F15E/1941

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:38:16 -0400, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article cb7vc.4394$1L4.671@okepread02, "william cogswell"
wrote:

writes
Hey, once you've gone winchester in the Beagles, do you thing the jets
could slice a few of the attacking Japanese planes successfully with
midair passes?

Don't think so - and you want those Beagles as intact as you can for as
long as you can. Be a shame to lose half your force to a golden BB by a
determined rear-gunner.

--
Well if the nukes weren't disallowed you could use a one or two on the
japanese fleet the chase down the the air armada and use one of the
remaining nukes in a airburst close aboard



I may be getting into sensitive areas of the arming system, but it would
sound like a pretty fair navigational challenge to plot the lob-toss
delivery such that it detonates on, or at least in front, or a moving
formation. At what altitude were the Japanese aircraft? Is there a
fusing option for that height?

As long as you get it in front of them, however, even if you don't knock
anything down -- it's very hard for blind pilots to attack or land.

If you drop a bucket o' sunshine on them before they launch, no problem. If
the attack is already airborne they are now without a home plate. Not good
over the Pacific.

Al Minyard

In message , Paul F Austin
writes
21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

You're right about the BLU-109 fill. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks for being gracious, I hope I'm as polite when corrected Just
an area where I had some figures in mind and others to hand.

How does a
modern insensitive explosive fill compare to Torpex?

Depends on role (and which 'insensitive fill' you mean). Torpedo
warheads are typically blast weapons, bombs are more interested in
fragmentation, and there are numerous exceptions to both those rules of
thumb.

'Torpex' was IIRC distinguished by its aluminium content to enhance
blast at the expense of brisance. I'm not a warhead expert, and the best
I can do is to suggest that going insensitive cost money but didn't
reduce lethality - and that modern explosive fills are both more
powerful and more stable than Torpex.


I'll stick with my opening gambit - either a 21" torpedo of the period
or a modern 2000lb bomb exploding under the keel of a 1941 carrier puts
into in that delightful Americanism, "a world of hurt".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

From: "Ragnar"


"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
. com...
I guess the simple sight of "birds" like a pair of F-15E's with U.S.
markings would:

I doubt it. The US markings in WW2 don't look like what we have now.

To be more practical it would be better to to use aircraft the technology
available in 1941 could reproduce since you might block the attack on Pearl but
that wouldn't stop the war. A B-36 would make more sence.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Alan Minyard wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Paul F Austin
writes
500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound
bombs may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to
go off after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of
attacking large ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and
there's a fair chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.

So were we, at the start of the war. Witness what happened to the
Lexington.

I vaguely recall reading that the real problem with Japanese ships was
that they were using light, sweet crude from the Netherlands East
Indies, _unrefined_, as bunker fuel. This stuff would leak all sorts of
interesting volatiles around the interior of a ship if an attack
broached fuel tanks, and all it took was one spark...

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

WaltBJ wrote:

A series of sonic booms would sure as hell wake up Pearl Harbor.
Is a Beagle able to carry Harpoons?
BTW I was one surprised 104 driver when my AIM9B growled nice and loud
at a C47. Coming in from the portside low it had a good look at #1's
exhaust stack. But then it was first conceived as a kamikaze-killer.

IIRR, the very first a/c shot down by an AIM-9 in test (by Wally Schirra
IIRC) was a Hellcat drone. And all those SAM-7s using uncooled seekers
drove the piston-engined O-1s and O-2s (not to mention Spads), up to much
higher altitudes in Vietnam in 1972, making their utility as FACs far
less.

Guy

"Pete" wrote in message ...
"Paul F Austin" wrote

Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
Otherwise,
a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.

A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.

Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings. At the end
of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
of navigation excersices in the vicinity.


At the
worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since
the
Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs
with
one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all CVs
and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese damage
control efforts.

Remember, 1/2 the attack force is already on the way. You need to slow them
down as much as possible.

At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try and
talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go back
and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.

This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
ship.

Which is why I thought 16 MK-82 vs 8 MK-84. Smaller warhead, yes, but more
hits.

The real question is, can 2 Strike Eagles sink all 6 carriers? Maybe, maybe
not. There are only two of you, with limited ordnance. Slow them down as
much as possible until you can shake things up at Pearl.

Pete

In article ,
(Tuollaf43) wrote:

Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings.

The what?

At the end
of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
of navigation excersices in the vicinity.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:18:00 -0700, (Marc Reeve) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Paul F Austin
writes
500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound
bombs may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to
go off after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of
attacking large ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and
there's a fair chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.

So were we, at the start of the war. Witness what happened to the
Lexington.

I vaguely recall reading that the real problem with Japanese ships was
that they were using light, sweet crude from the Netherlands East
Indies, _unrefined_, as bunker fuel. This stuff would leak all sorts of
interesting volatiles around the interior of a ship if an attack
broached fuel tanks, and all it took was one spark...

-Marc

True, but the Japanese never did figure out that CO2 inerting could save
a carrier. What happened to the Lex involved far more than a single
torpedo hit, the Lex took at least two torpedoes and an unknown number
of bomb hits. The explosions are thought to have been the result of
damaged bunker fuel tanks.

Al Minyard

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Pete" wrote in message
...
"Paul F Austin" wrote

Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
Otherwise,
a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.

A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.

Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings.

Trouble is Japan had just broken off diplomatic relations with
the USA and had attacked Wake, the Phillipines and Malaya.
You dont think Japan only attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec 7
do you ?

At the end
of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
of navigation excersices in the vicinity.


Actually you get the medal of honor for being the only commander
who was on the ball. Short and Kimmel keep their jobs and
Douglas McArthur is fired for being unprepared.

Keith

"Tuollaf43" wrote

Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings. At the end
of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
of navigation excersices in the vicinity.


With 20/20 hindsight, and the means to preventor seriously inhibit the war
in the Pacific, I think that's a reprimand I'd take.

Again, with 20/20 hindsight, if you could shoot (name your favorite
dictator), knowing it would land you in jail, but but also knowing it would
prevent X thousand or million deaths, would you do it? I'd like to think I
would.

Pete