Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sandman455


As for skip bomb being some kind of replacement for torpedo bombing; absolutely not. Totally different targets and mission requirements. Heh, you don't want to get me going on skip bombing again. Just search the forums for that thread. And after reading and digesting all that skip bombing literature that was offered up. . .

I'm even more confident about everything I posted on the subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


the dud rate of the Mark 13 is too small

I once read a good description of the mark 13


"the Mark 13 had to be dropped from below 100 miles per hour at below 100 feet"

even with a successful launch, the Mark 13 was likely to explode on contact with the water, break in two, or propel itself towards the ocean floor"


Play the "slaughter of the lambs" scenario in AOTP and you can understand why the USN/USAAF steered away from torpedoes (though did not give up on them completely)


Plus the USN had those planes called the dauntless..


But still, regardless of their innnovations, the lack of a long range torpedo plane (not to mention the quality of torpedo that was the Type 91), was a major flaw in the allied air force - wonder if the change in japanese battleship doctrine (the kongos at santa cruz for example) was a result of such observations, or if the IJN even knew about the flaws of the mark 13 at all

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: sandman455


As for skip bomb being some kind of replacement for torpedo bombing; absolutely not. Totally different targets and mission requirements. Heh, you don't want to get me going on skip bombing again. Just search the forums for that thread. And after reading and digesting all that skip bombing literature that was offered up. . .

I'm even more confident about everything I posted on the subject.

agreed. Skip bombing evolved during the war due to a specific need, one of which was the absence of plentiful torpedoes and the training that goes along with making said attacks.

The aspect to keep in mind (IMO of course) is that pre-war, airpower in general vs. warships was still largely theoretical and there were disputing thoughts on it's worth, value and the best means to attack. As a weapon, the torpedo had merit, it was and remained through WWII the deadliest threat vs even the most heavily protected warship because of it's nature. But torpedoes were expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Successful delivery of the ordinance required specific training and increased the vulnerability of the delivery platform.

Bombing was not seen in general as a magic bullet, but with developments like the Norden, it could be advertised that regular iron bombs could be used adequately for cheaper cost both in terms of delivery and safety for the delivery platform, allowing repeat performance....in other words more bang for the buck.

The Japanese embraced torpedo land based aircraft because it was seen as a cheaper means of furthering along the goal of winning a decisive naval battle using the traditional weapon....the surface ship. With an advocate like Yamamoto, it was developed. Some within the Italian military saw similar value but due to cost and limited resources it got a later start (after war began) The Americans saw the level bomber using high alt tactics as a theoretical better means of defense and the country was rich enough to indulge as the Navy still had the dominant role in projecting US power across the ocean. After war came, the emergence of larger and larger air projection ability made the question largely moot. Torp, bomb, or Kamakaze, enemy forces would have to wade through increasingly huge air defenses to try to obtain their goals.

The UK's budget concious industry focused on air power along continental lines (vs. the Japanese who's interests were more maritime given the geography of the Pacific. ) The Germans embraced torpedo armed land based aircraft enough to purchase up to 1/2 of Italian torpedo production for it's own air force, a factor that helped limit the RA's own efforts ironically. Eventually the Allies also developed some limited torp lugging aspects. Why not more pursued? simply by mid war the increasing preponderance of Allied air power made it superfluous. Add to that the increasingly crushing naval superiority, backed by increased fighter defenses. The Germans resorted to the next step, semi-guided missiles which combine elements of bomb and torpedo technlogy.

The Japanese emphasis is often portrayed as a failure but a reason for this was logistical and command level decision making. They didn't have the resources to make distant bases more formidable in the shorter time frame and compounded the problem with some rash decisions that exposed their limited resources to futile/long shot attacks. It is also true that the USN avoided when possible placing themselves at harm's risk until they had the mobile and land based air defenses to minimize the risk, while at the same time Japanese training and numbers dwindled.

Despite pioneering work in the field of land based torpedo air attack, the Italians were late starters to the game but quickly made up for lost ground. It should be noted though that their combat environment was less air intensive which allowed them to score better in terms of numbers, coupled with the a more constricted geography and a need to expose convoys to air attack in conjunction with German air and Italian based naval attacks. The RA never had to face for example a air TF concentration of the likes of TF-38/58 flying mass numbers of Hellcats.

Thus the Apples and Oranges comparison. This also applies to the Swordfish analogy. Can one compare small numbers of unescorted Swordfish attacking singular targets like Bismarck to the less stormy Pacific battles involving whole TF's and larger numbers of carrier based fighters?

By the same token.....envisioning mass skip bombing attacks, especially by large 4E's on a mobile naval combat TF in the open ocean based on battles like the Bismarck Sea slaughter.....don't hold up as well under such scrutiny.

