buffnut453
Captain
Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.
- Thread starter davebender
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not sure if it is so important whether we know how many sorties it took for dive bombers to sink a destroyer or any other type of ship - do we have a corresponding figure for torpedo bombers or any other anti shipping aircraft type?
Luftwaffe dive bombers were most likely the most effective anti shipping weapon in the first half of WW2 - they were the single most effective method for sinking RN destroyers throughout the war.
Shortround6
Major General
Sort of. There are records for number of torpedoes dropped and claimed hits. One hit does not equal one ship sunk but the records for bombs dropped may be harder to come by.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
That's an interesting assertion, I'm not sure I'd agree with that for a bunch of different reasons. IJN and USN aircraft were certainly competitive, they were much more focused on carriers and troop transports rather than destroyers, cargo ships and other smaller craft, but they certainly sunk quite a few. This would apply to IJN dive bombers and torpedo bombers (including the bigger land-based types), and US dive bombers (basically Dauntless for the first half of the war, Vindicator and Vengeance playing bit parts by comparison).
The Italian torpedo bombers were also fairly deadly I'd say. The venerable Swordfish sure caused some carnage at Taranto, and Wellingtons I think sunk a fair number of ships in the Med. Not sure about the Russians up in the Baltic I've never seen stats on that.
The Stuka was certainly an accurate bomber, but was limited by it's effective range, especially considering it was land based. Especially the earlier B etc. but including the R, didn't have such a great range.
I'd say from the numbers I've seen (including in the early pages of this thread) the most accurate dive bombing units of the first half of the war were actually in the IJN. The hit rate against Dorsetshire and Cornwall was absolutely phenomenal. Stukas were more often up against supply convoys which were arguably rather poorly protected, though they certainly wrought havoc against them.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
The Beaufort was sent to North Africa to be the principal land based torpedo bomber and did sterling service but at an horrific loss rate. The change to Wellingtons was, in part, prompted by this loss rate.
Shortround6
Major General
Not exactly the same thing.
And we have to be careful about the conclusions drawn. The destroyers were often thrown into situations where they were considered expendable and were often constrained by location. 7 or so sunk (by bombs alone) at Dunkirk or the French evacuations. Nine off Crete. This is before 1942. RN Destroyers had very poor AA armament at this point in time and at Crete they often were running out of ammo, the cruisers sure were.
Dunkirk proper saw RN 39 DDs engaged with 6 sunk and 19 damaged, What we don't know is how many bombs dropped. There was one old destroyer bombed in the River Scheldt on May 15th and the HMS Wessex bombed on May 24th off Calais. Not sure if that is counted. One Destroyer may have been hit by an E-Boat.
French also suffered losses. Germans scored a lot of hits and near misses but out of the number of bombs dropped?
Effectiveness against the destroyers needs a bit of interpretation. For the Germans it was often the only method they could use. It was certainly the most common so it stands to reason they got the most results. German surface ships didn't fight it out with RN Destroyers very often. U-boats generally tried to avoid them. They were the 2nd biggest cause of losses.
Mines were 3rd.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I'm not sure what the point is of focusing so much on the relatively weak AAA in the early war. This was pretty much a universal problem with most Navy's in the fist two or three years. The Japanese had limited AA in their early war ships, the Italians did, the Germans, and even the US (especially in comparison to later) did. Who had bristling flak ships in 1940? Everyone had at least to some extent underestimated the threat of air attack, everyone added more and better AAA as the war progressed.
Fairly simple aircraft like the Stuka, He 111, SM. 79, D3A, Swordfish, and SBD which wrought so much of the havoc in the early war were operating in an environment where air defense for ships was fairly limited, and fighter defense was as well (except for those facing the Japanese). That was just the reality across the board in the 1939-1942 era. Yes there were much better designs on the drawing boards or even in production, but that is also kind of a continuous factor during the war IMO.
The Germans didn't just use Ju 87s either, they sunk a fair number of ships with He 111, Ju 88, and even FW 200s and He 115s using torpedos or bombs in the early war. I think maybe Do 17 as well but I'm not certain...
What makes the Ju 87 particularly impressive was that it hit the destroyers, and other small ships, which is tricky in a dive bombing attack. Definitely not impossible, but tricky. And they clearly hit a lot of them.
