Air dropped (heavyweight) torpedoes - obsolete for FW against all surface targets?
 

More idle musings - prompted by an imminent anniversary, I was thinking about use of air dropped torpedos against surface targets in confined and contested environments.

Back in 1982 the FAA and CANA co-operated on the development of a Pucara prototype designed to drop WW2 vintage US Mk 13 torpedoes. The project was abandoned as the war had ended before it came to fruition I presume this was to find a more effective way to attack ships in the confined waters near San Carlos. I assume using a RW platform would have been suicidal, maybe a Pucara at 250+ kts would have had more survivability. Had they been able to develop it successfully in time it could possibly have made life more difficult in Falkland Sound and in the gunlines off Stanley. Had it been available I assume these would have flown from the mainland with diversionary raids and top cover but even Hi-Lo-Hi they would have had to land on the islands (so probably a one way trip).

The advent of anti-ship missiles are said to have rendered heavyweight air dropped torpedoes obsolete in the anti surface role. However, nearly forty years on are there limited circumstances in which a FW launched dumb heavyweight torpedo could still be the answer to taking out larger vessels; particularly in the face of effective countermeasures and air defences with topography limiting the time to acquire the target? I admit it's probably a completely mad idea.

The Gloucester string bag torpedo plane was ahead of its time :)
It only required someone stupid/brave enough to fly a big bomb towards anti-aircraft guns . I think I am stupid enough to try it once but not as brave as those chaps that did it more than once .

Weapons effectiveness
 

The air launched heavyweight torpedo and anti-ship missile do different things to the target, assuming the survive the short journey.

A missile will blow a hole in a ship and may set it on fire.
A torpedo will break the back of the ship and sink it pretty quickly.
It depends on what your objective is - to damage or to remove the target.

In the years since Exocet demonstrated its effectiveness, a great deal has been done to counter this and other similar missiles.
The torpedo is an unseen weapon, for which limited countermeasures and counter-weapons have been developed.
The circumstances where the torpedo can be used may be limited but I would suggest that it is a very useful weapon to have available.
The survival of the crew or aircraft to deliver the weapon is seen differently by different cultures.
Their loss would need to be weighed against the potential threat of the target.

The future

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...nched-missile/

There are no air-launched heavyweight torpedoes. The mainstay of NATO has been the Mk46 which is in the lightweight class (and also Stingray in UK Service). The Mk 46 is being replaced by the Mk 54, again a lightweight torpedo, and carried on P-8A.

Air-launched lightweight torpedoes are ASW weapons.

Fairey Swordfish I think, but I wasn't there.

You are correct , thank you for the correction . A old looking airplane with some great victories .
Took real bravery to go out single engine over a deep cold sea against a determined enemy In a string bag .
I only had the privilege of flying with one of those guys , he was such a nice man . Goodwin was his name .
He may have been from Gloucester. He never mentioned the success of that type . Very modest .

I read someplace that one thing the Swordfish had going for it against German ships is that the Germans used some sort of automated fire control for their anti-aircraft fire. However they never designed the automation to shoot at something as slow as a Swordfish - thinking no one would be foolish enough to attack a warship with something that slow. As a result, their fancy automated fire control couldn't track it.

The swordfish i believe was the only aircraft to replace its replacement.

NL

The Albacore??

OD

Yes the Albacore didn't offer a vast improvement in performance and the crews didn't like them. In my youth I knew someone who had flown both in action in WW2 and he was adamant that he , and his squadron, all preferred the Swordfish partly because it was apparently an easier aircraft to fly - the Albacore needed constant attention whereas (as those of us have seen in air displays) a Swordfish will fly cheerfully straight and level with no one at the controls.

Yes Old Duffer, the Albacore was not liked as mentioned and the Swordfish became the primary asset again.

from wiki

Not strictly true, after the Albacore was retired the primary assets were the Barracuda and the Avenger. The Swordfish however was still serving in the niche of ASW from Escort and Merchant Aircraft Carriers something the Albacore had never done as far as I can tell. It may not even have been able to take-off and land on a MAC.

