Matrix Games Forums

I know that British Costal Command used beaufighters as torpedo bombers with mixed results. However, I have never read of Austrailian beaufighters employing torpedoes. Anyone know about this? Source? Thanks.

I was wondering about the same a couple of weeks ago and didn’t find anything on RAAF Beaufighter torpedo attacks.

In Europe only 2 Australian sqns were equipped with Beaus. 455 Sqn main job was to provide escort for the torpedo-carrying Beaus of 489 Squadron, but unit never used torpedoes on its own, only bombs and rockets (both MSW and trawler claimed by this unit were sunk with rockets). 456 Sqn had Beaus only for 10 months in 1942 and was flying patrols and rescue missions, didn’t claim anything while flying Beaus.

RAAF had 5 Beaufighter sqns in PTO (22, 30, 31, 92, 93, last two were formed in 45 and saw very little action) and they never employed torpedoes in combat also, despite the fact that many aircraft (both UK and Oz built) had torpedo-carrying gear. There were two main reasons for this, 1) no torpedo training (all PTO sqns were trained for ground-pounding) 2) no torpedo-worth targets within a range (90% of targets attacked on anti-shipping sorties were barges and small auxiliary vessels, these could be easily destroyed with Beau’s cannons and rockets, no need for torpedoes actually, in addition majority of engaged vessels were operating in shallow waters, barely suitable for torpedo attacks. RAAF Beaus didn’t use torpedoes even on occasions when torpedoes could be employed with great effect - Bismarck sea).

Subchaser wrote:RAAF had 5 Beaufighter sqns in PTO (22, 30, 31, 92, 93, last two were formed in 45 and saw very little action) and they never employed torpedoes in combat also, despite the fact that many aircraft (both UK and Oz built) had torpedo-carrying gear. There were two main reasons for this, 1) no torpedo training (all PTO sqns were trained for ground-pounding) 2) no torpedo-worth targets within a range (90% of targets attacked on anti-shipping sorties were barges and small auxiliary vessels, these could be easily destroyed with Beau’s cannons and rockets, no need for torpedoes actually, in addition majority of engaged vessels were operating in shallow waters, barely suitable for torpedo attacks. RAAF Beaus didn’t use torpedoes even on occasions when torpedoes could be employed with great effect - Bismarck sea).

Interestingly enough the RAAF Beauforts of No. 100 Squadron did make torpedo attacks. I am aware of one period during October/November 1942 when 100 Squadron Beauforts flying from Milne Bay made about 19 sorties with torpedoes. No hits were scored and one aircraft was lost. Subsequent enquiries found defects with the torpedoes and also resulted in a detachment of the squadron being withdrawn for additional torpedo training.

In December, a flight of Beauforts made another night torpedo attack in concert with six Beaufighters. There was an explosion in the darkness and one of the Beauforts was credited with a hit. The targets were Japanese destroyers.

Don Bowen

Yup, Dan and Subchaser are correct. But this brings about the question....if an aircraft is able to use a torp.....should it not be allowed? I KNOW this will lead to the historic Vs the A-historic camps.

Having the torpedo would be nice, but I've been happy using them set to Naval Attack at 100 ft and they have done a tremendous job on AGs, Destroyers and Transports with their guns and 500 lb bombs while gaining valuable experience.

I may be wrong but I remember reading somewhere that the P-38 was capable of carrying a torpedo, doubt it ever did in combat.

hehe

I know this is way off topic for this post, but I found a cool website that I have to post.

TWO TORPEDOS!

Too bad this bad boy never saw action loaded out like this.

Here is the website

http://p-38online.com/exp.html

Raverdave wrote:Yup, Dan and Subchaser are correct. But this brings about the question....if an aircraft is able to use a torp.....should it not be allowed? I KNOW this will lead to the historic Vs the A-historic camps.

Along the same sort of lines are solid fuel rockets modelled in the games?.....

Alex Gee wrote:hehe

I know this is way off topic for this post, but I found a cool website that I have to post.

TWO TORPEDOS!

Too bad this bad boy never saw action loaded out like this.

Here is the website

http://p-38online.com/exp.html

Now that would have to sting!

Would you have to drop them as a pair? Any Pilots in the forum? They must weigh a fair bit, would dropping one adversely effect the planes flight carractisics?

Instead of hijacking this thread about the Beaufighter I made a new thread about the P-38 with some additional info.

