British Dive Bombers or lack thereof

[Reluctant Poster]

That Japanese D4Y did not sink the Princeton as her Damage Report makes clear. Para 11

"11. Even after the explosion of the bombs in the torpedo stowage, the ship was apparently still seaworthy but damage received by the escorting ships and the tactical situation precluded further salvage efforts."

As a result the cruiser Reno was ordered to sink her. She fired two torpedoes one of which reportedly hit Princeton's forward magazine and sinking her.

Damage Report here

USS Princeton CVL23 War Damage Report No. 62

CONFIDENTIAL U.S.S. Princeton (CVL23) Loss In Action Battle for Leyte Gulf 24 October 1944 The Chief of Naval Operations directs that this report be shown only to those persons to whom the report would be of value in the performance of their duties. Steps shall be taken accordingly to insure...

www.history.navy.mil

Edit photo of her from Birmingham showing extent of flight deck damage and with the fires seemingly under control.

View attachment 698897

If we going to split hairs the SBDs never sank any carriers at Midway. They were all put down by Japanese torpedoes.

 

[EwenS]

If we going to split hairs the SBDs never sank any carriers at Midway. They were all put down by Japanese torpedoes.

Exactly!

 

[Shortround6]

If we going to split hairs the SBDs never sank any carriers at Midway. They were all put down by Japanese torpedoes.

Ah Ha, the true weakness of the Japanese revealed!!!!

Lack of high-speed ocean going salvage tugs

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

it's true dive bombers tended to cripple rather than sink big warships. And they had trouble hitting smaller ones. But major enemy warships being crippled is a pretty good outcome.

 

[pinehilljoe]

it's true dive bombers tended to cripple rather than sink big warships. And they had trouble hitting smaller ones. But major enemy warships being crippled is a pretty good outcome.

In his book, Carrier Admiral, Jocko Clark wrote, "to sink a ship you need to let water in"

 

[Shortround6]

In his book, Carrier Admiral, Jocko Clark wrote, "to sink a ship you need to let water in"

A simplistic quote. There was often several ways to get the job done.
Once bombs got big enough (and you filled them with explosives for big bangs, not thick walls with near squib loads) near misses could cause havoc with hull plating and even machinery.
British let a lot of water into ships, mostly by accident. Their 2000lb AP bomb (carried by twin engined bombers) had a truly horrendous dud rate.
Which lead to a number of instances where the 2000lb bomb entered the upper deck, failed to detonate anywhere in it's travels and exited the ships out through the bottom leaving a hole well over a foot in diameter. Not equal to a torpedo but a 2000lb AP bomb should detonate in the lower decks (below the water line).

The problems of sinking cruisers are different than sinking battleships and the problems of sinking destroyers are different still.

Modern battleships often had 9-12ft of expansion space to counter torpedoes from A turret to X turret. Blowing off the bow was still possible as was the stern (seems like a lot of ships got hit in the stern?) Some cruisers had torpedo protection and some did not but it was usually not anywhere near as good as a battleship. DDs had none. They didn't have any room to spare on hulls that were 40ft wide (or less).

 

[Elvis]

"Blowing off the bow was still possible as was the stern (seems like a lot of ships got hit in the stern?)"

Seems like you're asking why the majority got hit in the stern.
Taking out the stern takes out both propulsion and steering, thus the ship can't move and/or maneuver.
A good smack to the rudder is what did in The Bismark.

 

[yulzari]

One might find it worth remembering that, until more powerful engines allowed bigger bombs, the doctrine role of both the dive bomber and the torpedo bomber was to slow the enemy vessel to allow the big ship mounted guns to engage it. There more hope of a sinking by a torpedo but the damage control by design and in operation could frequently cope with even a torpedo hole to, at least, avoid sinking. One hit one sinking of a large warship was rare and more to do with a lucky hit at a particularly vulnerable point assisted by the magazines being huge bombs pre placed in the bowels of the vessel by it's own navy.

 

[swampyankee]

How would a dive bomber fare any better than a Fairey Battle or indeed a Stuka?

It very much depends on the dive bomber and the pilot. First, an unladen dive bomber will tend to have low wing loading and high power:weight ratio, so it may be quite manoeuvrable, second, look at the A-36, which was from what I've read both an effective dive bomber and, unladen, quite capable of dealing with Axis fighters. It's fighter sinking sibling was, of course, slightly better known.

