackers had struck at 11:40, Repulse was bombed and PoW had been torpedoed was the RAAF called at 11:58, arriving at 1:18pm just in time to watch PoW sink.
          There's no tactical explanation which holds up to examination, nor strategic: PoW and Repulse represented 40% of remaining Allied capital ships in the entire Pacific. A chance of one operational victory however great does not justify the risk to multiple defense campaigns just three days into the war should Force Z be lost. Therefore Phillips was overconfident in his fleet's defenses, unfamiliar with Japanese capabilities on which there was valid intelligence, or dismissive of his foes' competence. These attitudes were hardly unique and explain the lack of priority given to naval AA equipment until proof of the collective error was undeniable.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >unfamiliar with Japanese capabilities on which there was valid intelligence
            tbf to Phillips, literally every western nation's intelligence sources were claiming the Japanese were utterly inept at modern war all through the '20s and '30s. The handful of realistic appraisals were utterly drowned by a sea of blatant racism

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >daytime fighter escort and could've called for the RAAF squadron tasked with standby air cover
            the available fighter force was already badly outnumbered as it is without adding this additional tasking

            >the Mihoro Kokutai loomed above the horizon shortly after 11am. Not until after a second wave of attackers had struck at 11:40
            >the RAAF called at 11:58, arriving at 1:18pm
            this timeline also explains why scrambling the RAAF at 11am wouldn't have mattered

            >one operational victory however great does not justify the risk
            killing every amphibious ship Japan has was a significant potential victory that could have bought the Allies several extra months at least.

            >These attitudes were hardly unique
            not really. most of the time the RN operated under air cover wherever possible. risks were sometimes taken when there was a lack of fighter assets and when considered absolutely operationally necessary.

            >explain the lack of priority given to naval AA equipment
            as with everything else, the head start the Axis had on rearmament and the rapid development of airpower in the 30s and 40s explains it well enough.
            G4M Bettys were introduced AFTER WW2 began, for example. at that time, Allied industry had massive priorities every which way.

            >unfamiliar with Japanese capabilities on which there was valid intelligence
            tbf to Phillips, literally every western nation's intelligence sources were claiming the Japanese were utterly inept at modern war all through the '20s and '30s. The handful of realistic appraisals were utterly drowned by a sea of blatant racism

            >every western nation's intelligence sources were claiming the Japanese were utterly inept at modern war all through the '20s and '30s
            wrong
            as a matter of fact they were considered the most likely enemy of both the RN and the USN, reckoned the third strongest navy in the world, and directly drove the naval arms race
            >inb4 can't reach the pedals
            citation needed

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >as a matter of fact they were considered the most likely enemy of both the RN and the USN
              This does not speak to their competence at war, only their belligerence

              >reckoned the third strongest navy in the world
              By virtue of tonnage allotted during the interwar naval treaties and having more need for a large navy than France or Italy.

              >directly drove the naval arms race
              In the 1910s lol

              >>inb4 can't reach the pedals
              Not saying that, but there is a real report from the interwar period claiming that the Japanese lack a good sense of balance because they're carried on their mother's backs as kids, causing their heads to bounce around too much. As a whole, westerners tended to accurately assess Japanese strategic capability in terms of industrial development and expansion and training program throughput. They had a good idea of Japanese pilot and ground crew proficiency in the '20s since they were training them and the Japanese air services themselves were very open to tours and displays for visitors from foreign government and armed forces. As you get into the 1930s, that changes. The west still has a good idea of where the Japanese are industrially since they're still supplementing their own industry with foreign-purchased tools, engines, and other components. They're doing far less demonstrations and tours, so westerners are now having to guess. When they have to guess, "national characteristics" filled the blanks. Lack of information then leads to the shift from "they're capable but not as good as we are" to "the japanese cannot innovate, they can only mimic" and "they are daring but incompetent aviators" when access was completely shut off in 1937. Accurate reports of Japanese prowess did come out of China from ROC pilots, but those were largely dismissed since the western militaries didn't think much of the Chinese either, so not surprising the "westernized" asians in Japan could trounce them.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No. 453 squadron was standing by specifically to assist, and the attackers (Mostly G3Ms, first flight 1935, entered service 1936 - contemporary to OP) were without fighter cover. Repulse wasn't fatally struck until 12:24, just inside the historic 80-minute response time if promptly called when air attack was imminent, let alone at any prior hour. Worse, whether it could've made the difference or not is immaterial to criticism that Force Z's commander failed to safeguard his unit using all assets at hand, an unforced professional error.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I honestly don't think fighter cover would have done a whole lot. Think about it. How many aircraft are even available in those squadrons for cover? How far are they from Force Z? What's the fighter cover's loiter time over Force Z? Now consider Midway. At Midway, much like the Force Z attacks, aircraft came in from multiple directions in piecemeal attacks instead of one coordinated strike. End result for Midway was constant cycling of the CAP trying to keep planes in the air to fend off American torpedo bombers and high level bombers. Also worth noting, the available squadrons were outfitted with F2A Buffalos, which weren't the most capable fighters to begin with.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Worse, whether it could've made the difference or not is immaterial
                Fine, let's ignore this and get down to detail. I enjoy this type of research.

