Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The argument is not if the Japanese got hits at long range. They did. The argument is wither that made them 2-3 time more effective than the British torpedoes and the British torpedoes were not the same as American torpedoes, even assuming the American torpedoes actually worked.They showed how the Japanese used patterns in their torpedo attacks and were still successfully surprising the Americans in several small engagements (this was in 1943) in which the Americans were still badly underestimating the effective range of the Type 93s.
The idea that they couldn't hit targets at extended range, or that they couldn't effectively shoot spreads of these based on limited sighting data, or that radar ended their advantages in night combat, or that they didn't still ad up to a major advantage for the IJN even this late in the game is I think, clearly a gross oversimplification.
The Torpedoes themselves show little difference, yes the Japanese had better planes, kind of.I won't debate the point on the air launched torpedoes, as I know the British were of good enough quality, but I would point out that most of the Japanese aircraft capable of delivering torpedoes were much better, in particular had much better range, than the FAA equivalents. The IJN also (arguably) had more effective long range land based aircraft for torpedo strikes, G3M and G4M bombers, though eventually the torpedo carrying Beaufighters would fit very well into this niche for the British.
At the beginning of the war the USN assumed you had to fly very low and slow to drop torpedoes and have them survive hitting the water in good enough condition to work properly. In reality they eventually found that the "belly flop" technique gave worse results than dropping the torp like a bomb from higher altitude and higher airspeed and having it enter the water nose first. It sure seems like someone could have realized that the thing was designed to take loads along the forward-aft axis, not sideways. They put a wooden cap on the nose of the torps to help take up the shock and wooden fins on the rear to make sure it fell nose first. Once they got the incompetent feathermerchants out of the way they got the air dropped torps working so well that on the later PT boats they dispensed with the torpedo tubes and just dumped air launched type torps over the side. That little Revell PT boat kit reflects that configuration, while that later issued Revell 1/72 PT-109 has the torpedo tubes.
Hilarious account by a TBM pilot flying of a baby flat top at Leyte Gulf. Told he had to carry a torp and attack an IJN cruiser, he replied that he had never heard anything so absurd; the TBMs were only supposed to carry bombs. They pointed out that the cruiser was basically inside their normal traffic pattern and they badly needed to do something about it. He got rid of the torp ASAP after takeoff and was fairly sure he hit the ocean with it, but it turned out he did get the cruiser.
The Ark Royal was ordered in 1934 and the keel was laid in Sept 1935.
"HMS Ark Royal (91) was designed to operate in the open waters of the Pacific, as Japan was seen as the greatest threat to the Empire in the early 1930s. Therefore it has more similarity in concept to the US carriers than the later Illustrious type carriers."
If Ark Royal was designed for ops against Japan, why wasn't her air group? Procuring slow biplane TSRs and slow twin seat fighters to face A5Ms and the like seems like blindless.
And neither was anyone else. At least the USN had the TBD and was making plans that produced the TBF, so they had better than the Swordfish. But Lockheed was proving that P-38's could carry two torpedoes and with a little work the USN could have had F6F's carrying torps. It was not until the AD Skyraider that they suddenly seemed to realize that torpedo planes had to be slow and vulnerable turkeys. Of course, both dive bombers and torpedo planes had an important secondary role as scouts for the fleet. In 1940 that meant that they needed at least two crewmen to handle the radios and help with navigation. The TBF had a friggin' BIG HF radio transmitter, the same one later used in B-29's. But by 1944 improvements in radio equipment reduced the need for a separate radioman and the USN was using F6F's as scouts.The RAF, which had control of the RN aircraft in the 1930s was simply not looking ahead.
A lack of targets might have driven that decision. Postwar, had the British continued with the Fairey Spearfish and war breaks out with the USSR in the early 1950s, there's nothing to launch torpedoes at.I think torpedo bombers went away prematurely, though they attempted to make a second wave of them right at the end of the war, most of the designs failed. The AD was the only one that worked out ultimately, but basically as a CAS aircraft.
6 Kirov class cruisers completed 1938-44A lack of targets might have driven that decision. Postwar, had the British continued with the Fairey Spearfish and war breaks out with the USSR in the early 1950s, there's nothing to launch torpedoes at.
6 Kirov class cruisers completed 1938-44
5 Chapayev clas cruisers completed 1950.
14 Sverdlov class cruisers laid down from Dec 1948 and 6 completed in 1952 and the other 8 in 1953-55. Programme terminated with another 7 under construction and another 9 planned. Nikita Krushchev cancelled the whole programme in 1954 following his rise to power on Stalin's death.
