Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2?

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

I am probably missing something but for some reason the British torpedo bombers seem never to have been fitted for a single large bomb? (Barracuda excepted?)

They could carry six 250lb bombs which something no US dive bomber could do ( I don't think the SB2C could do it, could be wrong).

Not sure if the torpedo bombers could carry 500lb bomb/s or larger where the torpedo went?

I don't know if the multiple bombs were to make up for lack of accuracy, or simplified loading, bomb handling/storage or what the story was.

Ship killing is a complicated business as there is no one size fits all solution. You had 1200-2000 ton destroyers with no armor, 6000-12,000 ton cruisers with varying amounts of armor and the 25,000 to 35,000 ton (or larger ) battleships with deck armor that a 500SAP bomb won't go through (might make quite mess of the upper works though). Then you have the range of merchant shipping which also covers a huge range of size/speed.

I am wondering if anybody knows the back story-requirements for this?

Six 250lb anti sub bombs seems fairly decent for anto sub duties though. But I don't believe the timing is right. 250lb anti-sub bombs showing up well after (production anyway) the design work for the Albacore was completed. Or preliminary design work for the Barracuda?

Lots of little hits vrs one/few big hits?
 
Thank you

However the basic questions remain.
A new question is when did the British add the 1600lb bomb to available weapons?
I believe (could be wrong) that it is the American 1600lb AP bomb but that didn't show up until late 1942 or early 1943. How soon the British knew about I don't know but for a plane that started design work in 1937 it seems to be a late comer ?
 
Hey Shortround6,

The RN/FAA actually did spec and purchase a small quantity of 1500 lb AP bombs pre-war. It was basically a shorter version of the RAF 2000 lb AP bomb. It had the same 13.5" diameter and basic nose profile. The lighter weight was to allow the carriage by any FAA aircraft that could carry a torpedo, including the Swordfish and Albacore. I have not been able to find any specific info on when/where it was employed, just that the small number that had been purchased were used up in the early war during the BoF/pre-BoB period.

The FAA/RAF also had a 500 lb AP bomb (technically listed as 450 lb AP) that was 9.2" diameter. Again, the supply was used up in the early-war.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
I visited the FAA museum in 2002 with my wife.
Click to expand...

Its a great experience and the Carrier exhibition thingy is well done. One of the best in the country with a surprisingly diverse collection.

Admiral Beez said:
Ripon and Scimitar might be better FAA aircraft choices.
Click to expand...

Hah! My daughter very nearly became Catalina - my wife liked the name, although as my daughter has become a teenager, Flycatcher is becoming more appropriate...
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
However the basic questions remain.
Click to expand...

For the early war FAA aircraft that were built to the RAF issued specs, i.e. the all-singing-all dancing aircraft, the load was restricted by what the British generally had available and those big bombs didn't exist in the mid 30s when the requirements were issued to the manufacturers. there was also limits on the types of bomb carriers that could be fitted to the aircraft, either under the wings or on the centreline.

For example the 1934 spec to which the Skua was produced stipulates 1 x 500lb bomb on the centreline and 4 x 20lb practise bombs under each wing. The later spec to which the Albacore was built mentions a torpedo armament only, but an earlier spec from which the paper design evolved from, 0.8/36, which was cancelled stipulated a load of 2 x 500lb SAP or 4 x 250lb SAP, or 4 X 250lb 'B' bombs.

The Barracuda spec, S.24/37 stipulated 1 x 1,500lb torpedo or 6 x 250lb or 3 x 500lb or 6 x 100lb bombs.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Oh yes, we're keeping the DB capability, but at Swordfish level, not SBD.
Click to expand...

The Swordfish is arguably a superior DB than the SBD because it has the about the same DB capability:

The Swordfish was also capable of operating as a dive-bomber. During 1939, Swordfish on board HMS Glorious participated in a series of dive-bombing trials, during which 439 practice bombs were dropped at dive angles of 60, 67 and 70 degrees, against the target ship HMS Centurion. Tests against a stationary target showed an average error of 49 yd (45 m) from a release height of 1,300 ft (400 m) and a dive angle of 70 degrees; tests against a manoeuvring target showed an average error of 44 yd (40 m) from a drop height of 1,800 ft (550 m) and a dive angle of 60 degrees. (wikipedia via Smith, Peter C. Dive Bomber! )

in terms of dive angle and accuracy, and ~50% more payload.
 

Typical operational DB loadout for the Swordfish, Albacore and Barracuda was 2 x 500lb and 2 x 250lb bombs. Although Swordfish are known to have been loaded to ~1700lb for DB strike missions (6 x 250lb, or 2 x 500lb + 2 x 250lb and ~8 x flares or light bombs).
 
RCAFson said:
If a given aircraft can achieve the same or greater accuracy, with a heavier bomb load, than I would characterize it as being superior in the DB role, although perhaps not superior in overall performance.
Click to expand...

