anti-ship weapons question

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

"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