PDA

View Full Version : Why wasn't skip bombing widely used by naval forces?



Frankthetank36
12-17-2009, 11:40 AM
Seems to me that skip bombing would allow much faster attacks than the slow, vulnerable torpedo bombers and be quite a bit easier than dive bombing (even if skip bombing is less likely to result in a direct hit). Fighters could also be used since they are optimized for speed instead of stability in a dive, and they could defend themselves much more effectively after dropping the bombs than either dive or torpedo bombers. They also carried a load comparable to that of the single-engine naval bombers. So why didn't Zeros and Wildcats commonly skip-bomb enemy ships?

SeaFireLIV
12-17-2009, 11:52 AM
1. It`s harder to spot ships when low down. High up, you can probably spot ships for miles. Why then drop low for a skip bomb?

2.Well, you can`t actually go that fast if laden with bombs while flying horizontally for a start. Slower speed, easier to hit. But you can while diving due to gravity\weight.

3.I`m not sure, but flying horizonally probably opens you up to possibly more intense and accurate fire than high.

4.You`re probably more likely to miss.

5.It`s pretty hard to climb out from low horizontal where a vertical dive will give you the energy to get out fast.

6.The airforces just found that dive bombing was a lot better.

7. I personally, find dive bombing a lot easier in the Sim than skip bombing which takes some skill. Maybe it`s the same in reality.


Just my two pennies. I don`t actually know.

Frankthetank36
12-17-2009, 12:11 PM
If you have enough altitude and can set up the attack, dive bombing isn't that difficult... But I find it much easier to set up the attack with skip bombing, just come in at a shallow dive to build speed perpendicular to the enemy ship. I just don't find it easy to know when I am directly above the enemy ship to dive bomb them (unless I am flying the Stuka, which actually has a decent floor window-- but it isn't a carrier plane).

Ba5tard5word
12-17-2009, 12:14 PM
Maybe it was tougher in real life than in Il-2, I've never done it since I'm not really into bombing in Il-2 though so I dunno.

I'm not sure if the dam-busting bomb used by the RAF uses the same technique as skip-bombing a ship, but if it does then it took them a LOT of trial and error before figuring out the right altitude and speed to bring in the bomb and get it to skip into the target properly. The movie "The Dambusters" is pretty good and shows the frustrating and lengthy process of developing the strikes.


Really the Allies should have mainly developed a good torpedo, the one the US had at the beginning of the war was a joke compared to the main Japanese one IIRC.

Frankthetank36
12-17-2009, 12:17 PM
Even though the Japanese had a better torpedo/torpedo bomber, their Val still managed to sink more ships than the Kate. The dam-busting bomb was different, it was a round bomb that was spinning backwards when it was dropped and was designed to fall to the bottom of the dam and then explode.

Waldo.Pepper
12-17-2009, 12:44 PM
Why wasn't skip bombing widely used by naval forces?

Because aeroplanes drop bombs, ships do not.

Skip bombing is -

1.) More dangerous in reality.
2.) More difficult in reality.

thefruitbat
12-17-2009, 12:46 PM
AAA.

Sure skip bomb an unarmed frieghter, bit different if its armed and shooting back.

Skip bombing requires you to get much closer than dive bombing to the target,and closer than even torpedo attacks, which i already consider suicidal against heavily armed targets.

In real life poeple didn't like to be shot down and killed.

Plus zeros and wilcats didn't carry as much as there respective bombers. Wilcat, 200lbs of bombs, the sbd 1600lbs. the zero 250kg, the kate 600kg.

fruitbat

psykopatsak
12-17-2009, 01:14 PM
skip bombing needs you to fly very low closing to the ship, in other words - the flak crews just have to point and shoot..

horseback
12-17-2009, 01:19 PM
First of all, skip bombing was a wartime invention, and in the case of the Pacific war, a direct result of the USAAF's discovery that medium to high altitude level bombing was less than effective against a moving target.

Skip bombing (often while strafing) allowed a heavier twin or four engined bomber to come in at a higher speed than a torpedo bomber, present any AA with the smallest target sillhouette for the shartest period of time and have the best chance of actually dmaging the target.

Just coincidentally, it provided justification for having all those bigger aircraft (hey, you fight with what you have) in the absence or limited number of large fixed fortifications, air bases or industrial targets.

