Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,745
- 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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
USN evaluation of Torpedoes vs direct hits vs near missesThe 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.
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.......This site, Pearl Harbor Douglas SBD Dauntless Scout / Dive Bomber shows the nominal attack profile of an SBD; doing a little math gives a speed of 300 mph during the pullout. The SBD was stressed for at least 7 g; nominally, this would permit about 400 mph. See also How fast do dive bombers dive?
Note that there is another limit, never-exceed speed, Vne, which can be set by flutter or other constraints, not g limits.
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.......
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.USN recommendations for size and types of bombs to be used against various classes of enemy ships
View attachment 579119View attachment 579118
The Ju 87 was certified to carry out dives up to 'stress group 5' which required a maximum safe diving speed of 600 Km/h (about 373mph). The dive brakes were required to slow the aircraft down to give the pilot time to properly aim at his target and to reduce the forces during the pull out.
I have no idea what the maximum safe dive speeds were for Allied types, but I doubt they were anything like that.
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.
The FAA used the Avenger exclusively as a bomberThe US Navy often used the Avenger as a bomber; President Bush was shot down on a glide-bombing mission.
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.
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 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.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
USN evaluation of Torpedoes vs direct hits vs near misses
View attachment 579114
View attachment 579115
They seem to have under estimated the size (and effectiveness) of warheads on Japanese torpedoes.
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
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.
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.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 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.