Divebombers vs Torpedo bombers

[tretton]

It says in the game manual that torpedo bombers are better against ships than divebombers...

This might come as a surprise to many people but during ww2, dive bombers were much MUCH more effective against ships than torpedo bombers were. Torpedo bombers sunk crippled ships that the divebombers allready put out of action and they sunk stationary targets as for example in Taranto and Pearl Harbour. Any historian can attest to this.

At the battle of Coral Sea for example, the few american torpedo bombers that made it through japanese fighters and aa-fire had less than 5% hit rate. At the battle of Midway only four(!) torpedo bombers made it back to land.

Dive bombers attacked from high altitude. That gave them several advantages. Superior situational awarenes. They most often picked the right target. Much harder for enemy fighters to intercept. Much harder for aa-guns to engage.
Divebombers attacked and escaped at very high speeds increasing their survivability considerably. Evasive manouvers by the target ships were so ineffective that it was virtually pointless.

At the same torpedo bombers attacked low and slow in a straigt line. They were extremely vulenerable to both enemy fighters, diving from above and ships aa-fire. Ad to that - Even the slightest couse change by the target ship put the torpedo bombers out of their fireing solition and they had to go around for a new run, all the while under fire from aa-guns and enemy fighters. This is probably the only reason Bismarch was successfully attacked - she didn’t take evasive action.

The US-Navy however did actually intentionally runn a huge media campagne to exagerate the effectivenes of torpedo bombers to misslead the japanese.
...and unfortunately it seem to have stuck. 🙄

[seawolf]

Torpedo Bombers deliver a far larger warhead that is much more likely to sink a ship. Dive Bombers are much more likely to survive and to score hits

[christian]

Jun 16, 2019 10:30:25 GMT -6 tretton said:

It says in the game manual that torpedo bombers are better against ships than divebombers...

This might come as a surprise to many people but during ww2, dive bombers were much MUCH more effective against ships than torpedo bombers were. Torpedo bombers sunk crippled ships that the divebombers allready put out of action and they sunk stationary targets as for example in Taranto and Pearl Harbour. Any historian can attest to this.

At the battle of Coral Sea for example, the few american torpedo bombers that made it through japanese fighters and aa-fire had less than 5% hit rate. At the battle of Midway only four(!) torpedo bombers made it back to land.

Dive bombers attacked from high altitude. That gave them several advantages. Superior situational awarenes. They most often picked the right target. Much harder for enemy fighters to intercept. Much harder for aa-guns to engage.
Divebombers attacked and escaped at very high speeds increasing their survivability considerably. Evasive manouvers by the target ships were so ineffective that it was virtually pointless.

At the same torpedo bombers attacked low and slow in a straigt line. They were extremely vulenerable to both enemy fighters, diving from above and ships aa-fire. Ad to that - Even the slightest couse change by the target ship put the torpedo bombers out of their fireing solition and they had to go around for a new run, all the while under fire from aa-guns and enemy fighters. This is probably the only reason Bismarch was successfully attacked - she didn’t take evasive action.

The US-Navy however did actually intentionally runn a huge media campagne to exagerate the effectivenes of torpedo bombers to misslead the japanese.
...and unfortunately it seem to have stuck. 🙄

The Americans estimated that seven penetrating bomb hits would be enough to sink a battleship, while the Japanese estimated that 12 to 16 penetrating hits were required.
American operational analysts later revised their estimates, concluding that the Mark 33 could sink a battleship only if it hit a magazine, which worked out to a 79% chance of sinking a battleship with six penetrating hits.

you are kind of forgetting the fact naval bombs at this time usually weighed less than naval shells 
for example the 16 inch shell of an american 16 inch gun weighted around 1.3 tons while an armor piercing bomb weighted less than 800 kg 

torpedoes do TO AN EXTREME EXTENT alot more damage than torpedo bombers because they actually flood the ship

dive bombers take out engines destroy flight decks take out aa guns on deck and if very lucky hit magazines

