USAAF Ship attacking tactics

Before World War II the US Navy had specific tactics in regards to attacking enemy fleets. The dive bombers would come in first and would be followed by the low flying slow torpedo planes. My question is did the AAF have equally defined tactics for attacking ships before the War started? Did the tactics work or were new one made up?

Also what type of tactics did Navy Liberators use when attacking U-Boats in the atlantic? I assume that they did not just drop gravity bombs from 20,000 feet.

Any websites that deal with this subject or direct answers would be appreciated.

SK85

 

I believe in the case of aircraft attacking subs the drill was approach at low level at an angle of about 45 degrees to the subs longitudinal axis. It was found that went dropping a line of bombs or depth charges this offered the best chance of getting one of the bombs into killing range. The real trick however was in performing your attack run before the sub could crash dive.

 

In terms of ships, the USAAF originally intended to use the B-17 as a high-level bomber. When tried against the Japanese it really did not work very well.

Actually, as far as I can remember, high-level bombing against ships did not work very well for anybody (except for those with guided bombs, obviously!)

 

I think the final sinking of the Tirpitz shows the problems of trying to sink ships with high level bombing.

An entire squadron of specially trained crews against a target they could see clearly, that wasn't moving and there was no fighter opposition. Basically as good as it gets in combat conditions, result two hit and a near miss.

Of course by the end of WW2 the first generation of guided weapons were coming into service. Imagine a tallboy sized bomb with a guidance system.

 

According to Paul Brickhill's "The Dam Busters" throughout WW2 no major warship manouevring at sea was sunk by high altitude level bombing alone, I've yet to find an exception to this statement.

 

Prewar tactics for the USAAF depended on the type of aircraft and was much the same as against ground targets. Large bombers, such as the B-17 and B-24, were supposed to level bomb from high altitude (20,000 feet and up). Medium bombers from mid altitudes and light attack bombers from low level (5,000 - 10,000 feet). The USAAF also had some dive bombers (A-24; the USAAF designation for the SBD Dauntless) to do their thing.
In reality only low level attacks offered any real chance of success, refer to the Battle of the Bismarck Sea where even B-17s tried the skip bombing technique. I'm not aware of many torpedo attacks by USAAF aircraft (the only one I really know of is the B-26s at Midway).

 

AFAIK, the B-26 attack at Midway is the only time USAAF aircraft used torpedoes.

 

B-26 with 75mm PAK

that or a bunch of 20mm

lemme find da links

 

oops B-25- they also used the A-20 Havoc with a bunch of 20mm





Here is a thread elsewhere on it

http://www.armyairforces.com/forum/m_70063/tm.htm#

The six 20mm set up would saw a transport in half, nearly instantly and if it hit ammo,bingo then Ka-Boom

They used a bunch (eight) of 50 cals too.

There is a fair amount out there on it.

 

I don't think anyone prewar foresaw the advent of the strafer model B-25 or A-20. Excellent examples of field expedients.

 

Didn't the USN use a torpedo bomber called the Avenger? http://www.acepilots.com/planes/avenger.html

 

Yes, the Grumman TBF (TBM for those planes built by General Motors). Without a doubt, the best torpedo bomber of the war, also very useful in the ground support role.

 

Weren't they wiped out at Midway? I always thought Torp bombers were fairly limited

FNG

 

The main American torpedo bomber of Midway was the Devastator. Unfortunately the Devastator while a good thirties plane was simply out dated at Midway and combined poor co-operation between flights this resulted in a massacre.

The Avenger was the Devastators intended replacement. During WW2 the Avenger racked up a solid war record however at Midway it got off to a shaky start. Six were launched from Midway Island. Only one returned and that plane had a dead gunner on board and dangling undercarriage.

 

The British lost two battleships to Japanese aircraft.I cannot remember the ships in question at this time,but what tactics did the Japanese use?
I think the ships were the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.

 

Yes, but Corpcasselbury said USAAF, not USN.

 

The 'dodge this you b:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry: d!' approach. Basically lots and lots of torpedo bombers.

 

And it worked. Both ships were sunk for the loss of, IIRC, two Japanese planes. Neither of the two British capital ships had an adequate AA battery, IMHO, which was surprising, given the Royal Navy's experiences in the Mediterranean and off Dunkirk.

 

Neither of which had seen battleships being sunk by aircraft in open water. In all likelihood there was no battleship in the world at that time that would have done better in the same position.

Also remember the 40mm Bofors is only starting to come on stream at the end of 41. Unfortunately the mainstay of the RNs light AA guns, the eight barrelled pom-pom, had been a very advanced weapon in the early 30s but had been left behind by developments. (Although I’ve come cross references that say it racked up a useful swansong against Kamikazes at the end of the war)

 

20mm or .50 cal

i meant to jump on this when it was first posted but didn't get the time. to the best of my knowledge 20mm guns were not used as nose guns on any attack bomber except possibily the odd field conversion. all the versions that were built as designed attack aircraft were armed with .50s. the guns shown in the pictures posted are .50s. for shipping attack the .50 was a better weapon anyway. higher rate of fire and better penatration with more ammo carried. and yes it could saw a DD in half with a little luck.