Barracudas

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

jwolf
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:02 pm

Barracudas

Post by jwolf »

Playing as Allies, in early 1944 some old Albacore squadrons have recently been able to upgrade to Barracudas (can't remember the exact model number). What puzzles me about this plane -- admittedly I am very ignorant about these things -- is that it appears to be a dive bomber armed with a torpedo as its normal load. All this time I have naively thought of dive bombers and torpedo bombers as completely separate types of planes, but this Barracuda apparently (??) does both, kind of like those old Miller Lite beer commercials. Is this really true? How do you normally use this plane: dive bomber or torpedo bomber?
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Barracudas

Post by PaxMondo »

The IJ have the Grace ... yes, it can do both ...
Pax
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Barracudas

Post by BBfanboy »

The British were handicapped by low aircraft capacity on their carriers so carrying separate DB and TB squadrons would have meant small squadrons. The Barracuda was a compromise to enable both types of missions.

Use depends on the target. For the carrier strike on BB Tirpitz in her fjord anchorage, net protection made torpedoes useless so they armed up with 500 lb bombs. They achieved surprise and got quite a few hits on Tirpitz, wrecking a lot of her topside structure. She was still repairing that damage when the first Lancaster strike dropped the Tallboys that damaged her and prompted her move southward.

The big "greenhouse" canopy behind the pilot was for growing his cannabis crop, so he could calm his nerves before attacking ...[;)]
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Barracudas

Post by obvert »

Apparently in the heat of the SE Asian theatre they performed badly and were replaced on Fleet CVs by Avengers. They didn't do well flying with full bomb loads over the high Indonesian mountains and they're range was also reduced.



"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: Barracudas

Post by Leandros »

ORIGINAL: obvert

Apparently in the heat of the SE Asian theatre they performed badly and were replaced on Fleet CVs by Avengers. They didn't do
well flying with full bomb loads over the high Indonesian mountains and they're range was also reduced.

Which high Indonesian mountains?

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
Itdepends
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:59 am

RE: Barracudas

Post by Itdepends »

Warning off topic- but after reading the title- I had to go watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0OX_8YvFxA
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Barracudas

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: obvert

Apparently in the heat of the SE Asian theatre they performed badly and were replaced on Fleet CVs by Avengers. They didn't do well flying with full bomb loads over the high Indonesian mountains and they're range was also reduced.

"So you're saying there's a chance . . . ?"
The Moose
adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: Barracudas

Post by adarbrauner »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The British were handicapped by low aircraft capacity on their carriers so carrying separate DB and TB squadrons would have meant small squadrons. The Barracuda was a compromise to enable both types of missions.

Use depends on the target. For the carrier strike on BB Tirpitz in her fjord anchorage, net protection made torpedoes useless so they armed up with 500 lb bombs. They achieved surprise and got quite a few hits on Tirpitz, wrecking a lot of her topside structure. She was still repairing that damage when the first Lancaster strike dropped the Tallboys that damaged her and prompted her move southward.

The big "greenhouse" canopy behind the pilot was for growing his cannabis crop, so he could calm his nerves before attacking ...[;)]

I'd say the British were somehow, for any reason, handycapped in aircraft airplanes design...[:'(][:'(][X(][>:]
jwolf
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:02 pm

RE: Barracudas

Post by jwolf »

Thanks for the comments. My Brit carrier with the Barracudas will probably work with a US group that has both DB and TB, so I suppose I'll experiment with both types of mission and see what happens.
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: Barracudas

Post by Leandros »


Good luck!.....

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Barracudas

Post by Dili »

Barracuda was a very low altitude aircraft. Loaded probably not more than 10kft in usual operation.

Also a quote i have, probably from wiki:
During the earlier part of its service life, the Barracuda suffered a fairly high rate of unexplained fatal crashes, often involving experienced pilots.[8][9] In 1945 this was traced to small leaks developing in the hydraulic system. The most common point for the leak was at the point of entry to the pilot's pressure gauge and was situated such that the resulting spray went straight into the pilot's face. The chosen hydraulic fluid contained ether and as the aircraft rarely were equipped with oxygen masks (and few aircrew wore them below 10,000 ft/3,000 m anyway) the pilot quickly became unconscious leading to a crash.
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Barracudas

Post by JeffroK »

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The British were handicapped by low aircraft capacity on their carriers so carrying separate DB and TB squadrons would have meant small squadrons. The Barracuda was a compromise to enable both types of missions.

