Could the P51A have been made available to the defenders at the Battle of Midway?

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

tyrodtom said:
Didn't the torpedos have to travel some distance in the water before they armed ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am pretty sure there was a minimum run time necessary to arm. That "omitting the water part" doesn't seem quite right. All the attempts to launch aerial torpedoes as well as the sub launched opportunities were essentially a bust with, as Bjoint says, the PBY's night attack (1 out of 4 tries) about the only success experienced. Let's see, PBY's (1 for 4), subs (0 for 2?), aircraft (0 for 51). That's a total of 1 for 57? Geez! US torpedoes make B-17s look like sharpshooters when it comes to anti-shipping! To call a US Torpedo an anti-shipping weapon is an insult to weapons and maybe ships too.

On the other hand with all those torpedoes in the water one can see why the IJN was maneuvering like crazy and couldn't steady up into the wind until the attacks were over.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps bombs would have been more productive?
 
tyrodtom said:
Didn't the torpedos have to travel some distance in the water before they armed ?
Click to expand...

Probably. But if you're an Airforce guy who finds a torpedo hung on his plane, you might not know that.

I think my source was a first person magazine article by someone on the plane. There's always the chance of a bit of hyperbole. But given the amazing film clip and the crew's survival, I don't see a need to embroider the facts.
 
gjs238 said:
Perhaps bombs would have been more productive?
Click to expand...
Take a look at this picture. This is where a torpedo-bomber has to be to be effective. Contrast that with the path of a dive-bomber and it's clear why those dive-bombers were effective. A torpedo-bomber has to be right in the mouth of those ships' guns. But, to even get there, it has to duck the fighter-cover. The problem with the torpedo-bombers wasn't with the "fish" they were carrying. It was with their getting to this position through the fighter cover they were encountering.
 

Attachments

  • tbapproach.jpg
    5.7 KB · Views: 90
Even bombs have to fall some distance before they arm. Surely they would have told them the drop parameters of the torpedos. I know some crews might push the limits on drop height and speed when under fire, but risking the whole crew, then dropping it in a way that it can't work is just a waste.

Does anyone know the reasons the rest of the torpedos failed ? Did any strike targets and fail to explode ? Or is that 0 to 51 the number of torpedos that were expended along with the aircraft in a lot of cases? Does the 0 -51 include aircraft with torpedos shot down before they got a chance to drop?
 
As expensive as torpedos were, did the Navy experiment enough with them to even know how far out of the idea parameters you could drop, and still get a successful launch?

I know the expense of the torpedo was one of the excuses for the Navy not doing much testing prewar with the submarine torpedos. Was that true with the air dropped versions too ?

Just full of questions, aren't I ?
 
Trouble is, my memory is so bad these days I can't remember more than bits and pieces of the story. As I recall, one problem was the magnetic detonator which turned out to be unreliable. I believe the idea was that the torpedo would run deep under the ship's keel and explode breaking its back. I thought contact exploders had been abandoned, but according to wikipedia most of what I wrote above is wrong.

Mark 13 torpedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This may be a better source of info:

USA Torpedoes of World War II

"A total of 156 Mark 13 Mod 0 torpedoes were produced which was enough to provide two loads for each of the four 18-plane torpedo squadrons assigned to the pre-war carrier fleet plus a dozen spares. Mod 0 differed from later mods by having a rail-type tail in which the propellers were in front of the rudders. This was the only US torpedo to ever have this feature. The Newport Torpedo Station was unhappy with arrangement for reasons unknown and the Mod 1 entered service in 1940 with a conventional propeller arrangement, as can be seen in the photographs above. Unfortunately and unlike the Mod 0, the Mod 1 proved to be an unreliable weapon, with only one of ten torpedoes dropped by VT-6 during an exercise in July 1941 having a hot, straight and normal run. Of the others, four sank and could not be recovered while the other five experienced erratic runs.

"These problems continued into the early war years, with a mid-1943 analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect. The early models were further handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - typically 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them vulnerable to attack."
 
Even in skip bombing they still released some distance from the ship, ( I don't know what that distance was) so they had time to arm. Because if they armed instantly, they'd explode on the first skip, instead of skipping, maybe right under the aircraft.
Most US bombs had fuzes, front and rear, with small vanes or propellers on them. The vane was held still by a wire, held by a clip, when the bomb was dropped, the wire stayed with the aircraft and the vane was free to spin by the bombs movement thru the air. The vane had to rotate X amount of turns before the firing pin was free to fire the detonator when the bomb hit whatever.
They may have used a quicker arming fuze for skip bombing, but you can only go so far with quick arming. Then I think the bomb fuzes would also have delays after the firing pin was tripped to give the aircraft time to be clear of the target before the bomb detonated.
 
gjs238 said:
How does that work with skip bombing?
Click to expand...

The bombs were equipped with time delayed fuses. Quote from Wikipedia:

They would release a "stick" of two to four bombs, usually 500 lb (230 kg) or 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs equipped with four- to five-second time delay fuses at a distance of 60–300 ft (18–91 m) from the side of the target ship.
Click to expand...

gjs238 said:
Perhaps bombs would have been more productive?
Click to expand...

