Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
There were a few examples of 4 torpedoes being carried (whether fully operational or not though I cannot say):

He-177:



Do-217:




For the most part, I believe you don't see too many examples for the following reasons:

  • The Allies didn't have as great a need since there weren't as great a number of targets
  • The existing platforms (carrying either 1 or 2 torpedoes were satisfying the need
  • The additional weight and reduced manoeuvrability resulting from carrying 4 - especially down low - made it unattractive
  • Doing so would be 'putting too many eggs in a basket' - i.e. torpedoes were not simple or cheap things - why put 4 on a single platform which could get shot down (thus loosing all) when you could put 2 each on a pair or even 1 each on 4 with a better loss ratio
92
Torpedoes are not small nor light weight.  Multiple torpedoes severely affect range of aircraft.

Then there is the problem, torpedoes are used to attack ships.  They are generally reserved to the nations that need to do that.   The Luftwaffe did not have a reliable airborne torpedo until 1941 (and it was a copy of an Italian design) having relied until then on Dive Bombers and level bombers for ship killing.  The Russians developed unreliable torpedoes. The British. Americans, Italians and Japanese are the main developers of and users of aerial torpedoes between the wars, having the largest navies and air forces.   Their reliability varied, considerably.   All initially relied on contact pistols (fuses) for their warheads to be detonated.  Magnet and acoustic pistols were later developments and were unreliable until about mid-war.

The reliability argument would encourage multiple shots.

But you are absolutely right! I was looking at range to payload charts for heavy bombers - and the ability to carry more than two torpedoes would very much limit range. Despite this many designs did attempt to carry three or four torpedoes!

I suspect a Short Stirling or Avro Lancaster could've been modified to carry more (as could a B-29)... but they had other roles to fill.
93
Torpedoes are not small nor light weight.  Multiple torpedoes severely affect range of aircraft.

Then there is the problem, torpedoes are used to attack ships.  They are generally reserved to the nations that need to do that.   The Luftwaffe did not have a reliable airborne torpedo until 1941 (and it was a copy of an Italian design) having relied until then on Dive Bombers and level bombers for ship killing.  The Russians developed unreliable torpedoes. The British. Americans, Italians and Japanese are the main developers of and users of aerial torpedoes between the wars, having the largest navies and air forces.   Their reliability varied, considerably.   All initially relied on contact pistols (fuses) for their warheads to be detonated.  Magnet and acoustic pistols were later developments and were unreliable until about mid-war.

94
True, but there are some other factors to consider:

1) For this scenario to be plausible the Soviet Union would have had to have built a branch of the transiberian that went much further north, as well as airbases in the Kamchatka.

2) The U.S. Carrier forces would have had much weaker anti-aircraft armaments and weaker aircraft than they had in 1941.

So, the SB-2 bomber would be uninterceptable near the coasts and the possibility of destroying carriers or warships might exist. The TB-3 force could also attack ships repeatedly with medium-altitude bombing - well above the height of the defensive fire.
95

For torpedo attacks on ships one wants sufficient range and endurance to increase the likelihood of encountering a target (which favours a large aircraft) and the ability to maximise the likelihood of a hit once a target has been detected.


There is no obvious reason why air-forces wouldn't favour long range aircraft with larger torpedo loads:

1) Most countries didn't field systems for programming torpedoes once airborne there is no reason to avoid increasing the number of torpedoes fired.

2) Most submarines carried multiple ready-to-fire torpedo tubes and often fired spreads to increase the likelihood of scoring a hit

3) An aircraft could make multiple attack runs on a target dropping one torpedo each time (although surprise would suffer).

4) Aircraft are much more manoeuvrable than ships


Now there are some less obvious reasons:

1) Few air-forces in the 1930s used large enough aircraft to carry more than two torpedoes

2) Larger aircraft are larger targets for anti-aircraft gunners. While dropping a spread of torpedoes allows release of the weapons further away from the target (as you can accept a reduced probability of hit for each shot), it likely doesn't provide adequate compensation.

3) The probability of scoring a hit with a torpedo may have been massively over-estimated in the interwar years

That said - I'm surprised there isn't more evidence of aircraft proposals carrying five, six, or seven torpedoes.

Does anyone know of such a project?
96
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / Re: Real or fake
« Last post by archipeppe on January 07, 2017, 12:31:03 pm »
They are not fake, but conceptional as author clearly states everywhere in captions.

Flateric has right.
Especially the second one was the rumored FB-23 bomber proposal heavily based by Northrop-Grumman on its YF-23 proposal.
97
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / Re: Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive
« Last post by Graham1973 on January 07, 2017, 06:16:29 am »
Part 2 of the analysis from Centauri Dreams.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36890

Just read part two of the analysis, I think that they've done a good job on looking it over and I would agree that the possibility of misreading the results has to be eliminated before you can call this thing proved or otherwise.

This video makes some interesting suggestions as to what might be going on.

98
Amazing work my dear Pavel.
99
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / Re: Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive
« Last post by Flyaway on January 07, 2017, 03:36:52 am »
Part 2 of the analysis from Centauri Dreams.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36890

100
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / Re: Fictional Warships - Novels
« Last post by Graham1973 on January 07, 2017, 12:31:38 am »
Another self-published on Amazon technothriller...

David Tindell, The White Vixen, 2012

United Kingdom

HMS Cambridge
Destroyer, class not specified
1 x 4.5 inch gun fwd.
Sea Wolf GWS-25 missiles
Goalkeeper CIWS
Name clash with the RN Gunnery School which was closed in 2001.
Note: This does not fit the armament of any actual destroyer in service in 1981. The British did not purchase Goalkeeper until after the Falklands War (April - June 1982)

HMS Cumberland
Frigate, class not specified.
No other details mentioned.
Name clashes with a Type 22 Batch III Class frigate launched in 1986.

HMS Fort Austin
Frigate, class not specified.
No other details provided.
Note: Name clash with RFA Fort Austin (A386), a Fort Rosalie Class Supply Ship that served in the Falkands War and is still in service.

HMS Reliant
Submarine, class not specified
No other details provided.

HMS Vanguard
Churchill Class Submarine
Details as per the real ships.
Note: Name clash with the later name ship of the Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile Submarines launched in 1993.

Chile

San Miguel
Frigate, class not specified.
No other details provided.

Russia

K-251
Victor III Class Submarine
Real ship, details as in service.

Plot summary: The novel takes place in both 1981 & 1982. A group of men who 'didn't believe in no surrender' at the end of WWII and who have been ruling Argentina from the shadows ever since, take the first steps in a plan whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the restoration of the Third Reich...

Note: This essentially a fantastical account of events leading up to the opening phases of the Falklands War in which a USAF Special Operations Force member (and Martial arts expert) of mixed American/Korean descent plays a key role. The cover is a particularly bad example of what you can do with computer photo-manipulation these days, I don't know what type of ship is depicted on the cover, but it is definitely not a British design.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]