Fatboy Coxy
Airman 1st Class
- 127
- Aug 24, 2019
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nobody had much success trying to bomb ships from a decent altitude. Virtually everyone, British, Americans, Italians, Germans, Japanese, all tried it and all failed, so creating the need to go in low.Regarding the training of aircrew for making torpedo attacks, though it might take longer to train than level bombing, I can't imagine it takes any longer than skip bombing, which requires low altitude flying, and a vital judgement of bomb release. The reason I mention this is because there was an outbreak of skip bombing in the South West Pacific in 1942, quite successful, but I ask the question why?. Was it because aerial launched torpedoes were in such short supply, or some other reason?
Without further research it is hard to say what the problems may have been.Regarding the training of aircrew for making torpedo attacks, though it might take longer to train than level bombing, I can't imagine it takes any longer than skip bombing, which requires low altitude flying, and a vital judgement of bomb release. The reason I mention this is because there was an outbreak of skip bombing in the South West Pacific in 1942, quite successful, but I ask the question why?. Was it because aerial launched torpedoes were in such short supply, or some other reason?
I have mentioned on another thread that my father in law, crew chief (top gunner) on B-17s, told of the development of skip bombing. Since he has passed away I can't ask for more details or names, however he describes those who practiced skip bombing had two horizontal white lines painted on pilot's wind shield, one for different weight bombs. When at the proper airspeed, and the correct white line met the ship's waterline, the bomb was released. Several of the B-17 crews used the approach. My father in law went to Australia with the 19thBG.Nobody had much success trying to bomb ships from a decent altitude. Virtually everyone, British, Americans, Italians, Germans, Japanese, all tried it and all failed, so creating the need to go in low.
Valor: Skip-Bombing Pioneer | Air & Space Forces Magazine
In the fall of 1942, a better way of sinking Japanese ships had to be found. Ken McCullar was one of the first to master the new tactic.www.airforcemag.com
What everyone calls "skip bombing" needs clarification. There was genuine "skip bombing" where the bombs are deliberately pitched short of the target ship with the intention of "skipping" them off the water and into the ship. Problem is that bombs had a habit of bouncing right over the target! And there is "masthead bombing" (or slightly higher) where the intention is to place the bombs directly into the ship (i.e. no skip on the water first). Both methods were practiced in WW2 particularly in the Med and the Pacific. But I do question exactly how often it was true "skip bombing" that was used. In the Pacific by 1944 / 1945 all the photographic evidence points to it being the latter method that was being used by both the USN and USAAF units like the Air Apaches, the 345th BG. Fw 200 Condors were bombing from masthead height.
There were times when torpedo aircraft as well as torpedoes were in short supply. In the SWPA & Solomos in late 1942 / early 1943 it was only USN Avengers and B-26A from the 22nd BG that had torpedo capabilities. But the ground clearance for a B-26A carrying a torpedo was minimal (4"!). Awkward when operating from rough strips. And then there is the question about the unreliabilty of US Mark 13 torpedoes in this period. And let's not forget the few RAAF Beauforts that began to appear from Sept 1942 starting with 100 squadron.
In Europe the RAF moved from trying to bomb ships from masthead heights or torpedo them, either singly or in groups, to the Strike Wing concept from mid-1943. Then the object was for Beaufighters to target the escort with cannon & later rockets while the Torbeaus went in under that cover to sink the merchantmen. For more look at the operations of the North Coates wing initially and then in 1944/45 that Wing plus the Banff and Dallachy Wings operating off the Norwegian coast with Beaufighters and Mosquitos.
They had several, actually.The link to the Soviet use of the Douglas Boston was most interesting, I didn't know the Soviets even used torpedo bombers!.
Minor correction on USAAF use of torpedoes. The 22nd BG was equipped with B-26s and later a few B-26Bs. Though equipped to carry torpedoes, and though some training was conducted in Australia, and a little in the US before deployment, the only use of torpedoes was at Midway, when a pair of 408th BS B-26s and a pair of 69th BS B-26Bs attacked the Japanese fleet. The 69th and 70th BS, originally part of the 38th BG and later incorporated into the 42nd BG, trained with torpedoes, but did not use them in combat (aside from the previous use at Midway.) the B-26 equipped 77th and 73rd BS in Alaska were armed with torpedoes for the defense of Dutch Harbor in June 1942, and for a pair of attacks against shipping at Kiska in October that year, but were unsuccessful. Afterward all missions were low level bombing.Nobody had much success trying to bomb ships from a decent altitude. Virtually everyone, British, Americans, Italians, Germans, Japanese, all tried it and all failed, so creating the need to go in low.
