Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting. Knowing the Italians I would have expected it to happen. Did the H8K ever use torpedoes operationally?.,,but never did so in combat sorties. As well as all the other prototypes above, though.
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.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.
I know this. I meant that I was surprised in that it was not used operationally as a torpedo bomber.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.
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.Did the H8K ever use torpedoes operationally?
Sure, but it appears to be our best contender..,,but never did so in combat sorties. As well as all the other prototypes above, though.
The Lanc dropped bouncing bombs at low altitude run ins.The Lanc dropping torpedoes would have been a badass sight to behold.
Well, maybe not for the intended victims, though...
Well, no, they weren't bouncing.The Lanc dropped bouncing bombs at low altitude run ins.
Could the bouncing bomb be used for anti-ship strikes? I mean at sea, not against a stationary ship in port.The Lanc dropping torpedoes would have been a badass sight to behold.
Well, maybe not for the intended victims, though...
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.Could the bouncing bomb be used for anti-ship strikes? I mean at sea, not against a stationary ship in port.
Absolutely.Could the bouncing bomb be used for anti-ship strikes? I mean at sea, not against a stationary ship in port.
Well, no, they weren't bouncing.
The dam buster bomb was designed to spin in order to prevent it from skipping.
Yeah, notice how carefull detail was given to the spinning action to prevent it from bouncing?
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.
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.
Which is about the same as bouncing.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.
Two different theories at work, but ok...Which is about the same as bouncing.
Which is about the same as bouncing.