Japanese glide bombs in WW2

The glide bomb, under optimum conditions, is the perfect weapon against heavily armored ships, with the success of the Fritz X and Henschel Hs 293 testifying to this.

This type of weapon would fit perfectly into Japanese doctrine (wear the U.S. battle fleet down through attrition of big ships by smaller units). So, what POD can give us Japanese glide bombs at the start of Pearl Harbor, and what effect would this have on the pacific theatre?
 
The glide bomb...is the perfect weapon against heavily armored ships...
This type of weapon would fit perfectly into Japanese doctrine. So, what POD can give us Japanese glide bombs at the start of Pearl Harbor, and what effect would this have on the pacific theatre?
The Germans were the 1st to play around with this idea in WW1, but not even they revisited it until 1938-39 in an R&D project that didn't produce the Fritz-X until mid-1943. So I don't think Japan can get it from the Germans.

I agree that the weapon would have been very useful to Japan, at least in the beginning, but prior to Pearl Harbor I'm not sure they'd even be interested. Except for radicals like Yamamoto, they seemed pretty sure their navy could establish an oceanic empire to be guarded on its perimeter by fortified islands with airbases.

From 1944 on, after the introduction of the radar proximity fuze for the 5-inch/38-cal. DP gun, I think glide bombs are obsolete. They'll be chopped out of the sky just like any other aircraft.
Thegn.
 
The Germans were the 1st to play around with this idea in WW1, but not even they revisited it until 1938-39 in an R&D project that didn't produce the Fritz-X until mid-1943. So I don't think Japan can get it from the Germans.

Unless the Germans decide to try for it earlier. Maybe a revival of the Siemens torpedo glider??
 
This type of weapon would fit perfectly into Japanese doctrine (wear the U.S. battle fleet down through attrition of big ships by smaller units). So, what POD can give us Japanese glide bombs at the start of Pearl Harbor, and what effect would this have on the pacific theatre?

In early 1930's the naval air arm is intensely theoretically studied. Level bombing is too inaccurate, dive bombing is satisfactory but too vulnerable in face of ever increasing capability of anti-aircraft artillery.

Thus the solution will be use of stand-off weapons. First is the torpedo, familiar to Japan as in OTL. The second stand-off weapon will be wire-guided glide bomb which can be launched outside most dangerous AA-artillery. Guidance is the best method which can be used to make every weapon count. This will also mean that the effective naval flying boats the Japanese Naval Air Arm is employing can be used against combat ships.

Wire-guided bomb is to be used as radio equipment is far too expensive to be used in a single bomb. Bomb will be small enough to be fitted in carrier launched heavy attack planes which will double as torpedo planes.

The end result is something like historical IGO-1B but developed years earlier.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The glide bomb, under optimum conditions, is the perfect weapon against heavily armored ships, with the success of the Fritz X and Henschel Hs 293 testifying to this.

This type of weapon would fit perfectly into Japanese doctrine (wear the U.S. battle fleet down through attrition of big ships by smaller units). So, what POD can give us Japanese glide bombs at the start of Pearl Harbor, and what effect would this have on the pacific theatre?

The Germans in WW1 had done about 1000 tests of these type of weapons (5 mile range, 10K feet altitude launch), so any country could have had them. And it is not unique to this technology. Generally speaking, any WW2 "new" technology had at least 10 unfunded development years between WW1 and WW2, so they can all be moved forward in time.

As to what you want, if I was writing an ATL for this one, I would research some German naval officers who were involved in the program and/or a company. Then in the dark days of the Weimar Republic, I would have accept a contract with the Japanese government. The rest easily flows from their. If WW1 had been extended (say Romania stays out and the USA mobilizes a little slower), we see use of weapon in combat with some success in 1919 and it potentially becoming a decisive naval weapon in 1920. We also likely see the first carrier raid on major port in 1919 by Beatty.

The Fritz-X in 1943 is nothing but the German 1919/20 glide bomb updated for higher launch speeds. So you can easily have Japan have operational versions by mid-1920's or any other date you chose. And a weapon like this presents HUGE issues with the armor scheme of ship building due to different trajectory of the warhead path compared to naval gunfire.
 
But if you get a sucessful weapon in the early 20s you also get 20 (or so) years of research for an defense against such weapons.

And simply thinking the most simple defense would be one that targets the delivery system.

Ultimately this might lead to the conclusion that battleships are outdated and we get an earlier rise of the carrier.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
But if you get a sucessful weapon in the early 20s you also get 20 (or so) years of research for an defense against such weapons.

And simply thinking the most simple defense would be one that targets the delivery system.

Ultimately this might lead to the conclusion that battleships are outdated and we get an earlier rise of the carrier.

