anti-ship weapons question

[Rob van Riel]

In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
torpedo still in use?

Rob

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Rob van Riel wrote:
> In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
> anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
> torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
> attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
> torpedo still in use?
>
> Rob
>

I'm not a attack puke by training but torpedoes are still in the
inventory to kill boats and subs, along with rockets, missiles, guns,
smart and dumb bombs. WWII saw a lot of ships sunk by bombs, not torpedoes.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel > wrote:

>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
>torpedo still in use?

The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
upwards.


--
Delenda est Carthago

[Keith W]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
...
> In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
> anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
> torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI.

The simple fact is that flying up close to a ship
equipped with radar directed AA guns firing proximity
fused shells was no longer a viable proposition


> What did aircraft use to
> attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
> torpedo still in use?
>

Torpedoes are still used by submarines of course but stand off
techniques like toss bombing along with rockets were first used
during late WW2. Coastal command aircraft used Rocket Projectiles
quite succesfully against German shipping for example.

In the early 60's the use of guided bombs like Walleye and
early guided missiles like Bullpup began in earnest.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:52:20 +0100, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>Torpedoes are still used by submarines of course but stand off
>techniques like toss bombing along with rockets were first used
>during late WW2. Coastal command aircraft used Rocket Projectiles
>quite succesfully against German shipping for example.
>
>In the early 60's the use of guided bombs like Walleye and
>early guided missiles like Bullpup began in earnest.

Dunno where you were in the early '60s, but Walleye didn't come into
the inventory into quite late in the '60s and even then wasn't used in
any great numbers. Attempts in SEA were minimal and the results from
first generation LGBs were offering much better results.

Bullpup B was deployed in large numbers but the small warhead made it
a poor choice for ships (along with the highly vulnerable delivery
profile). The AGM-12C version had a bigger warhead, but still demanded
a long, straight, post-release flight by the delivery aircraft to
successfully guide the weapon. Still minimal size for a warship.

I was doing TASMO tactical development during the mid '70s with the
F-4 out of Torrejon Spain. (TASMO=Tactical Air Support of Maritime
Operations, i.e. attack by land-based air of naval vessels--a NATO
term). We would have liked third-generation LGB, but only the F-111Fs
out of England had that, so we primarily planned with the available
bombs which were the Mk-8x series of GP low drags.

Concept was strictly roll-back with packages on average of 12
aircraft, usually with chaff support, doing low altitude ingress to
pop-ups on the first combatant encountered. Pk ranged in the
neighborhood of .8 for these with a seaworthiness kill (stop the
vessel manuvering potential).

Defensive packages from the CVBG included Terrior, Talos, Tartan and
close in Phalanx and Sea Sparrow. It wouldn't have been a fun mission
for real.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Keith W]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:52:20 +0100, "Keith W"
> > wrote:
>
>>Torpedoes are still used by submarines of course but stand off
>>techniques like toss bombing along with rockets were first used
>>during late WW2. Coastal command aircraft used Rocket Projectiles
>>quite succesfully against German shipping for example.
>>
>>In the early 60's the use of guided bombs like Walleye and
>>early guided missiles like Bullpup began in earnest.
>
> Dunno where you were in the early '60s, but Walleye didn't come into
> the inventory into quite late in the '60s and even then wasn't used in
> any great numbers. Attempts in SEA were minimal and the results from
> first generation LGBs were offering much better results.
>

First drop by the USN was from an A-4 at Naval Ordnance Test Station,
China Lake in January 1963 but of course your right it was 1968
before they came into the inventory in any numbers.

Keith

[Gord Beaman]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
>torpedo still in use?
>
>Rob
Certainly was for submarines from aircraft...I finished flying
ASW aircraft in 1977 and they were still equipped for and trained
to use torps past that time.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[rb]

Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel > wrote:
>
>
>>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
>>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
>>torpedo still in use?
>
>
> The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
> successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
> quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
> upwards.
>
>
Surely the delivery profile of a dumb bomb (antiship) couldn't be that
much fun either (but it was done)?

rb

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:05:17 +1000, rb > wrote:

>Greg Hennessy wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
>>>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>>>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>>>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
>>>torpedo still in use?
>>
>>
>> The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
>> successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
>> quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
>> upwards.
>>
>>
>Surely the delivery profile of a dumb bomb (antiship) couldn't be that
>much fun either (but it was done)?

