anti-ship weapons question

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

"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 =----

"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 =----

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

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

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.]

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
news
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

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

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.