Yes. Now from the writing perspective, a funding POD provides lots of flexibility. The Japanese naval attache in Berlin could decide to fund in 1920 or 1937, so you can have the weapon arrive in the desired year. It is one of the few POD's where you can keep on this forum, but have almost ASB like changes to technology. A wonder weapon appearing almost out of the blue.

A Japan TL has two advantages that allow to minimize butterflies. Japan had good secrecy concerning there newer weapons as a matter of policy. And racism of the west caused the west to underestimated Japan technology. So just like the performance of the Zero and Long Lance was not understood, this weapon can be available for Midway or any other desired battle, basically appearing out of the blue from the USN perspective.

Now once development is know and appreciated, you will get different counter actions. Designing a ship to defend against this weapon means a new armor scheme means a new ship. So for existing BB, you just add some extra guns. You also see CLAA a lot sooner and more carriers. Carriers may well carry more fighters and fewer attack planes, especially if you plan to operate in range of land based airpower. The problem is that this is a tough weapon to counter without rebuilding your Navy, and if we assume either limited financial resources (20+ year ship replacement cycle) or a Washington Naval treaty, then it can easily be a decisive weapon for the war. And since anyone could have funded it, it could be decisive for any power (Italy, USA, Germany, Japan).
 
A Japan TL has two advantages that allow to minimize butterflies. Japan had good secrecy concerning there newer weapons as a matter of policy. And racism of the west caused the west to underestimated Japan technology. So just like the performance of the Zero and Long Lance was not understood, this weapon can be available for Midway or any other desired battle, basically appearing out of the blue from the USN perspective.

Say the Japanese, with their confidence bolstered by their new guided weapons, doesn't launch a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, instead waiting for the USN to rush across the pacific into the arms of their glide bombs and torpedos?

What would a negotiated peace look like? Japanese pay reparations for the Phillipines and all U.S. islands in the Pacific?

Is this realistic given the prior POD?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Say the Japanese, with their confidence bolstered by their new guided weapons, doesn't launch a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, instead waiting for the USN to rush across the pacific into the arms of their glide bombs and torpedos?

What would a negotiated peace look like? Japanese pay reparations for the Phillipines and all U.S. islands in the Pacific?

Is this realistic given the prior POD?

The USA making peace is an interesting question, and the hardest part to answer. The USA does not have unlimited will power to fight wars, and there are issues with democracies fighting long wars with great intensity. There is also USA racism against the "yellow man". You should read the press articles about YAP in 1919/20, California race laws etc. How much does a nation that threatens the USA racial stereotypes help lead to war with USA versus other geopolitical issues. This issue is just not clear to me. I was working on last night how much a strong MittelAfrika producing newspapers condemning USA racial policies tend to lead towards war.

Now if there is to be a peace, I think the PI become neutral and independent. Japan will give at least symbolic payments to PI directly, that the USA call reparations. The question more is "are the payments of significant size?". USA loses Islands West of Hawaii such as Guam and falls back to Mahan's natural defensive line - Hawaii.

So lets say for discussion purposes Japan tests its weapons in its northern waters and keeps it an effective secret (USA does not know or does not believe it works). Call it the 1946 Fritz-X version with wireless and wire control. IJN decides not to launch surprise attack since no need to risk battle and it allows easier diplomacy. Rest of ATL is about the same. There are a couple of extra questions I think we have to ask about guidance.

Would wire guide be applied to torpedoes? How big a delay? How effective? I am again working on this for my TL, and I would tend to say Yes. But there may be some technical details I am missing. But lets say no, because it did not get funded. I like TL where there are mistakes to balance out additional wise decisions.

Will someone try apply to ship launched rockets? Let us again go "No for funding reasons". I think it does happen, and it is largely how I plan for carriers ever becoming the dominant ship. By moving up U-boat, guided weapons, and DDG ships up by a decade or two, no one will ever spend the huge amount of money needed to develop OTL USA capabilities for CVN.

Now that the qualifications are done, both sides decide to Run their versions of Plan orange. Decisive battle somewhere near Guam. Both sides have issues executing their plans. In the patriot rush of WW2, a lot of mistakes by FDR are glossed over. The Pearl conspiracy theories make it even harder to discuss. The ships being at Pearl was not a master plan to have Japan do a sneak attack, but a merely dumb decision by an overworked man who tried playing Part-time Sec of Navy. FDR exposed the fleet for to a lot more risk and it was a know risk. This is part of the reason he fired Admiral Richardson. It made training much harder. We started with half-crewed ships and were rapidly expanding the Navy. Most of the main ships were less than 1/4 qualified crew by prewar standards, often much less. Each day spent defending is one day not spent training. There is a reason basic training is not conducted within artillery range of enemy lines. And the supplies were lacking to run Plan Orange. Even if the PI attacks fails or does not happen, we can't run the plan for lack of fuel and support ships at Pearl.