Use depends on the target. For the carrier strike on BB Tirpitz in her fjord anchorage, net protection made torpedoes useless so they armed up with 500 lb bombs. They achieved surprise and got quite a few hits on Tirpitz, wrecking a lot of her topside structure. She was still repairing that damage when the first Lancaster strike dropped the Tallboys that damaged her and prompted her move southward.

The big "greenhouse" canopy behind the pilot was for growing his cannabis crop, so he could calm his nerves before attacking ...[;)]

Achtung Spitfeur!!!!!!!
I'd say the British were somehow, for any reason, handycapped in aircraft airplanes design...[:'(][:'(][X(][>:]
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Barracudas

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The British were handicapped by low aircraft capacity on their carriers so carrying separate DB and TB squadrons would have meant small squadrons. The Barracuda was a compromise to enable both types of missions.

Use depends on the target. For the carrier strike on BB Tirpitz in her fjord anchorage, net protection made torpedoes useless so they armed up with 500 lb bombs. They achieved surprise and got quite a few hits on Tirpitz, wrecking a lot of her topside structure. She was still repairing that damage when the first Lancaster strike dropped the Tallboys that damaged her and prompted her move southward.

The big "greenhouse" canopy behind the pilot was for growing his cannabis crop, so he could calm his nerves before attacking ...[;)]

Achtung Spitfeur!!!!!!!
I'd say the British were somehow, for any reason, handycapped in aircraft airplanes design...[:'(][:'(][X(][>:]
warspite1

And Mosquito.... and Lancaster.... and Typhoon.... and Sunderland.... and Beaufighter..... and.....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: Barracudas

Post by Zorch »

As opposed to the list of great British tanks of WWII...
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Barracudas

Post by JeffroK »

Great tanks dont win wars, having lots of tanks makes a difference though!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Barracudas

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

As opposed to the list of great British tanks of WWII...
warspite1

That is a different story....and a very short list....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Ian R
Posts: 3426
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Barracudas

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The IJ have the Grace ... yes, it can do both ...

The US were also working towards a dual-capability "strike" aircraft, at least by about 1942.

The SB2C could carry a torpedo externally. David Donald says (p75 & p78 for those with the book) that the 1938 specification did not require an internal weapons bay big enough for a torpedo, but the SB2C-1C model (778 built) was built with the option of removing the bay doors and carrying a torpedo on an external truss - but "little use appears to have been made of this."



"I am Alfred"
User avatar
Lovejoy
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:41 am
Location: United States

RE: Barracudas

Post by Lovejoy »

I normally use them as TBs as IIRC they carry 500 lb bombs, and I've found them to do better with torpedoes when against warships.
adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: Barracudas

Post by adarbrauner »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner




Achtung Spitfeur!!!!!!!
I'd say the British were somehow, for any reason, handycapped in aircraft airplanes design...[:'(][:'(][X(][>:]
warspite1

And Mosquito.... and Lancaster.... and Typhoon.... and Sunderland.... and Beaufighter..... and.....


Why you people, why , why don't you read all the words.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER AIRPLANES! only.

Yes, Fulmar, Sea Skua, Roc, (CAM Hurricane? no , not this), Swordfish, Albacore, the Barracuda, and real cherry on the cake just to finish well the war era , the FIREBRAND, worse aircraft airplane (or maybe worse British warplane design ever?) ever designed and flown.

Yes, that's the line.

Buccaneers and co. came to expiate for the older siblings.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Barracudas

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JeffK



warspite1

And Mosquito.... and Lancaster.... and Typhoon.... and Sunderland.... and Beaufighter..... and.....


Why you people, why , why don't you read all the words.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER AIRPLANES! only.

Yes, Fulmar, Sea Skua, Roc, (CAM Hurricane? no , not this), Swordfish, Albacore, the Barracuda, and real cherry on the cake just to finish well the war era , the FIREBRAND, worse aircraft airplane (or maybe worse British warplane design ever?) ever designed and flown.

Yes, that's the line.

Buccaneers and co. came to expiate for the older siblings.
warspite1

I read your words:
I'd say the British were somehow, for any reason, handycapped in aircraft airplanes design

I just see a general comment. If you meant FAA aircraft only then fair enough - but that is not what you said. Sadly the British made a number of mistakes and went down a couple of blind-alleys and then the war came along.

In simplified terms:

The mistakes and blind alleys began with putting the RAF in control of naval aircraft. When the RN got control back the next generation of aircraft were largely failures and this failure was contributed to by RN's perceived need to have multiple aircrew. The war came at just the wrong time with no real chance to rectify the earlier errors as there were always other priorities - and by that time the answer was thought to be found in purchasing aircraft instead.

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”