Were torpedo bombers more effective vs ships than dive bombers?

Factual Questions
61

[QUOTE=Declan]
It might have been a way of getting around treaty limitations
[/QUOTE]

Basically, yes. It was a weight-saving measures. The more guns you put in a turrent, the better the gun/armour weight ratio gets. Hence the move from double turrets to triples between the world wars. Quads were an extreme example, not so popular since a single hit could put half the ships armament out of action. I think the French actually locked pairs of guns together so their quad turret was really a pair of double-barrelled 15-in guns, saving even more weight by reducing the number of elevating mechanisms etc.

All sorts of weird and crazy things were done to get round the Washington treaty tonnage limits - including reviving the ‘turret that can only shoot sideways’ feature on the Nelson class battleships. Doh!

62

Nice site for pictures of warships: http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/

Not much in the way of specifications or operational histories, but nice for looking at photos.

For example: http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/charles_martel.htm for the single main gun turrets your looking for.

Depends on the turret design. I think that in the case of some of the four gun turrets, there are only 2 hoists bringing shells and powder to the guns. So, the rate of fire per barrel is lower. (1 salvo per minute from 5 twin turrets = 10 rounds per minute from a ship. 1 salvo from 3 quad turrets every two minutes is 6 rounds per minute, but it’s also a bigger “spread”, giving a sliver of a higher chance of gaining a hit…)

63

[QUOTE=mlees]
Depends on the turret design. I think that in the case of some of the four gun turrets, there are only 2 hoists bringing shells and powder to the guns. So, the rate of fire per barrel is lower. (1 salvo per minute from 5 twin turrets = 10 rounds per minute from a ship. 1 salvo from 3 quad turrets every two minutes is 6 rounds per minute, but it’s also a bigger “spread”, giving a sliver of a higher chance of gaining a hit…)
[/QUOTE]

Linking to the treasure trove of naval geekery again, here is some info on the French quad turrets and here is some on the british ones, including a mention that this turret had more than 3000 working parts (!!). Quad turrets were very complicated beasts and seem to have been just about at the limit of engineering technology in the mid-late 1930s. They might have become popular later if aircraft and autoloading technology had not rendered them obsolete.

64

As much as I love discussing battleship gun turret configurations, we seem to have drifted away from the topic of torpedo bombers, haven’t we?

65

Nice find, slaphead! Thanks!

The “Gun characteristics” show a rate of fire as 1-2 round per minute, at least initially. But the turret (indeed, the main battery as a whole) will be fired as a unit, not as each gun is loaded. So I am unsure that the quad turret (or the ship as a whole) fired a broadside every minute.

I note that the “Mount/Turret Data” show two hoists per turret (servicing 4 guns), so I assume while barrels 1 & 3 are being loaded, barrel 2 & 4 are… twidling thumbs?

66

[QUOTE=Raguleader]
As a sidenote, I seem to recal that US Army bombing tests showed the most effective means of sinking a ship with bombs was to drop the bombs close to the side if the ship, but in the water. The resulting explosion would rip open the hull under the water line if you placed it right.
[/QUOTE]

I do believe this is how skip bombing was born

67

[QUOTE=kinoons]
I do believe this is how skip bombing was born
[/QUOTE]

Ah yeah, that’s a fun little thing. the Royal Air Force used skip bombing to attack a series of hydroelectric dams in Germany, IIRC, using bombs shaped like giant marbles. In the Pacific, the Army Air Force (and possibly the Royal Air Force as well, but I dunno) used it against shipping, presumably since the Army pilots weren’t trained for torpedo bombing (plus, skip bombing could be, and in fact probably had to be done at a higher airspeed than torpedo bombing).

One problem with skip bombing that I’ve read about is that, on occasion, the bomb would falll, skip off the water, and then go back into the bomber :eek:

Actually, other than the Battle of Midway, DID the Army ever do torpedo bombing?

68

[QUOTE=mlees]
I note that the “Mount/Turret Data” show two hoists per turret (servicing 4 guns), so I assume while barrels 1 & 3 are being loaded, barrel 2 & 4 are… twidling thumbs?
[/QUOTE]

Depends how many shells the hoist handles at a time, I suppose. If you’re interested, here is a long dull article on the workings of a triple turret.

