Mark 13 Torpedo replica
From Thomas DeLuca
November 15, 2017
With reference to an example of a MkXIII torpedo (and I am no expert), there is a torpedo mounted out front of the St Petersburg, Florida VFW. In some pictures of TBDs armed with torpedoes it looks the same, in others it does not. I believe maybe the TBD dropped other variants??
Please see the picture below.
Editors Note: The page was pretty long so I copied the picture and posted it here so everyone doesn't have to scroll down the page to see the picture.
From Charlie Flick
December 3, 2017
I saw the Roundtable inquiry from Brock Howe on finding or constructing a replica Mark 13. I don’t know of one available for sale but a good copy of the Navy Ordnance Pamphlet drawing with the dimensions can be found here:
Mark 13 Drawing
My guess is that anyone skilled enough to reconstruct and maintain an Avenger aircraft would surely have the metal working skills to construct a reasonably good replica for display purposes.
The US Air Force Museum has a Mark 13 on display. It appears to be in beautiful condition.
One other source might be to contact the Hawthorne Ordnance Museum in Hawthorne, NV. It is located just outside of what used to be the Hawthorne Naval Ammunition Depot and it has literally tons of great, inert ordnance on display. I was lucky to visit it several years ago but don’t recall now if there was a Mark 13 on display or as part of its collection. If so, the Museum might be a good source for markings and for fine details. The contra rotating propellers would probably be the most difficult to fabricate, I would guess. An interesting project.
HTH.
Charlie Flick
Rescue of Downed Pilots
From Bob Jones,
November 8, 2017
In the October issue Paul Welch asks if there is any information on the rescue of downed pilots after the battle. Yes, Paul, you are in luck.
Dr. Alvin Kernan was an enlisted crewman in one of the torpedo squadrons at Midway, though he didn't fly that mission. After the war he became a professor of classics at Princeton. Later in life he wrote four books about the war and Midway itself.
Crossing The Line is the story of his war service.
The Unknown Battle of Midway is obviously about the battle.
Tumult In The Clouds is a novel about a naval aviator in the war.
And Adrift is a story about the rescues, both of downed pilots, and of reputations of officers like Mitscher and Ring who performed so poorly.
Adrift is the book you're looking for, Paul. It details pretty much every story I know of about aviators found and rescued, and a few who were known to have survived, gotten into rafts, but then simply not found.
I bought it as a used book from Amazon.com. It is well worth the money ($9 as I recall). I don't agree with all his evaluations, but he was there, knew the men, and still has some understandable personal upset.
One of his points is worth repeating here. While the Devastator was designed for a crew of three, all the squadrons flew with just two, pilot and rear gunner, at Midway. Kernan says this was because everyone knew it was a suicide mission. One can certainly conclude that upon considering John Waldron's statement to Torpedo 8: "If just one plane survives, that plane will get a hit!"
I cannot conclude without the most sincere possible thank you to the Roundtable and to whoever made the film South Dakota Warrior (also October issue). More tasteful and inspirational than anything I recall ever seeing. If anyone wants to know how and why we won the war, just watch that.
Bob Jones
Editors Note: John Mollison is the man who made the film. He has a series he calls
Old Guys and their Airplanes
From Bill Vickrey
November 16, 2017
I recall only one rescue of downed airmen at Midway by a ship. Ted Thueson, Gerry Child and their crew were rescued by MONAHAN (DD) but I believe they were located randomly and not by a planned search. I imagine that all ships were signaled to be on the alert for downed fliers.
I have been in contact with several rescuers and rescued and may be able to come up with a partial list of men who were rescued and who were rescuers.
The most noted one, is the rescue of Ensign George Gay. Many years ago – on the new YORKTOWN – I made a tape of a discussion between George and former AP1 (later Commander) Roy Robinson who pulled George out of the Pacific. The rescuing PBY flew over Gay on their way to carry out their assigned mission. In their discussion, Roy noted to George that “as we flew over you, you looked like the loneliest man in the world” to which George replied “I not only looked like the loneliest man in the world I was the loneliest man in the world!” If I can find this tape I will make it available.
My brother - who was a retired ACMM - later flew with Robinson out of Pearl on the Dew Line. I stayed in Robbie’s home a couple of times in Phoenix and we played golf several times.
Bill
From Barrett Tillman
November 16, 2017
Robbie was an occasional participant in our Phoenix ANA meetings long ago. Certainly added variety to the mix!
Aircraft technology and advancements
From Jon Parshall
Regarding Aircraft technology and advancements, I had some further comments. I think you’re broadly correct, Mr. Leffler, in that aircraft technology moved along at *roughly* the same tempo between the major combatants. But there are some important subtleties going on under the hood, so to speak, that bear closer examination.
