Best airborne anti shipping weapon?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Ascent

Senior Airman
410
734
Apr 7, 2012
Bomber country, England
Having read the Torpedo bomber thread it got me wondering what the most usefull antishipping weapon carried by an aircraft was?

There probably isn't a 'correct' answer as such but it might be nice to get a bit of debate of their various merits.

I must admit to being a fan of 3" rockets used by Costal Command Mosquitos and Beafighters, certainly against merchant shipping. If the rocket landed short they would turn up when they hit the water so gave a good chance of getting a below the waterline hit and the rocket motor would often start a fire after the rocket had peirced the hull. Also quite succesful against U-boats as well I understand, for similar reasons. Also like the MKXVIII Mossie with the 57mm cannon which was designed as an anti shipping aircraft though once rockets were fitted they weren't needed as much.

What are your thoughts?
 
If one has access to a guided bomb, guess that would be the best choice. Without that, a nice 1 ton bomb should make any capital ship captain worried. Or something like bouncing bomb, used to crack dams.
 
Highball for big ones and Tetse for small ones.

We shouldn't forget air laid mines. I have always been impressed by the 1940 Swordfish minelaying campaign in Dutch waters. Flying across the North Sea in winter at 100knots unarmed to the enemy coast with a huge petrol tank strapped in place of the TAG and a bag of corks to plug any bullet holes in the tank. The Swordfish was too slow to make the journey in the length of a summer night. It was air laid mines that did the only real damage to the Scharnhorst in her journey from Brest in 1941 despite torpedo attacks from brave Swordfish, Beauforts and destroyers.

Mines not only took out ships but also denied routes and channelled shipping into known areas and routes to allow direct attack aeroplanes to find them more easily.
 
Mines were certainly important.

For direct attack it depends on the size of the ship. Torpedoes are excellent if they hit. They let lots of water into the ship but they need 8-12 feet of water to run in which means most smaller ships are somewhat safe, torpedoes run under them.

It was found that most "normal" aircraft bombs would "bounce" (at least once) if dropped at low altitude and high speed. This was used by B-25s and A-20s amongst other aircraft. It created a larger "window" for dropping the bombs than from a higher altitude.
However skip bombing or using "bouncing" bombs requires the plane to get much closer to the target than a torpedo does and while this is fine for lightly armed freighters it is not so good against ships like cruisers.
 
I guess if we are talking historical damage inflicted by a WW2 weapon system, one should acknowledge the dive bomber pilot guided (general purpose and armor-piercing) ordnance delivered by the VAL, SBD and/or Stuka as among the most effective). Likewise, Kate and Swordfish delivered torpedo were quite effective in notable instances despite the increasing vulnerability of the delivery system and with an honorable mention to the Avenger and S.M.79. The Avenger and Swordfish get double credit as ASW weapon delivery systems. technologically, I guess the Fritz-X and HS-293 and bio-guided Kamikaze would be near the top of the list (Of course, the Kamikaze had an inherent ant-jam advantage over radio guided bombs).
 
Last edited:
Both weapons employed a similiar MCLOS guidance system. Both weapons worked with a reasonable degree of reliability during mid 1943. Nothing else comes close.

It's a good thing for us that Germany didn't provide Japan with this technology. Large scale Hs.293 attacks might be worse then large scale Kamikaze attacks during the Battle for Okinawa as the weapon was launched outside AA range.
 
The most deadly weapon in terms of ships damaged was the japanese kamikaze, a true guided cruise missile, albeit the guidnace system was a human being. Only the poor standard of pilots prevented the weapon from being more effective than it was
 
parsifal said:
The most deadly weapon in terms of ships damaged was the japanese kamikaze,
Click to expand...

More deadly than the Ju 87 throughout 1940 and then on to the Mediterranean? The Kamikaze may have had a lot of targets but they only operated for a short time.

The best weapon in terms of the original question has to be some kind of "stand off" weapon like the Fritz X.

Steve
 
How many ships displacing over 1,000 tons were sunk by such a small weapon? I'd hazzard a guess not many. You are comparing a strafing weapon with ship killing weapons.
 
USA tested the 'Tetse' or Molins 6 pounder against the US AN5 75mm (an M4 type) and found it superior in having a higher rate of fire (1 round per second), was a more robust mounting and had an auto feed which could have had it's capacity enlarged in a larger aeroplane and was far, far more accurate than contemporary unguided rockets. Although it's HE warhead weight was somewhat less than the US 75mm it's rate of fire meant it could put several times the weight of HE on the target whilst using high G maneuvers.

The essence of the Highball was to be able to release the weapon at higher speed than a torpedo, at greater range and irrespective of the water depth. Radar guided anti aircraft fire killed it off post war.

The accuracy of genuine dive bombing made it a very effective weapon against all but armoured capital ships in the first 3 years of the war but after 1941 organised air defence of shipping exposed the vulnerability of the carrier aeroplanes. The Swedes remained devoted to it well into the 1950's.
 
Last edited:
Edgar Brooks said:
So will a 12,000lb Tallboy, as Tirpitz Lutzow found out.
Click to expand...

True,very effective when they hit.Given the relative inaccuracy of bombing at the time it was a good job that they had a large and stationary target

There is surely an advantage in a guided weapon which also minimises the exposure of your aircraft by launching out of AAA range.

Steve
 
davebender said:
Large scale Hs.293 attacks might be worse then large scale Kamikaze attacks during the Battle for Okinawa as the weapon was launched outside AA range.
Click to expand...


Outside of what AA range???

40mm?

From Wiki on the Hs 293, Operational range "at 5.0 km (16500 feet) altitude 8.5 km"

If you think you are out of range of 5in/38s at 8.5KM think again. Especially as the bomber had to continue to fly pretty much straight and level over the target for the "MCLOS guidance system" to work.

By 1944/45 the 5in/38s were well supplied with proximity fuses.
 
Last edited:

Many times more deadly. And thats with pilots of indfifferent quality, versus elite pilots..

Numbers quoted vary, but at least 47 Allied vessels, from PT boats to escort carriers, were sunk by kamikaze attacks, and about 300 damaged. Some of those 300, like the Essex Class Franklin were basically scrapped after the war, so effective the damaged does implicity include "scrapped, scuttled" During World War II, nearly 4,000 kamikaze pilots were sacrificed. About 14% of kamikaze attacks managed to hit a ship.

During the early part of 1942, Vals achieved a hit accuracy that at times was close to 80%. Imagine if the japanese had used Kamikaze tactics in 1942. The USN would have been almost competely destroyed
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
Ju-87 normally carried a 1,000kg AP bomb for naval attack. That will penetrate battleship armor.
Click to expand...

But evidently arent strong enough or effctive enough to sink more lightly protected carriers, despite multiple hits by these weapons (well, at least the weapons they were effectively able to carry, that it the 1000lb variety).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Alternative airborne guns 2.0
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
3K
MikeMeech
M
Alternative light and anti-tank guns, 1935-45
10 11 12
Replies
232
Views
9K
marathag
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
Making the best use of Jumo 211 series?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
peceed
P
Menu
Log in
Register