Flying torp Walls

[Zombolt]

A while ago I played a MMO called Navyfield, and in it, one of the strategies was to outfit your ship with lines of torpedo's. It would hit many ships.

Well, I was looking at a B-17 I got for my Birthday, and wondered what to do, and I remembered that US used them everywhere. One thought lead to another and then I had the idea to counter US mediocre WW2 torps with ripple firing, and using a Medium/Heavy bomber to carry enough torps to take even the largest ships down, and if one failed, you still had enough for another pass!

This idea could be brought into the modern day, with long range planes with smart torps taking out fleets!

[Cliffy B]

You have to remember how short ranged and slow our torpedoes were back then.  You had to fly slow, low, and level in order to launch them.  If single engine planes got shot to pieces trying to do it by both the ships and fighter cover, how well do you think a lumbering B-17 would do?  I sure wouldn't want to fly the thing    Not trying to rain on your parade man, just trying to help.  If you wanted to re-task the B-17 to an ASW patrol bomber and fill it full of the Mk-24 acoustic torpedoes for hunting subs then that would def work.

[Zombolt]

Well, I was also putting the idea in general for discussion, having a large plane with many many torpedo's to take out many many ships.

[rickshaw]

Now sure about the low bit of the "low and slow" dropping requirement.  The Japanese were dropping them from 200+ ft when they sunk Prince of Wales and Repulse.  It was quite a shock to the British when they saw it.  "Slow" is also relative.  Skyraiders in Korea used Torps at fairly high speed against a Dam.

[Jschmus]

I don't know about the feasibility of using aircraft, but the Japanese converted two light cruisers, the Oi and Kitakami, into "torpedo cruisers" by removing some of their guns and fitting each ship with ten quadruple mounts of 24" torpedo tubes.  There was some question of the utility of these vessels, and they were assigned to escort convoys.  Late in 1942, their torpedo batteries were reduced and the ships were used as fast transports.

[jcf]

The B-26s at Midway went in at low level and high-speed when they made their torpedo runs.
They got blasted to bits by the Japanese AAA and fighters.

[Maverick]

Most of the US planes would only be able to carry a pair or so anyway, given the dimensions of their bomb-bays that would preclude an internal carriage.  I'd agree with Jon & the others regarding the chance of surviving such a mission in addition.  A successful torpedo run (whether fast or slow - I've read conflicting arguments for each) would suggest a straight, steady run resulting in a pretty easy target for a ship's AA weapons.  I agree that the ASW mission would be much better suited to a heavy bomber.

Regards,

Mav

[Zombolt]

What about other idea's for large torpedo planes?

Like a purpose modified condor to go after the Royal fleet, Cold war anti-carrier torp swarms from russian bombers, Argentine cargo planes riged to take out the Royal fleet at the Falklands, and US B-52's with automated torps against a future aggressors?

Just a few other idea's I came up with. Just for idea's sake.

As for my B-17, I hear a lot of ASW idea's, what ASW equipment should I add? and should I make a new thread for it?

[Maverick]

Zombolt, I think the idea of a large torpedo aircraft has merit within context.  The Condor for instance would be an able platform, although it had a shallow, if long weapon bay.  Once again, however, the issue of anti-aircraft fire off the target group comes into play.

For anything post war, you have to weigh up the possibility of AShMs vs torpedos.  Anti-ship missiles give a much larger stand-off range, are usually autonomous and are programmed to hit the vessel in a specific spot, unlike a torpedo which, at best, will be an acoustic homing weapon that might target the target's engine noise.  Early post war torpedo use might have validity over missiles, but once these are developed, the torpedo as an ASuW weapon becomes moot from an air-delivered perspective in my opinion.  In fact, the B-52 was supposed to be tasked with maritime roles carrying a large number of Harpoon AShMs on their external pylons once their primary role of nuclear deterrent passed onto the B-1 & B-2.

As for an ASW B-17, I'd suggest looking at the RAF Coastal Command conversions of the Liberator or Wellington or the USN's PB2Y-1 for inspiration, eg: a chin mounted or belly turret radar, a Leigh light, maritime paint scheme and depth charges for internal loads.

I guess a new thread discussing ASW bomber conversions would have merit.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

The idea of a large torpedo carrying aircraft is not foolish.  Generally, the idea when doing a torpedo attack is to salvo a large number of torpedos spread over many angles to try and prevent a ship from manoeuvring away from the torpedos.  You don't send each plane individually to attack, attacks occur as squadrons, coming from multiple angles, so that the defensive fire has to be split between different aircraft and the defender's problem is complicated.  

If you could drop the torpedos at the extreme range of the defensive fire, it would complicate the defenders' problem.  Because of the limitations imposed by the low carrying capacity of most torpedo aircraft, airborne torpedos tended to have considerable shorter ranges than their surface or sub-surface fired counterparts (something which has carried on to today with helicopter borne weapons).   So, if instead of trading weight for range, you had many large torpedo carrying aircraft carrying something like a full-sized Long Lance, dropping torpedos at say 5-10,000 metres range, it would increase your likelihood of success.   B-17s/B-24s/Lancasters/Halifax/Stirling each carrying four Long Lance style torps.  Nasty!