Then again maybe its all bunk. Arm a bunch of seaplanes with torps, with a few Lysanders equipped with mini-TallBoy bombs. anything goes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And what's the name of a B-25?

Dunno. How do you say 'target' in Japanese?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I have a suggestion as to why the Army didn't use torpedo bombing more.No evidence, no 10,000 documents of obscure studies, just what seems to me to be common sense. The primary torpedo bomber of the USAAF's was the B-26. The B-26 was a VERY hot aircraft, that the Army insisted on giving to inexperinced pilots. (Look up the Truman investigation into "Martin's miscarriage" that proppelled Truman into national attention and eventually the White House). If the Army couldn't bring it'self to give B-26's to more experinced pilots , or give such pilots enough training to survive level bombimg attacks , why would they take the time to train pilots in a skill that the Army probably figured it wouldn't use very much?

Sooooooo.......my contention is that B-26's were completely compatible with and able to conduct torpedo attacks, but the pilots were not. And if SOMEONE had made a conscious decision to properly train them, it could have been a effective weapon. But that did not fit in with the USAAF's "bomber mafia's" plans and their mania for strategic bombing. Torpedo bombing was a totally different skill set and detracted from level bombing.And B-26's were soon pulled out of the Pacific anyway.

Just my own theory.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I have a suggestion as to why the Army didn't use torpedo bombing more.No evidence, no 10,000 documents of obscure studies, just what seems to me to be common sense. The primary torpedo bomber of the USAAF's was the B-26. The B-26 was a VERY hot aircraft, that the Army insisted on giving to inexperinced pilots. (Look up the Truman investigation into "Martin's miscarriage" that proppelled Truman into national attention and eventually the White House). If the Army couldn't bring it'self to give B-26's to more experinced pilots , or give such pilots enough training to survive level bombimg attacks , why would they take the time to train pilots in a skill that the Army probably figured it wouldn't use very much?

Sooooooo.......my contention is that B-26's were completely compatible with and able to conduct torpedo attacks, but the pilots were not. And if SOMEONE had made a conscious decision to properly train them, it could have been a effective weapon. But that did not fit in with the USAAF's "bomber mafia's" plans and their mania for strategic bombing. Torpedo bombing was a totally different skill set and detracted from level bombing.And B-26's were soon pulled out of the Pacific anyway.

Just my own theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I have a suggestion as to why the Army didn't use torpedo bombing more.No evidence, no 10,000 documents of obscure studies, just what seems to me to be common sense. The primary torpedo bomber of the USAAF's was the B-26. The B-26 was a VERY hot aircraft, that the Army insisted on giving to inexperinced pilots. (Look up the Truman investigation into "Martin's miscarriage" that proppelled Truman into national attention and eventually the White House). If the Army couldn't bring it'self to give B-26's to more experinced pilots , or give such pilots enough training to survive level bombimg attacks , why would they take the time to train pilots in a skill that the Army probably figured it wouldn't use very much?

Sooooooo.......my contention is that B-26's were completely compatible with and able to conduct torpedo attacks, but the pilots were not. And if SOMEONE had made a conscious decision to properly train them, it could have been a effective weapon. But that did not fit in with the USAAF's "bomber mafia's" plans and their mania for strategic bombing. Torpedo bombing was a totally different skill set and detracted from level bombing.And B-26's were soon pulled out of the Pacific anyway.

Just my own theory.

Apparently the stall speed of the B-26 was, according to this URL (http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwariiaircraft/p/World-War-Ii-Martin-B-26-Marauder.htm), 120 MPH.

Due to the B-26's small wings and high loading, the aircraft had a relatively high landing speed of between 120 and 135 mph as well as a stall speed of around 120 mph.

If the operational window of the torpedo was only appropriate below the stall speed of the aircraft, that's a pretty good reason why air-dropped torpedoes weren't appropriate for these USAAF bombers.

The Mk. 13 remained a 'slow launch' torpedo until much later in the war. It doesn't seem that an air-launched torpedo had been developed for it that could be used without stalling out the aircraft a few feet above sea level (certain death for the crew)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I've found an account where VT-13 tested Mk 13's , operating under extremes succesfully , such as 280kts (which must have been quite a trick in a TBM/TBF, requiring a dive!) and as high as 800 feet!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I've found an account where VT-13 tested Mk 13's , operating under extremes succesfully , such as 280kts (which must have been quite a trick in a TBM/TBF, requiring a dive!) and as high as 800 feet!

Link? Would be an interesting read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I've found an account where VT-13 tested Mk 13's , operating under extremes succesfully , such as 280kts (which must have been quite a trick in a TBM/TBF, requiring a dive!) and as high as 800 feet!

Link? Would be an interesting read.