BUT MAGAZINE HITS ARE SUPER RARE FROM BOMBS and most bombs couldnt even pen battleship decks 

torpedo planes have alot lower hit chances and die alot more often BUT the damage they caused is significantly greater (less than 4 torpedoes is usually required to sink a battleship as long as the torpedoes are placed right) and there are several instances of ships being sunk by less than 2 or 3 torpedoes

torpedoes do alot of damage much more than you would expect 

also if a ship has 7.5 inches of deck armor (resistant to 20 inch fire hitting the deck) said ship is immune to everything but 1500 lb ap bombs 


and in cases with ships like yamato
the bombs were USELESS against the ship itself taking out only aa guns and secondary guns not being able to pen the main deck or the turret roof 

[rimbecano]

I'll also point out that the survivability, accuracy, and deadliness of American torpedo bombers improved drastically over the course of the war. Starting off, the planes were incredibly slow and the torpedoes had to be dropped at low speeds from wave-top height, so to minimize exposure to AA fire, torpedoes had to be dropped further out, and most of their run-in distance was underwater, so they covered that distance fairly slowly. Also, the navy had refused to adequately test their torpedoes (all of them, not just airdropped) in the 30s in order to cut costs, which led to about three different bugs in American torpedoes that caused even torpedoes that would have hit to either run below the target or to fail to explode when they hit it.

By the end of the war, the Navy had worked out the bugs, torpedo planes were faster, and the Navy had improved the durability, drop techniques, and external rigging fire air dropped torpedoes to the point where they were authorized to be dropped from 800 feet and 300 knots, and in practice could even be dropped from 5-7000 feet with good reliability. This allowed TBs to face less AA exposure while increasing drop accuracy, because now torpedoes spent most of their run-in distance flying through the air at 300 knots instead of swimming at 30.

[tretton]

you are kind of forgetting the fact

You guys are missing one thing - this isn’t something I came up with. Historians say this. Let’s see f I can find a link...

And no, a torpedo hit during ww2 usually did not cause any significant flooding to large capital ships. Battleships and the bigger fleet carriers were lined with multi layered bulges filled with fluids like fuel and water that were several meter thick to absorb torpedo hits. An armour piercing bomb from above however...

Comparisons with the naval shells... they come in at an angle if they hit the deck. Even the so called diving shells didn’t come in even close to perpendicular.

Geez... just, please, check facts before you argue more with me. How did the japanese carriers at Midway got taken out for example?

I’ll see if I can find a good link to enrich your fact hungry minds.

[kaguya]

Jun 16, 2019 18:23:52 GMT -6 tretton said:

you are kind of forgetting the fact

You guys are missing one thing - this isn’t something I came up with. Historians say this. Let’s see f I can find a link...

And no, a torpedo hit during ww2 usually did not cause any significant flooding to large capital ships. Battleships and the bigger fleet carriers were lined with multi layered bulges filled with fluids like fuel and water that were several meter thick to absorb torpedo hits. An armour piercing bomb from above however...

Comparisons with the naval shells... they come in at an angle if they hit the deck. Even the so called diving shells didn’t come in even close to perpendicular.

Geez... just, please, check facts before you argue more with me. How did the japanese carriers at Midway got taken out for example?

I’ll see if I can find a good link to enrich your fact hungry minds.

The carriers at Midway were loaded with bombs and fuel and were lost from out of control fires rather than the bombs detonating the ship until it sank. In terms of effectiveness, dive bombers were decent against destroyers, cruisers, merchants, and carriers. Against a battleship even American bombs would bounce off the turrets of the Yamato

[alsadius]

Jun 16, 2019 18:23:52 GMT -6 tretton said:

you are kind of forgetting the fact

You guys are missing one thing - this isn’t something I came up with. Historians say this. Let’s see f I can find a link...