Probably they would.
 
Last edited:






The Torpedo had a vane on the nose which turned, upon water entry, to measure the water run before it allowed the torpedo to arm. IIRC, it required about 250 yards to arm the torpedo.
 
tyrodtom said:
I know some crews might push the limits on drop height and speed when under fire, but risking the whole crew, then dropping it in a way that it can't work is just a waste.
Click to expand...
To really understand this you have to back up a little and appreciate that a torpedo deployed from the air has to be deployed just so, otherwise it isn't going to be effective. Forget the type of aircraft, that's inconsequential. Look, again, at that picture. A torpedo deployed from 1000', even one deployed from 100', if it hits anything, it's going to be by sheer accident. Let's just take the torpedo-bombers at Midway. What did those have to do to get off an effective shot? They had to come in level, no higher than 25' off the water. They had to come in broadside, and they had to lead their targets.

Now, just think this out. Because, you see, in the absence of any creditable eyewitness testimony on the issue, that's where we're at, that's what this is about. Our torpedo bombers, coming in there, unescorted, encountered an enormous fighter-defense. Throughout all that, they had to maneuver right to where that picture shows, they had to be aligned broadside to their targets, and leading them, and, while carrying that heavy torpedo under their belly.

How many of them do you think got there? None? If that's what you think, I'd have to say, I agree. It could have been different, had that fighter-resistance not been there, or, had it been scrambled too late. We didn't know, and we took a chance. And, so much for the fate of our torpedo bombers at Midway. It was an heroic mission. It was just against too much.
 
I was refering to the torpedos dropped by the B-26s. It sounds like all of them might have been far over the drop speed limits.

But it's easy to criticize now. Those crews had to get down practically wave top height in the middle of a fleet of ships, all of whom was shooting at them with everthing they had. And then there was the Zeros.
 

Sorry VBF couldn't let this go. It's too often stated as fact. The 12 TBDs of VT-5 did have an escort. Thach and 3 other F4F were a bit higher while 2 more were right with them as a close escort. All became involved in a giant fur ball. VT-5 had enough cover to make two runs on a target. The first was reported to be aborted due to the poor angle, while the second attempt was simply over too long a distance for the majority of TBD's to survive. Two returned to the Yorktown and ditched for fuel starvation. In effect, you are correct that all the TBDs were overwhelmed by the strong IJN CAP but according to what I have read, it was a bit more complicated.

If you read George Gay's account and that of some other survivors, he and a few others evidently did get through, suggesting that my 57 Mk 13s in the water is a very large overestimate. The important point here is that the torpedo bomber is, like the dive bomber, a critical guidance component part of the weapon being delivered and the target ship must maneuver as if the torpedo (or bomb) it carries is already dropped or in the water and tracking true.
 
Last edited:
The Wikipedia article on the B-26 mentions torpedo use three times:

Immediately after the entry of the United States into World War II, plans to be send the 38th BG to the South West Pacific, to be equipped with B-26Bs fitted with more auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for carrying aerial torpedos, were tentatively developed.[17] Four of these aircraft were deployed to Midway Island in the build-up to the Battle of Midway, and carried out torpedo attacks against the Japanese Fleet on 4 June 1942. Two B-26s were shot down with the remaining two badly damaged, while their torpedoes failed to hit any Japanese ships, although they did shoot down one A6M Zero fighter, and killed two seamen aboard the aircraft carrier Akagi with machine gun fire.

Two more squadrons of torpedo armed Marauders were used for anti-shipping operations in the Aleutian Islands Campaign, but there are no records of any successful torpedo attack by a USAAF B-26.

No. 14 Squadron flew its first operational mission on 6 November 1942, being used for long range reconnaissance, mine-laying and anti-shipping strikes.[28] Unlike the USAAF, 14 Squadron made productive use of the option for carrying torpedoes, sinking several merchant ships with this weapon. The Marauder also proved useful in disrupting enemy air transport, shooting down considerable numbers of German and Italian transport aircraft flying between Italy and North Africa.

So it seems the Brits had better luck with the B-26 and torpedos than the US.
 
I don't disgrace that easily, Crow. This is good supplemental detail. Quite the contrary, I appreciate it.
 
USN Mk 13 Torpedo drop speeds:

Acording to:
Historic Naval Ships Association - Torpedo Mark 13
and:
Historic Naval Ships Association - Torpedo Mark 13

Drop speeds had been revised upward to 200 knots @200ft from April 1942 for the B-26 and TBF, and possibly the TBD, although it states that best results are obtained at "lower speeds". We know from later testing that drops over 150 knots were very likely to fail.

It is interesting that page 228 states that prior to the B-26 the fastest torpedo bombers in US service made about 130 knots.

Page 3 of this article confirms the above:
http://www.midway42.org/aa-reports/tbf-detach.pdf
 
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

M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
7
Views
683
Frog
F
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
MIflyer
M
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register