So while we had a plan, we could not execute unless strip the Atlantic of resources. Things like DD, AO, experience sailors, etc. The original plan is also no where near as bold as one could imagine. We send about half the capitals to defend Samoa for a month or two. Presumably Marines, planes, and naval artillery is installed in the interim to defend. We send the other 1/2 to 2/3 to raid the Marshal Islands. We then combine the two after a couple of months and begin the push West. In reality, we are likely out of fuel if we do this one. IOTL, we basically raided the Marshal Islands with 1-2 carriers when we knew the Japanese main fleet was focused on East Indies or Indian Ocean. The disaster at Pearl Harbor largely saved the reputation of the Plan Orange planners. MacArthur is beat up on this board for underperforming, but he is the only commander for UK/USA/ANZAC to come close to meeting his prewar plan. IF the Navy had achieved it prewar rescue plan of relief in force by the end of the 6th Month, we might never lose PI. And with more supplies and diverted Japanese resources from the Navy attacking into the small Island of the Pacific, we would expect Mac to do better.

I am going to break this post into sections, it is getting long. I would like to say it just as easily could be the UK or USA with the weapons. If the USA had accepted the Germans would not be able to repay us in gold, we could have simply taken these weapons as payment in kind. We could have kept the glide bomb factories working and simply taken the products as payment. And then move the factories to some USA arsenal over time. But the same can be said of the Ersatz Yorck which we could have had the Germans finish and added to the USN.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It is long answer, but without giving how the war plays out, it is hard to explain how I see it ending in relationship to peace.

Japan has the initiative. Assume they have good weapons in modest numbers (call it 500 total). I think most will be on the Nell/Betty planes. Probably some will be used with torpedo bombers on the main carriers. Japan's assessment said they had adequate air power for the attacks in the Western Pacific without using carriers. Japan treated capital ships like national treasures. I don't think we see them used much faster than OTL. They are held in reserve for the decisive battle. The USN does not launch for months, so it will be a "phony war for capital ships". Likely they are used on PoW and Repulse along with regular torpedoes. If USA does send capital ships towards Marshal Island, they will be used. The USN will likely lose a carrier or two while probing around the Marshals. So say by April 1942, we will get a crash counter measure program. Hard to see IJN going in force into Indian Ocean with USN still in existence. The Nell and Betty will keep RN shipping away from East Indies. So far much like OTL except USN is looking stronger.

By April or so, the USA will have scrapped up enough fuel and a couple divisions to be able to do something. The will know the airbase near the Marshal Islands are tough to crack. The political pressure to attack will be immense. The USA likely attacks with a full force attack somewhere. We still have codes broken, so it will be somewhere lightly defended. Japan will be executing its attacks per schedule, so I would guess they would try to ambush part of the Japanese somewhere. There may be a followup battle like Midway. My guess is this battle will be a disaster for the USA. First because of the guided weapons, second because of the use of Battleship first doctrine, third we likely lose a carrier or two probing. Halsey's aggressiveness is not always a virtue. While the Japanese will take losses, the USA will take heavy losses. I can't give you all the possible battles, but lets look at some from OTL or Plan Orange for example.

1) BB heavy attack on Marshals followed by planned amphib assault. The Betty/Nell will devastate the weak air defense of the USN surface ships. How many of the weapons are effective at 5 mile range and 10K feet. Maybe longer. If the Japanese carriers are there, it is even worse. Zero is better than our fighters. Ships will have to deal with dive bombers, torpedo planes and high altitude attacks. Unlike Pearl where most of the sailors live, if we lose 5+ capital ships at sea, it can easily be 10K dead of navy personnel. Worse if they find the amphib group.

2) Enterprise raiding Marshals Islands. Enterprise will just be sunk.

3) Coral Sea. Add some high altitude attack planes with say 50% hit rate if not engaging fighters, this battle becomes two USN CV for CVL.

4) Midway after this Coral Sea. Japan could still easily lose 3 CV, but USN probably loses 2 CV. More accurate weapons, with a lot more hits than OTL, I doubt the Hornet puts out the fire. USN down 4 CV, IJN down 2 CV, 1 CVL.

5) Midway OTL forces. Japan loses 3-4 CV, USN loses 1-2, probably 2. Wonder weapons don't always fix intel breaches and bad planning.

If the battles go well for Japan, they likely will then try to drive the RN out of the Indian Ocean, and have a sporting shot at being successful at it. If they go badly, the IJN falls back into its defensive shell of OTL.

