Mitsubishi Betty Equivalent

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

In the MTO, low level, anti-shipping attacks proved too costly. Doolittle withdrew them from that mission and limited them to medium altitude formation bombing. A role they performed very well. They had some success in the Aleutians, sinking and damaging a number of ships, in limited action. Marauders in RAF service had some success as well. In the South and Southwest Pacific, B-26s saw some low level anti-ship missions, but mostly they flew conventional medium altitude missions.
The RAF and Commonwealth Air Forces only operated a single B-26 Marauder squadron in the anti-shipping role. 14 squadron received B-26A/B Marauder I/IA aircraft from Aug 1942 and used them until Sept 1944. It had a few successes with the torpedo in the first half of 1943. But their role was more one of maritime recce to locate targets for other units to attack.

6 other RAF/SAAF squadrons began to convert to Marauder II/III (C & F/G models) in the medium bomber role from the end of 1943.
 
The torpedo issues, which were real, and which were serious, weren't fundamental problems with the torpedo designs, they were die to a total lack of testing before the torps were accepted for service. Once they got sorted out - a big problem with that, was that the same guy that was running the Torpedo Station at Newport Rhode Island, and didn't perform the testing, was now the guy at BuOrd who was constantly rejecting problem reports from the combat zones.
The Mk 13 ended up as the most effective airborne torpedo of the Late War (Just ask Yamato and Musashi - we don't know how many hits it would have taken to sink them, but we know how hany we were going to use), with the drop envelope extended from about 110 kts/100' (200kph/30m) to 300+ kts (480 kph / 5000' (1500m) with near 100% reliability.
What come of that, was the guy causing this issue ever brought to account over it?.
 
I cannot imagine how frustrating it must have been, no, enraging it must have been to have failure after failure because of bad torpedo's only to have those ordnance guys blame the failures on the crew. The USS Tang was lost due to a faulty torpedo. After an excellent patrol, fired her last torpedo only to have it circle back and hit Tang in the stern.
 
I cannot imagine how frustrating it must have been, no, enraging it must have been to have failure after failure because of bad torpedo's only to have those ordnance guys blame the failures on the crew. The USS Tang was lost due to a faulty torpedo. After an excellent patrol, fired her last torpedo only to have it circle back and hit Tang in the stern.

More than a few sub skippers, against the orders of higher-ups, removed the magnetic exploders from their torpedoes and used only the contact exploder, which as noted above, didn't mark much of an improvement due to shoddy design.
 
Last edited:
I cannot imagine how frustrating it must have been, no, enraging it must have been to have failure after failure because of bad torpedo's

The Germans suffered exactly the same issue. Their early war torpedoes were failures as well.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back