                On Dec. 8 as Force Z sailed, No. 453 RAAF had 18 operational Buffalo Mk.1s (Brewster 339E, de-navalized F2A2). Operational accidents Dec. 9th reduced this to 16 available planes. [1]
                No. 488 had 21 of the same Buffalo Mk. 1; it was not on standby but was offered during operational planning and refused by the Admiral. No readiness figures readily available beyond "poor", so I'll use 1:1 instead of the standard 2:1 airframe readiness for 11 operational. [2]

                This model carried 660lbs of fuel + 150lbs takeoff/climb/landing/weather reserve. 60lbs necessary for 6min at 100% throttle for combat leaves 600lbs at 60% throttle/177mph cruise which gives 3h 14m endurance and a 286mi maximum combat radius. [3,4]
                Singapore, Dec. 10 has just under 14 hours of light sufficient for wartime flight operations. [5] The maximum mission cycle is takeoff, 6m climb, 3h14m flight, 6m combat, 10m descent and landing, 12m refuel rearm: 3.8 hours.[6]
                To fly continuous 6-plane rotations from 15 planes plus 3 in reserve as proposed by Flight Cdr. Vigors is only possible with at least 1hr 16m endurance on station. 3 sorties will be required from each 3-ship formation. Thus beyond 224mi there are periods of just one 3-ship formation on station, while inside 224mi coverage can increase.
                At 0800 Force Z was within visual range of Kuantan and met its end 60mi SE from Kuantan at approximately 03°33′N 104°28′E, 155-160mi from RAF Sembawang. Thus even at flank speed of 33mph, Force Z was no more than 226mi away as the sun rose enough for flight operations. Within range of continuous fighter coverage by 0700 - the earliest any could arrive.

                (1/2)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >it was excellent for mid 30s
          still was terrible. why repeat mistakes?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because OP asked for what was available during the period
            otherwise of course I would have suggested something like a River class frigate but with DP 4.5 inch guns, Bofors STAAG and antisubmarine mortars

            I think that he means a DE or Destroyer escort, which is a type of ship that does what he is talking about.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer_escort

            >"escort" implies a convoy escort, "destroyer" implies a fleet escort, which is it?

            These by and large did not get used in fleet actions, rather they were made to free up real destroyers for that duty. Think of them being a cheaper means to sub hunt.

            [...]

            >its primary trait should be speed

            That is for real DDs, not DEs. Early American WWII DE did 21 knots, laters ones did 24.

            The whole point of DEs is to be cheaper in operation then a DD, big engines get in the way of that. Fights Subs is fighting a low cost weapons system that tries to hit above its cost. A lest in WWII. The main foe of DDs in a fleet action is enemy scouts, be they torpedo boats, scout planes, other DDs, Subs, or LCs. They are there to prevent the enemy from finding your important vessels.

            I know

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Destroyer Escort's primary trait was turning radius, not speed, btw. One of the slower classes of ships actually.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >its primary trait should be speed
    submarine hunters didn't need to be fast they needed to be maneuverable, I'd go over your head and point out this error in your specifications and suggest using a light low geared engine so that they can start and stop very quickly

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm assuming you actually want a convoy escort, not a fleet destroyer
    in which case
    >primary purpose is submarine hunting
    >non-US examples
    the Rivers are a fine example of what you'd want; endurance (not speed), economy, and a massive anti-submarine armament of 6-10 throwers and at least 100 depth charges
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_frigate
    >secondary purpose is anti-aitcraft defence
    adding this requirement changes the story significantly; you would need like that but with at least four high-angle main guns and four 40mm cannon mounts, preferably multi-barrelled

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >secondary purpose is anti-aitcraft defence
      Very secondary.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP here.
    I learned a lot from this, thanks. Still, my specs are IMHO a good "no 20-20 hindsight approach". Imagine ww2 starting and a fleet having a significant amount of destroyers, able to achieve up to 35 knots with 100 depth charges and a good complement of AA armaments. I guess these would be refitted early in the war.

