US Mk13 torpedo used on beaufighters

[brewerjerry]

Hi

References ' some say' the beau used british or us torpedoes ..... but i cant find any pics of a beau or anything raf with a us Mk13 torp fitted.

Any ideas to references ?

I need scheme for a 1:32 beaufighter with it.

cheers jerry

[Sydhuey]

RAAF carried Mk 13 torpedo's on Beauforts but don't think they were ever fitted to RAAF Beaufighters, torpedo gear was usually removed.

[Sydhuey]

Terry, in mid 1942 it was decided that the RAAF with the Beaufort would take over the Torpedo attack role and allow the 22nd BG and 38th BG with B-26's return to the medium Bomber role, all stocks of torpedoes in Australia were handed to the RAAF and US instructors assisted in torpedo training at Nowra.

In a prelude to combined aircraft attacks at The Battle of the Bismarck Sea , on 7 Sept 1942 100 Sqn used 6 x Beaufort's with Mk13's escorted by 3 x 30 Sqn Beaufighter's for Flak suppression and P-40's for top cover with Hudson's bombing from altitude in a co-ordinated attack on a Japanese naval force at Milne Bay (Light Cruiser and destroyers), no hits were scored as the Mk 13's were found to be defective ( would not hold track or depth), Beauforts also opened the attack at the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in Mar 43 ( no hits again) and attacked heavy Cruisers in Rabaul Harbour at night ( no hits again), it was eventually found after tests in Australia ( and later info from the US) that the Mk 13 would not hold depth (up to 10' out from set depth), would not hold course , and had defective fuses ! Not much help for brave crews flying into the teeth of intense Cruiser anti aircraft fire to drop dud torpedoes, and investigation found the tactics were sound the weapons defective!

[brewerjerry]

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the very detailed reply, so the beaufighter is a no go.

Hi Sydhuey

Thanks for the info, As I have a 1:32 Mk13, I may go this route with my 1:32 tigger models beaufort.

cheers

jerry

[brewerjerry]

Hi

Found this surfing for info, seems to be about 1943 trials with an raf beaufort

cheers

jerry

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2378231

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2378284

Edited July 17, 2016 by brewerjerry

[Graham Boak]

My understanding is that the BPF carried a store of US torpedoes for their Avengers, just in case. This was some time after the problems with the type had been corrected. The Avenger's bomb-bay was too short for the British torpedo, hence the Avenger initially served as an ASW aircraft. It was only after the battle of Leyte and the resulting lack of major targets that the FAA abandoned torpedo-attack training as its main striking technique, and disbanded Barracuda units that had been moved to the Far East in preparation.

[Sydhuey]

By the time of the BPF the problems with the Mk 13 had been identified and corrected but by then Torpedo ops were out of favour in the SW Pacific as skip bombing with fast attack aircraft (A-20's, B-25's and Beaufighter's) was considered more efficient .

[Graham Boak]

Not, however, an argument accepted by the USN and RN in the wider theatre. Both continued operating current and developing new torpedo bombers for over a decade.

.

[Sydhuey]

Torpedo's were still viable weapons for capital ships (as demonstrated at Leyte etc) but in the SWP were nothing bigger than a destroyer was encountered and barges/coastal steamers was the norm skip bombing /rockets were the weapon of choice.

[LDSModeller]

Does anyone out there know for certain if any Allied forces other than the USN had crews trained on aircraft torpedo tactics and tech? I may be way off base here, but I suspect that the FAA Barracudas, and later their Avengers, were used primarily as strike bombers in the Pacific. I remember reading somewhere (the old Profile pub?) when researching the aircraft type years ago that the Barras could only carry a reduced warload (three of the six wing hardpoints maxed at a total of 1000lbs) on BPF strike missions, if they were to have anything approaching a meaningful radius of action. So I guess the heavy fish was likely out for them at least?

With apologies for the OP for this straying so far off topic!

Cheers,

Terry

Hi Terry

When the RNZAF received their TBF-1c's after intial training on TBF-1's, RNZAF Avenger crews went to Australia to train with the USN on anit shipping tactics and torpedo use*.

However when RNZAF 30/31 Sqns deployed to the forward theatres with their TBF-1c's (not TBF-1's like the July Flypast article states - yeah, had to put that in) they were entirely used for bombing, and didn't drop one torpedo against shipping, or sink one ship with torpedoes.

(reference* "The Avengers" by Walley Ingham who served with both RNZAF 30 & 31 Sqn)

Regards

Alan

Edited July 19, 2016 by LDSModeller

[brewerjerry]

...,,,,

With apologies for the OP for this straying so far off topic!

Cheers,

Terry

Hi

Nothing better than the time honoured BM tradition of thread drift

I find it increases my knowledge

cheers jerry

[Graham Boak]

The FAA certainly had crews trained on torpedo tactics: at least until they abandoned such training after Leyte. There would still have been a large number of such crews in the BPF.

The Barracuda was limited in performance in hot climates, but certainly was the RN's prime aircraft for the torpedo-dropping role intended for the BPF. It did serve in the Indian Ocean which was not particularly cool. Adjectives like "meaningful" tend to reflect biases of the writer rather than anything too helpful.

[Graham Boak]

It was a general comment rather than aimed at any specific bias or any specific writer! However, if you want examples, then look at the various and differing opinions on the Barracuda as a flying/combat machine. Pilots who came from the Swordfish hated it because it took much more care - as did pretty well every faster metal monoplane. Pilots who came to it new or without ingrained habits found ways to cope with its peculiarities. Yes, it carried less payload in hot climates, but so does every aircraft ever invented. The adjective "meaningful" carries a value judgement greater than the more impartial "limited" or "reduced". It rather depends just how far you need to fly, and that depends upon a lot of other matters such as which targets and where you think it safe to operate yourself.

The main reasons (arguably the only ones) not to use the Avenger in the TSR role in 1943/44 were its inability to carry the reliable British torpedo (coupled with a very low opinion of the US alternative) and its inability to dive-bomb at steep angles (i.e. accurately) because of the internal carriage and lack of airbrakes. The Barracuda could do both these things. However, once these requirements lost their primacy for 1945, then the superior range and deck handling of the Avenger, plus the potential inter-operability with the USN in the Pacific, made this a better choice for the BPF. The US torpedoes were then kept on the carriers as a reserve, because they were the only ones the Avenger could carry.

There doesn't seem to have been any reduction in the use of the Barracuda outside the Pacific, other than the overall reduction in need with the main carriers being elsewhere! The new Light Fleet Carriers were equipped with Barracudas. Arguably because what else would you do with them?