Question About The Torpedo Bomber

3,127 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by BQ_90
Madman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 8/7/22
AG
A question popped into my mind recently.

Did the torpedo bomber immediately go away after WWII? If so why?

Or did that aircraft type hang around for a while and then fade away?

I understand other weapon types made it useless sometime after WWII but it sure seems like in my mind that it just vanished in late 45.
Reply Quote
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Madman • 2:34p, 8/7/22
AG
I'm guessing their lack of success (for the US) had something to do with it
Reply Quote
1
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:40p, 8/7/22
Interesting question. I wonder if the fact that none of our viable enemies had navies was a factor, or if the advent of the jet was a factor?

Wasn't the lack of success of the torpedo bomber in World War II more due to the defective torpedoes than to the bombers?
Reply Quote
1
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:42p, 8/7/22
AG
Ships higher speed and the fact that the bomber has to fly long straight course made them obsolete is my guess

Also it seemed like next wave of navy plans where multi role fighter/bombers
Reply Quote
KingofHazor
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 2:46p, 8/7/22
That's what Wikipedia says, plus the advent of anti-ship missiles made torpedoes relatively obsolete.
Reply Quote
1
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 3:21p, 8/7/22
AG
Jabin said:
That's what Wikipedia says, plus the advent of anti-ship missiles made torpedoes relatively obsolete.
Also there was thought that surface fleets days were done with the advent of nukes. And the next war we fought relied on close air support of ground troops and wasn't a ship battle at all. So the carriers needed more ground bombers/attack aircraft
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:33p, 8/7/22
AG
Better aiming via radar and optics were part of that equation too.
Reply Quote
Spore Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:39p, 8/7/22
Improvised away from the torpedo bomber was General George Kenney use of B-17s loaded with forward firing guns flying at 250 feet skip bombing Japanese naval craft.
Reply Quote
3
Cinco Ranch Aggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:40p, 8/7/22
AG
Interesting question. I think evolving technology and tactics had a lot to do with it. I can't really picture a jet powered torpedo bomber when you have anti-ship missiles.
Reply Quote
1
Animal Eight 84
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Spore Ag • 11:15p, 8/7/22
AG
Spore Ag said:
Improvised away from the torpedo bomber was General George Kenney use of B-17s loaded with forward firing guns flying at 250 feet skip bombing Japanese naval craft.
Link to video of RAAF Beaufighters fighting in the Bismarck Sea.
Skip bombing and mast top bombing were predominant in the success of the battle , Beaufighters went in first to take out the AA guns.

Reply Quote
2
DevilYack
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:51a, 8/8/22
AG
We still have them. An antiship missile is really just an airborne torpedo. But faster, more maneuverable, and harder to dodge.
Reply Quote
1
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie • 6:55a, 8/8/22
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Interesting question. I think evolving technology and tactics had a lot to do with it. I can't really picture a jet powered torpedo bomber when you have anti-ship missiles.
I'm pretty sure that jets, even 1950s jets, fly too fast to drop torpedoes without the torpedo breaking up when it hits the water.
Reply Quote
Cinco Ranch Aggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 7:09a, 8/8/22
AG
Smeghead4761 said:
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Interesting question. I think evolving technology and tactics had a lot to do with it. I can't really picture a jet powered torpedo bomber when you have anti-ship missiles.
I'm pretty sure that jets, even 1950s jets, fly too fast to drop torpedoes without the torpedo breaking up when it hits the water.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

Just looking at a list of typical WWII torpedo bombers, the fastest I see is Japan's B7N Grace at 352/mph. There were probably faster aircraft fitted with torpedoes, but those would not have been intended for that role (such as Germany's Me410 or Fw190). These aircraft tended to have a maximum speed of less than 300/mph.
Reply Quote
1
Madman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:39a, 8/8/22
AG
What was the last year a major power fielded the torpedo bomber?

When did we stop? 1946?
Reply Quote
Cinco Ranch Aggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Madman • 8:16a, 8/8/22
AG
Madman said:
What was the last year a major power fielded the torpedo bomber?

