Torpedo Bomber

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by chipm, Jan 1, 2023.

  1. chipm

    chipm Well-Known Member

    I guess i have two questions..........

    1. How effective and valuable, compared to other weapons and assets, was the torpedo bomber.?
    2. Was it obsolete at the end of WW2 or did it carry on for some time after the war.?
    Thank You
     
    Dave55 likes this.
  2. EmpireUmpire

    EmpireUmpire .........

    Hi there,

    Are you interested from an RAF perspective? if so, any preference on which theatre of war or aircraft?

    Regards
    Emps
     
  3. Ramiles

    Ramiles Researching 9th Lancers, 24th L and SRY

    It's a wide topic and there's a lot out there.

    There's already for instance...

    Torpedo bomber - Wikipedia

    Where there's a section that deals with various answers etc.

    There's also plenty of videos on YouTube that deal with the evolution, development, and in-war history and even present and future, - so fascinating - but I'd say it's helpful for further guidance.

    Like a title such as "Torpedo Bomber Questions" rather than "Torpedo Bomber" etc.

    -- x --

     
  4. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    It is an exceptionally wide topic covering the period from WW1 all the way through to Korea (some USN Skyraiders used them against a dam in 1951).

    The problem with the torpedo was that it was a relatively large weapon that required much training to ensure an accurate drop relatively close to a usually heavily defended target at low level and relatively low speed, to ensure success. It was only in WW2 that a lot of development went into increasing drop heights and increasing drop speeds to increase the safety margins for the dropping aircraft. But until WW2 it was the only way of bringing a sufficiently large explosive charge to bear against a heavily armoured warship at sea with the prospect of letting in enough water to slow it down for it to be sunk by other means. Pre WW2 it was not considered a battleship killer by itself.

    For torpedo and torpedo bomber development you really need to look to the naval air arms of Britain, USA and Japan.

    The RAF gave up on torpedo dropping and coastal strike in the aftermath of WW2 when it decided yo concentrate on other things (the Bristol Brigand was supposed to be the Beaufighter replacement in 1946 but entered service not as a torpedo bomber but as a light bomber instead).

    The RN reduced its torpedo training from mid-1945, principally because the expected targets in the Far East no longer required it. The USN was planning similarly with the proposed phasing out of the TBM Avenger from its carriers, relying instead on the torpedo dropping capability of its SB2C dive bombers should that have been needed. By the early 1950s the Westland Wyvern had been rebranded from a TF designation ((torpedo fighter) to S (for strike). It had been designed as the successor to the Blackburn Firebrand which had entered service in 1945 after a long gestation period. And with that the anti-shipping torpedo died.

    The torpedo itself has of course lived on as an air dropped anti-submarine weapon in guided form.

    This edition of the RAF Historical Journal covers RAF anti-shipping operations from WW1.
    https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...ls/Journal-33-Seminar-Maritime-Operations.pdf

    The Italian Regina Aeronautica didn’t form its first TB unit until July 1940, scoring its first success in Sept that year.

    Other than some early use by He115 floatplanes, the Luftwaffe didn’t begin to put much emphasis on torpedo bombing until late 1941 when some He111 and Ju88 units began to convert to the anti-shipping role for operations in 1942.
     
  5. Trackfrower

    Trackfrower Member

    The torpedo seemed to be superseded by the Rocket Projectile.
    A much cheaper weapon and able to sink the smaller ships.
    Bill Tacon managed to sink a destroyer.
    It proved fatal to U boats too.
     
    chipm likes this.
  6. Steve49

    Steve49 Boycott P&O...

    For sinking a ship a torpedo was more effective than a bomb. As the saying goes a ship sinks quicker by putting water in the bottom than air from the top, ie a torpedo hit underwater is far more lethal than a bomb hit on the superstructure. However as the earlier posts have noted, this effectiveness has to be weighed against the greater exposure to air defence's and the complexity of torpedo delivery requirements, which probably explains the gradual withdrawal of torpedoes as anti-ship weapons.
     
  7. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    Pretty much. Aerial torpedoes were dead men walking from the moment the Germans started putting guided bombs into moving enemy warships.

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  8. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    It was fatal to U-boats while they stayed on the surface. After mid-1944 that was the case less and less often. Hence the removal of rockets from Coastal Command Liberators. The Banff and Dallachy Strike Wings of Mosquitos and Beaufighters encountered some travelling from Germany to Norway April/May 1945, but shallow waters prevented them from diving.

    To sink a large armoured warship a big rocket was required. Hence the unguided USN 11.75” Tiny Tim from 1945. But they never proved very successful. Britain developed its own versions immediately postwar in Uncle Tom and Red Angel, neither of which entered service.

    In July 1945 the USAAF deployed a “glide torpedo” to increase the dropping range.
    GT-1 glide torpedo / USAAF / USN Library / Forums - Axis and Allies Paintworks
     
  9. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    Not so sure about that.

    WW2 era guided weapons proved not the answer either. The Germans had some initial success, some of it spectacular (Savannah and Spartan for example) from Aug 1943 with Hs293 and Fritz X into spring 1944, but the allies quickly produced electronic jammers that rendered them virtually useless from early 1944, and certainly by D-Day.

    And being large weapons they required a large carrier aircraft which itself became vulnerable to fighters deployed from shore bases and escort carriers. Luftwaffe anti-shipping aircraft losses were very high in early 1944 in operations in the Atlantic & Med even though some were using guided weapons.