Now FDR has a choice. OTL resources to Pacific and weapons systems or add a lot more focus to Japan. It is a political call and depends on how badly the battles go. It could go either way and I see arguments for both sides. He will know the Navy building program is building vulnerable ships. BB are obsolete and the CV are very vulnerable. We will try to copy the weapons. So lets do the two scenarios.

1) Lot more Pacific resources. This means Torch is cancel and ships sent to Pacific to make up losses. Lot more planes go to the Pacific. I see many more B-17 in Australia and Hawaii. Enough to do bomb box that carrier can't escape. More divisions. More fighters. FDR has bad midterm elections in congress. Stalin is less happy. It takes longer to drive Germans out of North Africa if this is ever done. Italy stays in war until near end. I don't think this comes close to even saving Germany, but it will make the war longer especially if North African forces are not lost by Germany. Nuclear weapons used on Berlin.

Once the USA has radar, new carriers in numbers, and new fighters, a lot of the issue with this weapon goes away. It is not really that much better than their suicide bomber idea of 1945. But it does mean surface ships can't operate without air cover. It does mean lot higher losses for USN. Doubling or tripling the hit ratio with Betty and Nell alone cause a lot of issues. It means we need to concentrate forces, working from cover of landbased fighters helps a lot. With SW Pacific having a lot more P-47's and the like, and more division, Mac will catch up to OTL and maybe better before 1945. Central Pacific can work, but with heavier losses. It will be more like the kamikaze days, but starting in the Marshals. Here, I think the USA will not think about peace. But to me, this is the least likely FDR decision.

2) OTL resource allocation. Europe is basically on plan. USA carriers and capital ships sunk or in safe ports by Mid-1942, and they don't emerge in force until mid-1943. SW Pacific has somewhat worse supply. Airbase network for Japan finished in Solomon Islands. USN has to hit fortified bases, and I think they will just take the straight route. Unlike OTL where it is pretty one sided on losses, the USN will be taking close to even losses. We may even fail on amphib assault on some location. Driven back into sea fail. We will not have clear, large victories until 1944. If Japan makes "reasonable" peace offer, we might accept. We are likely a full year behind OTL. We then get into how does Stalin act if USN is doing worse. Is nuclear weapons + Manchuria alone enough to drive Japan from war if conventional bombing campaign is just getting started. Would Truman really order invasion of Japan in late 1946, near midterm elections. etc.

If we go the SW Pacific first route, we will be easily more than a full year behind. Same issues as before, but stronger.

So this is a long post, to say. Definite Maybe. If Japan makes generous offer, it becomes probable. If USN has significant additional issues beyond OTL, probable. If Germany lasts another 6 months due to some unforseen butterfly in scenario #2 (same resource allocation), the probable. Things like Churchill's or Monty's fighting spirit being weaken can't be ruled out. For example, if IJN makes March 1942 attack into Indian Ocean and achieves decisive victory over significant number of RN capital ships, it just might derail the entire Italian campaign. Butterflies can work this way where failure builds on failure.
 
Before the new Wunderwaffee conquers the world a few problems. Based on a Fritz X, partly because that was mentioned partly because to be effective against cruisers or larger it needs to be the size of the Fritz X

The operating procedure is to release at a minimum of 13,000 (preferred 18,000) ft. a minimum of 3 miles from the target. The command aircraft slows by climbing sharply and maintains a steady course to target keeping the glider in sight. I.e. you are aiming at a target at least 3 miles away.

The glider itself will be approaching on a fixed trajectory and rate of descent making it as vulnerable as any other aircraft to short range AA approaching at height. It remains vulnerable until it hits.

The operator also has to see the glider at all time which means he has to be mounted in nose bombadier position, which means a DO 217 type a/c probably Nell or Betty. Specifically not any single engine carrier based plane.

The correction parameters are 1600ft range and 1200ft bearing so it (don’t forget the controller is some distance back and if offset well try it - its hard) only has limited ability to correct for a moving target. To achieve this required a very highly trained and practised crew (around 600 of the 1300 produced were expended in tests a fair proportion I imagine in training crew).

And the end result is to deliver 700lb of HE onto the target.

What this does is simplify the AA director problem, the fighter interception problem, the short range AA problem, and deliver, normally above the waterline, a 700lb bomb.

Combat results were Sinking of Roma, damage to Italia, Savannah, Warspite, Uganda, Philadelphia, two sloops and a tanker. With the exception of Roma and Italia none of the ships were violently evading - and its questionable whether Roma and Italia were either. Don’t forget the target only has to move 1200ft (350m) off the aiming point and you miss.