First off, there’s some really interesting material on this general topic in Richard Overy’s “The Air War”, which is sort of a classic in its own right. He talks at some length about the organization of the combatants respective aircraft economies, and the underlying R&D organizations that supported them. Good stuff, and crucial for a broader understanding of the matter, I think. If you get really deep into the weeds, then you start reading articles on stuff like turbochargers and metallurgy and aircraft fuel octanes and assembly line techniques. And after that, you go into recovery...
Second, we have a tendency to look at a plane and see only the design engineering aspects of that aircraft. So, for instance, we look at a late-war Kawanishi N1K “George”, and we say, “That’s a good plane, and a match for a Hellcat, Corsair, or Mustang. Big, fast, maneuverable, with good pilot protection, and great firepower.” And, yeah, it was an excellent design, and could give a decent account of itself. On a good day. When the engine worked. What I’m getting at is that we tend to overlook are the *production engineering* aspects of the weapons system, because these are typically 1) non-quantifiable, and 2) often un-glamorous and un-sexy. And yet they are crucial to the actual utility of the weapons system. Does the sucker actually *work*? Can we actually produce it in quantity? Can we maintain it? In the case of the George, the 18-cyclinder Nakajima Homare engine was a complete bear to manufacture, and suffered from constant problems.
It’s in production engineering that all the Axis powers really fell down. Their design engineering was often brilliant. But their production engineering was often crappy. And almost always, when questions of Design vs. Production came up in the Axis, Design won, because their militaries had total control over their national weapons specification and procurement processes, and weren’t at all interested in the opinions of civilian experts. The result was that their weapons typically underwent large numbers of stupid little tweaks which might marginally enhance the theoretical performance of the design, but made production a nightmare. And (happily for us), that model of production utterly fails when you’re involved in a massive war based on attritional combat modes. You don’t win world wars with Formula 1 race cars. You win them with a hell of a lot of Fords.
Third, “secret” weapons are still just designs, like any other design, and therefore have to contend with the normal tradeoffs involved in all engineering designs. Nothing overturns the laws of physics (except in Star Trek.) As Thom mentioned in his initial response, the Zero was seen as a wunderfighter for the first six months of the war. But once its design parameters had been explored, and appropriate tactics developed (thank you, Jimmy Thach), lo and behold it was a mortal weapons system again. There were very few instances I can think of wherein one side in WWII had a *tactical* weapon that had reached some sort of threshold effect wherein it was practically invincible—unlike, say, what we saw in Gulf War I, wherein an M1 Abrams was essentially invulnerable to any weapon in the Iraqi arsenal, and could destroy their tanks almost with impunity, and from unprecedented ranges. In WWII, you can point to something like the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo and say that it represented a
pretty impressive technological breakthrough. Fair enough. But even Long Lances didn't render Japanese surface warships invincible (and indeed, as the crew of Mikuma would tell you, the price paid for that phenomenal torpedo was having to assume an equally phenomenal level of risk, should a fire break out aboard your own ship.)
Same thing was true of things like the Panther and Tiger tanks. They were great designs. But their production engineering left much to be desired, so there were never enough of them, and their availability rates were awful. That’s cold comfort to the Sherman crews that had to face them tactically, of course. But at the operational level of warfare, I doubt you’d find any American corps commander that would have traded his Shermans for a quarter the number of Panthers. The Shermans actually *ran* consistently. They got the job done. Not to mention they were backed by an ocean of spare parts, and gasoline, and unlimited ammo, and there were always plenty more tanks in the pipeline. From an *operational* standpoint, it wasn’t even a contest: the Sherman was a vastly superior war-fighting implement. You’ll never hear that on the History Channel, of course, because the Panther and Tiger were sexy as hell, and still make the hearts of the 12-year old war nerd in all of us beat like our
first schoolyard crush. But honestly, once we manage to mature and get our pre-frontal cortex thinking rationally, they weren’t really all that effective from a war-winning standpoint.
The only instance in WWII where that threshhold effect was reached, as Thom also pointed out, was the atomic bomb. And again, that was a triumph of not only design, but also production engineering. Even if the Germans could have come up with a design that worked, did they have the spare $2 billion lying round to dump into creating a large-scale production infrastructure to actually mine and refine the uranium, and then turn it into the enriched isotopes necessary for a weapon? A weapon that *might*, or *might not* actually work? While they’re getting flattened on the Eastern Front, and bombed round the clock? The very notion is laughable. Nobody could do that, or afford that, or afford to take that risk, except us.
Hope this is useful. I find this whole topic enduringly fascinating.
