Luftwaffe torpedo planes

[RF]

Yeah, that makes sense. Speaking of the devil, are these torpedoes underneath or fuel tanks or something?

They look like bombs to me.

[hagvtr]

German fighterbomber FW 190 A5 U14.
Little ground clearance even with longer tail wheel...not to use from normal runways.
Fw 190 is much better in this role then Me 109, more powerful in lower level; landing gear, airframe sturdier, slightly better ground clearance and range (better to say not as bad as 109)...but no way an ideal torpedocarrier.

Production (A5 Type) 1500 1942/43

[Bgile]

Wow!

I was just looking at a US TBM, which carried it internally. Must be a huge difference in aircraft size as well as I believe US arial torpedoes were shorter than ship launched torpedoes.

[VeenenbergR]

In WWII Germany sank some 4800 enemy ships by joint effort of all her forces.

U-Boats (losses 620) sank about 2800+ enemy transports and some 300+ warships.
Luftwaffe sank some 800 enemy transports and 400 warships of which the Condor alone sank about 250 enemy ships with few losses of their own. Greatest enemy warship sank was the modern battleship Roma in 1943 by Dorniers equiped with the Fritz-X rocket bomb.
By all other causes another 500 other enemy ships were sunk.

Losses of the Kriegsmarine, Italian mercantile fleet and Supermarina or the Japanes fleet were defeinitely not much lower.
I estimate that 10.000 freighters and 5000 warships of all parties were lost in WWII.

Submarines and Aircraft were the real killers, surface warships had a small part of all those losses.

[tommy303]

While the Fw190 might have made a decent short range torpedo bomber operating from coastal bases, I do not think it was a very good plane for ship-board use. It had several problems which would have required some redesign to make it carrier-worthy. For one, the Oleo-type shocks were very stiff and made for a very bouncy landing, with inherent danger of ground looping unless the pilot made a perfect three-point touchdown. Most pilots preferred a two point landing to avoid that danger. Second, the 190 had a relatively high approach speed and care had to be taken that speed did not bleed off too rapidly as the stall was vicious and came with virtually no warning. Unlike many other aircraft, the 190's controls performed well right down to the stall speed with no buffeting or mushiness to warn the pilot. Finally, view forward during landings was poor. Although the designers did a good job cowling the big BMW radial, it was still fairly obtrusive and difficult for the pilot to see around or over, as he sat rather lower in the fuselage than comparable allied aircraft such as the Hellcat. In normal flight the aircraft tended to trim slightly nose down, which helped forward view, but during final approach lowering the flaps changed trim to nose up requiring forward pressure on the stick to maintain level flight and keep speed from bleeding off too much. The pilot's manual recommended lowering the gear after the flaps, as the landing gear tended to counteract the trim caused by the flaps, and at the same time maintain power on the engine until crossing the threshold. The pilot then had to apply back pressure on the stick in order to slightly increase the angle of attack so the fighter would begin to settle.

[Bgile]

The F4U Corsair must have had some of the same pilot visibility problems. I remember that they didn't initially work very well on carriers, even though they were designed originally with that in mind. I hadn't thought of this before, but it bears some resemblance to the FW190 D9. Odd, since the Corsair used a radial engine. Makes me wonder why the nose was so long. I need to check it out this weekend. :)

[marcelo_malara]

In WWII Germany sank some 4800 enemy ships by joint effort of all her forces.

U-Boats (losses 620) sank about 2800+ enemy transports and some 300+ warships.
Luftwaffe sank some 800 enemy transports and 400 warships of which the Condor alone sank about 250 enemy ships with few losses of their own. Greatest enemy warship sank was the modern battleship Roma in 1943 by Dorniers equiped with the Fritz-X rocket bomb.
By all other causes another 500 other enemy ships were sunk.

Losses of the Kriegsmarine, Italian mercantile fleet and Supermarina or the Japanes fleet were defeinitely not much lower.
I estimate that 10.000 freighters and 5000 warships of all parties were lost in WWII.

Submarines and Aircraft were the real killers, surface warships had a small part of all those losses.

Can you tell how many ships (or tonage) were sunk by bomb and how many by torpedo?

Regards to all

[marcelo_malara]

The F4U Corsair must have had some of the same pilot visibility problems. I remember that they didn't initially work very well on carriers, even though they were designed originally with that in mind. I hadn't thought of this before, but it bears some resemblance to the FW190 D9. Odd, since the Corsair used a radial engine. Makes me wonder why the nose was so long. I need to check it out this weekend. :)

Wasn´t the gull wing partly fitted to help the visibility problem?

[tommy303]

The gull wing was incorporated to provide clearance for the prop yet still keep the landing gear relatively short. The nose is quite long, in part because the fuselage fuel tank is in front of the pilot--the designers feeling that having the pilot sandwiched between the engine and fuel was a bad idea should a deck landing go wrong. The pilot therefore sits rather farther back than in most planes. From what I hear, the Corsair was a something of a widow maker for the unwary.

[RF]

Can you tell how many ships (or tonage) were sunk by bomb and how many by torpedo?

Hello Marcelo,

Answering this query I think would be difficult beyond estimates as shipping losses are due to so many causes and often not a single cause. For example how do you include a ship that is both bombed and torpedoed before it sinks?
I did see an estimate of 800,000 tons sunk by aircraft but I can't remember the context.

[marcelo_malara]

how do you include a ship that is both bombed and torpedoed before it sinks?

You give 0.5 ship sunk to each, like two pilots downing the same plane.

[tommy303]

Just to amend and clarify my previous post on Fw190 stall characteristics:

Normal stall speed, dependent on external ordnance being carried, if any, was around 126mph, and was highly dangerous as there was no warning what-so-ever. One moment you would be in control of a responsive airplane and the next you would suddenly find yourself flying inverted. In landing configuration the stall was different. One entered the landing circuit at about 150mph and applied 10* flap; as one turned into the final approach an additional 10* flap was applied and the landing gear lowered after line up. Speed could be allowed to bleed off to around 120mph safely. Full flap was then applied and in this configuration stall speed dropped to 106mph; the stall itself was preceeded by severe buffeting and when it came, one wing would drop fairly gently. During flare out, care had to be taken to maintain adequate speed until the aircraft was almost at touchdown. Throttle could then be eased back and the plane allowed to sink until the wheels made contact.

[José M. Rico]

More German torpedo bombers.


Junkers JU 87 E


Dornier Do 217


Heinkel He 177 "Greif"

[Bgile]

Boy, it seems like if they dropped just one of those outboard torpedoes they would have a plane thats very hard to fly.

[CSAEOD]

What types of bomb racks were used with torpedoes by the German units. Did they use explosive bolts to drop their loads?