Was a four engine torpedo bomber ever considered? (1 Viewer)

[SaparotRob]

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.

 

[tyrodtom]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

HyperWar: US Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II [Chapter 6]

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

 

[muskeg13]

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

 

[muskeg13]

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.

 

[special ed]

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.

 

[tyrodtom]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[special ed]

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.

 

[DDonSS3]

RNZAF P-3 Orion dropping a torpedo:

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

Did that more than a few times, USN, 1975-95, P-3Bs and P-3Cs. Was always fun, glad I wasn't on the receiving end.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suppose that a modified B-17 or B-24 could serve the role.

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.

 

[GTX]

The CANT Z.511 supposedly could carry 4× 450 mm (17.7 in) aerial torpedoes or "Maiale" manned torpedoes.

 

[Shortround6]

You'd want a heavy forward armament to suppress AA fire. A six pack of .50 cals is a good start.

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.

See my hilariously poor Ai rendering below

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!!!

 

[EwenS]

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.

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.

 

[Dimlee]

You'd want a heavy forward armament to suppress AA fire

Send a squadron of Beaufighters ahead to suppress the AA.
Nice picture!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Send a squadron of Beaufighters ahead to suppress the AA.

Done!

 

[tyrodtom]

Done!

View attachment 842354

 

[tyrodtom]

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.