Depends on how that so called superiority is demonstrated. A trials environment and a combat environment are two very different things.

let's put it this way, hypothetically, if I had to choose which dive bomber I was putting on my carrier decks in the late 1930s/early 1940s, I'd choose the SBD over the Swordfish. Would I put Swordfish on my carrier decks, yes, but as a torpedo reconnaissance type.
 

The Swordfish was in carrier service long before the SBD, but having accurate DB capability with a larger bomb load certainly added to the Swordfish's (and Albacore/Barracuda) versatility.

In combat the Swordfish performed well as a DB when conditions permitted:

Sauro-class destroyer - Wikipedia

and would have been the superior aircraft, over the SBD, for the above attacks, IMHO.
 
RCAFson said:
and would have been the superior aircraft, over the SBD, for the above attacks, IMHO.
Click to expand...

The Swordfish after 1940 was used for anti-submarine duties and was about to be replaced in the torpedo and dive bombing role by Albacores and Barracudas and eventually Grumman Avengers aboard British carriers in the following years. Two years after the decision to repurpose the Swordfish as an anti-submarine platform the SBD was heavily involved in the destruction of the Japanese fleet, which turned the tide of the war in the Pacific. Are you sure that's your decision?
 

Swordfish squadrons from Eagle were used to sink/cripple 4 or 5 RMI destroyers that were operating in the Red Sea in early 1941. The Swordfish as DBs were carrying 6 x 250lb bombs each, and this proved extremely effective, and was probably superior to what an SBD could have carried (1 x 1000lb or 1 x 500lb and 2 x 100lb) and the large number of bombs carried by the Swordfish probably resulted in a greater hit probability per sortie than for an SBD.
 

Sure, no denying it, but it doesn't suggest at all that the Swordfish was a superior dive bomber to the SBD. Again, think about what you are saying here. By 1942 when these things actually happened, the Swordfish was widely regarded as obsolescent, bordering on obsolete. Eric Brown commented as much about the travesty of sending young men off to war in such an antiquated design in the chapter on the Swordfish his book Wings of the Navy. yes, it had a long and distinguished career, but the Royal Navy used what it had when it had it. Swordfish had been replaced by more advanced torpedo bombers and dive bombers not long after that bombing attack you mention.

Let's also not forget that SBDs disabled four Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway, resulting in their destruction, with the first three within the space of six minutes.
 
Last edited:
If the RN wanted a higher performance monoplane torpedo bomber instead of the Albacore, is it possible to also have the DB capability of the Swordfish? I'm thinking not, as no one until the Barracuda of 1942 fielded a monoplane, single-engine aircraft design that started off as a torpedo bomber that could also DB. It had been tried the other way round with torpedo trials on the Stuka. Did the Devastator or Kate try DB?

So, it seems if the FAA wants their own B5N Kate they'd better also field a separate DB aircraft. This won't be be possible on the AFD carriers with their small CAG, unless your fighter is also a DB.... and we saw how the Skua turned out.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between bomb load and size of bombs. And construction of the bombs.

The dive bomber is not the actual weapon, it is the delivery system. Actual damage to the ship is caused by the bomb/s.

The ability of any Dauntless to carry the 1600lb bomb very far is rather questionable (assuming the carrier even had any to load onto the Planes) so it is pretty much the 1000lb bomb under the fuselage or the 500lb bomb. Under the wings it was pretty much the 100lb bomb, American navy made little use of the 250lb bomb. US GP bombs generally had a filling of around 50% weight. US GP bombs could usually penetrate normal ship structure or very light armor. They used a higher quality/strength of steel than most british bombs. British GP bombs varried from the high 20% to low 30% range in explosive content in order to get the required strength with the lower grade steel.

Dauntlesses were often rated at 325lbs under each wing but that was a 325lb depth charge and while it could be fused to go off on impact it's trajectory might not match a normal bomb, (requires different release point for some impact point?) Depth charge is a thin case "bomb" and cannot be relied upon to penetrate substantial structure. Blast on deck or below a thin unarmored deck would be substantial. 225lbs of TNT filler in early versions. Drag of the depth charges is substantial unless fitted with an aerodynamic nose (still pretty high).

Dauntless, depending on range required (and year) is pretty much going to carry either 500lbs, 700lbs, 1000lbs or 1200lbs loads unless there are depth charges used. The US 100lb bomb is more for flak suppression that ship sinking/destruction.
 
Hey guys,

Good information at this site "http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....armour-piercing-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60" and "http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....armour-piercing-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60" relative to the RN/FAA 450 lb AP and 1500 lb AP bombs developed between the wars, including info on the testing parameters. Mention is made of the approval of the 1500 lb AP bomb design, but no further details on procurement. As I mentioned in my post#165 above, a small number of the 1500 lb AP were purchased, but I have never been able to find out more details. The write-up references AVIA 46 285 & AVIA 46 163 . . . does anyone have access to these documents??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
12
Views
912
swampyankee
G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
The Stannum Liberator
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register