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