Was a four engine torpedo bomber ever considered?

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

The launch parameter of a 1942-43 Mk 13 is about 125 mph max. Sure you can drop it at 240 mph, but I'm not sure if any of he pieces will hit any ships.
I don't know about that, Thump. Wreckage and debris seem to far more effective at destroying targets than I thought. Just look at how much damage bits and pieces of AFU drones have done to Russian oil facilities. Perhaps the Mk 13 should have been dropped as fast as possible to create as much junk as possible to strike enemy targets.
 
A torpedo that comes apart on hitting the water, is just going to be a lot of floating junk, a long way from a target, and that junk is not going to float very long.

A drone that comes apart midair near targets still has potential to damage, with left over velocity helped by gravity.
 
The launch parameter of a 1942-43 Mk 13 is about 125 mph max. Sure you can drop it at 240 mph, but I'm not sure if any of he pieces will hit any ships.
Here is a fantastic article on the USN's torpedoes.
It's comprehensive, thus a long read - or you can scroll down to about 120, where the Mark 13's shortcomings (pun intended) were addressed.
At 123, the specs for the Mark 13-1 are provided, showing the ability to drop higher and faster than the previous model.
One of the interesting points the BuOrd discovered (by way of CalTech), is that dropping the torpedo in a level run was detrimental to the torpedo, both in resulting damage to it's control surfaces as well as it's guidance system. The solution was found that if dropped at an angle of roughly 22 degrees, it suffered little or no damage, especially with the "rings" installed (explained in the article), so in a way, the torpedo's delivery was changed from a belly flop to an Olympic straight dive.

 
Yeah, I've read that. A buddy of mine from another forum was one of the curators at Hyperwar, though I don't think he handled that entry.
 
Also, I'd imagine the horizontal profile of a b-17 isn't much larger than a 2 engine bomber which had success in the axis (ju-88, g4m) bonus points for a better sighting system for gyroscopes in the b-17, they could launch 4 torpedos per plane easily several thousand yards away, much safer than skipbombing.

Imagine such a fleet in the Philippines in 1941.
You'd probably need to change the early war to get america to get inspired, probably a ju-88 assault on scapa flow or a land based Taranto raid instead.
Maybe safer than skip bombing, but much less accurate
 
Submarines may fire torpedoes from several thousand yards away, and get strikes.
But in most cases the target doesn't know there is a torpedo coming their way until it close enough to be spotted by a lookout.

But B-17s are not the stealthiest aircraft out there, someone's going to spot it and maybe the splash of the torpedo too.
There's a lot of run time on a maybe 40 mph torpedo, and a lot of time for even a slow supply ship to maneuver .

I think a lot of us has seen photos of the wild maneuvering wakes the Japanese fleet made during the Battle of Midway, when B-17s dropped bombs from high altitude , not a single hit.

No matter what kind of target computer, or bombsight you've got, they can't work if the target has a random maneuvering pattern.
Pre-war and during the war, the only even marginal success of US multiengine bombers in engaging moving ships using conventional bombing techniques occurred at attack altitudes of 10,000 feet or much less. B-17 success during the 1938 Fleet Maneuvers occurred at something like mast height to 300 feet, creating the false impression of B-17s being fleet killers. There was some success at medium to high altitude against stationary vessels, but as was the case during the battle of the Bismarck Sea, the heavies at high altitude were best used to provide reconnaissance, harassment, and to divert attention away from the medium and light bombers coming in on the deck to skip bomb.
 
I have mentioned in another thread somewhere on the forum that a former father in law, now deceased, was a B-17crew chief with the first B-17 unit sent to Australia. He told those pilots who did skip bombing had two white horizontal lines painted on the pilot's windscreen. Through trials and practice, they learned at what altitude and what speed was needed for the bombs to skip reliably. As I recall, he said one line was for 500 pound, the other for 1000 pound. The pilot would fly at the correct speed & altitude for the chosen bomb and when the correct white line was even with the ship's waterline, the pilot toggles the bomb. I did not often get him to discuss actual missions, as he liked to relate stories of goings on between missions. Such as one pilot who spent much of his off time trying to get his dog to mate with the pet kangaroo. Another tale was how he convinced a new officer who brought with him his pearl handled .38 revolver from home. Several other men confirmed the Japanese would execute him if captured with the .38 Colt. My father in law, after dealing the gun from him, eventually traded it in the city for something he said he couldn't remember.
 
If you were aircrew, your chance of surviving capture by the Japanese military army or navy was not good, that was true from the beginning till the end.
I don't see why it would be more likely you'd be shot if you had a .38, than a .45.
 
If you were aircrew, your chance of surviving capture by the Japanese military army or navy was not good, that was true from the beginning till the end.
I don't see why it would be more likely you'd be shot if you had a .38, than a .45.
My Uncle Jimmy (USAAF) carried two 1911 Colts - one in a should holster and one on his thigh.

He was extremely serious about not being taken alive.
 
The story of the .38 was an attempt by my father in law to obtain the .38 from the new man. Everyone knew their capture was remote but the new man.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back