True enough. But, for example, at Midway the torpedo aircraft were
shot down in droves while the dive bombers were not. Further, a
diving aircraft is a MUCH more difficult target for ship's gunners
than one flying straight and level.

Both, however, could be classified as "a tough way to make a living."

Bill Kambic

[mark johnston]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s,
>> various
>> anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>> torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI.
>
> The simple fact is that flying up close to a ship
> equipped with radar directed AA guns firing proximity
> fused shells was no longer a viable proposition
>
>
[snip]

I recently read in one of the Aerospace trade journals that the Navy is
considering equipping torpedoes with wing kits and precision guidance kits
for stand-off use. Wasn't clear if this is intended for ASW or against
surface ships as well.

Mark

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:05:17 +1000, rb > wrote:
>
>
>>Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
>>>>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>>>>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>>>>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
>>>>torpedo still in use?
>>>
>>>
>>>The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
>>>successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
>>>quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
>>>upwards.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Surely the delivery profile of a dumb bomb (antiship) couldn't be that
>>much fun either (but it was done)?
>
>
> True enough. But, for example, at Midway the torpedo aircraft were
> shot down in droves while the dive bombers were not. Further, a
> diving aircraft is a MUCH more difficult target for ship's gunners
> than one flying straight and level.

Well, the dive bombers suffered fewer losses because the Japanese
fighters were at low altitude, having recently dispatched the
preceding waves of torepdo bombers. I'd say in this case the dive
bombers fared much better mostly because of the circumstances (luck),
then tactics.

Also, at Midway the Japanese didn't have proximity fuses on the
shells they shot at the aircraft (the axis pretty much never had
proximity fuses). I know you didn't state otherwise, it's worth
pointing out for the discussion in general.

Back to the original question, a missile designed to hit slightly
above the waterline is similar to a torpedo designed to hit slightly
below. Different from a bomb intended to produce topside damage or
penetrate and cause internal damage. Air dropped torpedos are
normally too small to pack the punch severe enough to damage the keel
if exploding underneath (one type of attack for a large submarine
launched torpedo). I'm probably not making complete sense, but it's
late :)

[Keith W]

"rb" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s,
>>>various
>>>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>>>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>>>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
>>>torpedo still in use?
>>
>>
>> The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
>> successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
>> quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
>> upwards.
> Surely the delivery profile of a dumb bomb (antiship) couldn't be that
> much fun either (but it was done)?
>

It wasnt which is one of the reasons toss bombing was introduced.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith W]

"rb" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s,
>>>various
>>>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>>>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>>>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
>>>torpedo still in use?
>>
>>
>> The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
>> successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
>> quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
>> upwards.
> Surely the delivery profile of a dumb bomb (antiship) couldn't be that
> much fun either (but it was done)?
>

It wasnt which is one of the reasons toss bombing was introduced.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:05:17 +1000, rb > wrote:


>> The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
>> successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
>> quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
>> upwards.
>>
>>
>Surely the delivery profile of a dumb bomb (antiship) couldn't be that
>much fun either (but it was done)?

Skyhawks, Buccaneers etc would be delivering those bombs at lower altitude
and 3-4 times the speed of a torpedo launch profile.


greg




--
Delenda est Carthago

[Rob van Riel]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel wrote:

> In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
> anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
> torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
> attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
> torpedo still in use?

I realise I was being a bit vague in my original post.

I know that in WWII divebombers also took on ships, but there was a
specialised weapon for going after ships in the form of the torpedo
(relatie effectiveness not taken into account). Such specilised weapons
appear to have been absent for use against surface targets for several
decades. Of course, the various ASW platforms still employed torpedos for
use against submarines, but that wasn't what I had on my mind.

Now, before someone jumps me with the Slammer Harpoon, yes, I know that
this is no longer a specialised anti surface ship weapon either, but it
did start out that way, and many other anti shipping missiles exist.

Thanks for the info so far.

Rob

[Ogden Johnson III]

Rob van Riel > wrote:

>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns?

You got it in one.

>Or was the torpedo still in use?

ASW.

As I see it, the death knell aerial torpedoes was sounded by two
developments.