And no, a torpedo hit during ww2 usually did not cause any significant flooding to large capital ships. Battleships and the bigger fleet carriers were lined with multi layered bulges filled with fluids like fuel and water that were several meter thick to absorb torpedo hits. An armour piercing bomb from above however...

Comparisons with the naval shells... they come in at an angle if they hit the deck. Even the so called diving shells didn’t come in even close to perpendicular.

Geez... just, please, check facts before you argue more with me. How did the japanese carriers at Midway got taken out for example?

I’ll see if I can find a good link to enrich your fact hungry minds.

The torpedo defences you describe are passive, so they ought to have worked at Taranto and Pearl Harbour.

At Taranto, three battleships were hit with a total of five torpedoes - one on Conte di Cavour, one on Caio Duilio, and three on Littorio. All three were grounded to prevent sinking, and all three were out of the war for months (or, in the case of Cavour, forever - that solitary torpedo had done enough that they never finished repairing it, and just scrapped it post-war). And yes, they all seem to have had TDS.

At Pearl Harbour, four battleships were hit with torpedoes, three sank(though two were later salvaged), and one survived but was out of the war for almost a year. Per Wikipedia

• Arizona (Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd's flagship of Battleship Division One): hit by four armor-piercing bombs, exploded; total loss. 1,177 dead.
  
• Oklahoma: hit by five torpedoes, capsized; total loss. 429 dead.
  
• West Virginia: hit by two bombs, seven torpedoes, sunk; returned to service July 1944. 106 dead.
  
• California: hit by two bombs, two torpedoes, sunk; returned to service January 1944. 100 dead.
  
• Nevada: hit by six bombs, one torpedo, beached; returned to service October 1942. 60 dead.
  
• Pennsylvania (Admiral Husband E. Kimmel's flagship of the United States Pacific Fleet):[116] in drydock with Cassin and Downes, hit by one bomb and debris from USS Cassin; remained in service. 9 dead.
  
• Tennessee: hit by two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 5 dead.
  
• Maryland: hit by two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 4 dead (including floatplane pilot shot down).

Not quite as impressive as Taranto, given the multiple hits, but the examples of California and Nevada still seem relevant. Nevada suffered enough leaking for a 4-5 degree list, even though her TDS ostensibly held - not exactly crippling, but in a combat situation that'd almost certainly slow the ship down by a reasonable amount. California's two hits were what doomed the ship - the peacetime conditions didn't help, and maybe it'd have survived in a battle, but the two torpedoes opened holes 24 and 40 feet long, respectively. That's a hell of a lot of flooding, and you're not going to have a good day if that happens. 

The big concern for torpedo bombers seems to have been hitting the target, but when they did hit, the damage was immense. A ship that wasn't in a super-vulnerable situation (like at Midway) could survive a reasonable number of bombs, barring spectacularly poor luck with your magazines (like Arizona), but torpedoes usually messed you up badly. 

Even active ships that were prepared for hostilities fell to torpedoes - Prince of Wales was crippled by a single torpedo, and unable to defend herself against follow-up attack. (Repulse also fell to torpedo hits in the same battle, but it didn't have a TDS, so it means less). 49 torpedoes were launched in that attack, with 8 hitting, killing two capital ships. The only thing the dive bombers seemed to manage was blowing up the wounded in the movie theatre on Prince of Wales. 

I don't mind you thinking dive bombers are better than RTW makes them out to be - that's arguable, certainly. But don't be belligerent about it, especially not when the other side's claims are also quite arguable. 

[noshurviverse]

Jun 16, 2019 18:23:52 GMT -6 tretton said:

And no, a torpedo hit during ww2 usually did not cause any significant flooding to large capital ships. Battleships and the bigger fleet carriers were lined with multi layered bulges filled with fluids like fuel and water that were several meter thick to absorb torpedo hits. An armour piercing bomb from above however...