Oooh then we could get B-26 torpedo bombers (Midway), B-25 torpedo bombers (test) and lets not forget PBY torpedo bombers.

And for our friends downunder Wellington torpedo bombers (Malta at night). And the even more exoctic Mosquitos with the Wallis Anti-shipping bombs (little dam busters) (never used because no one could figure a defense against them).

Well, since they were not commonly used in the pacific as torpedo bombers, I would opt to not have them included in the game or perhaps allow it but require the squadron to withdraw for training. (In fact that is a good idea for any new skill. Matrix you listening?)

I had read that British Costal Command used both hollow charge explosive rockets and solid steel rockets. Apparently the solid steel rockets were very effective. The pilot just aimed at the hull a bit below the water line and the rockets punched nice fat holes in the hull and then banged around the machinery spaces for a bit tearing up machines and steam lines. I forget the source though. Anyone remember?

crsutton wrote:Well, since they were not commonly used in the pacific as torpedo bombers, I would opt to not have them included in the game or perhaps allow it but require the squadron to withdraw for training. (In fact that is a good idea for any new skill. Matrix you listening?)

The issue of the role of the Beaufighter came up last year and there was a very spirited discussion as the aircraft originally classified in the game as a level bomber. Unfortunately, this led the aircraft being used in very unhistorical manner as the aircraft classification affects the missions available and eventually the role was changed.

According to the order of battle published in the RAAF Official Histories, the Beaufighters were classified as Long Range Fighters. In fact, the early versions (Mk.1C) of the Beaufighter operated by No.s 30 and 31 Squadron RAAF during the period of UV were not fitted with either rocket or torpedo launch equipment. They were exclusively day strafers. Rockets arrived with the Mk.VIC in Oct'42 and torpedo gear in later Mk.IVC and Mk.X airframes from Jul '43.

However, just because the aircraft has a capability, it doesn't mean it was used. As hinted at by the post above, the RAAF doctrine had moved away from torpedo bombing by mid '43 (even for the Beaufort squadrons) as the operation emphesis shifted toward support of the ground troops and the reduction of Rabaul.

I (and quite a lot of other players as demonstrated by the previous threads) feel that this aircraft has a place in the game acting in its historical role, if for no other reason than historical authenticity.

crsutton wrote:I had read that British Costal Command used both hollow charge explosive rockets and solid steel rockets. Apparently the solid steel rockets were very effective. The pilot just aimed at the hull a bit below the water line and the rockets punched nice fat holes in the hull and then banged around the machinery spaces for a bit tearing up machines and steam lines. I forget the source though. Anyone remember?

Eventually all 5 RAAF Beaufighter squadrons in the pacific were equipped with the Australian built Mk21 version which was capable of carrying this fearsome weapon - watch for them in WITP.

As a matter of interest, you may like to go to the Australian War Memorial Site (www.awm.gov.au) and search for the keyword 'Beaufighter' in the photographic database. Very impressive.
.

Raverdave wrote:Yup, Dan and Subchaser are correct. But this brings about the question....if an aircraft is able to use a torp.....should it not be allowed? I KNOW this will lead to the historic Vs the A-historic camps.

You'll never guess which camp I fall into....

However, I am as interested as anyone else as to the effects that alternative decisions would have made on historical outcomes. There's no better way of discovering why things happened the way they did!!!

My only issue is when things like this are railroaded into the basic game because it gives some player a "gaming edge" and drags the game away from what it was attempting to recreate. If you want torpedos, fine - just edit a scenario and call it an alternative history. You'll probably find that I will play it too!!!!
.

Just can't help asking. Besides the 4 B-26s at Midway that made torpedo attacks, did any others make combat torpedo attacks. The attack at Midway probably did not inspire a lot of other pilots to try it.

Hi all,

spence wrote:Just can't help asking. Besides the 4 B-26s at Midway that made torpedo attacks, did any others make combat torpedo attacks. The attack at Midway probably did not inspire a lot of other pilots to try it.

I also wondered about this!

Anyone with more data on B-26 and torpedo?


Leo "Apollo11"

There's a little about it in Joe Baugher's article on the service career of the B-26 here (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b26_19.html). By "too large" I suspect it was decided that the large frontal area made the aircraft too vulnerable to flak.

There's another consideration, as well: lack of opportunity. There were never all that many Marauders in the PTO - only 2 Bombardment Groups ever operated with them in this theater, and even they switched over to the B-25 starting in January 1943.