As opposed to a torpedo, which you know works, you have to have anyway (for carriers) and which lets in water. Or a dive bomber which you know works you have to have anyway and which in the hands of a skilled pilot has a very high success rate which in 1942 terms is almost invulnerable to AA fire.

This is a highly complicated weapon that requires a considerable investment in training and equipment that offers no material advantages over a type 91 or an AP bomb.

First time you use it there may be some success. Second the target fleet starts moving and you miss. Third time its a B17 launching a TV guided one.

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/rpav_usa.html
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Before the new Wunderwaffee conquers the world a few problems. Based on a Fritz X, partly because that was mentioned partly because to be effective against cruisers or larger it needs to be the size of the Fritz X

The Germans in WW1 had been working on various size weapons, so presumably if the program was continued this pattern would be continued. So we likely see weapons designed for each type of platform - 2 engine bomber, torpedo bomber, maybe dive bomber.

The operating procedure is to release at a minimum of 13,000 (preferred 18,000) ft. a minimum of 3 miles from the target. The command aircraft slows by climbing sharply and maintains a steady course to target keeping the glider in sight. I.e. you are aiming at a target at least 3 miles away.

The glider itself will be approaching on a fixed trajectory and rate of descent making it as vulnerable as any other aircraft to short range AA approaching at height. It remains vulnerable until it hits.

The operator also has to see the glider at all time which means he has to be mounted in nose bombadier position, which means a DO 217 type a/c probably Nell or Betty. Specifically not any single engine carrier based plane.

The correction parameters are 1600ft range and 1200ft bearing so it (don’t forget the controller is some distance back and if offset well try it - its hard) only has limited ability to correct for a moving target. To achieve this required a very highly trained and practised crew (around 600 of the 1300 produced were expended in tests a fair proportion I imagine in training crew).

And the end result is to deliver 700lb of HE onto the target.

What this does is simplify the AA director problem, the fighter interception problem, the short range AA problem, and deliver, normally above the waterline, a 700lb bomb.

Combat results were Sinking of Roma, damage to Italia, Savannah, Warspite, Uganda, Philadelphia, two sloops and a tanker. With the exception of Roma and Italia none of the ships were violently evading - and its questionable whether Roma and Italia were either. Don’t forget the target only has to move 1200ft (350m) off the aiming point and you miss.

As opposed to a torpedo, which you know works, you have to have anyway (for carriers) and which lets in water. Or a dive bomber which you know works you have to have anyway and which in the hands of a skilled pilot has a very high success rate which in 1942 terms is almost invulnerable to AA fire.

This is a highly complicated weapon that requires a considerable investment in training and equipment that offers no material advantages over a type 91 or an AP bomb.

First time you use it there may be some success. Second the target fleet starts moving and you miss. Third time its a B17 launching a TV guided one.

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/rpav_usa.html

Now on your link, the USA completed less than 20 test flights. The Germans had done about 1000. So the base in 1918 Germany is probably higher than the 1924 USA base and higher than the 1936 base where the skills had been allowed to fade for 12 years. This is not unique to this technology, the budget cuts cause issues on other naval technologies. For example, the USA could produce Class A main battleship armor plates in 1917 but by WW2 had to settle for Class B armor plates. If not funded at all, technology often goes backward. Or put another way, the armor on the cancel RN ships for the late 1920's have better armor than the Iowa.

You also mention 3 miles range on the weapon. The Germans had 5 miles in WW2. And if you look at the comment, I am not talking about the 1943 Fritz-X, but a Fritz-X type weapon with at least 3 more years work. And we are not fighting 1943 USN AA, but 1942. The USN made HUGE improvements in the AA during the war.

I believe the descent speed would exceed the speed a torpedo bomber approaches the target and be closer to a dive bomber speed. But since I can't find hard numbers on German designs in WW1 and we are talking about a successor weapon, I don't know how to prove one way or the other. But yes, the weapon will be vulnerable to AA fire, and this is why I have the USA making progress but only after Hellcats and good AA is available in large quantities.

You are incorrect it makes AA or fighter interception easier. Without this weapon, a carrier's fighters has to defend against low flying torpedo bombers and dive bombers above the ship. With this weapon, they also have to have fighters at 10K-20K altitude miles from the ship. And at least through the Solomon's campaign, Betty/Nell got within range of this weapons of carriers. With this type of weapon, many of these indecisive battles become lost USA carriers. Instead of 12 Betty/Nell attacking, 6 being shot down and 6 misses, we get 3-6 being shot down with 3-5 hits on a carrier and likely a lost carriers.

The point on the torpedo bomber without modification is probably correct. But it is not this weapons just shows up out of the blue, it is a part of a mult-year, perhaps decade long, development program. The planes will be modified. And the USN successfully used this type of weapon off single engine planes in WW2 against precision target such as radar/radio tower. So it is doable. The USN simply lacked a need. Why rush this system to combat when you have helldivers and can deploy them in large numbers.