Deck armor is to bombs as bulges are to torpedoes. Neither gave complete protection against the weapon they were designed against.

Comparisons with the naval shells... they come in at an angle if they hit the deck. Even the so called diving shells didn’t come in even close to perpendicular.

Of course they didn't, diving shells were named so because of how they were designed to continue onwards after hitting water. They didn't have significantly different air trajectories.

How did the japanese carriers at Midway got taken out for example?

Dozens of fueled and armed aircraft igniting.

[rimbecano]

Jun 16, 2019 21:48:11 GMT -6 noshurviverse said:

How did the japanese carriers at Midway got taken out for example?

Dozens of fueled and armed aircraft igniting.

The ignition source was bombs to the hangar, however. But before the OP gets too smug that I've "proven" his point, Lexington at Coral Sea was hit by both bombs and torpedoes, but what killed her was an avgas fume explosion, and the fumes had been let out by damage caused by torpedoes.

Shinano, Kongo, Taiho, Asahi, Barham, Wasp, Ark Royal, Courageous, and Shokaku, were all sunk purely by torpedoes (admittedly submarine torpedoes, not aircraft torpedoes, but it should establish that TDS was not an absolute bar to being sunk by torpedoes).

[dorn]

Jun 16, 2019 18:23:52 GMT -6 tretton said:

you are kind of forgetting the fact

You guys are missing one thing - this isn’t something I came up with. Historians say this. Let’s see f I can find a link...

And no, a torpedo hit during ww2 usually did not cause any significant flooding to large capital ships. Battleships and the bigger fleet carriers were lined with multi layered bulges filled with fluids like fuel and water that were several meter thick to absorb torpedo hits. An armour piercing bomb from above however...

Comparisons with the naval shells... they come in at an angle if they hit the deck. Even the so called diving shells didn’t come in even close to perpendicular.

Geez... just, please, check facts before you argue more with me. How did the japanese carriers at Midway got taken out for example?

I’ll see if I can find a good link to enrich your fact hungry minds.

It is not completely true.

TDS were designed to prevent some explosive of torpedo going through but still torpedo hit flood a lot of area.

Another important thing is that TDS defend adminship and usually at the end of TDS (forward, aft) the wide of protection was lower.

Another important thing is that a lot of ships (USN, RN, IJN, RM) had TDS system that does not work as designed and allow flooding of internal areas even if torpedo warhead was lower than TDS was designed for.

Torpedoes were great problem, but it is true that sinking after 1 torpedo hit was very unlikely.

[tretton]

Ok. Look guys. It was a misstake to try to argue for my premise. I’m not a military historian or expert on ww2 naval warfare. I just happen to stumble upon an inteview with a very highly regarderd historian specialized in ww2 japanese stuff and he said it. That got me diging and I found more people saying the same.

I just wanted to tip you off. Apparently torpedo carrying aircraft were not very effective and died like flies.

Regarding the Arizona - she was sunk by what was probably the only successful level bombing against a ship in history. So that point goes to... noone. 😉

Check out for example Justin Pyke, an expert in military intelligence, japan and ww2. I know I heard it from him at least twice. Hes the one that said it was an american ruse to exagerate and give credit to torpedo planes when in effect the dive bombers constituted the real lethality.
His articles are available online.
balloonstodrones.com/2017/08/24/blinded-by-the-rising-sun-american-intelligence-assessments-of-japanese-air-power-1920-41-part-1-the-1920s/

He is allso interviewed on youtube numerous times.
Here for example by Bernard of Military History Visualized.
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv0uEimc-uN-12Avp7p0ojVUV0Cq2SJ6C

[alsadius]

Jun 17, 2019 6:32:53 GMT -6 tretton said:

Ok. Look guys. It was a misstake to try to argue for my premise. I’m not a military historian or expert on ww2 naval warfare. 

