Was a four engine torpedo bomber ever considered?

[Airborne2001]

.,,but never did so in combat sorties. As well as all the other prototypes above, though.

Interesting. Knowing the Italians I would have expected it to happen. Did the H8K ever use torpedoes operationally?

The torpedo dropping requirement in Spec P.13/36 that led to the Manchester was dropped on 26 Aug 1937, long before it ever flew or the Lancaster was conceived. Other elements dropped before the Lancaster was conceived were:-

The catapult launch requirement was dropped on 4 July 1938. However it seems that the weight saving this should have generated could not be taken advantage of in the first 20 Avro Manchester airframes as they were already on the production lines, and it is not clear if it was ever designed out, according to Robert Kirby's "The Avro Manchester". Why the weight saving from this and not the dive bombing requirement is specifically noted in more than one book I know not. It is also odd that the first production Manchesters did not come off the production line until July 1939, if 20 were already on it in July 1938.

The dive bombing requirement was dropped on 11 Aug 1938 as the 60 degree angle required was considered unobtainable.

The troop carrying requirement also in the original specification was not dropped until 30 January 1940.

Interesting to see that Avro almost went down the He-177 path; it's good for them that they didn't knowing what we know now lol.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P.108B was used operationally as a bomber.
The torpedo option was never used and the cannon armed P.108A didn't go beyond testing.

 

[Airborne2001]

The P.108B was used operationally as a bomber.
The torpedo option was never used and the cannon armed P.108A didn't go beyond testing.

I know this. I meant that I was surprised in that it was not used operationally as a torpedo bomber.

 

[bf109xxl]

Did the H8K ever use torpedoes operationally?

There is a photo of an H6K with torpedoes suspended. I doubt that the HK8 was used as a torpedo bomber, but you would better ask someone who has a deeper knowledge of the subject.

 

[Admiral Beez]

.,,but never did so in combat sorties. As well as all the other prototypes above, though.

Sure, but it appears to be our best contender.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Lanc dropping torpedoes would have been a badass sight to behold.

Well, maybe not for the intended victims, though...

 

[Alan Stevens]

The Lanc dropping torpedoes would have been a badass sight to behold.

Well, maybe not for the intended victims, though...

The Lanc dropped bouncing bombs at low altitude run ins.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Lanc dropped bouncing bombs at low altitude run ins.

Well, no, they weren't bouncing.
The dam buster bomb was designed to spin in order to prevent it from skipping.

 

[muskeg13]

RNZAF P-3 Orion dropping a torpedo:

View: https://youtu.be/9yWek1KHacA

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Lanc dropping torpedoes would have been a badass sight to behold.

Well, maybe not for the intended victims, though...

Could the bouncing bomb be used for anti-ship strikes? I mean at sea, not against a stationary ship in port.

 

[EwenS]

Could the bouncing bomb be used for anti-ship strikes? I mean at sea, not against a stationary ship in port.

About July/Aug 1943, after Operation Servant to attack the Tirpitz with "Highball" was cancelled on 30 June 1943 in favour of using midget submarines in Operation Source (which took place on 22 Sept 1943) CinC Coastal Command, Air Marshall Slessor, suggested "Highball" could be used against U-boats coming out of the Baltic and transitting to the Atlantic via the Faroe Channel. As a result a series of dropping trials took place in the open water of Sinclairs Bay, just north of Wick in Scotland, by aircraft from 618 squadron based at nearby RAF Skitten. These appear to have been dropping trials only, without any target ship involvement.

These trials were, in the words of the squadron diarist "eventually abandoned in the light of existing circumstances". Whatever else he might have known was never committed to paper, probably due to the great secrecy surrounding both the weapon and the squadrons activities.

There is some film footage that may have been of these trials in this article

Search on for the bouncing bombs of Sinclair’s Bay

Read the fascinating story of how experiments were carried out during WWII with bouncing bombs that may still lie in the waters of Sinclair's Bay.

www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk

Dropping practice was also undertaken off Reculver on the north coast of Kent in 1943 and off Turnberry in Scotland, home in WW2 to a Coastal Command OTU and now part of Donald Trumps empire as a world famous golf course.

Using Highball on the open sea would have been as, or even more , difficult than trying to hit a target vessel with a torpedo. Reading the accounts of the various trials against the battleships Courbet & Malaya and the trials against land targets highlights the difficulties of getting an accurate drop, without adding in the complications of manoeuvring targets, rough seas etc.