Dive bombing was usually the most effective means of bombing a ship (especially an armed ship) because the bomber could adjust for the target's movement a bit, and the attacking aircraft was harder for AA to hit. The Naval air arms figured this out prewar, and built their carrier air groups accordingly.

cheers

horseback

JtD
12-17-2009, 01:19 PM
Fuses would initiate upon contact with the water. Heavy bombs could go through lighter ships, exploding on the other side. They could also sink and explode far below the surface.

Eventually, skip bombing was a lot more difficult in real life than it is in game.

I also agree with the AAA argument but would add interception, too.

Frankthetank36
12-17-2009, 01:37 PM
OK, I was wrong about the bombload of the early war fighters but the Corsair and Hellcat did indeed have the same bombload as the Helldiver. And wouldn't the closer range of skip bombing versus torpedo bombing be partially offset by the fact that the skip bomber would be flying twice as fast as the torpedo bomber? Also I would imagine that interception would be more difficult against fighter-bombers using skip bombing since (unlike dedicated dive- and torpedo-bombers) they could simply turn around and attack the interceptors after releasing the load if they could avoid being shot down after the initial "bounce".

SeaFireLIV
12-17-2009, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
OK, I was wrong about the bombload of the early war fighters but the Corsair and Hellcat did indeed have the same bombload as the Helldiver. And wouldn't the closer range of skip bombing versus torpedo bombing be partially offset by the fact that the skip bomber would be flying twice as fast as the torpedo bomber? Also I would imagine that interception would be more difficult against fighter-bombers using skip bombing since (unlike dedicated dive- and torpedo-bombers) they could simply turn around and attack the interceptors after releasing the load if they could avoid being shot down after the initial "bounce".


IF he manages to avoid the flak and fighters, drop his bomb, then to turn around (under same flak at a disadvantaged low level- low energy height) to take on fighters. Not simple at all. Remember, a skip bomber is a more-or-less stationery sitting duck for flak and defintely for closing fighters since you cannot weave on a bomb run. I believe there`s also a specific distance, height and speed for some bombs or they do not detonate and even bounce\skip wrong. So the skip bomber is restricted by this too.

horseback
12-17-2009, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Fuses would initiate upon contact with the water. Heavy bombs could go through lighter ships, exploding on the other side. They could also sink and explode far below the surface.

Eventually, skip bombing was a lot more difficult in real life than it is in game.

I also agree with the AAA argument but would add interception, too. Bombs were fused to explode at a certain period of time after release for skip bombing, rather than upon impact.

Thus, a bomber could scoot along at a 200+ mph clip a few feet above the waves, drop their bombs a few hundred feet before crossing over the target ship and be past it and climbing away before the slower moving tumbling bomb struck the target. Accuracy took good timing and a bit of practice, but much less skill than dive bombing.

I think if you research it a bit, you'll find that late war USN carrier groups cut way back on the use of divebombers; VBF squadrons of Corsairs and Hellcats were very nearly as effective at divebombing, could carry comparable loads and could also be used to defend the carrier against enemy aircraft (specifically kamikazes).

They were also cheaper to operate and didn't have a whiny I-wanna-survive-the-war-and-go-back-to-Iowa enlisted guy in the back seat (a very real consideration in the last 6 months of the war).

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
12-17-2009, 02:27 PM
Skip bombing in real life would be far more random than IL2.

I usually dive bomb along the length of the ship.

Rjel
12-17-2009, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
They were also cheaper to operate and didn't have a whiny I-wanna-survive-the-war-and-go-back-to-Iowa enlisted guy in the back seat (a very real consideration in the last 6 months of the war).


But every guy who was a pilot officer was a natural born hero? Kind of does a disservice to those poor malcontents who just did their jobs, doesn't it?

horseback
12-17-2009, 03:05 PM
Officers were generally more willing to take those risks (often for no discernable strategic advantage) than enlisted men once the war was considered 'already won'. An officer would be more thoroughly indoctrinated, have more to lose professionally speaking, and be less likely to openly chafe at the idea of having his life risked for next to nothing.

Once the Japanese fleet and other high value targets had been largely destroyed, a lot of the targets assigned for destruction often appeared to be little more than collections of straw huts. While the Japanese air forces and ships had become whittled down, they still had plenty of AAA, and taking out a straw hut for the cost of 2-3 aircraft and 4-6 aircrew (and the Japanese were not known for their humane treatment of PoWs) seemed a bit extreme to the average enlisted aircrewman.