It's in Barrett Tillman's book TBF/TBM Avenger Units of World War 2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Just for the heck of it, I looked at the B-26 in the editor. It lists the plane as carrying a torpedo. I tried to see if I could set up the plane so that torpedo's were optional. I set it to naval attack (1k feet). And in the editor I reclassified it as a torpedo plane. And I sent it to San Diego where the Air HQ was given 20 torpedos. No joy. So obviously there is more involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Just for the heck of it, I looked at the B-26 in the editor. It lists the plane as carrying a torpedo. I tried to see if I could set up the plane so that torpedo's were optional. I set it to naval attack (1k feet). And in the editor I reclassified it as a torpedo plane. And I sent it to San Diego where the Air HQ was given 20 torpedos. No joy. So obviously there is more involved.

Not having access to the game right now, Did you figure out why the B-26 could not load the torp?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

So does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong in trying to mod this so that I can "play" with the Idea of an "American Betty"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

So does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong in trying to mod this so that I can "play" with the Idea of an "American Betty"?

Your having trouble creating a US 2E bomber in the editor that's primary AS armament is a torpedo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

WOW....just doing a little research says we'd need to do an a lot to even begin to nail this down. It appears that the Army specs required the plan to be able to preform torpedo attacks from the begining. Supposedly the B-26a could carry an internal fish, but I can't find which model.The B-26's at Midway , from the 22nd and 35th BG's were B-26B's , which had longer wings and bigger tails for more stability and better handling.

I've found an account where VT-13 tested Mk 13's , operating under extremes succesfully , such as 280kts (which must have been quite a trick in a TBM/TBF, requiring a dive!) and as high as 800 feet! (That is to say , operating , working,functional torpedos. Obviously you could drop from 20,000 if you don't mind the fish hitting the water and turning into a million parts!).

My gut feeling is that B-26's , with well trained crews , could do this , but the USAAF really wasn't that hot on the idea. And the USN wasn't all that hot on landbased naval air strike forces. I would expect that the USMC , if anyone , would take this and run with it.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

WOW....just doing a little research says we'd need to do an a lot to even begin to nail this down. It appears that the Army specs required the plan to be able to preform torpedo attacks from the begining. Supposedly the B-26a could carry an internal fish, but I can't find which model.The B-26's at Midway , from the 22nd and 35th BG's were B-26B's , which had longer wings and bigger tails for more stability and better handling.

I've found an account where VT-13 tested Mk 13's , operating under extremes succesfully , such as 280kts (which must have been quite a trick in a TBM/TBF, requiring a dive!) and as high as 800 feet! (That is to say , operating , working,functional torpedos. Obviously you could drop from 20,000 if you don't mind the fish hitting the water and turning into a million parts!).

My gut feeling is that B-26's , with well trained crews , could do this , but the USAAF really wasn't that hot on the idea. And the USN wasn't all that hot on landbased naval air strike forces. I would expect that the USMC , if anyone , would take this and run with it.....

I dont see where the original specs asked for torpedo capability, given the split bomb bay carring an internal torp would be awkward.
The B26B was capable of carrying torpedos. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b26_4.html
The B version introduced self-sealing fuel lines and a rearrangement of various internal equipment items. The engines were switched back to R-2800-5s. The large propeller spinners were deleted. The oil cooler air scoop under the engine cowling was enlarged. Torpedo racks underneath the fuselage were fitted as factory-installed equipment. Fuel supply included two 350-gallon main fuel tanks in the wings, two 121-gallon auxiliary tanks, and up to four 250-gallon bomb bay ferry tanks, for a total capacity of 1962 gallons. Normal bomb load consisted of two 2000 lb or 1600 lb bombs, eight 500-pound, sixteen 250 lb, or thirty 100-lb bombs. Maximum short-range bombload was 5200 pounds, which was seldom carried. This could be two 1600-lb bombs plus a 2000-pound torpedo on the external rack.

Early models of the B-26 had two separate bomb bays, but the rear one was only used infrequently for light loads in the South Pacific. Eventually, the rear bomb bay racks were discontinued altogether, followed by the deletion of the rear bomb bay doors and actuating mechanisms as well. The space and weight factors had become too critical, and the space was more valuable as a gunner's station after two flexible 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in the waist window area and ammunition storage boxes were installed for the tail and waist guns. Provisions for the two rear bay tanks were deleted from the B-26B-25-MA and later blocks.

Plus a bit about the widow maker reputation
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b26_5.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: LowCommand

As I remember (I’m too lazy to look for sources right now) the B-26 was shipped with adaptors for 2 torpedoes (although the adapters had a tendency to get lost.) They did get used early war at Midway and against the diversionary attack in the Aleutians. There the Japanese had the rare joy of seeing a torpedo pass completely over a CVL due to the very rough weather. The B-26 went MIA.