Printable View
WWII U.S. dive bombers attacking Imperial Japanese ships in Rabaul.
<video controls autoplay loop> <source src="https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/ww2_rabaul_dive_bombers.mp4" type="video/mp4"> Your browser does not support the video tag. </video>
Previously:
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum/...160#post168866
All those bombs exploding harmlessly in the ocean highlight the need for a guided bomb.
One would think that, even with the technology of the 1940s, one could build a crude IR sensor that controlled a set of steerable vanes on the bomb. A ship underway against the cool ocean would provide good contrast. High accuracy isn't required; all the bomb has to do is hit the ship somewhere. Guided bombs for terrestrial targets would have been much more difficult and, no, the answer is not pigeons pecking at a TV image.
The Germans understood the value of guided weapons. They built and tested a flying bomb remotely controlled by a standoff airplane. But, like so much of their late-war work, it never reached deployment.
As I recall, the Japanese did deploy some deadly "guided" weapons late in the war. But it cost them an airplane and a pilot everything they used one.
Back in the early 70s I was in chuuk. Then known as truk. Some guys came to look for a missing japanese submarine. I was gone when they did locate it. But they had a lot of pictures of the bombing of chuuk. And yes, there were a lot of misses but there certainly were a good bit of hits also. Many ships were sunk. Into the 70s you could see the masts sticking out of the water.
I'm not so sure the bombs that didn't get a direct hit were harmless. The shock wave underwater would be much stronger than that in the air, and I'm certain the near misses could have caused significant damage. Of course, you'd generally want a direct hit, but given the density and incompressibility of water, there might be circumstances where a near miss below the waterline would inflict even more serious damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by mklotz
I had a professor in the early was in the Navy in the battle at Truk Lagoon. His stories were amazing, shocking and scary at the same time.
Yes indeed, those bombs “just” landing close would pop rivets. The heads of the rivers would bounce around inside the ship like small cannonballs. Loosing a rivets created water leaks, weakened the ship. Forced crew that was not killed knocked unconscious to do damage control rather than their battle assignments, etc.
Put an iron pot over your head. Then have someone beat on the outside with a hammer. Then imagine being a kid, deep inside a big iron pot, the lights go out, water gushing in, not knowing when the hammering was going to stop, or when the next hammer strike might be with the really BIG hammer. Water is now up to your waist. Then you feel something bump against you in the cold dark oil filled water. Then realize it is your buddy, floating in the water...
It may be true that a near miss may cause some damage but I doubt that you'll convince any naval authorities that a direct hit isn't a much better use of resources.
The payoff from more precise targeting is huge. Fewer resources needed which means fewer delivery devices which means less exposure of personnel.
I would never argue that a miss creates even close to as much damage as a direct hit.
Navel architects are very aware of the damage created by indirect explosions. So much so that they do survivability test of this very thing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dz7RLp...ature=emb_logo
Minus suffering disabled or dead crewmembers, Sailors undergo periodic damage control and fire-fighting school.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemmjo
They were under controlled but realistic prolonged conditions, and not exactly easy despite 4 or 5 occasions of my own. I'll say it's one case where 'familiarity breeds contempt' isn't true.
Later, finding you made choices or took proper steps in adversity is eye-opening.
Once again, it also proves Mike Rowe's adage of "Safety Third".