When did we stop? 1946?
Our last was the Martin Marlin in 1948. The last from a major power was the Tupolev Tu-91, as only a prototype, i 1955. More recently, Argentina tested one during the Falklands War.
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie • 11:28a, 8/8/22
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Madman said:
What was the last year a major power fielded the torpedo bomber?

When did we stop? 1946?
Our last was the Martin Marlin in 1948. The last from a major power was the Tupolev Tu-91, as only a prototype, i 1955. More recently, Argentina tested one during the Falklands War.
well we fly/flew P-3 and S-3 that could drop torps. In addition to helos. Not sure if that qualifies as bomber though
Reply Quote
Cinco Ranch Aggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 12:29p, 8/8/22
AG
BQ_90 said:
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Madman said:
What was the last year a major power fielded the torpedo bomber?

When did we stop? 1946?
Our last was the Martin Marlin in 1948. The last from a major power was the Tupolev Tu-91, as only a prototype, i 1955. More recently, Argentina tested one during the Falklands War.
well we fly/flew P-3 and S-3 that could drop torps. In addition to helos. Not sure if that qualifies as bomber though
Oh sure, those aircraft and helps can drop torpedoes, but I think the question was in regard to aircraft that attacked shipping as seen at Midway or similar battles in WWII. The Orion and Viking, as well as the S-2 Tracker, were for ASW ops.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie • 2:04p, 8/8/22
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Smeghead4761 said:
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Interesting question. I think evolving technology and tactics had a lot to do with it. I can't really picture a jet powered torpedo bomber when you have anti-ship missiles.
I'm pretty sure that jets, even 1950s jets, fly too fast to drop torpedoes without the torpedo breaking up when it hits the water.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

Just looking at a list of typical WWII torpedo bombers, the fastest I see is Japan's B7N Grace at 352/mph. There were probably faster aircraft fitted with torpedoes, but those would not have been intended for that role (such as Germany's Me410 or Fw190). These aircraft tended to have a maximum speed of less than 300/mph.
Max speed isn't the primary issue. Primary issue is stall speed - can they fly slow enough without falling out of the air?

The Martin B-26 probably had the highest stall speed of any plane the American forces attempted to use to drop torpedoes (a small number in the battle of Midway that I know of). It had a landing speed of 114 knots.

The air dropped ASW torpedoes in current use employ drag chutes, both to slow ensure optimum entry angle into the water, and to slow them down when used from fixed wing aircraft.
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie • 4:39p, 8/8/22
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
BQ_90 said:
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Madman said:
What was the last year a major power fielded the torpedo bomber?

When did we stop? 1946?
Our last was the Martin Marlin in 1948. The last from a major power was the Tupolev Tu-91, as only a prototype, i 1955. More recently, Argentina tested one during the Falklands War.
well we fly/flew P-3 and S-3 that could drop torps. In addition to helos. Not sure if that qualifies as bomber though
Oh sure, those aircraft and helps can drop torpedoes, but I think the question was in regard to aircraft that attacked shipping as seen at Midway or similar battles in WWII. The Orion and Viking, as well as the S-2 Tracker, were for ASW ops.
Well I'm not sure much into the 50s we had any platform that was going to shoot torps at any surface ships.
Reply Quote
thach
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Madman • 8:28p, 8/9/22
AG
Madman said:
A question popped into my mind recently.

Did the torpedo bomber immediately go away after WWII? If so why?

Or did that aircraft type hang around for a while and then fade away?

I understand other weapon types made it useless sometime after WWII but it sure seems like in my mind that it just vanished in late 45.

If you mean USN torpedo bombers (TBF/TBM, etc.), they actually started going away before WW2 (at least planning for replacements of various aircraft). And I apologize for the Wikipedia links, but they're actually somewhat helpful in this instance.

In short (?), in 1941, the navy requested a replacement for the SBD and SB2C capable of dive bombing, as well as being able to carry torpedoes. This was the XSB2D-1. It was too heavy, was very complex, and was never ordered into production.

In 1943, the navy issued a request for proposals for similar high-powered multi-bombing-roll aircraft. The new designation would be BTx, instead of SBx or TBx. Several manufacturers developed prototypes.

