New planes requests (from other threads/please pin it)

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

I don't put the doctrine in question but I doubt that "3000m+" attacks could be successful, unless in rare circumstances as high ratio torpedoes/ships launched in good visibility and calm seas. I just don't understand how a pilot(navigator?) without possibility to measure distance accurately to a target could calculate angle of torpedo launch. Here my submariner's education revolts. I might be wrong, or I miss something.