Fairly simple aircraft like the Stuka, He 111, SM. 79, D3A, Swordfish, and SBD which wrought so much of the havoc in the early war were operating in an environment where air defense for ships was fairly limited, and fighter defense was as well (except for those facing the Japanese). That was just the reality across the board in the 1939-1942 era. Yes there were much better designs on the drawing boards or even in production, but that is also kind of a continuous factor during the war IMO.
The Germans didn't just use Ju 87s either, they sunk a fair number of ships with He 111, Ju 88, and even FW 200s and He 115s using torpedos or bombs in the early war. I think maybe Do 17 as well but I'm not certain...
What makes the Ju 87 particularly impressive was that it hit the destroyers, and other small ships, which is tricky in a dive bombing attack. Definitely not impossible, but tricky. And they clearly hit a lot of them.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Yeah I had read that, I gather the Beaufort did a bit better in the Pacific partly due to improved tactics (like suppressing flak with strafers in coordination with torpedo runs)
Shortround6
Major General
Kind of the point.
The problem was not quite as universal as you think, at least in perspective or fleet thinking.
The US had lots of bristling flak ships in 1939 and many more on the way.
It turns out that what they thought would work didn't, at least until 1943.
The US Farragut class.
Of 1934-45 was just about as naked as any other Destroyer of the 1930s ( exceptions later) when it came to light AA. Four water cooled .50 cal guns were hardly sufficient even in 1935. However the big difference between the US Destroyers of the time (forget the 4 stackers) was that their 5in guns were dual purpose and true dual purpose, not dual purpose in name only. The Guns would elevate to 85 degrees, there were fuse setters on the mounts, there was a dual purpose gun director on top of the bridge. These mounts were not as good as the later mounts but compared to the British 4.7in guns of the time?????
At least the US destroyers could fire something into the air more the .50 cal guns.
The Germans never put DP guns on their destroyers.
If the French did it was only the very last ships built if any of them were completed as designed.
Italian destroyers never got true dual purpose guns, they could elevate to 40-45 degrees but they fired slowly (about 1/2 as fast as the Farraguts and they were slow compared to late US destroyers).
The Japanese were the only other navy to actual fit DP guns to their destroyers. That is guns that could elevate over 45 degrees. We can argue over rates of fire and rates of train and elevation but if your main destroyer guns won't elevate past 45 degrees and you have no real provision for AA fire control (high angle director, not low angle director making guesses)
then you are pretty much depending on maneuver and an handful (and a small hand full at that) of 12.7-13.2mm machine guns.
I would also note that the US had a tiny sliver of an advantage with the AA machine guns in that the .50 was water cooled and belt fed. The French, Italian and Japanese 13.2mm machine guns were air cooled and fed from 30 round magazines.
The US was also waiting for the 1.1 in gun to make it's long awaited appearance
The Germans may have had the best light AA. They had their 37mm semi-automatic guns and they had the old 20mm AA guns that fired under 300rpm.
British pulled a set of torpedo tubes off their ships and mounted an old 3in or 4in gun without any director to at least fire something upward. A few major shell bursts helped the crew think they were at least fighting back.
The US had deliberately sacrificed anti-ship capability with the 5in/38 for AA capability. Of course the long range anti-ship capability that other Navies were obsessed with was largely an illusion. Destroyers (especially before radar) didn't have the ability to spot the fall of shot, good enough range finders or steady enough platforms (less rock and pitch) to effectively fire at long range.
The French and German big destroyers with their 5.5 and 5.9 in guns were really backed into a corner when it came to AA.
So yes, there was a slow trickle of light AA guns sprinkled lightly over the ships of many fleets for several years. But the AA situation of even early/mid 1942 was not the situation of 1940.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Very nice and interesting, though I think you are leaving a couple things out, for example
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Type 96 25 mm AT/AA gun - Wikipedia
10 cm/65 Type 98 naval gun - Wikipedia
QF 2-pounder naval gun - Wikipedia
37 mm gun M1 - Wikipedia
Shortround6
Major General
As built the Japanese destroyers didn't see a 25mm gun until the Asashio class of 1936-37 (launch dates). There were four classed before them, with two 13mm guns each as built.Type 96 25 mm AT/AA gun - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Many of them got more light AA later, some times a lot more, but in 1939/40???? The Japanese Destroyers that got the 25mm guns as built had a twin mount just forward of the 2nd funnel, one on each side.