Don't beat yourself up too much. I'm hardly a professional historian myself. My concern was your belligerence, not your argument - I think you overstated your argument a bit, but "dive bombers were better than torpedo bombers" isn't a crazy thing to argue.

Jun 17, 2019 6:32:53 GMT -6 tretton said:

Regarding the Arizona - she was sunk by what was probably the only successful level bombing against a ship in history. So that point goes to... noone. 😉

The Tirpitz was also sunk by level bombers - heavy bombers carrying Tallboys, amusingly. (The Brits tried a lot of crazy **** to kill the Tirpitz, and that's the one that eventually worked)

[mycophobia]

Jun 16, 2019 18:23:52 GMT -6 tretton said:

you are kind of forgetting the fact

You guys are missing one thing - this isn’t something I came up with. Historians say this. Let’s see f I can find a link...

And no, a torpedo hit during ww2 usually did not cause any significant flooding to large capital ships. Battleships and the bigger fleet carriers were lined with multi layered bulges filled with fluids like fuel and water that were several meter thick to absorb torpedo hits. An armour piercing bomb from above however...

Comparisons with the naval shells... they come in at an angle if they hit the deck. Even the so called diving shells didn’t come in even close to perpendicular.

Geez... just, please, check facts before you argue more with me. How did the japanese carriers at Midway got taken out for example?

I’ll see if I can find a good link to enrich your fact hungry minds.

I think the problem is that you are misinterpreting success of dive-bomber as due to superiority of dive bombing over torpedo attacks. Within USN at least, it is clear that dive bomber had been the more effective wing, and I think few will argue that US divebomber had more success than US torpedo bombers.

But, take the following into consideration. The TBN is quite an outdated model by WW2, and fared horribly against Japanese CAP. This is a common weakness to all torpedo bombers, that their attack run makes them sitting ducks for CAP and AA mounted on ships (granted the latter isn't too effective. As for the damage a bomb can do, while it is true that many WW2 ships have superior underwater protection, we must also note that these generally did not live up to expectations. On the other hand, Deck armor for battleships are also improving to counter long range shells, so the actual effect of heavy bombs against modern ships may not be as effective as you presume. 

Bottom line is, Dive bomber are more useful in WW2 because the environment they are in, namely where one in which CAPs and ship AA both saw significant improvement and use is very detrimental to torpedo bombers, but impacts dive bomber less. Thus there success cannot be taken as proof of innate superiority of dive bombing over torpedo bombing. Due credit must be given to the context that gave raise to their success. A professional that discuss the success of dive bombers in world two, well, discuss it in context of world war 2. As I pointed out above, that advantage I argue is due to more effective AA and Cap rendering torpedo attacks highly risky, not due to innate problem with torpedo attacks themselves.  In particular with the USN, the fact that they have a rather outdated torpedo bomber model skews their performance further in favor of dive bombers.

Does this support the idea that "dive bomber are better?", I'd be inclined to agree strictly in context of WW2, and even then I feel someone on this forum can pull up good argument for theaters other than pacific. Are "dive bomber just always the best", the answer would almost certainly be a "no". There are too many contextual factor that impact their performance in comparison to torpedo bombers, and torpedo bombers have proven themselves more than capable of sinking large ships when AA and CAP are not a concern(PoW, Repulse is the easy two off top of my head).  Just because a professional says certain things certain way doesn't mean that it means the same when taken out of the context in which it was spoken.

Most people on this forum are well aware of the facts you speak of, but what is also important is to interpret the context in which give rise to these facts. Accusing others for not meeting the version of facts you agree with, without engaging their points does make for good debates. I feel the game does a good job in showing the deadliness of torpedo bomber in ideal conditions, but dive bomber becoming a almost as power, and more survivable choice later on. Torpedo bomber can potentially be made slightly more vulnerable to late game AA, but otherwise they are fine as is. 