Douglas reworked the XSB2D-1 into the BTD-1 Destroyer. Curtiss developed the XBTC. Martin developed the BTM Mauler. Kaiser-Fleetwings developed the XBTK. Ed Heinemann at Douglas developed a second BTx aircraft, and it was designated the XBT2D-1 Skyraider. I may have missed a few, too.

Most of these flew and were evaluated during the war, and a few were ordered into production, mainly the BTM and BT2D. All were single engine and single seat aircraft.

During the war, with the destruction of the Japanese fleet, the need for aerial launched torpedoes greatly reduced. For example, Essex's VT-83 launched a total of 15 torpedoes during their combat cruise from mid-March to mid-August 1945. These 15 were launched at Yamato and her escorts.

And with the destruction of the Japanese air forces and superb escorting fighters, the need for a backseat radioman gunner went away, and was deemed a liability by most squadrons. On the carriers in combat, both the VB and VT squadrons had near identical missions, despite their different mission profiles.

The SBD, SB2C, and TBF/TBM were obsolete by 1945, and some version(s) of the BT were their pending replacements. In 1947 the navy changed designations, and the SBs, TBs, and BTx went away, and were replaced by one: Ax. The BTM Mauler became the AM-1 Mauler, and the BT2D Skyraider became the AD-1 (through -6, plus others) Skyraider.

So, the fleet had torpedo capability after WW2, there was just minimal need for it. According to Wikipedia (and from what I know), the last torpedo attack in history was on the Hwacheon Dam in Korea on 1 May 1951, by the AD Skyraiders of VA-195. Of course, the AD was redesignated A-1 in 1962.

So, a carrier-based attack aircraft capable of carrying torpedoes faded away after the A-1 Skyraider was retired from carriers in the 1960s.

HTH
Reply Quote
4
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thach • 9:16p, 8/9/22
AG
Got to say it:

username checks out
Reply Quote
2
thach
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CanyonAg77 • 9:25p, 8/9/22
AG
Just think if we were discussing fighter tactics!
Reply Quote
1
Cinco Ranch Aggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thach • 7:26a, 8/10/22
AG
thach said:
Just think if we were discussing fighter tactics!
So start a new thread.
Reply Quote
Rabid Cougar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39p, 8/10/22
AG
Have to say that if you have ever seen a TBM fly at an airshow you will be impressed. It is a beast of a plane and nimble for its size. It was used more for level bombing in support of island invasions, strikes against the Japanese mainland, anti-sub and scout as opposed to a torpedo bomber. Big success was against the Yamato class BB's that had no aircover.

The A1D Skyraider was also in a class by itself. Huge single seat aircraft. Truly the A-10 of its time.
Reply Quote
1
Cinco Ranch Aggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rabid Cougar • 2:24p, 8/10/22
AG
Rabid Cougar said:
Have to say that if you have ever seen a TBM fly at an airshow you will be impressed. It is a beast of a plane and nimble for its size. It was used more for level bombing in support of island invasions, strikes against the Japanese mainland, anti-sub and scout as opposed to a torpedo bomber. Big success was against the Yamato class BB's that had no aircover.

The A1D Skyraider was also in a class by itself. Huge single seat aircraft. Truly the A-10 of its time.
I suggest anyone wanting to see an Avenger, next time in Aggieland head over to the Bush Museum. They have one hanging from the ceiling. It is a big airplane.
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cinco Ranch Aggie • 2:46p, 8/10/22
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Rabid Cougar said:
Have to say that if you have ever seen a TBM fly at an airshow you will be impressed. It is a beast of a plane and nimble for its size. It was used more for level bombing in support of island invasions, strikes against the Japanese mainland, anti-sub and scout as opposed to a torpedo bomber. Big success was against the Yamato class BB's that had no aircover.

The A1D Skyraider was also in a class by itself. Huge single seat aircraft. Truly the A-10 of its time.
I suggest anyone wanting to see an Avenger, next time in Aggieland head over to the Bush Museum. They have one hanging from the ceiling. It is a big airplane.
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.