Italian Air Droped Torpedos

[Dili]

No, better bomber does not mean a better torpedo bomber. Does that performance and maneuverability show stats at low level? That is what matter because naval search/attack profiles for torpedo bombers were all at low level. Was Z.1007 superior to S.79 at 1000-2000m? the answer is no.

S.79 had Alfa 126 RC34(so rated for 3400m) modified for propose in 1942 as Alfa128 RC18(rated for 1800m).

Z.1007 engines were rated for 4000m and less reliable. The Piaggio engine evolution was to increase the performance altitude. The Z.1007 ter version was RC45 rated for 4500m.

There is no size in bomb bay for 2 torpedos, the dropping of torpedoes needs also more testing since it has bomb doors and that gives more complicated aerodynamic issues. Putting it external it would had to be moved forward due to the low rear belly of Z.1007 in the ground. So eventual balance issues.

Why Italian pilots preferred S.79 to more modern S.84?

[Brady]

No, better bomber does not mean a better torpedo bomber. Does that performance and maneuverability show stats at low level? That is what matter because naval search/attack profiles for torpedo bombers were all at low level. Was Z.1007 superior to S.79 at 1000-2000m? the answer is no.

S.79 had Alfa 126 RC34(so rated for 3400m) modified for propose in 1942 as Alfa128 RC18(rated for 1800m).

Z.1007 engines were rated for 4000m and less reliable. The Piaggio engine evolution was to increase the performance altitude. The Z.1007 ter version was RC45 rated for 4500m.

There is no size in bomb bay for 2 torpedos, the dropping of torpedoes needs also more testing since it has bomb doors and that gives more complicated aerodynamic issues. Putting it external it would had to be moved forward due to the low rear belly of Z.1007 in the ground. So eventual balance issues.

Why Italian pilots preferred S.79 to more modern S.84?

Well, The vast magority of the SM 79's that were used for Torpedo work up till early 43 had the Alfa 126 , a few the Piaggio P.XI (the Same engine in the Z 1007), the "bis" did not come into play in any numbers till mid 43. These engines were rated at ~ 3000 and 4000 m respectively.


Attack Profiles for torpedo bombers are obviously at low level , but they are also not at full speed, torps could not be dropped at full speed because it would damage the torp, Search was not done on the deck, because it limited to area that could be scanned, most references I have torpedo bombers indicate a approach to target at ideal cursing height, and decent to an appropriate search altitude, if that's even needed (5,000 ft is often referenced), then a shallow angle dive into the target and in this they would pick up any speed they needed to and then would back off on throttle to drop speed prior to the actual launch.


I don't think its really all that relevant that the engines were ratted at such and such altitude or that Planes were capable of great speeds or really even of handling all that well, many successfully torpedo bombers were both far slower than the SM 79 and handled far worse over all than they did, or than the Z 1007 did.

I have not seen a diagram of the Z 1007 proposed torpedo configuration but the Bomb bay certainly looks to be long enough to accommodate one Bettys flew without bomb doors on to conduct torpedo operations and managed just fine, I theory I cant see why a Cant Z 1007 would not make a decent torpedo bomber given it would if configured to carry one torpedo would be carrying far less of a load compared to its all up war load with more powerful engines, even if operating at an altitude that was not optimal cruse altitude, the SM 79 was also doing so for most of the war as well.

This is all just for the sake of argument, in game the Z 1007 would never be fitted out for this type of operation as it never conducted one during the war, the SM 84 would be of course.

The Italian Piolets Preferring the SM 79 to the SM 84 is interesting, given the big changes to the SM 79 did not happen till well into 43, at least not in any numbers and that the SM 84 was actually from a performance stand point faster, but it came down to handling according to what I have read, the type was not different enough over the SM 79 to be prefeed for any reason and was not as good a bomber as the Z 1007 which was about as fast , the SM 84 did achieve some success, but those could of been achieved by flying the SM 79


Again I think it just comes back to the fact that SM 79 was capable enough, the Z 1007 was a better bomber and they did not want to waste that capability on torpedo bombing when they had the SM 79 ready to go.

[Dili]

There were no S.79 with Piaggio engine except prototypes.(edit: and racing models)
Alfa 128 were started to be installed in mid-late 1942. I have seen contradictory references if this implied a nomenclature change in aircraft.

RC34 means it is rated for 3400m not 3000m. RC40 means 4000m, RC18 means 1800.

S.79 mostly made torpedo armed search at low level. As you said 5000ft is 1500m.
That is why engines should be set for the most usual altitude the aircraft spends their time. That is why you need all power at that level or below when the pilot wants to escape after dropping the torpedo.