Hence, why the Argentinians were looking at the WWII vintage US Mark 13s. I assume any remaining stocks of the similar vintage Mk XVs or Mk XVII vanished not long after the War. The US GT-1 glide torpedo, a precursor of stand-off weapons, carried Mk 13s.

As HAS59 implies a heavyweight torpedo is a shipkiller, especially when ships aren't heavily armoured. Forty years on, I think less and less that Exocet was a great success. AM39s hit none of the intended targets and were successfully decoyed. The loss of Sheffield was in many ways a combination of bad luck and others 'crying wolf' previously, Atlantic Conveyor wasn't equipped to counter the threat and close escort unavailable. Glamorgan was hit by an MM38 through 'cutting the corner' but her OsOW reacted and reduced the damage, a heavyweight torpedo would have blown her stern off.

Obviously the balance between attack and defense fluctuates and undoubtedly hypersonics will make the defenders lives harder but effort will be put into countering them.

I suppose I have an irrational worry that since the loss of the O & P boats and their short lived Upholder successors the RN has no means of delivering a heavyweight torpedo in shallow waters. A cheaper and highly effective ASV option is therefore not available. The air drop option disappeared around 70 years ago and isn't going to come back.

On the subject of the thread drift:

Regarding the Stringbag, I remember my father telling me about it being too slow for the German predictors closer to 50 years ago than I am prepared to admit. They sunk over a million tons of Axis shipping in the Med. None were lost in sinking the Bismarck and only two at Taranto. The Channel Dash was the great disaster but they weren't the only aircraft to suffer badly. This may have been contributed by a desire to hit the Capital ships without first eliminating the escorts, 2 x 3 Swordfish against 2 Battleships, 1 Heavy Cruiser, 6 destroyers, 40 lighter vessels, and a standing patrol of 16 to 32 Bf109s and FW190s (some of these bounced 825's RAF escorts). Not good odds - "the mothball attack of a handful of ancient planes, piloted by men whose bravery surpasses any other action by either side that day" Vizeadmiral Otto Ciliax, Kriegsmarine - commanding officer for Unternehmen Zerberus.

I thought the Mosquito raid by the RAF on Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen was the bravest and daring act by those Brylcream Boys . Flying right down the street below roof tops to avoid anti-aircraft guns ,after reading some of the string bags attacks I am not so sure anymore .
Seems there were so many acts of Heroism , We may never get a chance to give them all the recognition they truly deserve.

Odds were you wouldn't get the chance.

Too many threats for surface warships these days, if I was in strategic naval planning I would focus on submarines to the largest extent possible (excluding amphibious assault vessels).

SLXOwft

I think that using air delivered torpedos against warships has been considered suicidal since the loss of the US Navy torpedo bomber squadrons at Midway. To deliver a torpedo would mean flying low and slow. Additionally heavyweight torpedos are wire guided - firing unguided weapons over anything other than a short range is futile.

Fonsini

Really? How do you protect the merchant vessels that carry the bulk of the World's trade without surface warships? How do you protect amphibious forces and crisis response shipping?

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that - both the US and Japan continued to us torpedo bombers throughout the war. The Grumman TBF "Avenger" was used heavily by the US post Midway, and was credited (or partially credited) with sinking or damaging numerous Japanese warships - including both the Yamato and Musashi Super Battleships. It remained in service until the 1960s
The problem at Midway - in addition to the complete lack of fighter cover - was that the Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers they were using were already considered obsolete when the war started, and the torpedoes they were using were crap (they would seldom stay on course after they hit the water, and even if they hit something they often wouldn't explode).

And yet Midway was a game changer in the Pacific War, which changed to being a Strategic Offensive from thereon for the USA and its allies. The reason of course was the despatch of the bulk of the IJN's carriers by USN dive bombers, a success always emphasised by our own (and dearly missed) Danny 42C, an RAF Vengeance pilot who dive bombed the IJA in Burma for a living. As always in war, luck, both good and bad, played a great part in this decisive battle, but it was the Dive Bombers rather than the Torpedo Bombers that managed to capitalise on it.