[christian]

comparing american statistics of succes for divebombers and torpedo bombers doesent work because americans used primarily dive bombers with alot less torpedo bombers

torpedoes are much more influential to the sinking of enemy ships due to the damage they cause

its also to be mentioned american airdropped torpedoes were HORRIBLE and failed to arm quite a bit until they eventually got fixed they also ran too deep or shallow often

im gonna post a bit about how influential torpedoes were in sinking ships so here we go

NOTICE HOW THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TORPEDOES REQUIRED TO SINK A CAPITAL SHIPS IS LOW
(number before ship status is the number of torpedo hits said ship took)
plane torpedo hits
MM Conte di Cavour 12-Nov-40 1 Sunk. Raised.
MM Caio Duilio 12-Nov-40 1 Grounded and salvaged.
MM Littorio 12-Nov-40 3 Grounded and salvaged.
MM Vittorio Veneto 28-Mar-41 1 torpedo Temporarily stopped.
KM Gneisenau 6-Apr-41 1 Crippled.
KM Bismarck 24-May-41 1 Remained in action.
KM Bismarck 26-May-41 2 Crippled.
HMS Nelson 27-Sep-41 1 Remained in action.
USS Nevada 7-Dec-41 1 Grounded and salvaged.
USS Oklahoma 7-Dec-41 7-9 Sunk. Raised.
USS California 7-Dec-41 2 Sunk. Salvaged.
USS West Virginia 7-Dec-41 9 Sunk. Salvaged.
HMS Repulse 10-Dec-41 5 Sunk.
HMS Prince of Wales 10-Dec-41 7 Sunk.
MM Littorio 15-Jun-42 1 Remained in action
HIJMS Hiei 13-Nov-42 6 Immobilized.
USS Maryland 22-Jun-44 1 Crippled.
HIJMS Musashi 24-Oct-44 20 Sunk.
HIJMS Yamato 7-Apr-45 13 Sunk.
USS Pennsylvania 12-Aug-45 1 Crippled.

submarine torpedo hits

Ship Date Hits Notes
Jean Bart 21-Dec-14 1+ Crippled.
SMS Grosser Kurfurst 5-Nov-16 1 Damaged
SMS Kronprinz 5-Nov-16 1 Damaged
SMS Moltke 19-Aug-15 1 Damaged
SMS Westfalen 19-Aug-16 1 Damaged
SMS Moltke 25-Apr-18 1 Damaged
HMS Royal Oak 14-Oct-39 3 Sunk.
KM Gneisenau 20-Jun-40 1 Crippled.
HMS Resolution 25-Sep-40 1 Crippled.
HMS Malaya 20-Mar-41 1 Remained in action.
HMS Barham 25-Nov-41 3 Sunk.
MM Vittorio Veneto 14-Dec-41 1 Remained in action.
HMS Ramillies 7-May-42 1-2 Crippled.
USS North Carolina 15-Sep-42 1 Remained in action.
HIJMS Yamato 24-Dec-42 1 Remained in action.
HIJMS Musashi 29-Mar-44 1 Damaged
Courbet 17-Aug-44 2 Crippled.
HIJMS Kongo 20-Nov-44 1-4 Sunk.

surface torpedo hits
HMS Marlborough 31-May-16 1 Remained in action.
SMS Seydlitz 31-May-16 1 Remained in action.
SMS Lutzow 31-May-16 2 Put down after shell hits.
Szent Istvan 11-Jun-18 2 Sunk.
Ekaterina II 16-Jun-18 2+ Sunk.
Petropavlovsk 17-Aug-19 1 Sunk. Salvaged.
KM Scharnhorst 8-Jun-40 1 Crippled.
KM Bismarck 27-May-41 5 Crippled. Finished after shelling.
HIJMS Hiei 13-Nov-42 1 Put down after shell and torp damage.
KM Scharnhorst 26-Dec-43 4-6 Crippled. Finished after shelling.
HIJMS Fuso 25-Oct-44 2 Sunk.
HIJMS Yamashiro 25-Oct-44 4 Sunk. Finished after shelling.