Increased A/A protection on ships, rendering the idea of having
trained pilots fly long, slow approaches to a ship to drop a
torpedo and thereby emulate the Bushido spirit of the Japanese
Kamikaze effort, undesirable.

Jet aircraft. TBD approaches were what, < 200 KIAS? Even the
early jets would be flying the approach at > 300 KIAS. I suspect
the WWII aerial torpedo wouldn't have fared to well being dropped
at that speed. Meanwhile, pilots and fire control systems had
gotten pretty good with bombs, rockets and guns. And the tactics
for using them against ships.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Despite repeated U. S. Navy torpedo attacks very few Japanese ships were
ever hit, much less sunk, during WW II. We lost almost entire squadrons of
torpedo planes trying to hit Japanese 30 knot carriers, cruisers,
destroyers, etc. with a 33 knot torpedo. Conversely the Japanese had their
Long Lance torpedo, a very effective ship killer!

Our Mark XIII torpedo was an unmitigated disaster in WW II, worthy of a
textbook on how NOT to develop and support a wartime weapon system! There
are no antiship torpedo planes in a strike carrier air wing today! Torpedoes
are used in ASW however.

WDA

end

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
...
> In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
> anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
> torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
> attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
> torpedo still in use?
>
> Rob
>

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:17:06 -0500, Jim Carriere
> wrote:

>> True enough. But, for example, at Midway the torpedo aircraft were
>> shot down in droves while the dive bombers were not. Further, a
>> diving aircraft is a MUCH more difficult target for ship's gunners
>> than one flying straight and level.
>
>Well, the dive bombers suffered fewer losses because the Japanese
>fighters were at low altitude, having recently dispatched the
>preceding waves of torepdo bombers. I'd say in this case the dive
>bombers fared much better mostly because of the circumstances (luck),
>then tactics.

True about the fighters, but if you look at the way anti-aircraft
batteries were arrayed they were heavily biased toward lateral attack.
I don't know of too many that had a purely vertical capability. Not
being conversant in the tactics of AA gunnery I can't be certain, but
maybe the defense against the dive bomber was fire from another ship
close aboard in formation.

Also, the torpedo aircraft of the day made their runs in the
neighborhood of 120kts (IIRC). A dive bomber would be at 180 or
better (IIRC). So it would be a more challenging targer.

>Also, at Midway the Japanese didn't have proximity fuses on the
>shells they shot at the aircraft (the axis pretty much never had
>proximity fuses). I know you didn't state otherwise, it's worth
>pointing out for the discussion in general.

True, again. But neither did we until sometime in '43 (at least in
quantity).

>Back to the original question, a missile designed to hit slightly
>above the waterline is similar to a torpedo designed to hit slightly
>below. Different from a bomb intended to produce topside damage or
>penetrate and cause internal damage.

Yes, but there is third class of damage that can be quite severe, and
that's the near miss with shallow detonation.

Air dropped torpedos are
>normally too small to pack the punch severe enough to damage the keel
>if exploding underneath (one type of attack for a large submarine
>launched torpedo). I'm probably not making complete sense, but it's
>late :)

I'm not sure of the warhead size in the WWII airdropped torp. Modern
warheads (like the Mk46) are not all that large but are of much more
powerful They are also designed to work against the deep diving sub
that is already under heavy pressure.

Bill Kambic

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:05:17 +1000,
rb attempted to say .....

> Greg Hennessy wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:11:44 +0200, Rob van Riel > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In WWII, aircraft used torpedoes to attack ships. Since the 1980s, various
> >>anti-ship missiles are in use. However, unless I'm seriously mistaken,
> >>torpedoes went out of fashion soon after WWI. What did aircraft use to
> >>attack enemy ships in the meantime? Bombs, rockets and guns? Or was the
> >>torpedo still in use?
> >
> >
> > The delivery profile required to launch an anti shipping torpedo
> > successfully just wasnt feasible when the other side was throwing large
> > quantities of proximity fuzed shells at you in everything from 40mm
> > upwards.
> >
> >
> Surely the delivery profile of a dumb bomb (antiship) couldn't be that
> much fun either (but it was done)?

At least there were some choices.
Level
Dive
Skip

With a torpedo you had just one way in.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.