Admiral Beez
Major
With limited CAG sizes I can see the benefit of having the dual option with one aircraft type.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With limited CAG sizes I can see the benefit of having the dual option with one aircraft type.I'm not sure that using a Swordfish in the TB role was safer than using it as a DB
With limited CAG sizes I can see the benefit of having the dual option with one aircraft type.
IDK. Had the Nakajima B5N been only torpedo-capable they might not have been caught wrong-footed on deck between torp 2 bomb swaps at Midway.It doesn't really matter how big your CAG is, having a single type that can do both roles is always preferable.
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.
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.
Wrong example on my part. Rephrasing.
Why not put shackels that can also hold a torpedo on a Dauntless, and use that as both a dive/torpedo bomber? The carrier air wing eliminates one aircraft type, which must help the parts supply. The Navy can have one fewer type to train pilots and mechanics. The carrier air wing can do a max effort dive bomb, or a max effort torpedo bomb, or mix it up.
I'm asking is there any advantage to having two types, because having one type does have advantages?
You wrote they were considering it late in the war. Was there a reason not to consider the same issue earlier in the war, or before the war?
My best guess, this was just a mistake (but that happens, especially in decisions made with limited information).
The RAF did not ignore torpedo bombers. The Beaufort (and Botha) were procured for that role.The job of sinking enemy ships was not solely the Royal Navy's, it was a job eagerly embraced by the newly independent Royal Air Force. The large AP and SAP bombs specifically to sink ships were designed and built and almost all bomber specifications of the inter-war years included the ability to lift such ordnance. Interestingly RAF medium bombers were initially supposed to also carry aerial torpedoes, as in Specification P.13/36 which eventually and in a convoluted way resulted in the Lancaster's huge and unobstructed bomb bay. The British wanted a multi-role aircraft (we are always short of money) and the new medium bomber to that specification was intended to form the backbone of the RAF's 'Striking Force', meeting requirements for General Reconnaissance, General Purpose AND Torpedo Bomber classes.
Enemy fleets were not operating in the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean in British pre-war planning. The Western Air Plans all included some version of attacks on German warships and their harbours and these were indeed some of the first targets attempted by the RAF when war broke out.
As far as the RAF was concerned there was an inbuilt doctrinal opposition for anything that looked like close air support for the Army and dive bombing definitely fell under this umbrella. This was best summed up by Liddell-Hart in 1940 when he wrote in his diary that the RAF had "no suitable machines for low flying attack, and the Air Staff object to the idea of air counter-attack against troops moving up".
That left dive-bombing to the Royal Navy. The problem here is that the RN had long considered the best use of naval aviation was to carry torpedoes. What attracted the attention of torpedo advocates was the possibility of the aeroplane's use from the decks of ships. If torpedo aircraft could be carried in this way then attacks on the enemy's capital ships could be carried out with a combination of Fleet attack and air action. The most prominent apostle of this concept was one of the most influential men in the RN, Commander in Chief of the Grand Fleet, Admiral Sir David Beatty. Indeed, in August 1917 he, together with Captain (later Admiral Sir) Herbert Richmond developed a plan for exactly such a mass attack on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven, involving no less than 120 torpedo carrying aircraft, each flight of 40 protected by 5 Sopwith fighters. The plan was nixed by Jellicoe and the Naval Staff, but it was decades ahead of its time, it was the Italians who would suffer a version of it at Taranto in 1940. The torpedo lobby was strong, in October 1918 the RN received its first purpose built torpedo aircraft (the Sopwith Cuckoo) and the first flush-decked aircraft carrier, HMS Argus, entered service in the same month.
This does not mean that the RNAS simply gave up on bombing. Between March and November 1915 No. 3 Wing RNAS in the Dardanelles made more than 70 bombing attacks on enemy warships. The results were not outstanding, though at least one vessel was sunk. There were other successes, in 1917 an RNAS bomber distinguished itself by being the first to launch a successful attack on the German warships Goeben and Breslau in the Mediterranean, both were damaged. Damaged is the key word. There was a general perception in the RN that in the case of larger vessels, torpedoes sank them, bombs damaged them, and the RN wanted to sink them.
Again, to cut a long story short, after 1918 the employment of torpedo aircraft was left entirely in the carrier fleet and it was in relation to fleet requirements that the torpedo operations subsequently developed. It was no longer seen as a truly offensive weapon (as in the Dardanelles or Beatty's ambitious plan) but as a means of assisting the main fleet. Any offensive operations would be undertaken by the main bomber force and that meant the RAF, not the RN. It was the RAF who would bomb the enemy's dockyards and heavy industry which supplied and sustained the German Navy. This was the essence of the RAF's offensive doctrine. There was no place in the RAF for torpedo aircraft, and little place in the RN for bombers.
Finally, there was the issue of who controlled the development and supply of aircraft. While the Air Ministry did concede that there was a place for torpedo aircraft within Fleet action, it had no interest in their development. As the RAF was responsible for providing aircraft to the Navy fleet requirements were never fully satisfied. The tensions between the two services are beyond the scope of this reply. Lessons learnt by the RNAS were forgotten by the RAF and only re-learned at considerable cost by the FAA and Coastal Command. As if this were not bad enough, the parlous state of British maritime aviation when WW2 started was a reflection of its neglect.
Hampden too.The RAF did not ignore torpedo bombers. The Beaufort (and Botha) were procured for that role.
How about throwing skip bombing into this discussion. High speed delivery, highly accurate, effective.
Also, it seems all of these techniques disappeared with jet aircraft.
Also, I would think defending against dive bombing would not be too difficult since there is no angular displacement. Just make a box of continuous AAA explosion at 5k and let the aircraft fly through it.
No - I would not class either Taranto or Pearl Harbour as confined - They are both bloomin' huge!!! I'm talking about a harbour like Kaafyord where the Tirpitz was moored. Hence the Operation Goodwood attacks by Barracuda having to be done by dive-bombing rather than Torpedo attack.Would either Taranto or Pearl Harbor count as "confined harbors?"
Hmm... this got me thinking of Dambusters with torpedoes. How many torpedoes could a Lancaster carry? I bet you could fit four fish in that long bomb bay.How about throwing skip bombing into this discussion. High speed delivery, highly accurate, effective.
The RAF did not ignore torpedo bombers. The Beaufort (and Botha) were procured for that role.
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.
[
No - I would not class either Taranto or Pearl Harbour as confined - They are both bloomin' huge!!! I'm talking about a harbour like Kaafyord where the Tirpitz was moored. Hence the Operation Goodwood attacks by Barracuda having to be done by dive-bombing rather than Torpedo attack.
I've been there as well. For a 1940s era aircraft it would have presented few problems - Especially with the big, flat, Ford Island in the middle of it. - Likewise been to Taranto - You wouldn't even class that as a harbour in the geographic sense at all, at least not where the Italian fleet was anchored - Just a big bay open to the Med. Gotta wonder in both cases why more extensive anti-torpedo nets were not in place. The Germans had only had possession of Trondheim for a few months but they still managed to put anti-torpedo nets in place to protect Scharnhorst and Hipper by June 1940. Also been to the Tirpitz museum at Kaafjord - Now that's a confined anchorage.Ive been lucky to visit Hawaii several times, everytime the plane approaches Honolulu I'm amazed at how small Pearl looks from the air.
How many torpedoes could a Lancaster carry? I bet you could fit four fish in that long bomb bay.
An old veteran once told me that he carried a knife/bayonet, a pistol and a rifle when he was in Korea because each had a specific job though their jobs did overlap, none of them could replace the other 2, they were complimentary. I tend to look at carrier based dive and torpedo bombers in the same way.