In WW2 the invention of torpedoes were important in the Pacific. But I found a few reports of planes coming up on of torpedo run when the plane is hit and the wing carrying a bomb is torn off and with the momentom from the planes 60 mph aproach, launches the bomb into the ship causing a hole to erupt on the side of the ship. But these are just well Myths so tell me what ya think.

torpedos were generally carried under the main fusilage for accuracy. and only one at a time due to weight . In other words having 1 torpedo on one wing without counterweight on the other would be difficult .Ordinary bombs were carried on the wings. but please provide a reference and we can discuss better

Alright Cookie monster but again this is just a myth on the internet so wait up... Oh well I dont know what to refrence to so Ill guess. They said that the plane had a torpedo under the fuse but of caurse the bomber had a bomb under each wing so theres your counter weight for ya!Badda Bing Badda BOOM!!!

Xplosives_nice, could you please translate your last post into english, I'm not following what you are saying.

Also one note, the self propelled torpedo was first designed in 1866. The versions used in WWII were invented in 1895. Torpedoes were extensively used in WWI against shipping and in anti-sub warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo

[quote]Alright Cookie monster but again this is just a myth on the internet so wait up... Oh well I dont know what to refrence to so Ill guess. They said that the plane had a torpedo under the fuse but of caurse the bomber had a bomb under each wing so theres your counter weight for ya!Badda Bing Badda BOOM!!![/quote]

"Big bada boom". Think we're rehearsing for "the fifth element" or what. In its basic form and in true mythbusters tradition . I think we'll give this plausible... ie is it possible that once shot to bits enough of an aeroplane can continue to destroy the ship..

[quote]Also one note, the self propelled torpedo was first designed in 1866. The versions used in WWII were invented in 1895. Torpedoes were extensively used in WWI against shipping and in anti-sub warfare.[/quote]

Torpedo's were also responsible for the creation of at least two new classes of warship between 1900 and 1914, are why battleships carried secondary armament and are one of the reasons the Royal Navy didn't pursue the German Fleet as hard as they could have at Jutland in 1916 (the other being the risk of mines close to the shore).

In the first case a totally new class of warship was developed who's main weapons were torpedo's - the torpedo boat. This class worried the main naval powers, who suddenly realised that potential enemies could now build large numbers of these small ships with which to challenge their battleships. The response was to give battleships a couple of 'smaller' secondary guns to defend against these ships, as well as the creation of the destroyer class - originally they were known as torpedo-boat destroyers. (Frigates have existed since at least 1500. The original meaning was simply a fast ship - the Great Henry was described as a 'Great Frigate' in official papers at least once, even though she carried 100 guns. It came to mean a small warship of 28-44 guns that was built long and low and was a fast sailor. In fact 'To Frigate' in French means to build long and low.)

At the Battle of Jutland in 1916 the German fleet faced the Royal Navy, but the RN was unwilling to get too close to the German ships because of the threat from German torpedo's. This reduced the effectiveness of the guns (Which with hindsight was probably a good thing for the British as German ships had better armour). It also lead the British fleet to turn away from the German fleet at least once when they came under torpedo attack (or thought they were).

It is safe to say that more ships have been sunk by torpedo's than any other type of weapon - not least because they have the distinction of being a weapon that can be used by ships, aircraft and submarines. Practically every ship sunk in the North Atlantic between 1939 and 1945 was sunk by torpedo's, and after the battle of Jutland in 1916 no battleship was sunk by naval gunfire. HMS Hood was a battle cruiser, not a battleship - a fact that was forgotten both today and in 1941 - and the Bismark was ultimately sunk by torpedo's fired from a British destroyer.

Airlaunched Torpedoes typicaly had a clockwork arming mechanism requiring a certain number of revolutions in the water before the warhead went off,preventing the loss of the launching plane. So it`s really a question of weither the Mass and Velocity of the weapon would penetrate the side of the ship go through and out again.
During the Falklands conflict with Argentina, several Royal Navy ships report being struck by bombs from Argetine Skyhawk jets, which did pass straight through the hull failing to explode. The velocity of these was probably greater than the Propeller attackers of WWII, but the mass less. I`m afraid my own physics isn`t up to the maths.

[quote]So it`s really a question of weither the Mass and Velocity of the weapon would penetrate the side of the ship go through and out again.[/quote]

WW2 era torpedo's were measured by their diameters (and still are), and the sizes varied between 18 inches (Japanese light torpedo) 21 inches (Allied standard and Japanese submarine standard. This is also the standard size of most modern torpedo's) and 24 inches (Largest carried by Japanese ships). Since the largest Naval guns of the period were only 15 or 16 inches calibre (Apart from the big Japanese Battleships) this sounds impressive. More so since a WW2 era aircraft torpedo weighted in the region of 1600 lbs (Going off the British Swordfish Torpedo Bomber, which could carry one torpedo), while the shell of a British 15 inch gun (The standard main gun on the vast majority of British Battleships from 1913 to 1959) weighed 1920 lbs.

The big difference however is speed. A 15 inch shell would be travelling in the region of 2575 feet per second, or 785 miles per second. Even the fastest torpedo bombers couldn't have done much more than 300 mph in level flight - which they had to do during attack runs. As the energy of an impact, and hence the damage done, is a mixture of an objects mass and its speed it should be easy to see that a torpedo that is thrown into the side of a ship from an aircraft will do far less damage than any naval shell.

This is an important consideration. The Bismark was pounded by most of the British fleet in 1941 - most of which were armed with 15 inch guns - without any of the shots passing through both sides of the ship. Even smaller ships that had the misfortune to be hit by a 15 inch shell did not have the round going straight through the ship.

Kamazazi attacks on Allied ships never resulted in damage going through more than one, maybe two decks even when the aircraft was loaded with a torpedo and diving down at the target.

All of this is not taking into account that torpedo's, unlike shells from the big guns, were not intended to punch through the armour before detonating, and would in any case be highly unlikely to hit a ship point first if thrown into the air.


Using the experiences of the Royal Navy during the Falklands war is very misleading. The ships the Royal Navy operated at the time were, in many regards, very different to those used in WW2. The main difference was armour. WW2 era ships had thick armour plating, but as missile systems started to enter service in the navies of the world and supplanted guns. It was quickly realised that no thickness of armour plating that could be fitted to a ship would be enough to protect against a direct hit. As such warships started to reduce, and effectively eliminate, armour to allow ships to be faster. It should also be considered that the armour on ships is designed with the idea that weapons will be hitting the side of the ship, not the upper decking. As such the upper deck tends to have no effective armour - even in WW2 most ships had very little armour on the upper deck, although British Aircraft carriers during the war did have armoured flight decks and the US Navy followed suit towards the end. This was one of the reasons British carriers were never as badly damaged from suicide or bomb attacks in the Pacific during the war as American or Japanese carriers were.

The myth here doesn`t state that the ship attacked was a Warship. Many Merchant vessel, Liberty Ships and the like were in the theatre of war. They didn`t have the armour that warships did, so there may not have been the much of a difference between them and RN ships of the Falklands.
The point was to show that the principle was at least pausible