Read Barrett Tillman's definitive books on the Hellcat and Corsair, among other books on Naval aviation in WWII; you'll find that the enlisted backseaters became progressively less interested in dying to bomb an already wrecked Japanese airfield or naval base. It was a very real problem by the spring of 1945, and was one of the stronger arguements for moving away from the SB2C and towards an extra V(B)F squadron instead.

cheers

horseback

jeffmorgan_947
12-17-2009, 03:22 PM
Tests were carried out by the British using a derivative of Barnes Wallis's famous bouncing bomb. This was known as "Highball" two of these spherical bombs [ 35" dia x 600lb torpex ] where to be carried by a modified Mosquito with the intention of attacking Japanese shipping,although never used in combat, the idea was passed onto the Americans in Jan 1945 who named the device "Speedee bombs" and used a A26b invader for testing but the idea was abandoned after a fatal crash in April 1945.

Frankthetank36
12-17-2009, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Skip bombing in real life would be far more random than IL2.

I usually dive bomb along the length of the ship.

Even if it is more random, I would think that it could still be more accurate in some instances. It is not particularly difficult to dive bomb a carrier or battleship once you get the hang of it, but try dive bombing a submarine. With skip bombing, it doesn't matter how narrow the boat is.

jarink
12-17-2009, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
OK, I was wrong about the bombload of the early war fighters but the Corsair and Hellcat did indeed have the same bombload as the Helldiver. And wouldn't the closer range of skip bombing versus torpedo bombing be partially offset by the fact that the skip bomber would be flying twice as fast as the torpedo bomber? Also I would imagine that interception would be more difficult against fighter-bombers using skip bombing since (unlike dedicated dive- and torpedo-bombers) they could simply turn around and attack the interceptors after releasing the load if they could avoid being shot down after the initial "bounce".

By the time Corsairs and Hellcats came in, rockets were a better option as an anti-ship weapon than skip-bombing.

Speed isn't that big of an issue for AAA when your target is coming straight at you on a steady bearing. The closer range required for skip bombing also means that you're much more likely to have to fly over your target. That means an extra few seconds of closure (at a steady bearing), plus the guns on the other side of the ship can have a whack at you. There's also the added danger of striking a mast, antenna or other things on the target ship.

Still, skip bombing was much more effective than level bombing from altitude.

dwagener
12-17-2009, 06:21 PM
I would imagine a bomb may not skip too well in heavier seas either. The flatter the water the better.

JtD
12-17-2009, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Fuses would initiate upon contact with the water. Heavy bombs could go through lighter ships, exploding on the other side. They could also sink and explode far below the surface.

Eventually, skip bombing was a lot more difficult in real life than it is in game.

I also agree with the AAA argument but would add interception, too. Bombs were fused to explode at a certain period of time after release for skip bombing, rather than upon impact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If you pay close attention, you'll find that I wrote "initiate the fuse" and nothing about "explode the bomb".

DD_crash
12-18-2009, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
AAA.
In real life poeple didn't like to be shot down and killed.
fruitbat
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I think that you have a point there.

psykopatsak
12-18-2009, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Skip bombing in real life would be far more random than IL2.

I usually dive bomb along the length of the ship.

Even if it is more random, I would think that it could still be more accurate in some instances. It is not particularly difficult to dive bomb a carrier or battleship once you get the hang of it, but try dive bombing a submarine. With skip bombing, it doesn't matter how narrow the boat is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it does. a submarine is almost on the waterline, and in average seas the sub's decks are awash due to the low freeboard. a skipping bomb might just pass the sub, especially since the sub is usually diving when hostile aircrafts are spotted.

AndyJWest
12-18-2009, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by psykopatsak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Skip bombing in real life would be far more random than IL2.

I usually dive bomb along the length of the ship.

Even if it is more random, I would think that it could still be more accurate in some instances. It is not particularly difficult to dive bomb a carrier or battleship once you get the hang of it, but try dive bombing a submarine. With skip bombing, it doesn't matter how narrow the boat is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it does. a submarine is almost on the waterline, and in average seas the sub's decks are awash due to the low freeboard. a skipping bomb might just pass the sub, especially since the sub is usually diving when hostile aircrafts are spotted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 to that.

