They were, but presented too large a target for AA gunners. Engaging anyone who could shoot back while approaching at torpedo drop speed would be suicide.
Was a four engine torpedo bomber ever considered?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The 5th AF B-17s entered their bombing run from 2,000+ feet and entered a shallow dive, levelling out at 500 to 800 feet above the water.
Once the bombs were released, they egressed a few hundred feet above the water until clear on any AA threat.
This tactic is also very close to a torpedo bomber attack profile.
The improved Mark 13 (max. drop speed: 290mph, max. drop height: 800ft.) was able to be delivered with success at high speed by the TBF at about the same height as Kenny's B-17 attack runs.
So why not?
Because improved Mk13s were not fielded before B-17s were withdrawn from Pacific combat ops in 1943.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
However, *if* it was seen as a viable platform for delivery, I would imagine that they would have kept it in combat for that purpose.
The B-17 was kept in service in the Pacific until war's end, though, being used in the role of air-dropped supplies and SAR, so they didn't disappear completely.
The few B-17 bomber units in the Pacific had replaced their aircraft with B-24 by mid-1943, after which there were only a few around as "hacks".
Then in late 1944 the B-17H variant was developed to carry the Higgins A-1 airborne lifeboat (in 1948 reclassified as the SB-17G). The first rescue by one of these aircraft took place in the North Sea in April 1945. Some of these found their way to the Pacific in 1945 to serve alongside the the OA-10A Catalinas in up to 5 Emergency Rescue Squadrons around the Pacific. Usually they were "owned" by separate flights within these squadrons.
Then in late 1944 the B-17H variant was developed to carry the Higgins A-1 airborne lifeboat (in 1948 reclassified as the SB-17G). The first rescue by one of these aircraft took place in the North Sea in April 1945. Some of these found their way to the Pacific in 1945 to serve alongside the the OA-10A Catalinas in up to 5 Emergency Rescue Squadrons around the Pacific. Usually they were "owned" by separate flights within these squadrons.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Don't forget the B-17s used by the 54th TCW's airdrop section.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I didn't.
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.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The problem is, that the Mark 13 was garbage before the late '42 revamp.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Right, and even if the torpedo detonators and depth-running ran perfectly, you're still asking big planes to get down to 120mph IAS at 150' max, and then dodge counterfire. That was hard for the B-26s at Midway, much more agile as they were, and smaller targets too.
I'm not sold on torpedo-trucks in WWII. Maybe by the end, with huge engines giving smaller a/c the ability to carry and drop two at higher speeds and altitudes and the Get the FOOD.
Even the triple Japanese 25mm would have a good chance of hurting a -17 trying to climb out of a torpedo run.
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.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The improved Mark 13's max. drop speed was 290mph at a max. drop height of 800ft.
The TBF/TBM used these improved fish with good success.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Sure, but you're not getting that in 1942, which is when the B-17s were trialing skip-bombing and about ready to get pulled from theater anyway. Those improved Mk13s didn't come out until late 43/early 44, when most of those -17s were gone except for hack duty.
If you want to bring Forts back to SoWesPac for this duty with improved/fixed/working Mk 13s, Kenney's going to have to win out over Arnold and Spaatz sending them to 8AF. That's not going to happen.
There won't be any B-17s carrying four torpedoes, sad to say -- because that would be an awesome look.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There was an overlap in the timeline and bear in mind, that the B-17, from it's inception, through the later variants, had provisions for external bomb shackles that could have easily accomated torps.
Also, Kenny (and Pappy Gunn) were notorious for doing what they wanted, much to the disdain of the "boss".
This included using B-17s for skip-bombing, which got their asses chewed, but when the word went up the chain that they were corn-holing Japanese shipping, the heavy breathing from the brass backed off.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
No argument about that stuff, except that the torpedoes still sucked by the time B-17s were withdrawn from theater. B-24s can't carry four due to the Davis wing and main-gear layout as well as split bomb-bay.
It's nice to think about it, but even Gunn thought it easier to put some .50s and a 75mm into a B-25 nose than try to sling torps underwing. And while I'm no pilot, I could easily see a B-17 with 8,000 lbs of torpedoes doing 120mph at 150' ASL as being a bit of a pig to fly. Now accelerate after drop and get out of AAA envelope? Clawing for air doesn't seem wise, but flying over the target means even crappy Japanese AAA gets close shots at you.
At least skip-bombing you get to run 200 mph or so.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A B-17F might be good for about 235-240mph at sea level, depending on weight and that is clean, and at in the mid 50s for weight. A few torpedoes are going to slow it down a bit.
B-17Gs are a bit slower. maybe 5-10mph?
You are depending on the crappy Japanese AA to get this to work.
British MK XV torpedoes were good for 40 kts. Range was lot shorter but dropping torpedoes at 2500yds or more never worked very well.
B-17Gs are a bit slower. maybe 5-10mph?
You are depending on the crappy Japanese AA to get this to work.
MK 13 torpedoes were good for about 33-34 knots.
British MK XV torpedoes were good for 40 kts. Range was lot shorter but dropping torpedoes at 2500yds or more never worked very well.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Let's keep in mind that skip-bombing required the aircraft to get up close and personal with their victims.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Most of the skip bombing in 1942/43 was against freighters and/or escorts. The Japanese not only had crappy AA guns, they only mounted them in small numbers until later in the war.
By the time the US gets a working MK 13 torpedo the Japanese were starting to increase the number of 25mm guns, at least on warships.
The Japanese were even later than the Allies on increasing the AA guns but it seems that there was a substantial increase in 1944 with things starting to increase in 1943 for the most part.
Part of the problem for the Japanese is that the 25mm gun was pretty much a self defense weapon. It didn't have the range to help defend adjacent ships (freighters) so even 8-20 25mm guns on a destroyer/s didn't do much for a convoy. 1942 defenses were about what the RN was using in 1940.
By the time the US gets a working MK 13 torpedo the Japanese were starting to increase the number of 25mm guns, at least on warships.
The Japanese were even later than the Allies on increasing the AA guns but it seems that there was a substantial increase in 1944 with things starting to increase in 1943 for the most part.
Part of the problem for the Japanese is that the 25mm gun was pretty much a self defense weapon. It didn't have the range to help defend adjacent ships (freighters) so even 8-20 25mm guns on a destroyer/s didn't do much for a convoy. 1942 defenses were about what the RN was using in 1940.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
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 the pieces will hit any ships.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
... at higher speeds ...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
