US Victory at Pearl Harbor

[Tony Williams]

Level-flying bombing (perhaps not at high altitude) was not entirley useless. The Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sunk by a combination of medium level bombing and torpedoes.

It was the high-altitude level bombing I meant - obviously, torpedo bombers attacked in level flight (otherwise they would have disappeared in a series of splashes) but at very low level. This type of attack was the real ship-killer, because unlike most bomb hits, torpedoes let the water in - and that's what you need to do to sink a ship. That's what did for the PoW and Repulse.

Besides, the line between dive-bombing and level-bombing sometimes got a bit blurred. Most layman think that dive-bombing was a steep swoop, followed by release and pull-out, like the Ju 87. In fact many used a very shallow dive, followed by an aimed release. The Royal Navy Skuas which sank the Konigsberg did that.

The typical Skua dive angle was 60 degrees in that raid (individual planes attacked at 50-70 degrees) which I wouldn't call a shallow dive, although admittedly it wasn't as steep as the Stuka used.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Bulldawg85]

B-17s

Don't forget that the problem was that MacArthur left them sitting on the airfields after PH got attacked. Having the US win at PH isn't going to make a bit of difference in the Philippines if MacArthur is just going to sit there like he did in OTL.

 

[JLCook]

What keeps a B17 from launching torpedoes

I would think that over a fairly short (by B17 strategic bombing standards) range that a B17 ought to be able to carry perhaps 3 or more torpedoes. If these were fairly long ranged torpedoes, allowing a low level launch from 8000+ yards and being deployed in slavoes, from multiple aircraft, how exactly would a surface warship evade a salvo launch of torpedoes, say 16 or so in each launch, and with there being at least one other, simultaneous launch from another direction.

 

[CalBear]

I would think that over a fairly short (by B17 strategic bombing standards) range that a B17 ought to be able to carry perhaps 3 or more torpedoes. If these were fairly long ranged torpedoes, allowing a low level launch from 8000+ yards and being deployed in slavoes, from multiple aircraft, how exactly would a surface warship evade a salvo launch of torpedoes, say 16 or so in each launch, and with there being at least one other, simultaneous launch from another direction.

Torpedo planes have a very specific design, once that enhances their low level, low speed performance. B-17's were designed for the exact opposite, high altitude performance, they tended to be a bit sloppy very low to the ground. You also need to look at the envelope for dropping the MK. 13 torpedo. It could be dropped from a maximum of 50 feet and 100 knots, torpedoes dropped at 150 MPH showed 100%+ failure rates (many had more than one failure point). B-17's stall at about 85 knots. This means you would have a large aircraft, close to the water, at the verge of falling out of the sky. The plane would have been unable to defend itself, manuever, or handle the loaded/unloaded transition after weapon launch.. There are more productive ways to kill bomber crews.

There is also the problem of the MK. 13 itself in 1941. It was slow (33 knots), carried a surprising small warhead (401 LB TNT), and was, overall, not a weapon that would have justified a massive redesign of a High Altitude bomber into a massive low speed, low level torpedo bomber. Worse, at least for the scenario here, it's MAXIMUM range was 6,700 yards. Later in the war (1944-45) the drop envelope was expanded to 2,400 feet and 410 knots. The B-17 could have been used to drop the weapon at this stage, but the destruction of the IJN by this point made such considerations unnecessary.