Land-based torpedo planes: what types were the best?

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh I see Tomo came up with some info...

Any aircraft operating at lower altitudes over the ocean is going to be exposed to seawater...

 

[davebender]

Soviet A-20s carried two 45cm torpedoes next to fuselage in a manner similiar to German Ju-88 and He-111.

IMO the USN really missed the boat by not building a reliable 45cm aerial torpedo and using them to arm A-20 / B-25 / B-26 torpedo bombers. Of course if the USN had enough sense to build reliable aerial torpedos our 21" submarine torpedoes probably would have worked also.

 

[Shortround6]

If the US could have built a reliable 45cm aerial torpedo they could have gotten the 21in aerial torpedo to work.

Early US MK 13 torpedoes had 401 lbs of TNT and weighed 1927lbs. later ones carried 600lb of Torpex and went 2216lbs. range was 6300yds at 33.5 KTs.

Early Italian "W" aerial torpedo (used by Germans as the F5w) had a 375lb charge (?) and weighed 1916lbs while later ones had a 441lb charge and weighed 1995lbs. Range 3300yds at 40kts.

British used an 18in MK XII in several versions with different amounts of fuel and warhead sizes and different dropping requirements. By late war they were using the 18in MK XV Torpedo (also with two different warheads and yet a 3rd for MTB use) and ended the war with the 18in MK XVII coming on line for the Firebrand and land based aircraft.

 

[davebender]

If the US could have built a reliable 45cm aerial torpedo they could have gotten the 21in aerial torpedo to work.

USA Torpedoes of World War II
USN 22.4" Mk 13 aerial torpedo was an odd size that didn't fit well on aircraft other then TBD and TBF CV based torpedo bombers. I don't know if you could carry a pair on opposite sides of the fuselage like other nations did with 45cm aerial torpedoes. The odd size might have been worthwhile if our aerial torpedo had been a world beater with superb performance and unrivaled reliability. Unfortunately the opposite was true.

We should have swallowed our national pride and purchased a license to build British or Whitehead 18" aerial torpedoes during the 1930s.

 

[tomo pauk]

Since the Mk 13 was being carried by single-engined planes, then I'd say it's size was nothing to complain about. There were other ways to produce a reliable US torpedo, too, like proper testing of historical torps, or allowing the alternate source for torpedos' design production to be established.
Unfortunately, politics really wreaked havoc with USN capabilities during the time of dire need for reliable torpedos.

 

[tyrodtom]

Our main problem with the torpedos were we were so bound by limited defense budgets prewar and we never tested the torpedos enough to know there was a problem, torpedos are very expensive and we cheaped out.
Then when problems did become apparent, the men using them were blamed.

Nobody will ever know how different early WW2 in the Pacific might have went if we had been supplied with torpedos that functioned as they wre designed to.


I failed to read the whole thread, what i'm saying applies to submarine torpedos, not the airborne versions.

 

[ccheese]

How come no one has mentioned the Japanese "Betty" bomber ? Equipped with torpedoes, she did good....

Charles

 

[RCAFson]

The claim that she was almost sunk is still silly. Gneisenau took in 3000 tons of water as a result of attack - nowwhere near critical, to give you some idea Bismarck took in 2000 tons in the forecastle when a hit from Prince of Wales pierced her plating, and could still maintain about 28 knots, despite similar listing; then she took 3 more similar torpedo hits, and apart from the (fateful) disabling of the rudder, nothing happened. When Gneisanau's sistership Scharnhorst was sunk, she took no less than 14 much larger 533mm torpedoes, apart from considerable shelling. The German WW1 battlecruiser Lutzow took in 7000 tons of water while still going underway, and she sank by the time her screws were out of the water. The chances that single rather small British aerial torpedo would sink Gneisenau were therefor nil. But of course that 'nearly every harbor vessel'' (= one salvage tug AFAIK) supported her - what do you expect, them sitting just there and watch..?



That being said, the Beaufort crew's efforts were outstandingly brave and effective.