The Germans used 2000 pound bombs in WW1. Yes, some weapons can hit at the water line, but they can hit higher. And the trajectory matters, as little as a 1% variation in angle can be the difference between the armor plate holding and a main magazine explosion. And bombs from 500 to 2000 pounds can produce mission kills on BB even when hitting at poor angles. Against USA carriers, these are always damaging hits. And you seem to be missing the point, it is just not the angle, it is hitting more often. The most common number of hits with about 12 Betty/Nell against a warship was 0. Even at 20%, we jump up to 2-3 which is often a mission kill, sometimes a kill. Get up to 50% and 6 hits, you normally just get a kill.

I think torpedoes are still used, I just think you see both used at the same time. A ship turning to avoid the torpedo makes for a predictable path for the guided weapons. It means the AA gunners must largely chose if to engage the glide bombs or torpedo bombers. Much like dive bombers and torpedo planes, there is a synergy when used together.

Now any weapon can be wasted or used poorly. I can write battles where the weapons does nothing important, but these are the exception not the rule.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Thank you for that. It's always nice when reality appears in a techno-wank thread.

How is it a techno-wank when the analysis I provided showed in most cases Japan still loses? And in some Scenarios on the same day?

And adding a new effective weapon system has the opposite effect of removing a weapon from OTL. Remove the Long-Lance and replace with a USA like dud weapon give the USA winning quicker to about the same speed. Adding another effective weapon to the Japanese arsenal will do the reverse.

I am curious why you think adding an new weapon to the war has no noticeable impact?

And there is nothing special about the technology, it is just an unfunded opportunity. Just like the USA was not destined to lose the ability to make class A battleship armor, it is not destined for this weapon to be unfunded.
 
on your response to my post.

No - with an MCLOS type weapon you have to have a visual contact to control the weapon. Which puts the control aircraft behind the glider and able to see it.

Remember you also have 350m lateral guidance and 500m of range guidance (and if its not a Fritz X there is still guidance issue of a similar nature) total over the flight of the glider. Launch from a single engine a/c and the controller does not have LOS does not control the initial direction of travel of the glider. The pilot of the control aircraft is aiming the glider on an unknown (to the controller) vector and then pulling sharply up to get behind the glider. the controller has no sight of the target of the weapon unless they are able to see it and the target at all times.

The idea of putting a glide bomb on a dive bomber is frankly plain daft.

Not entirely sure what your point as the USN was using radio controlled drones as attack vehicles from 36 on.

The 3 miles is a minimum range for launch, of course you launch from further, its just a harder to see target which is moving further therefore given the limits on course correction you are more likely to miss a maneuvering target.

The approach speed is dependent on the speed of the controlling a/c it would probably be higher than a torpedo bomber but would not be maneuvering laterally the TB would. The absolute speed of a diver bomber is not the problem its the rate of altitude change in a power dive at 80+ degrees, vs a glide at probably no more than 60.

The interception is on the the controlling a/c not the glider. The point is that the controller does not change height or direction for a long time - 20 -30 secs and the heavy AA armament have a good firing solution. And 5 and closing miles is not far at all for a Wildcat or Buffalo for that matter on cap - the cap will be high to begin with.

Specifically on the Solomons the IJN A/C wil be detected on approach by coastwatchers, subject to interception from Cactus and have to approach a US carrier group East of the island - and you have to find it in the first place.

The americans did not use this type of weapon they used either an ASM-N-2 BAT with a semi active S Band radar or they used an Interstate TDR -1 which is TV guided. To get a similar capability you are accelerating 3 separate technological streams beyond the capability of either Japan or Germany in this timeframe.

Thats why its a techno wank
 
Now on your link, the USA completed less than 20 test flights. The Germans had done about 1000.

Was that 1000 test flights, or 1000 tests? The difference is important - using the weapon release clamps to drop a similarly shaped mass would count as a test, and is an important part of developing the system, but is certainly not a complete system test.

Secondly, I'm a bit wary of saying that a single weapon like this will change the course of the war. There have been weapons like that, but they're few and far between - I'm thinking of things like the introduction of stirrups, gunpowder, the internal combustion engine and nuclear weapons as the best examples. By comparison homing torpedoes didn't change the balance of the battle of the Atlantic, and seems like a relevantly similar development.
Taking a step back from the tactical use of the weapon, this technology does not seem to change the higher-level dimensions of the situation a great deal. Ships were still vulnerable to aircraft without it, so there's no major change there - both torpedoes and dive bombers could sink ships. The best way to defend against those threats is the same as this one; don't let the launch platform get within a few miles. It also makes the launch platform more vulnerable, since even after weapon release it has to fly a stable, predictable flightpath while the weapon is guided to its target. If you look up the sort of countermeasures that are used against MCLOS ATGM systems, you'll see what sort of things the Allies could do about them.