First showed up on a ship in June of 1942. And that ship had six 25mm guns10 cm/65 Type 98 naval gun - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The 2pdr quad didn't show up until the Tribal's. The Majority of the interwar British destroyers had either the pair of .5 in quads or single hand worked 2pdr pom-poms of about WW I vintage. (had the low veleocity ammo). I don't know if any of them had the 2pdrs replaced by .5in quads.QF 2-pounder naval gun - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't think any of the those showed up on Destroyers, unless some enterprising crew swiped one during Torch?37 mm gun M1 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Tribal class wasn't exactly a late war design. Nor was Asashio.
Anyway, they did have some intermediate guns, but not enough early on, and everyone, including the Americans, added more as the war went on. None of them really worked fantastically well until (and unless) they got the proximity fuses.
What do you mean by "in the early war"?
Until late 1941 the only Luftwaffe torpedo bomber was the He 115 seaplane which was in limited service (132 built for the Luftwaffe). It spent most of its time minelaying of the east coast of Britain. The Luftwaffe torpedo school was expanded and moved to Grosseto in Italy in Oct 1941. It was Jan 1942 before the He 111 equipped KG 26 began to convert to the torpedo role. It was May 1942 before a reorganised III./KG 26 became the first Gruppe to use the Ju 88 in the torpedo role.
The Fw 200 only used bombs and was only available in very limited numbers (March 1941 there were only 29 available for operations over the Atlantic), although it proved very successful sinking 85 ships between Aug 1940 & Feb 1941. By mid-1941 the CAM ships began to appear and the the first escort carrier Audacity became operational in Sept which began to limit the Condor's activities.
The Regia Aeronautica only formed its first torpedo bomber unit in July 1940 with the SM.79.
The Wellington began to be used in the Med as a torpedo bomber due to a lack of available Beauforts for the theatre.
By late 1941 there were only 4 squadrons of Beauforts in Britain. Plans to form another 2 squadrons in late 1941 had to be shelved due to lack of aircraft despite the delivery of about 400-450 aircraft by that point. Losses at home had been heavy in 1941.
In the Med the Beaufort only began to appear in Aug 1941 when 39 squadron began to replace its Marylands, a process that was not complete until Jan 1942. In Nov 1941 there were only 12 Beauforts in the Middle East. But it was not able to begin TB operations until Jan 1942 as the racks for the torpedo were sent by sea to arrive later than the aircraft. It was 1942 & 1943 that were the big years for Beaufort operations in the Med, especially after mid-1942. That was when the losses really began to rack up.
It was against the background of a virtual absence of torpedo bombers in the Middle East that a decision was taken to convert 38 squadron's Wellingtons to the torpedo bomber role after trials in Dec 1941. It began TB operations in March 1942.
Between June 1940 and the end of 1941 British torpedo dropping in the Med was in the hands of the FAA Swordfish and Albacores.
Against ships with tachometric directors and true dual purpose guns, the Stuka was little more than an aerial target.
Fortunately for the Luftwaffe, the RN didn't have either on its Destroyers.
The performance of the Mk37 and Mk30 5" mount as fitted by the USN to some old RN Cruisers they refitted was so much better than anything the RN had in service, the RN placed an order for 142 ships sets to switch it to the RN's standard Destroyer armament, but Pearl Harbor got in the way and it was off the Lend Lease table.
But why no Tachymetric directors on RN Destroyers?
Lessons not learned.
The RAF didn't have dive bombers or torpedo bombers, it's approved method of attacking ships was using medium bombers dropping bombs from altitude. An against such targets, firing box barrages using a 2 axis director was seen as perfectly adequate, they obligingly flew in on a constant bearing and altitude. But dive bombers moved in 3 axes at once. TTP's could minimise the risk of dive bombers to ships, but it needed a cool nerve, sea room, and speed. Against fast moving ships with sea roam, the Stuka was fairly useless, most of its successes was against ships either in or around harbours or tied up alongside.