Pilots preferred S.79 because it wasn't a "stable" aircraft so was fast responsive to commands and they could easier follow warships change their courses.

[Brady]

I don't think there was any lack of torpedoes due to production, they nevertheless had to take 50 torpedoes from a 300 German order because Regia Aeronautica started the war without torpedoes and torpedo bombers, so when they modified the S.79 to drop torpedoes, there wasn't any order for them. RA also got a Regia Marina order for 131 MAS torpedoes that with a slight modification were like aerial ones. 36 from these diverted order were received in January 1941.

Dropped air torpedoes from start to end of 1942. Don't think it includes training.

1940-35(2ºhalf year), 1941:56+124 (1 h.y.+2 h.y.) 1942(174+194)


Edit: i don't know if this number includes the circular torpedo Motobomba dropped in 1942.

What's the source on this data, if I might ask, and any idea on the total production numbers?

The idea that the MAS torps could be used as well is interesting

[DrG]

Not every 450 mm torpedo could be used by both Italia MTBs and torpedo bombers, only the models S.I. 170/450 x 5,25 and W. 170/450 x 5,46. Both the models required the fitting of a simple wooden tail fin in order to be air launched.

[Dili]

Source of data are various Storia Militare articles.
At hand i have that Whitehead produced 650 in 1941 only. By 1941 i also think production of establishment of Napoli started producing them.

There wasn't scarcity in aircraft weapons. For example Italy dropped only around 20% of bombs it had at war start. Torpedos are more complex and expensive but i never read a complaint there were lack of it except initially.

[Brady]

This is what I have that would seam to contradict that:




Personally bases on what I have read, and the info provided on this Thread, that the real limiter to the Italian use of torpedoes was simply the relatively small number of Torpedo capable Launch Platforms, particularly early on.

The only way I can effectively counter the above view, which seams to be relative for perhaps a short window of time, is with the actual Production Numbers and the Delivery's, because some of the Italian Torpedo's went to the Germans, I know of the initial order of 300 and that Italy took 50 from that order, but did they take others as well, was Italian production continuing to supply the Germans, until there own production got up to speed.

This helps, but again no numbers:



This suggests that the use of Torpedoes was at least planed by Z 506's:

[Dili]

Did i say this?

"i never read a complaint there were lack of it except initially."

[Brady]

Did i say this?

"i never read a complaint there were lack of it except initially."

Sorry, I cut to much this indicates 1942:

[Dili]

Thanks. That is probably more related to makeshift nature of some landing grounds an the lack of support than the torpedo production.

I have got the number of orders 450x5.46 by Silurifico at Naples - note that orders does not mean received/accepted by service

year: order; received/accepted
1940: 0, received by Navy(RM) 103 i suppose this is part of orders before war(60 1936/37) 120(1938), 24 1939 - the 120 order did not respected listed performance so contractual penalty was activated.
1941: 286 for RM, 880 for RA- : RM accepted/received 157 don't know about RA order
1942: 284 for RM accepted/received 110
1943: 384 for RM

[Brady]

So above u note 583 were expended on op's, and we know the Germans took 250 on hand (right?)

For 883

Presumably some of the 583 were the 450x5.46

So I am clear there were Three Italian Air Droppable Torpedo Models (not counting the MB)

The Standard RA Torpedo

And the:

S.I. 170/450 x 5,25

W. 170/450 x 5,46

Did the LW ever Provide Torpedoes to the RA ?

[DrG]

So I am clear there were Three Italian Air Droppable Torpedo Models (not counting the MB)
The Standard RA Torpedo
And the:
S.I. 170/450 x 5,25
W. 170/450 x 5,46
Did the LW ever Provide Torpedoes to the RA ?

The Regia Aeronautica and the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana employed only the S.I. 170/450 x 5,25 and the W. 170/450 x 5,46 torpedoes. No other ones, neither Italian nor German.

The Motobomba FFF was not a torpedo and was not dropped by torpedo bombers.

[Dili]

Motobomba was or not was a torpedo depends on what definition of torpedo we use of it.

It was dropped by SM-84's from altitude , 2 each, but i am not sure if it was the torpedo version of SM 84.

[Brady]

JU 88’s also used it, the motobomba

...........

Both were also used by the MTB’s ?

S.I. 170/450 x 5,25
W. 170/450 x 5,46

[DrG]

Both were also used by the MTB’s ?
S.I. 170/450 x 5,25
W. 170/450 x 5,46

Yes