Also the ex-Italian battleship Novorossisyk (Giuilo Cesare) and cruiser Kerch (Duca D'Aosta)
While the immediate cause of the failureof USN torpedoes was incompetence at the USN torpedo factory, it wasn't due to its being a government arsenal: government-owned arsenals and shipyards in the US tended not to have similar problems, while technical failures, such as H-O-R submarine diesel engines, from private vendors did occur.
I suspect the root cause was the USN's general deprecation of the value of the torpedo, evidenced by the omission of torpedo magazines on the USS Ranger and, possibly, the incredibly restrictive dropping limits of USN air-launched torpedoes.
A lot of planes were designed the way they were because that was what was possible at the time. What was possible 3-4 years later was different. What was possible 6-8 years later was way different.At least the USN had the TBD and was making plans that produced the TBF, so they had better than the Swordfish. But Lockheed was proving that P-38's could carry two torpedoes and with a little work the USN could have had F6F's carrying torps.
While the immediate cause of the failureof USN torpedoes was incompetence at the USN torpedo factory, it wasn't due to its being a government arsenal: government-owned arsenals and shipyards in the US tended not to have similar problems, while technical failures, such as H-O-R submarine diesel engines, from private vendors did occur.
I suspect the root cause was the USN's general deprecation of the value of the torpedo, evidenced by the omission of torpedo magazines on the USS Ranger and, possibly, the incredibly restrictive dropping limits of USN air-launched torpedoes.
Ark Royal was using monoplane DBs and biplane TBs in 1939, when the IJN was still using biplane DBs and TBs. Monoplane TBs were on order and under development in 1939, and by 1940 the monoplane folding wing Fulmar, (and the Firefly was on order and under development) with more than 4x the firepower of the A5M was in service.
"HMS Ark Royal (91) was designed to operate in the open waters of the Pacific, as Japan was seen as the greatest threat to the Empire in the early 1930s. Therefore it has more similarity in concept to the US carriers than the later Illustrious type carriers."
If Ark Royal was designed for ops against Japan, why wasn't her air group? Procuring slow biplane TSRs and slow twin seat fighters to face A5Ms and the like seems like blindless.
SV Goodall, the RN's chief designer states that the 18in MkXII used a 440lb warhead:The Torpedoes themselves show little difference, yes the Japanese had better planes, kind of.
Both countries had problems putting big torpedoes on their aircraft. Big in this case means heavy warheads on 18in (17.7) torpedoes.
The G3Ms used lighter warheads than the G4M and the Kates, but these only had a 452lb warhead.
British carrier torpedo planes used 388lbs warheads (later 432lbs with Torpex)
Late war shore based planes could carry torpedoes with 545lbs of Torpex.
An extract from D.N.C's dealing specifically with para. 8 of First Sea Lord's minute of 1st February (Enclosure 2.)
10. Para 8 of the 1st Sea Lord's minute of 1/2/42 is not understood. The derailed report M.0251/42, which contains the survivors' narratives, shows that in the first attack the ship was hit certainly by 3 and possibly by 4 torpedoes, and in the second attack, forty minutes later, by 4 torpedoes. British aircraft torpedoes that struck "BISMARCK" contained an explosive charge of 440lbs., whilse those fired by Destroyers contained an explosive charge of 750lbs. D.N.I. has stated on N.I.D. 04842/41 that Japanese aircraft torpedoes may contain an explosive charge as heavy as 867lbs., and it would appear, from a comparison of the damage caused by Japanese torpedoes to "PRINCE OF WALES" with other torpedo damage caused by German torpedoes and British charges used for experiments, that charges as large as 867lbs. Were used against "PRINCE OF WALES". Furthermore, "BISMARCK'S" standard displacement was at the very least 41,150 tons, compared with 37,500 tons of "PRINCE OF WALES", and ceteris paribus the larger the ship the better she can withstand underwater attack.
(Signed)
SV Goodall
13/2/42
Ark Royal was using monoplane DBs and biplane TBs in 1939, when the IJN was still using biplane DBs and TBs. Monoplane TBs were on order and under development in 1939, and by 1940 the monoplane folding wing Fulmar, (and the Firefly was on order and under development) with more than 4x the firepower of the A5M was in service.
You make these blanket statements without considering the facts.