Edit:- As for the "Upkeep" weapon used by Lancasters during Operation Chastise, it was by 30 June 1943 seen as a "one shot" weapon that had seen its time pass. Especially so since one bomb had fallen into German hands (Barlow's aircraft, AJ-E, crashed after hitting power lines but the bomb it was carrying did not explode)

 

[GrauGeist]

Could the bouncing bomb be used for anti-ship strikes? I mean at sea, not against a stationary ship in port.

Absolutely.

General Kenney, of the 5th AF, successfully used B-17s to skip bomb Japanese shipping.

Eventually, he replaced the B-17s with A-20s, B-25s and B-26s due to the B-17's lack of substantial foreward firepower.

 

[Alan Stevens]

Well, no, they weren't bouncing.
The dam buster bomb was designed to spin in order to prevent it from skipping.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kx2Vpvxk4&ab_channel=BarnesWallisFoundation

 

[GrauGeist]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kx2Vpvxk4&ab_channel=BarnesWallisFoundation

Yeah, notice how carefull detail was given to the spinning action to prevent it from bouncing?

It was skipping like a flat stone across a lake.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, notice how carefull detail was given to the spinning action to prevent it from bouncing?

It was skipping like a flat stone across a lake.

The Dambusters had the same mechanism in effect for the same reason. 617 just carried larger mines. Highball was built on the same principle, with reverse rotation iirc, downsized to fit on Mossies, but worked on pretty much identical principles -- a reverse spin will rotate the weapon down and forward. It's very similar to shooting hard draw on your cue ball on a pool table.

Here's a pic of a Mossie carrying two inert Highballs.

The 'other' secret bouncing bomb of World War Two

Related to the bouncing bomb of Dambusters fame, Highball was intended to be effective against specific military targets. Malcolm V Lowe tells the story of this secret World War Two weapon

www.key.aero

These bombs were designed to be reverse-spun as well to use (pardon the pun) the English to keep it against the hull of the enemy ship.

I know of no operational use during WWII, or any time thereafter for that matter.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes, the reverse spin was like "English" on a cue ball, which dictated it's behaviour.
Otherwise, it would have bounced and bobbled, defeating it's purpose.

Flying in low and hot, skipping a 500 pounder against a ship is one thing, but these specialty bombs were an entirely different matter.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, the reverse spin was like "English" on a cue ball, which dictated it's behaviour.
Otherwise, it would have bounced and bobbled, defeating it's purpose.

Flying in low and hot, skipping a 500 pounder against a ship is one thing, but these specialty bombs were an entirely different matter.

'Twas an ingenious design, where skip-bombing was an ingenious expedient.

I think the Highball may have had a harder time hitting ships than simple skip-bombing, but when they did hit would be much more effective due to mining-effect.

 

[Alan Stevens]

Yeah, notice how carefull detail was given to the spinning action to prevent it from bouncing?

It was skipping like a flat stone across a lake.

Which is about the same as bouncing.

 

[GrauGeist]

Which is about the same as bouncing.

Two different theories at work, but ok...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which is about the same as bouncing.

Right, it's about a distinction without a difference in terms of how the thing behaves. Bomb hits water, bomb comes up and describes a short ballistic arc which is influenced by either backspin or by deflection, comes down, hits the surface, and hopefully ends up tagging the side of an enemy ship. The real difference is what happens when the bomb hits.

In skip-bombing, the pointy bomb with no backspin retains more forward momentum and so is more likely to penetrate the side of the target ship and explode inside. Useful against troopships or destroyers which lack the armor to reject the bomb.

The Highball, reverse-rotating, hits the side of the ship, and because it's pressure-fused and not contact-fused, uses residual backspin that rolls it down the side of the ship and when it hits the pressure-depth of the fuse has a mining effect that a skip-bomb usually lacks. I know you know all this and don't want to belabor you on such a point, because you're right. They both bounce.

But the fact is that how and why they bounce has a big difference in the damage they do. Skip-bombing a troopship with 500-lb HE is going to kill a lot of soldiers being transported, while bouncing a Highball against an armored combatant is a great way to get below its belt and use the essential incompressibility of water to magnify the bomb's utility.