    The USN only had very limited success when it deployed the Bat radar guided bomb in April 1945 from PB4Y-2 Privateers.

    April 1945 was the same month USN aircraft from TF58 put many torpedoes in Yamato and her escorting ships.

    Yes the torpedo was difficult to use, but ultimately the Allies ran out of meaningful targets (large warships and even merchantmen) to use them against in WW2. And post war the Soviet Navy wasn’t perceived as a threat until the 1950s and the appearance of the Sverdlov class cruisers.
     
  10. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    Torpedo attack.PNG The attachment is taken from 'The Coastal Command Review' Vol.1
     
    CL1 and Fatboy Coxy like this.
  11. chipm

    chipm Well-Known Member

    A LOT of great responses and info..... Thank You
     
    CL1 likes this.
  12. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    The usual view of a torpedo attack is of a long straight in approach at low level, directly into the enemy’s guns on first the escorts and then the target ship themselves. The Midway scenario that saw massive losses to the USN TB.

    But in the 1930s the RN/FAA developed a different technique designed to minimise the casualty rate from AA gunfire.

    In the ideal scenario the TB would climb to about 10,000ft after takeoff. On reaching the enemy fleet they would break into flights and position themselves for the so called “anvil” attack from each bow or, if enough aircraft were present, both quarters as well. They would pass over the escorts and their limited AA batteries at that height. After penetrating the screen they would dive steeply down to a couple of hundred feet, close to about 500 yards while aiming their torpedoes ahead of the ship . Then drop it and leave hastily.

    This technique was still taught and extensively practiced in WW2 with formations of up to 36 aircraft (equivalent to 2 carrier loads of TB). Refinements were introduced. A “computer” was added to the aircraft. The TB pilot set target course and speed etc and aimed the aircraft at the ship. The computer then fed data to the torpedo. When it entered the water it’s gyros then angled it on an intercept course. Torpedo Attack Trainers (an early form of synthetic training device) were installed at Naval Air Stations to aid training.

    At the same time as the TB pilots were doing this the fighters / dive bombers would be strafing and bombing the escorts and target ships to keep the gunners heads down.

    So went the theory. Things like bad weather disrupted the plan during the Bismarck strike forcing the aircraft to dive from lower levels. At Taranto the dives into the harbour began around 4,000-5,000ft.
     
    Fatboy Coxy likes this.
  13. EmpireUmpire

    EmpireUmpire .........

    I would suggest that Allied torpedo aircraft had the greatest effect in the Med, stopping Axis shipping from reaching North Africa. 458 Squadron RAAF have a very good written history - it would also be worth you investigating 221 and 38 Squadron RAF.
     
    CL1 likes this.
  14. Fatboy Coxy

    Fatboy Coxy Junior Member

    Did the IJN conduct their torpedo attacks in a similar way?
     
  15. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    I don’t believe so.

    When you then think about the British technique, the combination of torpedo and dive bomber roles in a single airframe begins to make more sense (Albacore & Barracuda).
     
  16. Trackfrower

    Trackfrower Member

    RAF torpedo aircraft used to do solo "Rover" patrols with low cloud.
    This was followed by 3 or 6 aircraft, occasionally with fighter cover (if available or within range).
    In The Med, Beauforts, supported by Beaufighters had more success. The Beaufighters distracting the flak with bombs and eventually by acting as antiflak aircraft.
    Beauforts being superseded by Torbeaus.
    This was developed further in the North Sea with the arrival of Rocket Projectiles.
     
  17. Fatboy Coxy

    Fatboy Coxy Junior Member

    So this worked for the Swordfish and Albacore, but I'm not sure about the later aircraft used in the Torpedo role by the FAA.

    I think the RAF did the same with the Vildebeest but...

    In early 1940, 22 Squadron equipped with Vildebeests, began to receive Beauforts. The Beaufort was a much faster, heavier aircraft than the biplane and the crews needed a great deal of training in torpedo-dropping, using new techniques required by the Beaufort. The lighter, slower Vildebeest was able to dive then flatten out before launching the torpedo; Beauforts carried too much speed after diving so it needed a longer, level approach to the torpedo drop.
    Bristol Beaufort - Wikipedia

    So, on reflection, I doubt the IJN could conduct the steep dive into a torpedo run either, given they were using the G3M Nell and G4M Betty
     
  18. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    [​IMG]

    Osprey just published this title and it gives a very good overview of the training and tactics FAA torpedo bombers used, the impact they had on naval actions as whole and the evolution of the weapon system. RN service documents are used as a source and it's one of the "good" Duel titles IMO.
     
    CL1 likes this.
  19. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    It certainly worked with the Barracuda. There are a number of published accounts of the training carried out by pilots and units in the 1943-45 period until torpedo training was dropped around mid-1945.

    When the Avenger arrived in 1943 it couldn’t carry British torpedoes so was initially intended to be used in the ASW role. AIUI some US Mk13 were made available to the fleet carriers in 1945 but no use was ever made of them. I’m currently trying to track the details for something else. The Avenger was not built to withstand the RN torpedo attack method.
     
  20. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    To be clear, I didn't mean overnight, but from that moment on eventual obsolescence was a certainty. It became a matter of 'when', not 'if'.

    All the best

    Andreas
     

Share This Page