Even better though, would be to invest in say a TV guided glide bomb which would allow you to attack from 10-20,000 metres and at about 20,000 ft (interesting how its easier to use metres for range and feet for altitude).  Whilst your target manoeuvres, your bomb can be redirected to its new aiming point.  Torps on the other hand, when released, are designed to swim in straight(ish) lines.   The longer the range with a torpedo, the easier it is for the target to out manoeuvre it and the harder it is to aim, even with a spread.   Perhaps the best tactic against such a Torpedo attack would be to stop dead or even just slow and alter course.  Suddenly your ship will not be where the aimer has estimated it would be.     However such an attack would be fatal against a guided bomb.

[Weaver]

A full size Long lance was nearly 30 ft long and weighed nearly 6000lb, so I doubt a Lanc could have carried more than two without some serious stripping of guns and armour, as happened for the Tallboy/Grand Slam aircraft. It also had a range of 20km at 48 knots (longer at lower speeds) and was frequently effective at such ranges when fired from surface ships, so the targeting problem can't be that bad.

I would suggest that, for an air-dropped Long Lance derivative, you should cut the fuel capacity in half, giving it a range of 10km at 20 knots and maybe reduce the 1080 lb warhead a bit in order to get the length down to around 16 ft and the weight nearer 3,500 lb. A Lanc could then carry four internally. Remember though, that the Long Lance's motor was started using compressed air and then ran on liquid oxygen, both of which were externally supplied by the launching ship. I'm not sure how, or if, you could translate such a system to an air-dropped weapon which can need no external attention once loaded.

Regarding drop speeds and heights, it's mostly a matter or torpedo design. After the war, the Soviets continued to develop air-dropped anti-ship torpedoes for quite a while, eventually developing a weapon that could be dropped from the Il-28 Beagle.

[rickshaw]

A full size Long lance was nearly 30 ft long and weighed nearly 6000lb, so I doubt a Lanc could have carried more than two without some serious stripping of guns and armour, as happened for the Tallboy/Grand Slam aircraft. It also had a range of 20km at 48 knots (longer at lower speeds) and was frequently effective at such ranges when fired from surface ships, so the targeting problem can't be that bad.

Its use at such long ranges usually occurred at the start of the Pacific war when Allied ships were unaware of the capabilities of the weapon and would often sail blithely on, in a straight line after spotting Japanese destroyers on the horizon in the misbelief that were invulnerable to their weapons.

I would suggest that, for an air-dropped Long Lance derivative, you should cut the fuel capacity in half, giving it a range of 10km at 20 knots and maybe reduce the 1080 lb warhead a bit in order to get the length down to around 16 ft and the weight nearer 3,500 lb. A Lanc could then carry four internally. Remember though, that the Long Lance's motor was started using compressed air and then ran on liquid oxygen, both of which were externally supplied by the launching ship. I'm not sure how, or if, you could translate such a system to an air-dropped weapon which can need no external attention once loaded.

Carry a compressed air bottle on the plane and use quick release couplings?  Alternatively, if we really are going to heavily modify the design, change it from a compressed air start to using a gas generator, something like Cordite or HTP.

Is there any reason why the Lanc couldn't carry two internally and two externally of the full-sized weapon?

I was thinking about the B-17 - it would have to carry them externally but some B-17s were modified with external racks for the rocket-bombs they used on D-Day (not sure what weight they could carry).  I'd envisage four racks across the fuselage/inner-wing with the bomb-bays blanked off (perhaps used for extend-range fuel cells).

Regarding drop speeds and heights, it's mostly a matter or torpedo design. After the war, the Soviets continued to develop air-dropped anti-ship torpedoes for quite a while, eventually developing a weapon that could be dropped from the Il-28 Beagle.

I think you'll find that was a rocket propelled torpedo (yes, the Soviets were tinkering with such things even then).  It was dropped at high speed and at height and it was designed to fly through air and water.  Even so, its range was IMHO excessively short which made an attack invariably near suicidal, particularly against late/post-war air defences.

[Old Wombat]

Could you whip out the B-17's ball turret & extend the bomb bay that way to fit the larger torpedoes?

After all, what point a belly-gunner on a torpedo run?

[Maverick]

Looking at the internals of a B-17, you'd lose the radio operator's compartment for starters.  I can't see any advantage to modifying the aircraft for the role, given that at most it could lift two large torpedoes anyway, which I'd guess could be hung externally as Brian mentioned. 

As for the advantages of a belly turret, if the enemy became aware of that situation, what would stop a fighter attacking from below if the enemy were able to vector them to the bomber or they were part of a CAP?

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

A full size Long lance was nearly 30 ft long and weighed nearly 6000lb,

The dimensions I've found are:

Length: - ~29.5 ft.
Diameter: - 24 in.
Weight: - ~5,800 lbs.
Warhead: - ~1080 lbs.
Effective range: - 22,000m (at 48-50 knots)
Maximum range: - 40,400m (at 34-36 knots)

Bombloads (Short Range/Long Range)
B-17 - 8,000 lbs / 4,000 lbs
B-24 - 8,000 lbs / 4,000 lbs
Lancaster - Max. 14,000 lbs (range unknown) "normally" / 22,000 lb overload condition (range unknown).
Halifax - Max. 13,000 lbs (range unknown) "normally"
Stirling - Max. 14,000 lbs (range unknown) "normally"

I agree that the B-17 and B-24 would be hard pressed to carry two, more than likely on anything other than short range missions.

The Halifax and Stirling could carry two on short range missions.

The Lancaster could carry four (on short range missions).  Two internally and two externally (which would require some modifications, I admit).

I'd envisage their use to be similar to the Wellington GR Mark XII, primarily attacking at dusk/dawn or even night, rather than broad daylight attacks.