PDA

View Full Version : Torpedo bombers



barfo1983
12-03-2009, 12:02 PM
Hello all,

What planes were ever designated as being capable of carrying a torpedo, what planes ever dropped a torpedo in training and what planes ever dropped a torpedo in combat?

For example, I've seen a photo of an SB2C on the ground with a torpedo mounted. The bomb bay dooors could not be closed. I wonder if it ever dropped one. B-25s and I think B-26s did. I think I've seen a photos of Fw-190s and F4Us with torps mounted, but again, I'm not sure. Just wondering. And I know a lot of people here have a good deal of knowledge about stuff like that.

Thanks

Frankthetank36
12-03-2009, 12:08 PM
B5N, B6N, Beaufort, TBD Devastator, Swordfish, and TBF Avenger were designed as torpedo bombers. FW-190, IL-2, B-25, G4M Betty, Beaufighter, and a couple of other medium bombers that I can't think of off the top of my head were modified to carry torpedoes. I'm sure plenty of other planes (especially recon seaplanes) were armed with torpedoes, but the list is too long to count. In game there aren't too many flyable planes (unless you use mods) that can use torpedoes, the G4M, IL-2T, Beaufighter, and some German medium bomber that I can't think of are the only ones that come to mind.

barfo1983
12-03-2009, 12:19 PM
I realize that there were many many planes that could carry torpedos, but I was wondering about the ones that actually did. Of course the Swordfish and the Japanese and USN planes did as well as the Betty and B-25, but I was wondering if planes such as the He-lll and Il-2T (and of course the FW-190 :-) ) ever actually dropped one.

icrash
12-03-2009, 12:31 PM
You can add the SM79 & A20 to the flyable in-game torpedo bombers.

JtD
12-03-2009, 12:36 PM
The He-111, the Ju-88 and the SM.79 were the mainstay of the Axis European torpedo bomber forces.
The Do-217 and Cant Z.1007 were also used in this role.
A minor part was played by planes like the He-115.

The Soviets had the Il-2 and, more importantly to my knowledge, the DB-3/Il-4.

Frankthetank36
12-03-2009, 12:49 PM
The IL-2T sank plenty of ships, and I would assume the FW-190 did as well (the Germans didn't have many other single engined land based torpedo bombers, and the 190 ended up replacing the Stuka).

ElAurens
12-03-2009, 10:10 PM
The FW 190 Torp was a prototype.

Never used in combat.

Frankthetank36
12-04-2009, 04:47 AM
But didn't they mount torpedoes on existing 190s?

JtD
12-04-2009, 08:41 AM
Yes, on an existing prototype.

jarink
12-04-2009, 03:23 PM
PBY "Black Cats" dropped torps and depth charges regularly.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/PBYNEW325.jpg

PV-2 Harpoon
http://daveswarbirds.com/navalwar/morepics/pv-2torp.jpg

Didn't carry them operationally, but they did experiment with 2(!) fish on the P-38.
http://www.456fis.org/THE%20P-38/torpedo.jpg

The only operational use of B-26 Marauders dropping torpedoes that I know of was during the Battle of Midway.

The Fairley Barracuda was designed as a torpedo/dive bomber.

There's list on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_bomber), but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

DiveBrake
03-21-2010, 07:56 PM
Just to back what jarink wrote in Dec: During the diversionary attack on the Aleutians which was part of the Midway campaign, one B-26 from Cold Bay attacked the carrier Hiryu (?) with torpedoes in heavy seas. The ship was unhit because a big wave launced the fish over the flight deck. Source: "The Forgotten War"

VXB77016
03-22-2010, 07:10 AM
A-1 Skyraiders (or as they were then known in 1951, AD-4 Skyraiders) from VA-195 dropped torpedoes into a freshwater lake to knock out the Hwachon dam on the Korean Peninsula.

What a mess that must've made!

koivis
03-22-2010, 11:58 AM
One very underrated plane, Junkers Ju 188 also served as a torpedo bomber (A-3 version) from July 1944 till the end of the war. Perhaps the most advanced torpedo bomber of WWII, it had Jumo 213s (making it also maybe the fastest torpedo plane) and FuG 200 Hohentwiel search radar. Only about 50 were delivered though.

WTE_Galway
03-22-2010, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by jarink:

The Fairley Barracuda was designed as a torpedo/dive bomber.



Not just designed, operational on British carriers ...

On 3 April 1944 during operation Tungsten the Tirpitz was attacked by two waves of Fairey Barracuda and so heavily damaged it required two months to repair.

Note that torpedoes were not used in this particular attack.