Even against slow targets at sea, they weren't all that good, see the effort to sink HMS Terror, a slow lumbering Monitor.
Best Destroyers any of the assorted assorted combatants entered the war with for fighting off air attacks? The USN's Fletcher Class proved to be magnificent ships, by 1942, they started acquiring l20mm and 40mm guns too making them formidable adversaries for aircraft.
Fortunately for the Luftwaffe, the RN didn't have either on its Destroyers.
The performance of the Mk37 and Mk30 5" mount as fitted by the USN to some old RN Cruisers they refitted was so much better than anything the RN had in service, the RN placed an order for 142 ships sets to switch it to the RN's standard Destroyer armament, but Pearl Harbor got in the way and it was off the Lend Lease table.
But why no Tachymetric directors on RN Destroyers?
Lessons not learned.
The RAF didn't have dive bombers or torpedo bombers, it's approved method of attacking ships was using medium bombers dropping bombs from altitude. An against such targets, firing box barrages using a 2 axis director was seen as perfectly adequate, they obligingly flew in on a constant bearing and altitude. But dive bombers moved in 3 axes at once. TTP's could minimise the risk of dive bombers to ships, but it needed a cool nerve, sea room, and speed. Against fast moving ships with sea roam, the Stuka was fairly useless, most of its successes was against ships either in or around harbours or tied up alongside.
Even against slow targets at sea, they weren't all that good, see the effort to sink HMS Terror, a slow lumbering Monitor.
Best Destroyers any of the assorted assorted combatants entered the war with for fighting off air attacks? The USN's Fletcher Class proved to be magnificent ships, by 1942, they started acquiring l20mm and 40mm guns too making them formidable adversaries for aircraft.
Britain placed large orders for the Swiss 20mm Oerlikon in 1939 after negotiations to have Oerlikon improve the original 1934 weapon. Very few (c100) were delivered by the unexpected fall of France in June 1940. Britain also obtained a licence to produce the 20mm Oerlikon in 1939. But it was late 1941 before various difficulties were overcome and British manufactured Oerlikons began to appear in significant numbers.
The USN had also rejected the 1934 Oerlikon. It decided in late 1940 to produce the modified version. This decision was very much influenced by the RN war experience to that point. The first came off the production line in June 1941 and by the end of the year production totalled 379.
As for the 40mm Bofors, Britain placed its first orders in 1937. It also acquired a licence to manufacture them. But modifications had to be made for mass production and initial production of the air-cooled type went to the Army. The RN received a handful in late 1941 (PoW received one). The water-cooled version was fitted to the stabilised Hazemeyer mounting which entered RN service in late 1942 in destroyers and sloops.
US interest in the Bofors existed pre-war but is was early 1940 before a sample was obtained and June 1941 before a licence was obtained. Many changes were then required before it could enter production. The first water cooled twin Mk.2 mount was produced in Jan 1942 and the first quad in April. The first fitting of a twin on a destroyer was in July 1942.
Someone noted above that RN ships sacrificed a set of torpedo tubes to gain more AA. No one mentioned the USN position regarding its pre-war destroyers, only the big Fletchers.
Setting aside the old four stackers, pre-war USN destroyers were designed to fairly tight limits to get those 5x5"/38 DP guns, big directors and many torpedoes. That only allowed them to carry the 4x0.5" weapons as light AA (6 in the initial Bensons). Only the larger 1,850 ton "Leaders" of the Porter and Somers classes, which only had single purpose main armament, got the quad 1.1". Using the early war RN experience, by early 1941 they realised that to get a more effective light AA armament there would have to be sacrifices. So the weight reductions began. First to go was No.3 5"/38. Ships with 4 sets of TT saw them reduced to 3. Ships with 2 sets of TT saw them reduced to 1 in some cases. This allowed the fitting of Oerlikons and then twin Bofors. But it didn't happen overnight. Come the kamikaze crisis in late 1944 / early 1945 more light AA was required and more sacrifices had to be made. That included removal of all the TT in some classes, to gain more twin Bofors and a reduced number of twin 20mm mounts.
