Victorious and its involvement

[tommy303]

Tirpitz was never hit by a torpedo from anything during her career. She was hit by bombs dropped by aircraft from the Fleet Air Arm, and the photo in question may show one of those hits. She was also damaged by mines planted by X-Craft, and finally destroyed by Tallboy bombs dropped by RAF Lancasters, but to the best of my knowlege was never hit by a torpedo (although a Russian sub claimed a hit on her). In any event, torpedoes hit underwater and would make very poor bombs:
1. Terminal velocity of the torpedo when dropped directly on a target would likely shatter the warhead casing before any sort of fuzing could operate resulting in a low order detonation or no detonation at all.
2. TNT warhead charge is very stable and would generally not go off on its own without some sort of fuzing to set it off. The prematures suffered during the Ark Royal attack on Sheffield were the result of torpedoes detonating at the end of their 200 yard arming run due to the overly sensitive Duplex pistols which were severely effected by the heavy seas and/or magnetic anomalies in the area.
3. The shape and length of the torpedo is completely wrong for a nose first impact when air dropped onto directly onto a target, and unlike a bomb, the pistol does not arm unless their is an underwater run of 200 yards for a Duplex pistol or 300 yards for an impact pistol.

While Victorious participated in Operation Tungsten, her Barracuda bombers were armed with bombs and not torpedoes for this strike. None of the other air units from other ships carried torpedoes, mainly because it had been appreciated that torpedoes would be rendered useless by torpedo netting protecting her anchorage.

[jason spurr]

Thanks for all that Tommy, it does make sense. So this is a bomb hitting the aft port side of Bruno gun turret, dropped by a Barracuda off the Victorious? By looking at this explosion and exactly where it is on the Tirpitz, it makes me realize that Anton and Bruno's fate on the Bismarck would have looked very much the same.. You can see in this photo that a magazine is exploding and ripping out around the front of the Conning tower. Was it a common practice for pilots to dive bomb there target from above? Would a torpedo explode if it was dropped straight down in this way? Was the Victorious armed with bombs for its Barracuda's during its Bismarck involvement?

[Dave Saxton]

There were two attack waves in Tungsten. Victorious sent planes in both waves but Furious only the 1st wave.The photo is likely from the first wave because at the time of the second wave the ship wasn't visible through the smoke screen. There were nine bomb hits scored during the first wave.

3 hits were by 1600lb armour piercing bombs. Only one of these reached the main armoured deck over the port turbine room but it failed to penetrate. The second one hit the roof of the starboard forward 15cm gun turret and passed through the turret but failed to penetrate the upper armoured deck and ricocheted into the adjacent superstructure were it exploded. The third was actually a near miss that hit in the water beside the ship and then entered the ship below the armoured belt, below the water line, and exploded with in the wing tanks. The blast only slightly bulged the Ww armoured bulkhead.

5 hits were by 500lb SAP bombs, of which all but one failed to penetrate the upper armoured deck exploding above it. The one that did penetrate the upper armoured deck hit aft adjacent to turret Dora, but then it broke up upon the out board scarp.

The remaining hit was a 600lb A/S (I don't know what A/S means) that caved in the port side of the funnel before air bursting.

Absolutely no magazine explosions. Lots of external bomb explosions though. I'm not aware of any magazine explosions on Bismarck either.

In the second wave five bomb hits were scored despite the target being obscured by smoke. Only one was a 1600lb AP, and it was rendered inert passing through the upper deck and failed to explode having jammed up against a framing girder. The remaining four were 500lb'ers that exploded on the upper armoured deck or as they attempted to penetrate.

[José M. Rico]

Was the Victorious armed with bombs for its Barracuda's during its Bismarck involvement?

On 24 May, the Victorious had a reduced air wing of only 9 Fairey Swordfish and 6 Fairey Fulmar. Although none was lost due to enemy fire, 4 of them failed to return to the carrier on the 25th and 26th of May. There were absolutely no Barracudas aboard Victorious in May 1941.

[RF]

With all respect to Jason and his posts, there does seem to be a great deal of confusion on his part concerning the air operations of HMS Victorious, both concerning Tirpitz and Bismarck, and the constant switching between the two does make this look something like a ''fishing expedition.''

I have seen the photos shown before in various publications going back to the 1970's. I'm not clear what exactly it is that Jason is trying to achieve here, there is nothing to contradict the official histories.

[tommy303]

The remaining hit was a 600lb A/S (I don't know what A/S means)

Anti-submarine probably, no doubt hoping that in the case of a near miss the bomb would have serious mining effect.

[jason spurr]

Im sorry RF if you think that I am fishing, maybe I am. There just seems to be a difference of opinion on other forums discussing this topic. Can I ask if anyone knows of the Yamato? Was it an American ship and was it present on the 27Th? A gentleman from another site quotes "I can verify that Victorious was there. I saw her, from my position on the Yamato. I am hearing a lot of different explanations at the moment, so I'm not sure what to believe. I have noticed the Fleet Air Arm Museum is palming of the photo of the aircraft on the deck of the Victorious on the 24Th as being the air strike from the Ark Royal that damaged Bismarck's rudder. It seems that the so called experts have trouble getting it right.. Bare with me RF, can we briefly talk about the 2nd Tirpitz photo and what caused this explosion? It seems to have hit with such a force on the port side that it has sent a shock wave off the stern.

[tommy303]

So this is a bomb hitting the aft port side of Bruno gun turret, dropped by a Barracuda off the Victorious?

Possibly, but also possible it is a hit from an aircraft off of one of the other carriers.

You can see in this photo that a magazine is exploding and ripping out around the front of the Conning tower.