Cheers,
Jon Parshall
Addendum to my earlier points on aviation technology. I was thinking further on the example of the N1K Kawanishi “George” vs. a plane like the Hellcat. In this case, a lot of what’s going on is a contest between their engines. So why was the Pratt & Whitney R2800 Double Wasp a total winner, but the Nakajima Homare was a dog? They were both 18-cylinder air-cooled radials. They both put out something on the same order of power, 2000HP vs. 1800HP. But the similarity ends there. The Homare was a very compact design, and was trying to coax too much horsepower out of too small an engine (36 liter displacement vs. 46 liter for the Pratt). Heat dissipation was, therefore, a huge issue. But the cooling fin design on the Pratt was a miracle of machining (our production tooling was better than anybody else in the world at this time), leading to very good heat dissipation out of a design that already had more elbow room. Not so for the Homare. The Japanese had terrible problems just machining it,
and reliability was a huge ongoing issue in the field. The Pratt,on the other hand, was incredibly reliable.
Another key difference was in the supercharger, which is crucial for high-altitude performance. Much above 15,000 feet, it doesn’t matter how much horsepower your engine can develop—if it can’t get enough oxygen, it’s a dog. Building a good supercharger required creating sophisticated fan blade designs, using very esoteric, heat-resistant alloys, to allow the sucker to spin fast enough that it can scoop enough air into the engine. If your materials sciences aren’t up to snuff, you can’t produce a quality supercharger. Ditto if you don’t have access to the right alloying materials. Japan was really hurting on both these fronts, particularly the former.
Finally, having high-octane fuel makes a huge difference in engine performance. The Japanese were running on 91 octane (and often poorly refined); we were running on 100, with even higher octanes for takeoff. And America produced something like 60% of the world’s petroleum (with the USSR and then the British Empire #2 and #3 after that). You add up all those unglamorous factors, and a clearcut advantage emerges. The R2800 was mounted on a ton of designs, and allowed our late-war fighters to fly higher, faster, and to lug around a *lot* of ordnance. That’s why dive-bombers were becoming a smaller part of the carrier air group mix by ’44. Why use a specialized bombing platform when a Corsair could lug just as big a bomb load, fly it faster, and still defend itself if need be? Same thin was happening in ground-based air forces: fighter bombers like the P-47 and Hawker Typhoon were obviating the need for light bombers, in a lot of cases. They were big, fast, durable, and carried a ton of
firepower. ALL of that was based on engine performance.
Cheers,
Jon
Editors Note: Thank you for the excellent article. I too find this fascinating and spent many an hour on the subject. The balance has always been a few that are really effective or a lot that are average but get the job done. To a certain degree this was dictated by the countries capabilities and circumstances. Take the Zero vs Wildcat. The Japanese had little or no choice in design or production because they didn't have the capabilities of the US. They could and did base their entire military on 'A Short Victorious War' (title borrowed) in design and production. As long as they didn't have to get into a war of attrition they were good. But the US was prepared to fight a war of attrition because their strength was in production and innovation so good enough was fine. I could go on and on but for many this gets boring real quick.
From Jon Parshall
You’re absolutely right. And we tend to look back at their outlook and shake our heads. But that’s on the basis of hindsight. The Japanese, for their part, were fighting a deliberately short-sighted war. If they couldn’t close the deal in ’42, it was game over.
From Bob Jones
November 8, 2017
In the October issue James Lefler asks about the apparent parallel development of aircraft technology by warring nations. The answer given focused on how hard it is to keep secrets ("hard", hell, impossible), and the Zero we found in the Aleutians.
I would add the following.
The focus on the difference between the Zero and the USN Wildcat may well have overstated the Zero's edge. It had an edge, no doubt about that, but the Wildcat, and American pilots, did a credible job too. The Zero sacrificed its and its pilots' survivability to obtain that edge in range and speed. We chose to armor our cockpits and, as soon as we could, self-seal our fuel tanks, and get our pilots and planes back to fly again another day.
Lefler's question was general, not focused just on US v. Japan, so look at the Spitfire v. the ME109. During the war the propaganda machine made the Spitfire out to be something extraordinary, but there were British pilots after the war who said that they would have preferred the 109 if they'd had a choice. Each had some advantages over the other. The Spitfire did not become the machine it later was until the British stripped off the .303 machine guns and gave it real firepower: 20 mm cannon, or the US Browning 50 mm machine gun.
I refer you, in fact, to Barrett Tillman's excellent article about the Browning .50, "The gun that won the war."
About the parallel development, though, I suggest you read Len Deighton's great book, Fighter. In fact, read anything historical by Deighton, but Fighter particularly discusses the development of single wing (monoplane) all metal fighters. It didn't take a spy to see that your opponent had gone from fabric to metal wings, and everyone was working on what they could do to get increased performance out of their planes.