By way of example USS Eberle DD430
As built in 1940
1943 - gone are the searchlight platform and No.3 5"/38. Added 2 twin Bofors and 4 single 20mm. Plus radars of course
1945 - gone are the TT. AA armament is now 2 quad & 2 twin Bofors plus 2 twin 20mm. Lighter Mk.28 radar on the director. Even then she was considered weight critical.
The USN had also rejected the 1934 Oerlikon. It decided in late 1940 to produce the modified version. This decision was very much influenced by the RN war experience to that point. The first came off the production line in June 1941 and by the end of the year production totalled 379.
As for the 40mm Bofors, Britain placed its first orders in 1937. It also acquired a licence to manufacture them. But modifications had to be made for mass production and initial production of the air-cooled type went to the Army. The RN received a handful in late 1941 (PoW received one). The water-cooled version was fitted to the stabilised Hazemeyer mounting which entered RN service in late 1942 in destroyers and sloops.
US interest in the Bofors existed pre-war but is was early 1940 before a sample was obtained and June 1941 before a licence was obtained. Many changes were then required before it could enter production. The first water cooled twin Mk.2 mount was produced in Jan 1942 and the first quad in April. The first fitting of a twin on a destroyer was in July 1942.
Someone noted above that RN ships sacrificed a set of torpedo tubes to gain more AA. No one mentioned the USN position regarding its pre-war destroyers, only the big Fletchers.
Setting aside the old four stackers, pre-war USN destroyers were designed to fairly tight limits to get those 5x5"/38 DP guns, big directors and many torpedoes. That only allowed them to carry the 4x0.5" weapons as light AA (6 in the initial Bensons). Only the larger 1,850 ton "Leaders" of the Porter and Somers classes, which only had single purpose main armament, got the quad 1.1". Using the early war RN experience, by early 1941 they realised that to get a more effective light AA armament there would have to be sacrifices. So the weight reductions began. First to go was No.3 5"/38. Ships with 4 sets of TT saw them reduced to 3. Ships with 2 sets of TT saw them reduced to 1 in some cases. This allowed the fitting of Oerlikons and then twin Bofors. But it didn't happen overnight. Come the kamikaze crisis in late 1944 / early 1945 more light AA was required and more sacrifices had to be made. That included removal of all the TT in some classes, to gain more twin Bofors and a reduced number of twin 20mm mounts.
By way of example USS Eberle DD430
As built in 1940
1943 - gone are the searchlight platform and No.3 5"/38. Added 2 twin Bofors and 4 single 20mm. Plus radars of course
1945 - gone are the TT. AA armament is now 2 quad & 2 twin Bofors plus 2 twin 20mm. Lighter Mk.28 radar on the director. Even then she was considered weight critical.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Shortround6 was talking about the 'first half' of the war, I meant basically through the end of 1942
I didn't mean that each aircraft in the list used both bombs and torpedoes, rather that they used either bombs or torpedoes. He 111, Ju 88, and He 115 sunk some allies ships with torpedoes (and also bombs), as did the SM.79, Fw 200 and Ju 87 with bombs, maybe Do 17 with bombs as well I didn't check. Other planes like Do 217 start getting some hits later on using guided weapons.
I was just mainly referring to early war and for the most part fairly unsophisticated weapons (including former airliners) being used quite successfully in part because of the relative dearth of heavy AA in the 'early war' though this was starting to change in 1942.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
The British also converted a squadron of B-26 Marauders to use (British) torpedoes, as I learned recently. They were the only B-26 unit in the Med to use them, apparently with some success.
Stukas accounted for one cruiser and four destroyers sunk off Crete. One cruiser was sunk by ME-109's in the fighter bomber role (HMS Fiji).
HMS Juno was sunk by bombs from a Cant Z.1007 with Imperial damaged beyond repair a week later.
Two of the ships sunk had already run out of AA ammunition.
Others were not so easy to hit with HMS Kipling dodging a recorded 83 bombs.
Dunkirk - 39 destroyers used with nine sunk, five of which were from air attack.
HMS Juno was sunk by bombs from a Cant Z.1007 with Imperial damaged beyond repair a week later.
Two of the ships sunk had already run out of AA ammunition.
Others were not so easy to hit with HMS Kipling dodging a recorded 83 bombs.
Dunkirk - 39 destroyers used with nine sunk, five of which were from air attack.