That is not a magazine. None of the hits on Tirpitz set off a magazine during Tungsten as these were below the armoured deck. This is one of the general purpose, non-armour piercing bombs most likely. Magazine explosions tend to be rather more dramatic.

Was it a common practice for pilots to dive bomb there target from above?

Dive bombing is a specialized technique requiring something of a specialized plane able to dive steeply yet not accelerate beyond the point where the controls stiffen up so much that the plane cannot be pulled out or aim kept on the target. Other aircraft such as fighters can glide bomb, approaching the target at a much shallower angle. Yet another method is skip bombing in which you attempt to ricochet a bomb into a target (generally requires a graze action delay fuze) by dropping it just short from a low level--This was frequently used by B25 medium level bombers against enemy shipping in the Pacific, but can be used by most any aircraft. Generally the type of aircraft dictates what kind of an attack or attacks one can use. The Barracuda could utilize a moderately steep dive bombing technique with bombs, or depending on the situation a skip bombing or glide bombing sort of attack. A Swordfish, on the other hand would probably disintegrate if attempting a sustained dive bombing attack.

Was the Victorious armed with bombs for its Barracuda's during its Bismarck involvement?

The Barracuda was not in service until 1943, and so missed out on the Bismarck chase. Victorious, as Jose points out, had Fulmar fighter bombers which because of their very long range were used primarily to search for the Bismarck, and Swordfish torpedo planes for the actual attack on Bismarck.

Would a torpedo explode if it was dropped straight down in this way?

I doubt that anyone would even want to try a dive bombing attack with a torpedo--for one it costs far to much and would accomplish likely not accomplish all that much even if it did detonate. Furthermore, it is optimized for traveling underwater, dropped from the air in a dive bombing attack, it might well not have the necessary stability and would very likely tumble making it both highly inaccurate and much more prone to being a dud even if you found a way to arm the fuze mechanism.

[Herr Nilsson]

There just seems to be a difference of opinion on other forums discussing this topic. Can I ask if anyone knows of the Yamato? Was it an American ship and was it present on the 27Th? A gentleman from another site quotes "I can verify that Victorious was there. I saw her, from my position on the Yamato.

Yamato was a Japanese battleship commisioned in Dezember 1941.

[RF]

There just seems to be a difference of opinion on other forums discussing this topic. Can I ask if anyone knows of the Yamato? Was it an American ship and was it present on the 27Th? A gentleman from another site quotes "I can verify that Victorious was there. I saw her, from my position on the Yamato.

Yamato was a Japanese battleship commisioned in Dezember 1941.

Perhaps ''fishing expedition'' was the wrong phrase, maybe ''clutching at straws'' might be more accurate. The suggestion that a well known major Japanese warship might be American and present at the sight of Bismarcks' final action simply destroys any credibility in whatever Jason is trying to argue.

[tommy303]

A gentleman from another site quotes "I can verify that Victorious was there. I saw her, from my position on the Yamato.

I think someone was having a little joke at your expense.

[jason spurr]

I think they were, maybe if I had looked up Yamato I would have saved myself the embarrassment. I'm sorry I don't get much time these days, with work and my 7 year old son each weekend.. I know it's no excuse. Anyway, Thanks Tommy for clarifying that it is possible to land a torpedo/bomb onto the deck of a ship with glide bombing, or by skip bombing... This first Tirpitz photo shows a bomb hitting the aft port side of Bruno. Yes.. Her famous sister ship before her suffered a hit in the exact same spot, not by a bomb but by a shell delivered around 09.08 am.. Evidence on the wreck shows a hugh rip at the front of her Conning tower. Would have Bismarck's forward magazine ignited from this shell? I am just trying to point out the similarity between these two events and how two identical ships got hit in two identical places. Which would have virtually looked identical..

The second Tirpitz photo shows a hugh explosion on the port side? I think Tommy should have an idea what caused it and why it is a much darker explosion then the first. I wonder what sort of hole this massive hit would have left on a ships like this? I'd say something very similar to the hugh hole on Bismarck's port side..

[Djoser]

Evidence on the wreck shows a hugh rip at the front of her Conning tower. Would have Bismarck's forward magazine ignited from this shell? I am just trying to point out the similarity between these two events and how two identical ships got hit in two identical places. Which would have virtually looked identical...

No way.

Sorry about the guy making fun of you with the Yamato reference. But you aren't helping your case at all with speculation like this.

[jason spurr]

I don't think I'm speculating at all.. The Bismarck was hit by a shell at 0908.. Yes, what did this explosion look like? You cannot deny the two would have looked very similar... Can we move on to the 2nd photo of the Tirpitz, I find this explosion very interesting.

[Dave Saxton]

... Can we move on to the 2nd photo of the Tirpitz, I find this explosion very interesting.

What about it? The damages done to Tirpitz during Tungsten are known. There is no mystery. There was a meticulous damage survey done. The damage done and how it was done is known exactly. Tirpitz suffered only superficial damage during Tungsten. Those are the facts.

A spectacular explosion and a bunch of smoke might look like it is indicating severe damage to the untrained eye, but when it comes to battleships its the ones that you can't see that are dangerous. If you can see it, then it means its only happening on the exterior and not deep in the heart of the ship.

Would have Bismarck's forward magazine ignited from this shell?

The conning tower is a long way from the magazines which are deep in the heart of the ship, below the main armoured deck, and actually below the waterline. There is no connection between a conning tower hit and the magazines.

I am just trying to point out the similarity between these two events and how two identical ships got hit in two identical places. Which would have virtually looked identical..

I fail to see the similarity myself. And yes it is speculating to try and draw a correlation between these two events, especially when its all based on nothing more than assumptions.