Barracuda with torpedo ...

http://www.zgapa.pl/zgapedia/data_pictures/_uploads_wiki/f/Fairey_Barracuda.jpg


Tirpitz after the attack ..


http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/Tirpitz_OpTungsten.jpg


It was not the most popular of aircraft, partly because operation of the unusual dive flaps at low level on a torpedo run could be lethal if used wrongly. It tends to compete with the Boulton Paul Defiant for the title of "worst British aircraft of WWII" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Frankthetank36
03-23-2010, 12:03 PM
"Worst"? Performance-wise it definitely wasn't as bad as the rickety early-war biplane torpedo bombers that Britain used that looked like something from WWI. I don't know of any other carrier-based planes that could serve as both dive and torpedo bombers besides the Japanese B7A, and by the time that plane entered service, there were no carriers to use it from.

berg417448
03-23-2010, 12:38 PM
The Curtiss Helldiver was a dive bomber that could carry a torpedo but I'm not sure that they were ever used in that role.

Zeus-cat
03-23-2010, 03:08 PM
"Worst"? Performance-wise it definitely wasn't as bad as the rickety early-war biplane torpedo bombers that Britain used that looked like something from WWI.

If you are talking about the Swordfish it actually stayed in service through 1945. It was an incredibly effective weapon that the crews loved. It even outlasted its replacement.

WTE_Galway
03-23-2010, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
"Worst"? Performance-wise it definitely wasn't as bad as the rickety early-war biplane torpedo bombers that Britain used that looked like something from WWI. I don't know of any other carrier-based planes that could serve as both dive and torpedo bombers besides the Japanese B7A, and by the time that plane entered service, there were no carriers to use it from.

The main issue seemed to be the unusual dive flaps that apparently operated with a 7 second delay and could be lethal for inexperienced pilots to operate.

It was also underpowered and heavy part of the reason later models dropped the rear gun and the third crew member. The aircraft needed rocket assist to take off from escort carriers.

Frankthetank36
03-24-2010, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:

If you are talking about the Swordfish it actually stayed in service through 1945. It was an incredibly effective weapon that the crews loved. It even outlasted its replacement.

I can't imagine how the plane itself was more effective than the TBF Avenger, the B5N Kate, or even the TBD Devastator, although British torpedoes might have been more effective than the ones the US had at the beginning of the war and only the British had night carrier capability. It was an open cockpit biplane with a top speed that was nowhere near 200mph. The Swordfish was more popular with crews than the Albacore due to the latter's heavy controls, but the Albacore was a fixed-gear biplane as well. The Swordfish might have helped sink the Bismarck and destroyed the Italian battleships off Taranto, but it must be remembered that neither Italy nor Germany had any carriers and the Taranto attack took place at night. The Swordfish tactics were simply much better than, for example, those of the Devastators at Midway.

JtD
03-24-2010, 12:58 PM
IIrc, carriers borne Avengers in British service had a better combat record than Swordfishs. The plane had its merits, but still was outdated even as the conflict began.

Did they operate together late war in the Pacific Fleet?

WTE_Galway
03-26-2010, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
IIrc, carriers borne Avengers in British service had a better combat record than Swordfishs. The plane had its merits, but still was outdated even as the conflict began.

Did they operate together late war in the Pacific Fleet?

Well the last new Swordfish was delivered in August 1944 and the last operational Swordfish Squadrons were in the ETO with 835 and 813 flying FAA operations in the seas around Norway up until the 21 May 1945.

As for the timeline, Swordfish were gradually replaced by Barracuda which in turn were phased out in favor of Avengers. Whether Swordfish and Avengers co-existed in the PTO at any point I am not sure.

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 02:03 AM
The Dauntless' and Avengers both dive bombed and torpedo bombed. I know an old guy who bombed New Guinea
during that battle in Dauntless'. I told him he had brass ones to go out in combat in one and he just nodded.
That was in the mid-90's.

ouston
03-27-2010, 04:05 PM
I am almost certain that there were no Swordfish serving with the British Pacific Fleet although I don't have the references to hand to check that 100%. Despite being pioneers in the development of aircraft carriers by the late 1930s the Royal Navy had a really poor "plane set" to use an IL2 term. The Fulmar for example had to carry a navigator despite being an fighter. The Swordfish was well thought of by its crews but was severely out of date although as somebody mentioned outlived its replacement. The Royal Navy only really became effective when it acquired Corsairs (which it introduced on carriers before the USN), Avengers and Hellcats. All of these were vastly more robust than anything the British had available. It says little for the Admiralty's procurement organisation and the British aircraft industry that by 1943 the best we could produce was the Barracuda, an aircraft that was to be charitable a pig to fly. In what I have read there seem to be few positive comments about this aircraft.

Any account that I read of Royal Navy carrier operations in World War II leaves me in a state of humble admiration that aircrew routinely flew in such terrible conditions.

