swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,168
- Jun 25, 2013
An interesting question. I can see one benefit to two types: easier training, as dive bombing and torpedo attack involve different skills.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
kitplane01 said:
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?
An interesting question. I can see one benefit to two types: easier training, as dive bombing and torpedo attack involve different skills.
Dive vs Torpedo Bomber
The engine technology for a combined carrier operable monoplane TB/DB didn't exist until engines of 1600+ HP became available. Before these engines existed you could have monoplanes that were stressed for DBing, but had insufficient lifting capacity for a torpedo, or you could have monoplanes that had the wing area and lifting capacity to carry a torpedo, but to save weight, they could not be stressed for DBing.
(my bold) Source for the bolded sentence?
The SBD-3 carried 1600 LB bomb on 1000 HP for take off. FAA torpedo weighted 1750 lbs, so perhaps it is too much to ask for a 60% power increase so one can lug extra 10% more.
Granted, the US torpedoes were a lot heavier at 2000+ lbs.
The first 1600HP+ engines didn't enter USN or FAA service until 1942.
The SBD3 had to reduce fuel to 158usg to carry a 1600lb bomb and no SBD variant ever flew a combat mission from a carrier with this weapon, according to the USN's aviation stats.
The SBD-5 was rated for a 95nm combat radius with the 1600lb bomb and 165usg fuel and it had a longer TO run than the -3 despite another 200hp on TO (which suggests that SBD-3 stats were optimistic). To make the SBD, or a similar aircraft, truly combat useful the combat radius would have to be ~200nm and then the fuel and weight requirements dictate a somewhat larger airframe. Additionally, the SBD is a bit of a misleading case because it doesn't have folding wings.
No warship larger than a destroyer had its back broken by an underwater explosion of any sort.
Top of page 77 or the referenced book;The Belfast was bent not broken. Read D K Brown "Nelson to Vanguard" for a detailed description of the damage.
Unfortunately, people were too late to pick up on Fowler flaps for carrier-borne aircraft - that can shave a lot from required power or from required wing area.
It depends on what you are trying to do.
The Avenger had a rather generous split flap, it also had a rather generous wing. However Fowler flaps don't do as much for take-off as they do for landing.
The US wanted to fly-off their planes in quick succession. Not resort to catapults unless absolutely necessary. A minimal flap angle may help, a large flap angle may hurt do to drag.
It also complicates the wing fold. One more linkage or actuator system to deal with.
For the US the 1500-1600 engine was in the works in 1938-39. It may not have gone into service with the Navy until 1942 but the engine existed, it was in small scale production and could have been seen as low risk.
Lets remember that the Curtiss SB2C was in design/development months before the Avenger. It took longer to get it to service status.
Lets also remember that this
You have misunderstood me.
I was asking for a source that confirms without a doubt that one needs at least 1600 HP to make a viable DB+TB in a single airframe.
We (I, you, some other person) can be misleading in our statements; the SBD made no statement, so it can't be misleading? But okay, even if it is 1200 HP for take off it is not quite 1600+ HP for the SBD-5s.
The Aichi Val also didn't have wing fold.
Unfortunately, people were too late to pick up on Fowler flaps for carrier-borne aircraft - that can shave a lot from required power or from required wing area.
The fact that no one made a combined monoplane carrier TB/DB before those engines arrived seems fairly convincing.
I gave the SBD case (case =design history) as a statement. Again, the SBD-5 even with extra power couldn't carry enough fuel with the 1600lb bomb to make a viable carrier operable aircraft and so this is an example that proves that 1200hp wasn't sufficient. The Val wasn't designed to carry a torpedo or a single bomb over 550lb, but in fact, it did have folding wings, albeit only the outer 6 ft of each wing.
Fairey Barracuda - 1300 HP, stressed for dive bombing, carried a torpedo.
My point was that the 1600 HP figure is arbitrary. An aircraft can carry both a hefty load and be stressed for dive bombing, especially if the designer knows how to have proper flaps on it's A/C.
Your addition of combat range kinda moved the goal post.
How about penetrating the armoured top creating fires and explosions in the armoured hanger below?
One thing leads to another.