Even if a bomb hit the sub hull, it would quite likely bounce off, given the hull cross-section. Subs were sunk with depth-charges, not bombs. The idea was to generate sufficient pressure to damage the hull, not put holes in it with shrapnel. Maybe you'd get lucky, but using the proper weapon for the job would be more sensible.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-18-2009, 08:46 AM
How to skip bomb a sub...with a Stuka. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...161055095#5161055095 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5741028875?r=5161055095#5161055095)

Frankthetank36
12-18-2009, 08:48 AM
Oh wow... I thought if you released the bomb at like 10 feet off the ground it wouldn't go high enough to bounce over the top of the ship.

Anyway, I love how the SBD and Val campaigns always have me trying to sink subs with regular bombs. In particular, the dumb AI in my Val dynamic campaign always flies WAY too close in formation and always crashes, so I have to fly the LONG distance myself. Anyone know of a good dive-bombing campaign? Tried downloading Straight Down the other day and when I try to play it I keep getting a message saying that the Hawaii map won't load. I want something carrier based (preferably one that has me attacking ships more often than land-based targets), no Stukas.

Buzzsaw-
12-19-2009, 01:54 PM
Salute

Skip bombing was used most often against poorly armed Japanese merchant shipping or smaller warships, Japanese AAA mounting on their ships, especially merchant types were sparse.

This meant the skip bombers could undertake this risky type of attack without too much danger.

Skip bombing was also used to a limited extent against Italian shipping in the Med, again, the armament of these ships was comparatively weak, plus the attacks were made primarily at night, with the advantage of the cover of darkness.

Trying this type of attack in NW Europe versus German shipping would be suicidal, even ordinary coastal freighters had substantial AAA mounts, and patrol vessels and warships were extremely heavily armed.

The development of anti-shipping rockets provided a much better solution, allowed the attacking aircraft to stand off and fire them.

Torpedoes and dive bombing was the best solution versus actual warships, you won't see many examples, even in the Pacific of warships being attacked with skip bombing techniques.

Bremspropeller
12-19-2009, 03:50 PM
Skip-bombing poses some very critical challenges on the pilot:

The attack is less precise due to waves and unpredictable skipping-behaviour.

The pilot comes in low and has very few options to maneuver is aircraft in order to avoid AAA.

He flies right in the middle of the AAA-envelope.

He's in danger of having ground-contact.

He's in danger of being blown up by his own bomb in a couple of different ways.

He puts himself into all of this trouble while delivering a bomb that wasn't designed to be delivered that way.
During the Falklands War, the Argentinians would come in low and fast and throw 750lb-bombs onto british shipping.
They hit 16 british ships, but most bombs wouldn't fuze and go right through the hull, only to plunge into the water on the opposite side.(that's right, the bomb went entirely through the ship w/o going off)

After all, skip-bombing is a bad idea whenever attacking a well-defended target.
There are just too many drawbacks over the "style" of that specific delivering-type.

Blindman-
12-19-2009, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Anyone know of a good dive-bombing campaign? Tried downloading Straight Down the other day and when I try to play it I keep getting a message saying that the Hawaii map won't load. I want something carrier based (preferably one that has me attacking ships more often than land-based targets), no Stukas.

Frank, click on my signature for a good dozen + missions involving attacking shipping with US planes (some UK and Axis in there too).

I also have wondered if skip-bombing was widely tried/tested. If it had been as easy and accurate as in this sim it surely would have been more widely used. But perhaps only the suicidal approach to the target on a low, slow, straight path to the AAA was tried. It didn’t take me long to learn (actually Dart told me on one of his training videos) that flying straight at the AAA gives you little time before your own demise (by the way, I always wondered why US torpedo bombers were trained to go in slow and straight over tens of miles).

The technique I use is: once a ship/target is spotted and selected to then head 10 degrees off of target at about 3000 ft in altitude until you are about to pass the target (4-5 miles away at this time). Then wing-over and dive in a curving swoop that ends with your crate about 100 ft off of the waves heading straight to the bow of the target ship. You want to be about 0.5-0.75 mile out, that then leaves you with 1-2 seconds to make any final path corrections before dropping your ordnance. This gets me in with a very minimal amount of time as a prime target for the AAA. I then try to pull up , turn and jink long enough to get as far away from the ship as possible before gaining altitude or starting a “Cuban-eight”. To be honest I die or am damaged as often from my own blast as from the AAA, but I could learn to drop earlier if my life was really at stake. Over all I average around an 70% success rate for Destroyers, Cruisers, Costal Defense ships and Carriers, and a 50% success rate with Battleships (due to greater AAA).