[QUOTE=raguleader]
One problem with skip bombing that I’ve read about is that, on occasion, the bomb would falll, skip off the water, and then go back into the bomber

Actually, other than the Battle of Midway, DID the Army ever do torpedo bombing?
[/QUOTE]

This is a variation on the common problem that dive and low-level bombers had, in that the blast from their own bombs would sometimes damage them badly. Normal torpedoes were more prone to breaking up, porpoising or heading straight for the bottom if dropped out of parameter - less dangerous to the aircraft, but still a waste of a mission.

From here

So unless you can find any other actions involving B-26’s dropping torpedoes, I guess Midway was the one and only.

69

[QUOTE=slaphead]

From here …*Two vital hits were scored on Japanese carriers and two of the four planes returned, a high proportion that victorious, but costly, day. *

So unless you can find any other actions involving B-26’s dropping torpedoes, I guess Midway was the one and only.
[/QUOTE]
snippage

That’s pretty much wrong, at least as far as the effectivness of the B26 at Midway goes:
“and U. S. Army Air Force torpedo-carrying Martin B-26 (“Marauder”) bombers sent out to attack the Japanese carriers. Army Air Force “Flying Fortresses” likewise bombed the Japanese carrier force without success, although without losses to themselves.”
From what I see no American torpedo hit: "Between 0930 and 1030, Douglas TBD (“Devastator”) torpedo bombers from VT 3, VT-6, and VT-8 on the three American carriers attacked the Japanese carriers. Although nearly wiped out by the defending Japanese fighters and antiaircraft fire, they drew off enemy fighters, leaving the skies open for dive bombers from Enterprise and Yorktown. VB-6 and VS-6 “Dauntlesses” from Enterprise bombed and fatally damaged carriers Kaga and Akagi, while VB-3 “Dauntlesses” from Yorktown bombed and wrecked carrier Soryu. American submarine Nautilus (SS-168) then fired torpedoes at the burning Kaga but her torpedoes did not explode.

… In return, “Dauntlesses” from Enterprise mortally damaged Hiryu in a strike around 1700 that afternoon
…The last air attacks of the battle took place on 6 June when dive bombers from Enterprise and Hornet bombed and sank heavy cruiser Mikuma, and damaged destroyers Asashio and Arashio,as well as the cruiser Mogami. "
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq81-1.htm

Then here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4a.htm
"Ten torpedo planes were among the aircraft launched from Midway’s Eastern Island airfield as the Japanese raid approached in the early morning of 4 June 1942. Four were Army Air Force B-26 “Marauder” medium bombers, which had been modified to each carry a Navy Mark XIII aerial torpedo. …
These ten torpedo planes were the first to encounter the Japanese carrier fleet, soon after 7:00 AM, and they received the intense and deadly attentions of the defending combat air patrol. Only one of the Navy TBFs survived, much shot up with one crewman killed. Two of the four Army planes got through. However, none of the torpedo planes hit a Japanese ship."

"At Midway, over 90% of the attacking Devastator, Marauder and Avenger torpedo planes were shot down over the IJN carriers, without a single hit scored from about 60 torpedos carried to the target. "

Which gets us back to the OP nicely. :smiley:

70

[QUOTE=Raguleader]
…the Royal Air Force used skip bombing to attack a series of hydroelectric dams in Germany…
[/QUOTE]
Operation Chastise, the bombs were designed by Barnes Wallis and they were cylinders.
Excellent PBS Secrets of the Dead about the whole thing.

CMC fnord!

71

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Operation Chastise, the bombs were designed by Barnes Wallis and they were cylinders.
Excellent PBS Secrets of the Dead about the whole thing.

CMC fnord!
[/QUOTE]

I thought they started as cylinders and then were changed to spheres… maybe it was the other way around. Either way, lots of cool stuff they made for that mission, including bombing sights designed for each specific dam (the bombadier would wait for two pegs to line up with two structures on the dam in question) and specially fitted spotlights to help the plane stay at the correct altitude (the lights would converge when the bomber was at the proper altitude).