I agree that upon introduction they would be surprise, and perhaps have a significant impact in one or two battles. But overall, I doubt that they would have a huge impact. What they could do would be make precision bombing raids against stationary targets much more effective, but the Axis powers weren't really doing a great deal of that.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Not entirely sure what your point as the USN was using radio controlled drones as attack vehicles from 36 on.

The interception is on the the controlling a/c not the glider. The point is that the controller does not change height or direction for a long time - 20 -30 secs and the heavy AA armament have a good firing solution. And 5 and closing miles is not far at all for a Wildcat or Buffalo for that matter on cap - the cap will be high to begin with.

Specifically on the Solomons the IJN A/C wil be detected on approach by coastwatchers, subject to interception from Cactus and have to approach a US carrier group East of the island - and you have to find it in the first place.

The americans did not use this type of weapon they used either an ASM-N-2 BAT with a semi active S Band radar or they used an Interstate TDR -1 which is TV guided. To get a similar capability you are accelerating 3 separate technological streams beyond the capability of either Japan or Germany in this timeframe.

Thats why its a techno wank

My point on the USN using it win WW2 off carrier based aircraft. If the USA can do it IOTL, so can Japan. On a lot of the rest of your post, It seems to say the weapon is not perfect. This is true of all weapons of all time periods.

On the not moving directions for 20-30 seconds, this is actually not as bad as a B-17 on a bomb run which had good survival rates. It is better than a torpedo problem. Yes, attacking a BB with one plane has a good chance of failure. Attacking with multiple planes has a good chance of success. You seem to be thinking of one bomber attacking a ship, not 12+. And to use gravity bombs or torpedoes, the plane also has all these issue. Using the logic you use to dismiss this weapon, no ship would have been sunk by airpower in WW2. To attack a ship, any plane has to accept exposure to AA and fighters. Thousands of planes were lost in this war attacking ships, probably 10's of thousands. What this weapon gives you is a higher hit rate and lower vulnerability. After the USA gets enough carriers, and enough high performance fighters and enough AA, this weapon will work poorly. However, if available at the beginning of the war against much easier conditions, it performs well. Attacking the Enterprise in 1942 near the Marshal Islands is a far cry from going against the USA forces assembled for the 1944 Central Pacific campaign.

Again when used as a part of a strike package in 1942/43, it works better than OTL. Fighters cover now has to be split 3 ways not 2. The weapon is more accurate. And only the heavy, not light AA can fire at the plane.

The Solomon issue you bring up has no additional issue not faced IOTL. It is just the Nell/Betty will have a weapon that hits 20-50% of the time, not low single digits %.

BTW, Wire guided technology. All the stuff exists to build it in 1918. Now how much the Japanese invest in truly developing the other advance versions of guided weapons is a interesting question that could only be answered in a full TL. It is mainly a matter of how many years of R&D and funding. I would expect that after a few years, work would begin on radio control which has both benefits and disadvantages.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Was that 1000 test flights, or 1000 tests? The difference is important - using the weapon release clamps to drop a similarly shaped mass would count as a test, and is an important part of developing the system, but is certainly not a complete system test.

Secondly, I'm a bit wary of saying that a single weapon like this will change the course of the war. There have been weapons like that, but they're few and far between - I'm thinking of things like the introduction of stirrups, gunpowder, the internal combustion engine and nuclear weapons as the best examples. By comparison homing torpedoes didn't change the balance of the battle of the Atlantic, and seems like a relevantly similar development.
Taking a step back from the tactical use of the weapon, this technology does not seem to change the higher-level dimensions of the situation a great deal. Ships were still vulnerable to aircraft without it, so there's no major change there - both torpedoes and dive bombers could sink ships. The best way to defend against those threats is the same as this one; don't let the launch platform get within a few miles. It also makes the launch platform more vulnerable, since even after weapon release it has to fly a stable, predictable flightpath while the weapon is guided to its target. If you look up the sort of countermeasures that are used against MCLOS ATGM systems, you'll see what sort of things the Allies could do about them.

I agree that upon introduction they would be surprise, and perhaps have a significant impact in one or two battles. But overall, I doubt that they would have a huge impact. What they could do would be make precision bombing raids against stationary targets much more effective, but the Axis powers weren't really doing a great deal of that.

