Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,708
- Dec 6, 2006
USN evaluation of Torpedoes vs direct hits vs near misses
They seem to have under estimated the size (and effectiveness) of warheads on Japanese torpedoes.
Dive vs Torpedo Bomber
- Thread starter kitplane01
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They seem to have under estimated the size (and effectiveness) of warheads on Japanese torpedoes.
Admiral Beez
Major
The lack of speed is a reason I'm not putting the Albacore or Swordfish into the dive bomber category. Yes, they can point their nose down and drop a bomb, but they don't have that element of high speed surprise. Swap out the Dauntless at Midway with "dive bomber" Swordfish.......
Their speed in a DB attack wasn't that much different than an SBD-3:
"SBD's dived at about 240 kts usually at 70 degrees. I got to know Dick Best well, and his discussions were clinically precise. He said "I liked to dive from the bow because it forced me to get steep." However, comma, he pinwheeled Akagi from broad on the port beam. "
How fast do dive bombers dive?
VNE for an Albacore was 215 knots IAS, and diving speed would have been ~200 knots at bomb release.
In Wings of the Navy, Brown states that a Swordfish could achieve 200 knots in a dive (VNE = 205 knots IAS) and he states that he dived an SBD-5, with DBs extended, from 15000ft to 1500ft and only increased speed to 240knots.
Last edited:
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,708
- Dec 6, 2006
USN recommendations for size and types of bombs to be used against various classes of enemy ships
In post war trials HMS Nelson was partially expended as a divebombing target. Barracuda IIIs dropped 2000lb AP bombs onto Nelson and it was shown that the bombs had to be dropped above 5000ft in order to pierce her 6.25in armoured deck. Actual drop heights were 6500ft, 55deg release at 280knots.
Last edited:
Barracuda design limit was 425 IAS but this speed could not be reached in practice due to stick forces being too strong above 360 IAS, and even with full trim the aircraft couldn't be held in a dive above that speed.
Design limit of 9g is noted as well.
The US Navy often used the Avenger as a bomber; President Bush was shot down on a glide-bombing mission.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,708
- Dec 6, 2006
The FAA used the Avenger exclusively as a bomber
GregP
Major
Maybe the guys with hangovers did level / glide / skip bombing and the guys without hangovers did dive bombing. The C.O. would see who came in moving VERY slowly and assign them accordingly. The guys with the worst-looking hangovers got to be LSOs and mission planners.
Barrett
Senior Airman
Thank you Reluctant! Sharing widely. BTW, the RN only used Avengers as bombers because the FAA torpedo did not fit the bay/shackles/whatever.
The US torpedo bombs also had a level bomber roll, the Avenger for instance could carry 4 bombs in an internal bomb bay. This and the 3 man crew also made them suitable for long range patrols, carrying depth charges and so forth. Criticism of the Devastator as inadequate and too slow always strike me as a bit ill informed as torpedo release limits in speed and height limited how fast a Torpedo bomber could attack especially with early torpedoes. There wasn't much point being much faster than a Swordfish till torpedoes had improved.
Having a torpedo bomber perform the roll of dive bomber would tend to compromise it. The Germans were planning to use the impressive Fieseler Fi 167 biplane as a torpedo bomber on the Graf Zeppelin but in the end decided to modify the Ju 87C instead. Ive never seen a photo of a Ju 87 carrying a torpedo and it seems that the Luftwaffe didnt think they were neccesary after about 1942
Having a torpedo bomber perform the roll of dive bomber would tend to compromise it. The Germans were planning to use the impressive Fieseler Fi 167 biplane as a torpedo bomber on the Graf Zeppelin but in the end decided to modify the Ju 87C instead. Ive never seen a photo of a Ju 87 carrying a torpedo and it seems that the Luftwaffe didnt think they were neccesary after about 1942
Last edited:
The TBF/TBM airframe had a habit of coming apart if dived too steeply.
Shortround6
Major General
The Devastator went into squadron service about 2 1/2 years before the Albacore, and only a little over a year after the Swordfish.
there was no MK II and it was out of production almost 3 years before Midway.
There were torpedo trials with the Ju 87 C, but there was no suitable weapon at the time, whether German built or purchased from the Italians. Goering was also worried about losing control of carrier aircraft to the KM and was indifferent to the scheme. In the end the Ju 87 C was restricted to a bombing role. I've never seen a photograph of it with a torpedo, but later there were more comprehensive efforts to mount a torpedo.
This is a photograph of Ju 87 D-4 (W.Nr. 2292) complete with practice torpedo at Travemunde. No date but Udet was dead in November 1941 and I'm pretty sure he is in that group of RLM officials.
Later there were plans for a Ju 87 D-1 (torp) and a Ju 87 E, both of which would be capable of carrying a torpedo. This is a photograph of the underside of Ju 87 V25 showing the centre line mounting for a torpedo. The aircraft transferred to Travemunde in December 1942 and served as the prototype for the two versions already mentioned.
There were certainly plans to produce a torpedo bomber version of the Ju 87, but in the end they came to nothing.
The Ju 87 was a good anti-shipping aircraft with bombs, claiming more than 200,000 tons of warship (from all nations). It damaged three RN carriers (Illustrious, Formidable and Indomitable) but it couldn't sink any of them.
Last edited:
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 768
- May 1, 2016
Thanks for sharing. Good example of Operational Research. Am I reading the Class B New Battleship table correctly when it shows a 1 in 4 chance of sinking a modern battleship with one 1000# hit? That seems optimistic
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,708
- Dec 6, 2006
Agreed. Note that it would have to be dropped from 20,000 feet in order to penetrate, which is difficult in harbor and virtually possible on a maneuvering battleship. As I noted in another post BuOrd was extremely disappointed in the real life performance of the AP bombs.
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 768
- May 1, 2016
During WW2, there weren't that many BBs sunk purely by air attack.
Prince of Wales- 2 torpedoes
Repulse- 3 bombs, multiple torpedoes
Roma - 2 FritzX
Musashi and Yamato- off the charts in the number of hits to sink
Arizona- 4 hits, and one of the 4 was the fatal hit to the magazine, so she fits the 1 in 4 chance of sinking by bomb.
Tirpitz- how do you begin to compare a Tall Boy to the chart?
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,708
- Dec 6, 2006
The std FAA torpedo was about 3 feet longer than the Mk 13. The FAA did not want to use the Mk 13 likely because of its exceptionally poor performance until very late in the war.
The main non-US platform for the Mk.13 torpedo was probably the Beaufighter X? Perhaps the Australian members (
MiTasol
) can shed the light on the Aussie use of the US torpedo by their Beuforts and Beaufighters.In the meantime, the data sheet for the Beau X showing both British and US torpedo as possible payload (kindly provided by Neil Stirling):