There is little doubt in my mind that if a very successful method of bombing enemy ships was discovered but it had a high attrition rate it would still be widely used by most militaries.

Frankthetank36
12-19-2009, 09:58 PM
What are you setting as your bomb delay? I usually use a 4-second delay and immediately pull up after releasing the bomb. Also torpedo bombers were very vulnerable, but they were widely used nonetheless (but then again, torpedoes were much more devastating than regular bombs).

ploughman
12-20-2009, 08:54 AM
Not to mention a torpedo strikes a ship below the waterline, sometimes even exploding beneath the keel.

BM357_Sniper
12-20-2009, 09:09 AM
I think a lot of people don't realize that there were a lot more AAA guns firing from ships IRL than in this game. I'd like to see any of you put yourself in the middle of that on the deck to skip bomb.

Like someone said previously though, smaller, less armed ships were a different story...

Shadrach52
12-22-2009, 02:03 PM
The original Barns Wallace skip bomb was designed for use against a very specific target - resorvoir dams. The water surface was very flat and once the bounce characteristics had been worked out with some accuracy they used a sighting device to take bearings from known landmarks to get a very accurate distance from the target for bomb release and the very precise height needed was found by shining two converging beams of light at the water surface. When they met the height was right. Non of this is at all possible against shipping at sea so the accuracy would be no better than conventional bombing. Also the bomb only needed to strike the parapet and it was guarenteed to sink to the perfect spot at the dam base so a long time delay was used to allow the bombers to get clear. Even so it required an incredible amount of skill and practice. A real challange for the modders out there would be to recreat a flyable Dambusters mission.

Frankthetank36
12-22-2009, 05:27 PM
^First we'd need some Lancasters

yuuppers
12-23-2009, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Even if a bomb hit the sub hull, it would quite likely bounce off, given the hull cross-section. Subs were sunk with depth-charges, not bombs. The idea was to generate sufficient pressure to damage the hull, not put holes in it with shrapnel. Maybe you'd get lucky, but using the proper weapon for the job would be more sensible.

A bomb exploding under the surface of the water becomes a depth charge. A bomb bouncing off a saddle tank would do enough damage to make the tank inoperable.

JtD
12-23-2009, 08:55 AM
Not necessarily, saddle tanks do offer some resistance to impact.

AndyJWest
12-23-2009, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Even if a bomb hit the sub hull, it would quite likely bounce off, given the hull cross-section. Subs were sunk with depth-charges, not bombs. The idea was to generate sufficient pressure to damage the hull, not put holes in it with shrapnel. Maybe you'd get lucky, but using the proper weapon for the job would be more sensible.

A bomb exploding under the surface of the water becomes a depth charge. A bomb bouncing off a saddle tank would do enough damage to make the tank inoperable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly, a bomb exploding near enough to a sumarine might sink it, but it will be less likely to do it than a depth charge of equivalent weight. Much of a bombs mass is made up of the casing, designed to produce high-velocity shrapnel, wheras a depth charge has a much higher proportion of explosives, so should produce a larger pressure pulse. Also, depth charges are fuzed to explode at a given depth, rather than at a given delay like a bomb is.

Again, a bomb hitting a sub might do impact damage, or concievably penetrate, but given the hull shape and the limited amount of structure above water, it would be an unreliable method of attack. U-boats were also armed with AA guns, so if it was going to fight it out on the surface (not sensible under most circumstances), it wouldn't be a sitting duck anyway.

JtD
12-23-2009, 11:54 AM
Otoh, the AAA on the U-Boats was one of the worst performing AAA installations of WW2, due to the limited stability of the firing platform, the boat. They also were generally missing any sophisticated fire control systems.

Eventually, diving was certainly the better option, as you've already said.

Depth charges were rather small (100kg), and did usually not pack more explosives than common bombs (250kg, 500lbs) did. Obviously, you could drop more than one depth charge for each bomb. Eventually, depth charges just increased the likelihood of a hit. And, as you've said already, the depth charge fuse was much better suited to AS work.