Pip pip
Ouston

koivis
03-27-2010, 04:42 PM
I agree with ouston. A quick review of indigenous British produced naval aircraft during WWII:

Swordfish: Slow (with capital S), rugged, good to fly, but totally unsuitable for Pacific style carrier battles, excels only in harsh conditions of atlantic or night raids (where other aircraft had more disatvantages).
Albacore, almost as slow as Swordfish, and worse in all other areas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Barracuda: average performance, but not liked by pilots and still outclassed by B6N and Avenger for example.
Seafire: excellent fighter but not really made with carrier use in mind...
Skua/Roc: slow, don't know much about them but just look at them! Dear god!
Fulmar: slow for a fighter, good range, better as an armed reconnassaince plane.
Firefly: the best british carrier plane of WWII, average performance, good armament, good for fighter bomber / night fighter duties but still one could claim F4U and F6F were better.

Only after WWII, after introduction of Sea Fury and better Firefly variants they got near USN level, but still the Avenger was an important part of the fleet.

WTE_Galway
03-27-2010, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by koivis:
I agree with ouston. A quick review of indigenous British produced naval aircraft during WWII:

Swordfish: Slow (with capital S), rugged, good to fly, but totally unsuitable for Pacific style carrier battles, excels only in harsh conditions of atlantic or night raids (where other aircraft had more disatvantages).
Albacore, almost as slow as Swordfish, and worse in all other areas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Barracuda: average performance, but not liked by pilots and still outclassed by B6N and Avenger for example.
Seafire: excellent fighter but not really made with carrier use in mind...
Skua/Roc: slow, don't know much about them but just look at them! Dear god!
Fulmar: slow for a fighter, good range, better as an armed reconnassaince plane.
Firefly: the best british carrier plane of WWII, average performance, good armament, good for fighter bomber / night fighter duties but still one could claim F4U and F6F were better.

Only after WWII, after introduction of Sea Fury and better Firefly variants they got near USN level, but still the Avenger was an important part of the fleet.

Don't forget the FAA Sea Gladiators that flew with FAA Squadrons: 800,801,802,804,805,806 and HMS Eagle Fighter Flight fighting in Norway, Mediterranean, Malta and Crete.

http://base13.glasnet.ru/text/ap/gladiator/11-1.jpg


Also the Sea Hurricane operational with 700, 702, 731, 748, 759, 760, 761, 762, 766, 768, 769, 774, 776, 778, 779, 781, 787, 788, 789, 791, 792, 794, 795, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 806, 813, 824, 825, 835, 877, 880, 882, 883, 885, 891, 895, and 897 Squadrons.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/reviews/1125/DSC_11137.jpg

Late war (too late for combat) was the Blackburn Firebrand Torpedo bomber with 708, 764,778, 803 sqdn. A not-so-successful compromise between fighter and torpedo bomber it saw service from '45 till the early '50s :

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/blackburn-firebrand.jpg



... and of course the Hawker Sea Fury which was still in prototype form and basically a Tempest on steroids http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Seafury_TF934_102_RCN_preserved.jpg

ElAurens
03-28-2010, 09:14 AM
All of the Sea Hurris, Spits, and Glads, were very compromised aircraft. Their CGs were a mess due to the installation of carrier equipment, and they all had decreased perfromance compared to their land plane counterparts.

The pilots of the Shuttleworth collection's Sea Hurri say it is very unstable and also underperforming due to added weight all in the wrong places.

The Seafire suffered from many landing gear failures and many many prop strikes.

Carrier operations require carrier specific aircraft.

Frankthetank36
03-28-2010, 01:12 PM
Not to mention that the Seafire only had a range of 513 miles, adequate for an interceptor but otherwise pretty short for naval use.

jarink
03-28-2010, 02:15 PM
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 Zeus-cat:

If you are talking about the Swordfish it actually stayed in service through 1945. It was an incredibly effective weapon that the crews loved. It even outlasted its replacement.

I can't imagine how the plane itself was more effective than the TBF Avenger, the B5N Kate, or even the TBD Devastator, although British torpedoes might have been more effective than the ones the US had at the beginning of the war and only the British had night carrier capability. It was an open cockpit biplane with a top speed that was nowhere near 200mph. The Swordfish was more popular with crews than the Albacore due to the latter's heavy controls, but the Albacore was a fixed-gear biplane as well. The Swordfish might have helped sink the Bismarck and destroyed the Italian battleships off Taranto, but it must be remembered that neither Italy nor Germany had any carriers and the Taranto attack took place at night. The Swordfish tactics were simply much better than, for example, those of the Devastators at Midway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Starting around 1942 or so, the main mission of the Swordfish was anti-submarine. That is the mission in which it really excelled. It's slow speed allowed it to operate from the small escort carriers and its maneuverability, weapons fit (especially the "rocket spear") and endurance (about 5.7 hours according to Wikipedia) were great assets for hunting subs.