Valor: Skip-Bombing Pioneer | Air & Space Forces Magazine
In the fall of 1942, a better way of sinking Japanese ships had to be found. Ken McCullar was one of the first to master the new tactic.www.airforcemag.com
What everyone calls "skip bombing" needs clarification. There was genuine "skip bombing" where the bombs are deliberately pitched short of the target ship with the intention of "skipping" them off the water and into the ship. Problem is that bombs had a habit of bouncing right over the target! And there is "masthead bombing" (or slightly higher) where the intention is to place the bombs directly into the ship (i.e. no skip on the water first). Both methods were practiced in WW2 particularly in the Med and the Pacific. But I do question exactly how often it was true "skip bombing" that was used. In the Pacific by 1944 / 1945 all the photographic evidence points to it being the latter method that was being used by both the USN and USAAF units like the Air Apaches, the 345th BG. Fw 200 Condors were bombing from masthead height.
There were times when torpedo aircraft as well as torpedoes were in short supply. In the SWPA & Solomos in late 1942 / early 1943 it was only USN Avengers and B-26A from the 22nd BG that had torpedo capabilities. But the ground clearance for a B-26A carrying a torpedo was minimal (4"!). Awkward when operating from rough strips. And then there is the question about the unreliabilty of US Mark 13 torpedoes in this period. And let's not forget the few RAAF Beauforts that began to appear from Sept 1942 starting with 100 squadron.
In Europe the RAF moved from trying to bomb ships from masthead heights or torpedo them, either singly or in groups, to the Strike Wing concept from mid-1943. Then the object was for Beaufighters to target the escort with cannon & later rockets while the Torbeaus went in under that cover to sink the merchantmen. For more look at the operations of the North Coates wing initially and then in 1944/45 that Wing plus the Banff and Dallachy Wings operating off the Norwegian coast with Beaufighters and Mosquitos.
But the DB-7B Boston III and the succeeding A-20C, A & G models were never fitted out for torpedo carrying operationally anywhere other than Russia. It was the unbuilt DB-7C version that the Dutch intended to use as a torpedo bomber, and those were to be fitted with special racks for the purpose. The DB-7B etc came to be used by the RAAF in 1942, not by choice, but because it was immediately to hand in a period of crisis.Having a little dig around to see what torpedoes the Dutch intended to use on their Boston/DB-7's, and I found this lovely web site.
scroll down to Mark 13, and you'll see these were the US mark 13 Aerial Torpedo. I'm not aware of any shortage of these, so presume the Australians of RAAF 22 Sqn, could have used them but didn't, which suggests it's more about training, or preferred tactical use of bombs due to plane or theatre.
scroll down to Mark 13, and you'll see these were the US mark 13 Aerial Torpedo. I'm not aware of any shortage of these, so presume the Australians of RAAF 22 Sqn, could have used them but didn't, which suggests it's more about training, or preferred tactical use of bombs due to plane or theatre.
unbuilt DB-7C version that the Dutch intended to use as a torpedo bomber,
The DB-7B etc came to be used by the RAAF in 1942, not by choice, but because it was immediately to hand in a period of crisis.
Torpedoes themselves were never plentiful. The Big American carriers often only carried 36 or so at a time. In other words the Lexington, Saratoga, Essex and Enterprise could only launch 36 planes armed with torpedoes without being resupplied. Sending torpedoes off to land bases after the Dutch were over run was probably not going to happen.
Inter war the USN had an on-off relationship with the airborne torpedo and the torpedo bomber. By 1932 only Lexington still had a torpedo squadron. The USS Ranger CV-4 was completed in June 1934 without any provision for carrrying torpedo bombers or their weapons as the dive bomber became the favoured carrier weapon (the capability was re-instated in 1941 but she only carried 6-9 torpedo bombers in WW2). The construction of Yorktown and Lexington (service entry 1937/38) saw the torpedo bomber gain favour again with the introduction of the TBD Devastator (130 built) to equip the 4 torpedo squadrons on Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown and Enterprise. Each squadron had a complement of 18 aircraft. In battle the carriers were not expected to survive very long.Torpedoes themselves were never plentiful. The Big American carriers often only carried 36 or so at a time. In other words the Lexington, Saratoga, Essex and Enterprise could only launch 36 planes armed with torpedoes without being resupplied. Sending torpedoes off to land bases after the Dutch were over run was probably not going to happen.
Torpedoes are also not "rounds of ammunition". Torpedoes need periodic maintenance from specialists.
"A review of war experience showed a total of 1,287 attacks [this count only includes those launched by carrier-borne aircraft, other US Navy aircraft launched another 150 torpedoes - TD], of which 40 percent (514) resulted in hits, including 50 percent hits on battleships and carriers (322 attacks, including Midway), 31 percent on destroyers (179 attacks), and 41 percent (out of 445 attacks) on merchant ships."
And the French were crazy enough to do skip bombing on land ...What everyone calls "skip bombing" needs clarification. There was genuine "skip bombing" where the bombs are deliberately pitched short of the target ship with the intention of "skipping" them off the water and into the ship. Problem is that bombs had a habit of bouncing right over the target!
Breguet 693. 50 kg bombs with 8-12 second delays. The called the hedge-hopping flight "razor flight."I never knew that. I'd like to see a diorama of an Amiot 143 skip bombing.
I never knew that. I'd like to see a diorama of an Amiot 143 skip bombing.