    Interesting.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "Strong" AA is hindsight, each surface-warfare service entered the war with expectations of a far less serious air threat and maintained that belief through early warning one-offs until the Japs beat it out of everyone (except themselves) 1941-42 with some assistance from Luftwaffe anti-convoy operations in the Mediterranean.

      By 1935 standards, you're looking at two medium-caliber guns amidships under local fire control, best case. Lacking as they were, the automatic 1.1"/75 "Chicago pianos" were the best in service followed by the semi-auto SK C/30s - the usual complement was just four .50 cal or 13mm machine guns. Lacking quick-firing options the Dutch and Soviets tried some high-angle 3"/75mm mounts instead but those were only suitable for disrupting level bombers and patrol aircraft.
      The famous Oerlikon and Bofors guns weren't installed until 1938 and 1940, respectively.

      The scenario I'm picturing is that of an admiralty (mistakenly) worried about the threat of heavy fleet submarines attacking the battleline as skirmishers, thus a need to build high speed escorts. As fleet submarines were expected to fight on the surface in a very noisy acoustic environment, torpedoes take priority over depth charges. The end result would be something like a Porter or Shiratsuyu class, 1800+ tons, 8 torpedo tubes + reloads. If you're really forward thinking you opt for dual-purpose guns like those Shiratsuyus or a scout plane like the Dutch Admiralen-class.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and maintained that belief
        no, they didn't
        they could put two and two together from the performance of their own bomber aircraft from the mid-30s onwards, and they did
        it's just that it takes time to manufacture guns and gun mounts, and to refit ships

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Commanders who appreciated the severity of the air threat were a minority, generally more junior, less influential officers who'd liaised with naval or army air services earlier in their career. Service rivalries existed on a level unfathomable today, and as late as 1937-38 (Joint Air Exercise 4 for example) anti-aircraft defense was still perceived as an academic question rather than a gravely underestimated tactical threat. Force Z opting to sail without the RAF, operable radar or serviceable AA shells as the ultimate example of such pigheadedness (and an ironic foreshadowing of recent events).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >each surface-warfare service entered the war with expectations of a far less serious air threat
        Not the USN. 5"/ 38 for everyone!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In 1935 even the US were still fitting destroyers with low-elevation Mk. 22 5"/38 SP mounts though it was a recognized deficiency. You're still correct that the USN was leader in AA defense, a proximate benefit to their budgetary rivals being the world's leading aviation power.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not even all destroyers, just the twin gun turret ones.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > the Japs beat it out of everyone (except themselves) 1941-42
        There's a good argument that IJN had the bes toverall AA situation of anybody in 1941-42, and they later fell behind for lack of resources rather than any failure to recognise the need to upgrade their AA further.

        >The famous Oerlikon and Bofors guns weren't installed until 1938 and 1940, respectively.
        .50s and Chicago Pianos actually remained the standard across the USN by early 1942.

        >the automatic 1.1"/75 "Chicago pianos" were the best in service
        Arguably. When they worked properly. And were avaiable in sufficient numbers. Both of which was very, very rarely the case. I'd sooner have a 40mm pom-pom, 37mm Breda or even a dual/tripple-mount 25mm Type 96 over those, just because any of them can be relied upon to work to soec.

        Uboats were neither hard to see nor difficult to sink. There's a reason why 800 of 1100 were destroyed.

        Why of course, finding and sinking them was trivially easy. Hence the ~3000 allied merchants and warships they sank, and the utterly mindboggling amount of time, effort and resources the Allies had to invest into their ASW efforts.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why should a DE whose job is to escort a convoy moving at 10 knot against submerged subs that can do 20 knots on the surface and basically can't move submerged be designed for speed?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      DEs and frigates don't need to be any faster than 25 knots. Holy shit the moronation of OP.

      This guy gets it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >subs that can do 20 knots on the surface
      Not in WW2 they can't.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The American Gatos and Balaos could, and in substantial numbers

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The American Gatos and Balaos could, and in substantial numbers

        A number of Japanese submarine types could break 20 knots surfaced as well.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>You are to design an escort destroyer
    >>its primary trait should be speed
    wut

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Need make a fast bote
    >In the 1930s
    RUDIMENTARY HYDROFOILS HERE I COME

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    20 - 25 knots
    3 - 4 3"-4" DP mounts... probably gonna have to open
    did they have any 40mm quads in 1935?
    otherwise Chicago Piano or 20mm Ori
    If these need to operate by themselves you're gonna need a torpedo mount
    Lots of depth charge storage

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Chicago Piano
      sucked. Jam-o-matics.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Chicago Piano
      sucked. Jam-o-matics.

