ORIGINAL: sandman455
As for skip bomb being some kind of replacement for torpedo bombing; absolutely not. Totally different targets and mission requirements. Heh, you don't want to get me going on skip bombing again. Just search the forums for that thread. And after reading and digesting all that skip bombing literature that was offered up. . .
I'm even more confident about everything I posted on the subject.
agreed. Skip bombing evolved during the war due to a specific need, one of which was the absence of plentiful torpedoes and the training that goes along with making said attacks.
The aspect to keep in mind (IMO of course) is that pre-war, airpower in general vs. warships was still largely theoretical and there were disputing thoughts on it's worth, value and the best means to attack. As a weapon, the torpedo had merit, it was and remained through WWII the deadliest threat vs even the most heavily protected warship because of it's nature. But torpedoes were expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Successful delivery of the ordinance required specific training and increased the vulnerability of the delivery platform.
Bombing was not seen in general as a magic bullet, but with developments like the Norden, it could be advertised that regular iron bombs could be used adequately for cheaper cost both in terms of delivery and safety for the delivery platform, allowing repeat performance....in other words more bang for the buck.
The Japanese embraced torpedo land based aircraft because it was seen as a cheaper means of furthering along the goal of winning a decisive naval battle using the traditional weapon....the surface ship. With an advocate like Yamamoto, it was developed. Some within the Italian military saw similar value but due to cost and limited resources it got a later start (after war began) The Americans saw the level bomber using high alt tactics as a theoretical better means of defense and the country was rich enough to indulge as the Navy still had the dominant role in projecting US power across the ocean. After war came, the emergence of larger and larger air projection ability made the question largely moot. Torp, bomb, or Kamakaze, enemy forces would have to wade through increasingly huge air defenses to try to obtain their goals.
The UK's budget concious industry focused on air power along continental lines (vs. the Japanese who's interests were more maritime given the geography of the Pacific. ) The Germans embraced torpedo armed land based aircraft enough to purchase up to 1/2 of Italian torpedo production for it's own air force, a factor that helped limit the RA's own efforts ironically. Eventually the Allies also developed some limited torp lugging aspects. Why not more pursued? simply by mid war the increasing preponderance of Allied air power made it superfluous. Add to that the increasingly crushing naval superiority, backed by increased fighter defenses. The Germans resorted to the next step, semi-guided missiles which combine elements of bomb and torpedo technlogy.
The Japanese emphasis is often portrayed as a failure but a reason for this was logistical and command level decision making. They didn't have the resources to make distant bases more formidable in the shorter time frame and compounded the problem with some rash decisions that exposed their limited resources to futile/long shot attacks. It is also true that the USN avoided when possible placing themselves at harm's risk until they had the mobile and land based air defenses to minimize the risk, while at the same time Japanese training and numbers dwindled.
Despite pioneering work in the field of land based torpedo air attack, the Italians were late starters to the game but quickly made up for lost ground. It should be noted though that their combat environment was less air intensive which allowed them to score better in terms of numbers, coupled with the a more constricted geography and a need to expose convoys to air attack in conjunction with German air and Italian based naval attacks. The RA never had to face for example a air TF concentration of the likes of TF-38/58 flying mass numbers of Hellcats.
Thus the Apples and Oranges comparison. This also applies to the Swordfish analogy. Can one compare small numbers of unescorted Swordfish attacking singular targets like Bismarck to the less stormy Pacific battles involving whole TF's and larger numbers of carrier based fighters?
By the same token.....envisioning mass skip bombing attacks, especially by large 4E's on a mobile naval combat TF in the open ocean based on battles like the Bismarck Sea slaughter.....don't hold up as well under such scrutiny.
Then again maybe its all bunk. Arm a bunch of seaplanes with torps, with a few Lysanders equipped with mini-TallBoy bombs. anything goes. [:D]