The source stated weapons tests, but provided not details besides saying they had tested up to 5000 pound weapons systems with 2000 pound warheads. Some of the test worked at the 5 mile range, 10K elevation. I have not yet found more detailed information on the tests. There is a good chance the records are only in German or they were destroyed in WW2. A huge amount of WW2 records were lost as the Russians over ran East Prussia, which appears to have a been a major archive location of WW1 records. Not to mention the Allied bombing campaigns. The source was pretty clear they had the weapon system to operation status. I have not found a source showing it was used in combat, so it likely had some additional issues, missed, or sank something unimportant with few survivors.

After the war, the program appears to have been completely shut down and abandoned. Each of the new programs in WW2 appear to have been started without knowledge or help from this program. There is a complete 18 year gap without funding or R&D. This is not uncommon after WW1. Everyone was so broke that many technologies have 10+ year funding gaps. Radar, applied nuclear physics (partial gap), hardened armor plate for BB, etc. Even the ones that were funding had lower levels than prewar.

I gave a long two post where I explained how the war would play out using the thread authors scenario. You statement is substantially different from the detailed analysis I gave, so I will regive, but have the Japanese use OTL WarPlan to make the changes more obvious, and try to be briefer.

The weapon is likely assigned mostly to the Nell/Betty squadrons. Pearl is the same. It is likely used on the Repulse & PoW, but it changes little in the battle. It is likely meaning a higher loss of smaller ships, but unless you are a true WW2 Pacific buff, you likely don't notice the difference for the first few months of the war. Japan is on such a shoe string logistical budget, little goes better than OTL. Maybe a few Islands are taken a few days or weeks later. Basically, if we were using old percentile dice, Japan was always rolling in the 90's with a lot of 00.

Now lets take the Enterprise. Halsey was quite active with this ship. He was attacked by Nell/Betty on multiple occasions, they just missed. On on attack from memory, it was about 12 planes attacked and caught him with limited CAP. Several were shot down, but at least 6 escaped. One almost Kamikaze onto the deck missing by feet. The flew directly over the carrier and just missed with gravity bombs. About 1000 feet above. If these planes had been carry the glide bombs, we are talking 1-3 hits if we assume the Cap/AA is the same effectiveness. If we assume the greater stand off range reduces losses we are talking 2-6 hits. The Enterprise was not doing major air operation, but did have a few planes setting on the deck with fuel and at least gun ammo. This give us a damaged or sunk carrier, depending on damage control and how large we assume the bombs are. There are a lot of other little battles like this. The USN was spread thin. A better weapon likely leads to more USN capital ship losses.

Now why is this important? Because just like Japan, the USN was on a shoe string budget early in the war. And once we get to Coral Sea time frame, things broke our way. So lets look at what a sunk Enterprise means. Cancel Doolittle raid. One less ship at Midway even if we allow the raid to go on.

Or take the Coral Sea. The Yorktown barely made it out. Probably one more hit means it does not make it home, and if they have a few of these aircraft on the Japanese carrier (torp bombers carrying glide bombs) we see a different Midway. Now these battles can be played out a lot of different ways, but likely the USN is down 1-2 carriers by August 1942. In 1944, it would not matter that much if the USN loses a few more carriers. But with so few ships, the impact is huge. We likely cancel the Solomon's campaign as we know it. Or if approved, it goes much worse for the USA. And Japan new they had an airbase issue in the South Pacific, and were working to cure the problem. Now you can get a war of the same length or a longer war, but it is hard to get a negotiate peace because of Pearl. Not impossible, but hard.

Now as to why this had a big impact and made peace possible in the previous reply was the thread author gave two PODs. No surprise attack and this POD which means 1942 is a win year for Japan, and quite likely a large share of 1943. We then get into the political dynamic of how the USA handles a war that is longer and other butterflies. There was also a third possible POD where there is a decisive battle at sea. In many ways, the USA was fortunate the ships were sunk in harbor. If sunk at sea instead of Pearl, they are not refloatted, and the death toll could climb over 10K. And we did not lose the carriers, which will likely be lost faster with these 2.5 POD's. The interaction of these POD's would give you anything from WW2 ending on the same day as OTL to a negotiated peace, depending upon the butterflies.



Note: You can get the same impact with the prewar development of the Ohka, and this is probably more likely than this POD. But the thread asked for glide bombs, which I interpreted as non-suicide weapons
 
The Solomon issue you bring up has no additional issue not faced IOTL. It is just the Nell/Betty will have a weapon that hits 20-50% of the time, not low single digits %.

One should add the issue of logistics. From now on the very good long range Japanese patrol flying boats such as H3K's can be used to interdict Allied supply lines. Of course the doctrinal issues should not be underestimated but a guided weapon makes a patrol bomber very powerful weapon against single ships, unlike OTL.
 
Top