Especially since torpedo bombers were a thingI'm actually surprised the idea of skipping a weapon wasn't thought of in the early 30's and put into trial. It's almost intuitive - it shouldn't have required a Barnes-Wallis level of genius. You could approach your target with some speed (greater than a torpedo plane) before releasing the bomb/mine. The greater speed also should increase the chance of hitting the target and of survival by the plane and crew.
I'm actually surprised the idea of skipping a weapon wasn't thought of in the early 30's and put into trial. It's almost intuitive - it shouldn't have required a Barnes-Wallis level of genius. You could approach your target with some speed (greater than a torpedo plane) before releasing the bomb/mine. The greater speed also should increase the chance of hitting the target and of survival by the plane and crew.
What about a 1500lb Disney bomb with wings dropped at low level to smash into a ship?Well considering that TB planes had problems with breaching torpedoes it does not take much of a spark to illuminate a lightbulb especially as aircraft get bigger and faster.
This is not the Peerless FAA but ITTL Maritime Command will be getting a coupe of Hundred HP Hampdens as torpedo aircraft and marrying that aircraft with the 'Longbow' at low level would IMVHO be a formidable anti-shipping combination in late 1940 early 1941.
Most throwing things of any kind is about hitting the target before the bounce. If you can aim a weapon by bouncing it, surely you could just hit the target instead?It's like the small calibre/high velocity assault rifle cartridge, all the ingredients are there long before the technology is developed but you need the circumstances and chance before it can all come together.
The advent of guided air to surface weapons and their demonstrated effectiveness as anti shipping weapons during the latter half of WWII made such techniques redundant.And before you laugh, skip, dive, and torpedo bombing died off really quickly post war when the AA targeting improved, so the theory wasn't exactly wrong by many years.
It's like the small calibre/high velocity assault rifle cartridge, all the ingredients are there long before the technology is developed but you need the circumstances and chance before it can all come together.
Britain didn't consider a 7mm round poor performing, they'd been shot to pieces by them. The British Army wanted a 7mm round before WWI (.276 Enfield), were interested in the .276 Pedersen round in the thirties and actually adopted (briefly) the .280 in 1951. All different classes of round but sharing the same 7mm calibre.
They kept the .303 until 1957 because of the timing of WWI, poor finances in the 1930's and politics in the 1950's. It had been recognized by the end of the 2nd Boer War that the .303 was obsolescent.
It baffles me why after the Boer War Britain didn't just put a spitzer bullet on the 7mm Mauser cartridge case and say "Job done, now build a rifle to shoot it".
HM treasury sunk costs we have all this 303 lieing about no ned for a new bullet as well as anew rifle you have how many new rifles since 1860.It baffles me why after the Boer War Britain didn't just put a spitzer bullet on the 7mm Mauser cartridge case and say "Job done, now build a rifle to shoot it".
Ah, yes the UK treasury... "You have those expensive bayonets, why can't you use those instead of all that pricey ammunition you keep shooting off... what do you mean the other guys are too far away, we bought you all boots, run at them"HM treasury sunk costs we have all this 303 lieing about no ned for a new bullet as well as anew rifle you have how many new rifles since 1860.
How the treasury hasn't met a sticky end at the hands of the UK's armed forces at least once is truly a mystery we shall never have the answer toAh, yes the UK treasury... "You have those expensive bayonets, why can't you use those instead of all that pricey ammunition you keep shooting off... what do you mean the other guys are too far away, we bought you all boots, run at them"