Two Torpedo Carrier aircraft

[rickshaw]

I don't quite see what the advantage of carrying two torpedos would be.   The key to conducting a successful torpedo attack was a large number of aircraft dropping torpedos on multiple tracks against a target which made it nearly impossible for a ship to avoid a hit.  So, what I'd propose would be rather than a smaller number of large aircraft carrying two torpedos, how about a larger number of smaller aircraft, each carrying one torpedo?   Something that folds so it occupies half the space of say, a Swordfish?   It'd also most probably have to use a smaller torpedo as well but I'd sacrifice warhead size so as to ensure that it still had sufficient range so that these smaller aircraft didn't have to close with their targets too much.   While a smaller warhead might not do as much damage against the main armour belt but if one looks at the history of battles at sea, its remarkable how vulnerable even capital ships were, despite all their massive armour arrays to "lucky hits" which disabled them.

So, I'd envisage something about the size of a Tigermoth, carrying a lightweight torpedo, with a big engine on the front and more than likely using RATO to get it off the deck.

[tigercat]

So something like a Boeing Stearman with a Twin Wasp Junior

[andrewj]

How about a Sunderland , could easily carry more than two torpedos.

[sequoiaranger]

I think the trouble with "torpedoes" is the weight of all the mechanisms and the warhead. Aerial torpedoes tended to be small and "light" because the delivering aircraft would have trouble lifting anything heavier off a carrier deck. So maybe the "cure" for a lighter torpedo is a more efficient explosive and smaller, lighter engines.

I am thinking of the smaller "homing torpedoes" later used on submarines, dropped by aircraft. Of course, a smaller warhead charge is needed to fatally damage an "unarmored" and pressure-stressed submarine than a battleship, etc.

Also, having one large aircraft carry many torpedoes means that it will be more ungainly to fly, and easier to shoot down than a larger number of "nimble" aircraft carrying ONE torpedo and swamping the defenses coming from different angles.

The "Highball" concept of a bouncing mine dropped at high speed seemed to be the best idea for a ship-killer, but not pursued until the war was nearly over, and by then there were hardly any targets worthy of torpedo attack.

[Old Wombat]

Aerial torpedoes are, generally, of insufficient explosive capacity to be lethal (or even overly worrisome) to capital ships..... in isolation.

However, much of their effectiveness against larger warships is because of their ability to induce cumulative concussive damage, especially to bearings & high-pressure (steam/hydraulic) pipes, &, sometimes, to welded/riveted seams. Also, things like propeller & rudder shafts are susceptible to being bent by relatively low concussive forces.
Therefore the more aerial torpedoes you can get on target the more effective they are going to be.
Even if they don't sink the ship they often leave it in no state to out-run or mount an effective defence against enemy surface ships, submarines (with their heavier, more powerful torpedoes) or heavy (land-based) bombers.

And that is why the more torpedoes a torpedo-plane can carry, the better. They aren't the knock-out punch, they're the softening-up pummeling.

[Joe C-P]

With the Midways the USN could have carried B-25s, which might have been able to carry two torps.
In the Pacific the USAAC did skip bombing, so their pilots were capable of flying low over water and aiming for ships.
The larger B-25 was better armed defensively, with a top turret and guns forward, on the sides, and in the tail, so they'd be better able to defend themselves during the attack run than, say, a TBF/TBM with just two flexible guns aft.
But then if you lose one aircraft you lose twice as much capacity.

One question is, can you carry enough B-25s in place of TBFs to carry the same number of torpedos, or near enough as to make no difference? Carriers are big enough that a crew of 7 over 3 wouldn't be difficult to accommodate, in the smaller number of aircraft.