      The UK had 40mm QF 2-lb pom-poms which were even heavier and less reliable than the pianos due to age. Gave decent service after the worn, WW1 surplus was expended though.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, basically, you are asking for faster Hunt-class destroyers?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Convoy escort
    >U-boat hunting
    >Needing high speed
    Those sub shitters don't make good speed submerged, not even on the surface and if you intend to run away on the surface as a submarine you're shit is all wrong.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Those sub shitters don't make good speed submerged, not even on the surface
      Yeah, a WW2 submarine is unlikely to make much beyond 20 knots on the surface, and unless you are unlucky enough to face a Type XVII (of which krauts built whole 7 subs during the war), your sub hunter doesn't need to be able to make more than 25 knots to have a major speed advantage over a submerged submarine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if you intend to run away on the surface as a submarine you're shit is all wrong
      actually, Uboats not only ran away on the surface, they even sometimes attacked while surfaced. They could do this because a surfaced Uboat at night is still fricking hard to see with WW2 tech. And even if seen, they turned out to be difficult to sink, with their low silhouettes and rounded pressure hulls.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Uboats were neither hard to see nor difficult to sink. There's a reason why 800 of 1100 were destroyed.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A vast majority of those losses were from 1943 onward when a number of Allied capabilities were coming in to play in large numbers: CVEs and MACs, aircraft carrying radio direction-finding gear, large numbers of corvettes and DEs had been pumped out for escort duties, and hedgehog mortars came into widespread use. 1943-1945 makes up about 600 of those losses. Prior to that point convoys could sometimes avoid wolfpacks thanks to code-breaking efforts, but escorts weren't as lethal simply because of the limitations of depth charges and lack of aircraft cover in the mid-Atlantic.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hear me out guys: make a cargo ship, but then put some cranes on it so it can pick up and carry a flying boat or two, like those new fangled Catalinas the Yanks are making.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Watervliegtuig torpedobootjager? We gaan!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    (2/2)

    >What could 6 fighters accomplish? A dozen?
    Screening - Force Z had been seen repeatedly, but around mid-morning a patrol aircraft provided the contemporary equivalent of terminal guidance to the strike force. Shot down or scared off delays/reduces/prevents the attack.
    Some kills - ~1 per fighter. The USMC experience at Wake the following day bears out as much: Just 4 F4F-3s vs 17 G3M - 2 downed (11 damaged, bombing ineffective. See next line) The Buffaloes have greater numbers and an even more ideal scenario: the same large, lightly built, unescorted bombers attempting slow, low torpedo attacks.
    Disruption - most likely and effective outcome. The Kotukai had the luxury of making simultaneous coordinated attacks from multiple angles. Repulse dodged an incredible 19 torpedoes before the fatal 4 struck. Even a 10% reduction in attacker efficiency from harrying fighters would've spared her had that luck held.
    Delay. No. 488, RAF No. 243 or KNIL 2-VLG-V could've sortied to reinforce had a longer battle developed.

    >F2A performance
    Both the Finns 26:1 actual record and recent simulators demonstrate the plane was less at fault than widely held in Anglo histories, and there were no Zekes or Oscars present during the attack spoil it's hypothetical chance to shine. Differences in pilot quality and inadequate early-warning networks are underrated contributing factors.

    [1]Defeat to Victory: No.453rd RAAF by John Bennett
    [2]The Royal New Zealand Air Force in South-East Asia 1941–42 by H.R. Dean
    [3]Wright Cyclone fuel tables
    [4]Brewster B239 flight manual. B339E identical save later Wright Cyclone revision, upgraded 950->1000hp
    [5]Combination of twilight time tables and reported takeoffs at 0600. Between Astronomic and Nautical, more aggressive than current VFR standards.
    [6]Combination of B239 flight manual and Commonwealth operational norms from the Battle of Britain.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this a modern design or a WWII design. If WW2; 1200psi superheated steam system with turbines. Hedgehogs and depth charges. 3 inch gun forward and aft. Two dual 40mm mounts. 6x20mm guns, 3 to a side. About 4,000 tons displacement.
    pic semi-rel

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >its primary purpose is submarine hunting
    shouldn't its primary purpose be torpedo boat hunting?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *