Dive vs Torpedo Bomber

[kitplane01]

In WWII aircraft carriers carried both dive and torpedo bombers. Why?

I assume (without really knowing) that one was in general better at sinking ships. It seems unlikely that both were of equal effectiveness (what are the odds of that). Was there any synergy to be had from having both types, or attacking with both types?

 

[swampyankee]

In WWII aircraft carriers carried both dive and torpedo bombers. Why?

I assume (without really knowing) that one was in general better at sinking ships. It seems unlikely that both were of equal effectiveness (what are the odds of that). Was there any synergy to be had from having both types, or attacking with both types?

Torpedoes tended to put holes underwater, which was seen as more lethal than above waterline damage. Dive bombing was harder to defend against, but, while it was less likely to sink a well-armored ship, it was capable of sinking lightly armored ones. They were also more effective at attacking targets ashore. Torpedoes were also more complex and likely needed more care during storage.

 

[RCAFson]

In WWII aircraft carriers carried both dive and torpedo bombers. Why?

I assume (without really knowing) that one was in general better at sinking ships. It seems unlikely that both were of equal effectiveness (what are the odds of that). Was there any synergy to be had from having both types, or attacking with both types?

The RN used, in addition to the Skua, the combined torpedo-divebombers; Swordfish, Albacore, Barracuda, and the aircraft weapon load would be adjusted to fit the target. In general destroyers are more vulnerable to bombs than torpedoes, because they were difficult to hit with torpedoes, and even a bomb near miss could sink a destroyer. Cruisers and light carriers were vulnerable to bombs (especially near misses) and torpedoes, while battleships were, in theory, hard to sink with bombs because of their armoured decks, and were also resistant to bomb near misses, due to their layered torpedo protection systems. Consequently, they were the favoured target for torpedo bombers. Fleet carriers could be crippled by bombs, but would only sink from bomb hits due to design flaws.

By late 1944, the USN was pondering the use of the SB2C-4/5 as a combined torpedo-divebomber.

 

[Freebird]

Torpedoes tended to put holes underwater, which was seen as more lethal than above waterline damage. Dive bombing was harder to defend against, but, while it was less likely to sink a well-armored ship, it was capable of sinking lightly armored ones. They were also more effective at attacking targets ashore. Torpedoes were also more complex and likely needed more care during storage.

And torpedoe runs were tougher to set up, the aircraft was limited to about 110 - 120 knots, above that speed torpedoes were likely to fail or foul up

 

[Shortround6]

Things (like AA guns/fire control) were also constantly evolving. Attacking from both high and low complicated the defense and a few bomb hits could severely affect the AA fire against the torpedo bombers. Things in combat did not always follow the pre-war theory and war games (understatement), torpedo bombers were also used as level bombers and often carried a much large bomb load than the equivalent dive bomber. Equivalent meaning about the same year or same power engine.

 

[Capt. Vick]

IIRC There was a pervasive belief in the US Navy that if you wanted to damage a ship, hit it with bombs. If you want to sink it, use torpedoes." This comes from the book "First Team" or similar for what it's worth.

Also, it is probably hard to destroy land targets with a torpedoes.

 

[Shortround6]

Torpedoes are expensive, they are also bulky, how many can you store in the same space?
Torpedoes also require periodic maintenance.
Torpedoes can also run under small ships. Small can mean WW I size destroyers and coastal freighters.
Bombs also work pretty good at flak suppression

 

[MikeMeech]

Torpedoes are expensive, they are also bulky, how many can you store in the same space?
Torpedoes also require periodic maintenance.
Torpedoes can also run under small ships. Small can mean WW I size destroyers and coastal freighters.
Bombs also work pretty good at flak suppression

Hi

There were reasons that the RAF Coastal Command Strike Wings (using Beaufighters) started to use rockets during 1943 (the FAA did as well). They were considered better than bombs for flak suppression, there was also an increasing lack of big ships (over 6000 tons I think) to attack in the German coastal convoys, so torpedoes would be wasted. It became not a choice between bombs or torpedoes but rockets instead of both mainly.

Mike

 

[swampyankee]

IIRC There was a pervasive belief in the US Navy that if you wanted to damage a ship, hit it with bombs. If you want to sink it, use torpedoes." This comes from the book "First Team" or similar for what it's worth.

It's interesting that the USN thought that, yet didn't have a torpedo magazine on the USS Ranger and didn't seem to spend time on developing tactics for dealing with torpedo attacks by enemy destroyers or on ensuring that their torpedoes actually worked.

Also, it is probably hard to destroy land targets with a torpedoes.

Although dams may be a torpedo target...

 

[stona]

Most navies experimented with methods of aerial attack on ships and concluded that the chances of hitting a manoeuvring ship with level bombing, even from the altitudes then used (less than 15,000 feet) were extremely slim.

They pursued two other methods.

Torpedoes were known to sink ships by hitting below the waterline and letting in water. A RNAS aircraft became the first to drop an aerial torpedo in 1914, and the Americans started experimenting in 1918. Aerial torpedoes had limited range, could barely catch the fastest ships, and had to de dropped from very low altitudes (less than 100 feet) and at very low speeds (less than 100 knots). It wasn't difficult to see that this looked a lot like a suicide mission.

The other method developed was dive bombing. Dive bombing seemed to offer solutions to the USN's two main concerns, aircraft survivability and bombing accuracy. It was in fact the Marine Corps which initiated the systematic use of dive bombing as early as 1919. In October 1926 VF-2, flying Curtiss F6C-2 fighters simulated an attack on the Pacific Fleet, which mightily impressed the watching naval brass. (The first operational dive bombing by US aircraft (both the French and British had tried versions during WW1) was in 1927 against Sandino forces surrounding a Marine garrison in Nicaragua, not against ships!)

To cut a long story short, by the 1930s aircraft had won a critical position in naval strategy, but the USN was still not sure how to sink enemy ships from the air. The torpedo bomber appeared to be the most deadly, but also the most vulnerable. The dive bomber was most accurate, less vulnerable, but the least deadly. Level bombers were the least vulnerable but by far the most inaccurate, many did not consider them capable of hitting a ship manoeuvring with sea room.

The level bombers were toothless wonders, though advances in the technology of bombsights seemed to offer some promise. It was the USN that financed the development of Norden's bomb sights, not the USAAC.
Nobody was sure which of the other two would actually sink enemy ships, so they kept both. Eventually, when a real shooting war started, the torpedo bombers did prove very vulnerable, and the dive bombers did struggle to sink, if not hit, ships. If there was a solution, it was the dive bomber.

 

[Dinger]

Also.... Dive bombers are of no use at night or when the cloud level is low. Torpedos are no use if the target is anchored in a very confined harbour or with well-placed torpedo nets.

 

[swampyankee]

Also.... Dive bombers are of no use at night or when the cloud level is low. Torpedos are no use if the target is anchored in a very confined harbour or with well-placed torpedo nets.

Would either Taranto or Pearl Harbor count as "confined harbors?"

 

[Admiral Beez]

In WWII aircraft carriers carried both dive and torpedo bombers. Why?

I assume (without really knowing) that one was in general better at sinking ships. It seems unlikely that both were of equal effectiveness (what are the odds of that). Was there any synergy to be had from having both types, or attacking with both types?

The British were reluctant players in the dedicated dive bomber role, having only had interest in two hybrid types, Skua (fighter-DB) and Barracuda (torpedo-DB). But this makes sense, as the RN wasn't facing large aircraft carriers made of matchsticks with close CAP protection, where dive bombers from HA are in their element. Instead the RN was facing hardened battleships and cruisers that were bereft of air protection - ideal for level torpedo attack. Replace the Swordfish/Albacores that hit Bismarck, Veneto, Littorio, Conte di Cavour, Caio Duilio and (secondary damage) Dunkerque with Skuas I don't think you'd get the same or better results.

 

[RCAFson]

Also.... Dive bombers are of no use at night or when the cloud level is low. Torpedos are no use if the target is anchored in a very confined harbour or with well-placed torpedo nets.

Dive-bombers can be used at night, if the target has natural illumination (moon) or is artificially illuminated via flares. The USMC, tried, unsuccessfully (couldn't locate the targets) to attack the IJN via night dive-bomber attack from Midway. The RN developed torpedoes that could be dropped in shallow waters, specifically to attack ships in harbour. IIRC, the IJN developed a similar mod after gaining details of the Taranto attack.

 

[RCAFson]

The British were reluctant players in the dedicated dive bomber role, having only had interest in two hybrid types, Skua (fighter-DB) and Barracuda (torpedo-DB). But this makes sense, as the RN wasn't facing large aircraft carriers made of matchsticks with close CAP protection, where dive bombers from HA are in their element. Instead the RN was facing hardened battleships and cruisers that were bereft of air protection - ideal for level torpedo attack. Replace the Swordfish/Albacores that hit Bismarck, Veneto, Littorio, Conte di Cavour, Caio Duilio and (secondary damage) Dunkerque with Skuas I don't think you'd get the same or better results.

The Swordfish and Albacore were both torpedo-divebombers, and both were used extensively as dive-bombers.

 

[kitplane01]

Summary:

Dive bombers are more useful attacking land targets
Dive bomber are better at attacking unarmored and small ships
Dive bombers can reach ships in small harbors, and guarded by torpedo netting
Dive bombers are better at disrupting AA gunners
Dive bombers are less likely to get shot down during attacks
Dive bombers use inexpensive bombs, and not expensive torpedos

Torpedo bombers are better at sinking large and armored ships
Torpedo bombers can attack during times of low clouds.

Lesson to be learned: Dive bombers are probably better, but that was not certain in 1941.

(Yes, they both have advantages. But even so, one can say "I'd rather have this than that".)

 

[kitplane01]

I know the british had planes that could both dive and torpedo bombs. Why did the Americans have two separate types? Surely one can put dive flaps on an Avenger, and load bombs in the bomb bay.

Was it just a question of crew training?

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Swordfish and Albacore were both torpedo-divebombers...

I didn't say they weren't DB capable, but that the Brits didn't use dedicated dive bombers like the USN or IJN. Swordfish and Albacore were torpedo-DB, same as the Barracuda I listed above as an example of the type, but I suppose for clarity I should have listed them all. Mind, you don't get much speed or element of surprise diving a Stringbag. If I'm sending a dozen Swordfish against an armoured warship, I want torpedoes not bombs.

 

[RCAFson]

I know the british had planes that could both dive and torpedo bombs. Why did the Americans have two separate types? Surely one can put dive flaps on an Avenger, and load bombs in the bomb bay.

Was it just a question of crew training?

The Avenger wasn't stressed for divebombing and stressing the airframe for divebombing and adding divebrakes would have added considerable weight. OTOH, the SB2C was stressed for divebombing, and when the SC2C-4/5 appeared, along with rapid torpedo carrying conversion kits, then there were calls to ditch the TBF/TBM and use the SB2C-4/5 in both roles.

 

[RCAFson]

I didn't say they weren't DB capable, but that the Brits didn't use dedicated dive bombers like the USN or IJN. Swordfish and Albacore were torpedo-DB, same as the Barracuda I listed above as an example of the type, but I suppose for clarity I should have listed them all. Mind you, you don't get much speed or element of surprise diving a Stringbag. If I'm sending a dozen Swordfish against an armoured warship, I want torpedoes not bombs.

I'm not sure that using a Swordfish in the TB role was safer than using it as a DB against the same target. In any event, the FAA seldom encountered Axis cruisers in range of their carriers, except when Axis capital ships were present. In 1941, several Italian destroyers based in East Africa tried to attack Allied shipping (IIRC) and were promptly sunk by Swordfish dive-bombers, carrying either 2 x 500lb and 2 x 250lb bombs or 6 x 250lb bombs.