WW2 Aircraft more successful in secondary role

[Shortround6]

It can result in the torpedo actually breaking in two (or more) pieces. It can mean a much deeper dive than intended and screw up the depth keeping mechanism.

early torpedoes needed to enter the water at a given angle or range of angle, too steep and you had the deep dive even at low speed, to flat and you had the skip problem and the stress of of side forces acting on the torpedo to break it up. Even too fast an entry could break or disturb the torpedo control mechanisms. The wooden noses used later served to cushion the impact load on the torpedo as the wooden nose broke up. Large wooden tails served as air brakes/ retarders to slow the torpedo before it hit the water.
Perhaps they hoped the "220', speed 210 mph." drop would give an angle of entry similar to the lower speed, lower altitude drop.
All we know for sure is that the B-26s missed. we don't really know if they dropped from too far out. If they dropped and the Japanese turned to avoid Or if the torpedoes where damaged in dropping or.......
Until the torpedoes were fixed the US Army had no need of the P-38 to carry torpedoes with the A-20, the B-25 and B-26 all being torpedo capable.

 

[tyrodtom]

I don't know if it's true or not, but a lot of faults were in the torpedoes because they never tested them enough.
They were so expensive, and the Navy so short of funds in the 30's , they just tested a few, and hoped for the best.
Any truth in that ?

 

[wuzak]

As far as the USN goes this comment is from the 9th meeting at the Joint Fighter Conference. Which 'fighters' are not specified, but the comment is with reference to the Pacific Fleet(s).

"Our fighters are authorized to dive up to 85 degrees. Of course they have no displacing gear. Careful investigation down here shows absolutely no danger of the bomb hitting the propeller. At least the airplane and the bomb keep their relative pressures fore and aft, and the bomb drops away from the airplane, which was a great relief to everybody."

A lot of those naval fighters had big propeller arcs too!

Cheers

Steve

I wonder if the position of the bombs on the P-38 relative to the props is worse than for single engine fighters?

The Lightning's bomb racks were hung from the wing between the cockpit and the boom. As the wing was at the top of the boom the bomb position would be higher compared to the centreline of the prop than single engine fighters.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...n_Lockheed_P-38G-10-LO_Lightning_42-12982.jpg

That said, the props were smaller than the likes of the F6F, F4U and P-47, and the bombs were offset from the centreline of the boom.

 

[Greg Boeser]

It can result in the torpedo actually breaking in two (or more) pieces. It can mean a much deeper dive than intended and screw up the depth keeping mechanism.

early torpedoes needed to enter the water at a given angle or range of angle, too steep and you had the deep dive even at low speed, to flat and you had the skip problem and the stress of of side forces acting on the torpedo to break it up. Even too fast an entry could break or disturb the torpedo control mechanisms. The wooden noses used later served to cushion the impact load on the torpedo as the wooden nose broke up. Large wooden tails served as air brakes/ retarders to slow the torpedo before it hit the water.
Perhaps they hoped the "220', speed 210 mph." drop would give an angle of entry similar to the lower speed, lower altitude drop.
All we know for sure is that the B-26s missed. we don't really know if they dropped from too far out. If they dropped and the Japanese turned to avoid Or if the torpedoes where damaged in dropping or.......
Until the torpedoes were fixed the US Army had no need of the P-38 to carry torpedoes with the A-20, the B-25 and B-26 all being torpedo capable.

Tests with the 22nd BG in May of '42 in Australia determined that the Mk 13 torpedo could be dropped successfully by matching airspeed in MPH with altitude in feet. This was done by dropping solid wooden dummy torpedoes, as well as actual Mk 13s with the charge replaced with ballast. USAAF B-26s used torpedoes operationally only at Midway and in the Aleutians, without success. The RAF had better luck with their Marauder Mk Is in the Med with their own torpedoes, sinking several merchants in January '43

 

[gjs238]

Why anyone would want to take a high speed fighter and shackle it to a torpedo, let alone two, is beyond me. They would have been more useful knocking down Kates, Vals, and Zeroes

Then photos like this must make you shudder:

 

[CORSNING]

 

[CORSNING]

 

[CORSNING]

 

[gjs238]

Good job Corsning!

 

[BiffF15]

That's a massive drop tank in the bottom photo, looks close to the size of the engine / boom in diameter.

Cheers,
Biff