 

[swampyankee]

"Blowing off the bow was still possible as was the stern (seems like a lot of ships got hit in the stern?)"

Seems like you're asking why the majority got hit in the stern.
Taking out the stern takes out both propulsion and steering, thus the ship can't move and/or maneuver.
A good smack to the rudder is what did in The Bismark.

One wonders how many of those ships hit near the stern were hit there because target speed was underestimated. One also wonders how many ships would have been sunk if those magnetic fuzes actually worked and those under-keel detonations happened.

 

[EwenS]

One wonders how many of those ships hit near the stern were hit there because target speed was underestimated. One also wonders how many ships would have been sunk if those magnetic fuzes actually worked and those under-keel detonations happened.

Successfully hitting a ship with an air launched torpedo was not a simple task and it required constant training. The RN developed a simulator to assist in this. The torpedo itself was a complex weapon. Figure in sea conditions, the enemy shooting back and maneoevering while all this is going on, simply adds to the problem.

Pilots had to learn to estimate dropping height, range to the target, angle relative to the target etc all of which affected the likelihood of a hit. Aircraft like the Swordfish and Albacore had a frame like fitting with a row of lights on it just in front of the cockpit, to assist the aiming process. Later in the Barracuda, a Torpedo Director was fitted. The pilot aimed the aircraft at the ship, entered his estimates (speed, angle on bow etc) and the director calculated settings which were transmitted to the gyros in the torpedo. As the torpedo entered the water the gyros altered the direction of travel to that required to hit the target (hopefully).

Later things like radar altimeters and ASV radar sets helped the pilot with some of the answers.

 

[Shortround6]

One wonders how many of those ships hit near the stern were hit there because target speed was underestimated. One also wonders how many ships would have been sunk if those magnetic fuzes actually worked and those under-keel detonations happened.

Or range was underestimated (dropped too early?)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They also tried to launch torpedoes from multiple directions at once to make them harder to dodge ... sometimes in coordination with dive bombing attacks simultaneously.

 

[SaparotRob]

Or range was underestimated (dropped too early?)

Or the ship was evading?

 

[Shortround6]

Most of the time the ships were evading. This was standard procedure dating back to pre WW I.
Either turn into the direction of a torpedo attack or turn away. Never stay on original course.

This was called combing the tracks. if you could swing the ship about 90 degrees you had a 90-100ft target for the torpedoes (beam of the ship/s) vs a 600ft target (length of the ship).
depending on torpedo launch distance (deck mount torpedoes or sub) if you turned away you might out run the torpedo. Not that your ship was actually faster than the torpedo but if the torpedo was only gaining at 5-10kts it might run out of fuel during the stern chase (didn't work against Japanese torpedoes) Which way you turned might depend on the tactical situation at the time. Germans at Jutland launched destroyer torpedo attacks not in the hope of hitting something ( that would be a bonus) but to force the British to turn away while the German capitol ships also turned away thus breaking visual contact and interrupting gun fire, at least temporarily.

With aircraft the attackers would try to position themselves so that the ship tried to comb the tracks from one formation the ship would be broadside to the other formation's torpedoes as they arrived at the intersection point.

 

[pinehilljoe]

WWII Gunnery and torpedo attacks have always fascinated me. How a submarine skipper could fire at 2 miles and achieve about a 30% hit ratio (though not all detonated), and RFC allowed battleships to fire at 8 to 10 miles and achieve straddles on the second or even first salvo while firing ship and target were each moving at 25+ knots (~30mph) seems amazing. I think of my home town when trying to calibrate Naval gunnery and pick landmarks about the same distance away.
Hunterdon County Superior Court to Solberg Airport.

In his book Pursuit, Ludovick Kennedy picked landmarks around greater London to give the reader a sense of the distances when Hood and Bismarck engaged in the Denmark Straights.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Blowing off the bow of a cruiser was not uncommon
USS New Orleans

USS Minneapolis

Even the British got in the act. HMS Liverpool

And destroyers weren't immune HMS Eskimo

Sometimes it wasn't even battle damage. USS Pittsburgh

 

[Admiral Beez]

If we going to split hairs the SBDs never sank any carriers at Midway. They were all put down by Japanese torpedoes.

I think the only carrier sunk by dive bombers is Hermes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you force your opponent to scuttle, I count that as a sinking.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

If you force your opponent to scuttle, I count that as a sinking.

Yeppers