Gneisenau was completely imobilized as the port and starboard engine rooms flooded, along with the centre propeller shaft: The damage does sound quite severe:

(Axis Battleships, p142-143 (from Google Books))

 

[davparlr]

The B-26 demonstrated a high degree of capability for being a torpedo bomber. Fast, rugged, well defended and good range were all on display when four B-26s and six TBFs, unsupported by fighters, attacked the main Japanese battle fleet at Midway. Three B-26s penetrated to the carriers, one strafing a carrier, and two making it back to base. The TBFs were able to launch some torpedoes but only one was able to make it back. Had the Navy, manned and trained on the B-26s and fielded more aircraft, and, of course, have good torpedoes, they could have possibly decimated the Japanese attack force although with significant losses. As davebender stated an opportunity was lost when the USN failed to field B-26s or equally effective B-25s as torpedo bombers. I think these two would have been difficult to best as torpedo bombers. A-20 would have been great, also.

 

[nuuumannn]

How come no one has mentioned the Japanese "Betty" bomber?

I second that, Cheese, the Mitsubishi G4M and its predecessor the G3M proved to be effective torpedo bombers.

 

[GregP]

For my money the best land-based torpedo bomber was the Aichi B7A Ryusei. It was designed for carriers but, by the time the B7A was oeprational, they didn't have any, so it was land-based. Speed was 351 mph (565 kph), making it a pretty darned fast aircraft of the category. They only built 114 of them, but the main reason was no more carriers. If they HAD carriers, maybe the B7A would have been more numerous.

It was a 2-man torpedo bomber with the speed and maneuverability of the Zero.

 

[Francis marliere]

Greg,

I may be mistaken, but I think that there were carriers when the B7A was put in production. The problem was that the plane was so big that it didn't fit in most of IJN carriers (only the Taiho and may be the Shokaku class could accomoate such a large plane).

Best,

Francis

 

[tomo pauk]

Now that we're at it, how feasible was for Sea Mosquito to be stowed under deck of RN carriers?

 

[yulzari]

Just to give it a mention, the Wellington served manfully in the torpedo bomber role in the Mediterranean. Also the Hampden once it ceased to be used as a bomber over Germany.

Not forgetting that he Avro Manchester/Lancaster was designed to be able to carry 2 18" torpedos, hence the unobstructed bomb bay unlike it's contemporaries.

 

[Juha]

Hello
while B7A or TBY-2 Seawolf look good on paper I have no info who well B7A did in real world so I'm inclined to choose Beaufighter. It was fairly fast (which made the job of escort fighters easier) and was smaller and more manoeuvrable than the medium bombers (which made the job of AA gunners harder) and it had formidable nose armament. And of course it could work easily with flak subression Beaus and had good range. While Nell and Betty did well early in the Pacific War IMHO it was more on their very good aerial torpedos and the excellent training of the crews and good torpedo tactics of JNAF. Both were rather big and very vulnerable planes even if fairly fast with excellent range.

 

[davparlr]

The BTD-1 Destroyer was a pretty impressive torpedo bomber with internal weapons bay making it faster in attack, 340 mph with torpedo. Only 28 production models were made by war's end.

 

[GregP]

Although the prototype Aichi B7A flew in May 1942, teething problems saw the first production units in May 1944. IJN Taiho, the only carrier big enough from which to operate the B7A, was sunk in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, before any B7A's were embarked. So when they WERE available, there were no carriers for them, like I said earlier.

Ergo, it was land-based by default, not by choice.

 

[davebender]

Limited compared to what?

1930s USN was ordering BBs, CAs and fleet DDs like hot rolls. I suspect you could fund a lot of torpedo development for the price of one heavy cruiser.

 

[davparlr]

My feeling was it was egotism, arrogance, and incompetence, characteristic I am not sure was uncommon in pre-war Navy (and, most likely, Army). It makes my blood boil when I think of how many good and brave men risked and lost their lives making risky maneuvers in their submarines, PT boats, surface ships (?), and aircraft in order to launch their highly flawed torpedoes.

I wonder how many enemy ships could have been sunk had the Navy cancelled one BB or CA just to perfect the most effective anti-ship weapon of the war.

 

[davebender]

wonder how many enemy ships could have been sunk had the Navy cancelled one BB or CA just to perfect the most effective anti-ship weapon of the war.

29 submarines in Asiatic Fleet. Forward based in Philippines.
24 submarines based at Pearl Harbor.

Quite a few long range submarines, comparable to German Type IX. With reliable torpedoes they should achieve similiar results vs Japanese shipping during December 1941.