The technology was available for anyone with brains and money enough to do the research, but it often did require additional skill to navigate the bureaucracy. The plane which became the P51 Mustang was originally developed as an attack bomber. Its performance was lackluster. Fortunately, someone saw its real potential and it finally became the ruler of the skies.
Germany put huge resources into the V1 and V2 programs and got essentially random terror weapons. If they'd put the same resources into aircraft, they could have flown several thousand more fighters (my memory is 17,000), or some mix of fighters and possibly an actual strategic bomber. What would the war have looked like if that had happened?
By the way, one last note about the allegedly supreme Zero. The Flying Tigers flew old P40s in China and most of them survived. They were flying against several versions of Japanese aircraft, but despite the primitive airfields and conditions, they acquited themselves well. There is a lot to be said in favor of great pilots too.
Bob Jones
Sole Survivor
From Paul Welch
November 13, 2017
I recently purchased a used book from Amazon, George Gay’s ‘Sole Survivor’. It was a former library book. To my surprise there was an inscription that seemed to be by George, see photos attached.
I wondered if you knew if this could be his signature? I found it a bit strange it was in a former library book! I wonder if someone donated it to the library?
Regards
Paul
Editors Note: I happen to have his book and it is signed so I'll check the signature in my copy and see if they match. I was also fortunate enough to meet him and I think he signed a photo for me. Can't remember for sure if he did or didn't sign it as it was a very long time ago but I'll check the photo too. I don't see any reason why it would not be authentic though. Not like there was any real secondary market for signed books by him.
From Paul Welch
Many thanks for the reply and look forward to you checking. If it’s his signature, that’s a real unexpected treat! To me it’s like having some sort of link to the man, and to the great events he was part of. As you say, no reason to think it wasn’t genuine, I just thought it was odd in a library book! Maybe someone bought it and presented it to the library.
Editors Note: My copy has the exact same signature and note so looks like you have a copy signed by George Gay. Signatures match as well as the identical note, just to someone else.
From Paul Welch
Wow, that’s great! Many thanks for letting me know Thom, much appreciated. I’m looking forward to reading the book as well of course! I know that it was written a good time after the events, but how does this stack up as a memoir of Midway? I read somewhere that he may have used sources that are open to discussion, for instance around the Flight to Nowhere, but at the same time some of the events he was involved in must have been pretty unforgettable. Thanks again for the conformation
Editors Note: It's been a long time since I read the book. I think he did a good job describing what he saw so yes a good memoir. But it is about his life as well, not just about Midway. I don't specifically remember him getting into much of the controversy on the flight to nowhere but one of the haunting things about his recollection is the direction they took being pretty conclusive if indeed it is what he saw. That being where the moon
was dead center in his view screen as they were heading for the Japanese fleet. As several have pointed out that could only happen if the flight was on 265 rather than 240 as that was the direction of the moon rising in the west that morning.
From Paul Welch
I’ll add it to my growing pile of Midway and Pacific War reading, many bought on the recommendations of your excellent website. I’m also slowly working through all the back issues of the Newsletter J
Editors Note: There certainly is a lot on the site from the past issues. I also have been compiling the issues before 2004 just before Mr. Russell started posting them. Goes all the way back to mid 90's. At some point I'll start to roll those pages out as well. So more reading.
Announcements and Questions
Don McPherson
From Barrett Tillman
November 8, 2017
Quick follow-up ref. Don McPherson: he was a VF-83 pilot aboard Essex 1945. He's now 95. I count about 17 remaining USN aces and one Marine. We lost Bill Hardy (of the 2nd VF-17/Hornet) 5 days after he attended the September aces reunion...
BT
Aircraft Markings and colour schemes
From Paul Welch
November 9, 2017
Can anyone recommend any good sources (books, websites) that details the markings, and colour schemes, of US Navy and Japanese aircraft in the Pacific theatre?
Also I wondered if any of your good people could recommend books or websites that have good pictorial coverage of the Battle of Midway? What I mean by good are, for instance, photos that have informative and accurate captions, in the expert opinion of your good people!
Any recommendations appreciated.
Many thanks!
Paul Welch, UK
US planes at Midway
From Zsolt Szalanczi
November 11, 2017
I remember there was also a Grumman Duck stationed on Midway at the time of the battle. I just found (in Steve Ginter Naval Fighters book series Nr84) a copy of a declassified status report indicating a Grumman J2F-2 Duck (probably in utility role) on Midway on November 30, 1941 few days before the outbrake of the war. I suppose this aircraft remained on the island. Is there anybody who would have the BuAer Number and possibly side number of this plane? Thank you for posting this question to the roundtable.
Regards