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

Thumpalumpacus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Maybe safer than skip bombing, but much less accurate
 
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.
 
tyrodtom said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Alan Stevens said:
I suppose that a modified B-17 or B-24 could serve the role.
Click to expand...
B-17s with torpedoes would be interesting. You'd want a heavy forward armament to suppress AA fire. A six pack of .50 cals is a good start.

See my hilariously poor Ai rendering below. That looks like a 4,800 lb. Mark 17 destroyer-launched torpedo, armed with 880 lbs of HE with a range of 18,000 yards at 46 knots - the largest fish in the USN arsenal. Since we don't need 10 miles (16 km) of range perhaps we can double the warhead weight and up the speed to over 50 knots.



Just how is that girthy torpedo attached? Perhaps a winch inside the bomb bay would pull the torpedo up against the lower fuselage for takeoff and landing?

Like how this parasite fighter was attached.

 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
You'd want a heavy forward armament to suppress AA fire. A six pack of .50 cals is a good start.
Click to expand...
The problem is aiming. You have to aim the torpedo hundreds of yards ahead of the ship itself when the torpedo is dropped. So the plane and fixed guns are not pointed at the target ship.
Admiral Beez said:
See my hilariously poor Ai rendering below
Click to expand...
Well,
You got the right number of engines
All your props have the same number of prop blades
You don't have an extra vertical fins sprouting out of wings

You may be able to turn PRO!!!
 
Shortround6 said:
The problem is aiming. You have to aim the torpedo hundreds of yards ahead of the ship itself when the torpedo is dropped. So the plane and fixed guns are not pointed at the target ship.
Click to expand...
By mid war Britain had a torpedo director fitted in aircraft like the Beaufighter TF variants and the Barracuda. The pilot made certain inputs which were transferred to the torpedo rudder. He aimed the aircraft directly at the target, and when the torpedo entered the water it angled off in the set direction.
 
About the only protection a torpedo bomber has is being low to the water, and hard for the target to pick you out at a distance.
With a four engine bomber it's going to be hard enough to hide, let along with a bunch of escorts that would point to you like a beacon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
High Altitude Heavy Bomber for RAF
9 10 11
Replies
205
Views
17K
Engineman
E
A
Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
9K
MiTasol
W
Twin engine Tornado
Replies
15
Views
3K
wuzak
W
J
Japanese Radial Engine Developments shared with Germany
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
tomo pauk
Fictional challenge! The H-1 Racer was approved as an American fighter in 1936.
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
_PabloSniper_
Menu
Log in
Register