bombs were far from as effective as torpedoes against capital ships

bombs were alot more effective against smaller ships as they were harder to dodge and had higher accuracy than torpedoes but also did alot less damage per bomb

[oldpop2000]

Jun 18, 2019 17:56:21 GMT -6 christian said:

comparing american statistics of succes for divebombers and torpedo bombers doesent work because americans used primarily dive bombers with alot less torpedo bombers

torpedoes are much more influential to the sinking of enemy ships due to the damage they cause

its also to be mentioned american airdropped torpedoes were HORRIBLE and failed to arm quite a bit until they eventually got fixed they also ran too deep or shallow often

im gonna post a bit about how influential torpedoes were in sinking ships so here we go

NOTICE HOW THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TORPEDOES REQUIRED TO SINK A CAPITAL SHIPS IS LOW
(number before ship status is the number of torpedo hits said ship took)
plane torpedo hits
MM Conte di Cavour 12-Nov-40 1 Sunk. Raised.
MM Caio Duilio 12-Nov-40 1 Grounded and salvaged.
MM Littorio 12-Nov-40 3 Grounded and salvaged.
MM Vittorio Veneto 28-Mar-41 1 torpedo Temporarily stopped.
KM Gneisenau 6-Apr-41 1 Crippled.
KM Bismarck 24-May-41 1 Remained in action.
KM Bismarck 26-May-41 2 Crippled.
HMS Nelson 27-Sep-41 1 Remained in action.
USS Nevada 7-Dec-41 1 Grounded and salvaged.
USS Oklahoma 7-Dec-41 7-9 Sunk. Raised.
USS California 7-Dec-41 2 Sunk. Salvaged.
USS West Virginia 7-Dec-41 9 Sunk. Salvaged.
HMS Repulse 10-Dec-41 5 Sunk.
HMS Prince of Wales 10-Dec-41 7 Sunk.
MM Littorio 15-Jun-42 1 Remained in action
HIJMS Hiei 13-Nov-42 6 Immobilized.
USS Maryland 22-Jun-44 1 Crippled.
HIJMS Musashi 24-Oct-44 20 Sunk.
HIJMS Yamato 7-Apr-45 13 Sunk.
USS Pennsylvania 12-Aug-45 1 Crippled.

submarine torpedo hits

Ship Date Hits Notes
Jean Bart 21-Dec-14 1+ Crippled.
SMS Grosser Kurfurst 5-Nov-16 1 Damaged
SMS Kronprinz 5-Nov-16 1 Damaged
SMS Moltke 19-Aug-15 1 Damaged
SMS Westfalen 19-Aug-16 1 Damaged
SMS Moltke 25-Apr-18 1 Damaged
HMS Royal Oak 14-Oct-39 3 Sunk.
KM Gneisenau 20-Jun-40 1 Crippled.
HMS Resolution 25-Sep-40 1 Crippled.
HMS Malaya 20-Mar-41 1 Remained in action.
HMS Barham 25-Nov-41 3 Sunk.
MM Vittorio Veneto 14-Dec-41 1 Remained in action.
HMS Ramillies 7-May-42 1-2 Crippled.
USS North Carolina 15-Sep-42 1 Remained in action.
HIJMS Yamato 24-Dec-42 1 Remained in action.
HIJMS Musashi 29-Mar-44 1 Damaged
Courbet 17-Aug-44 2 Crippled.
HIJMS Kongo 20-Nov-44 1-4 Sunk.

surface torpedo hits
HMS Marlborough 31-May-16 1 Remained in action.
SMS Seydlitz 31-May-16 1 Remained in action.
SMS Lutzow 31-May-16 2 Put down after shell hits.
Szent Istvan 11-Jun-18 2 Sunk.
Ekaterina II 16-Jun-18 2+ Sunk.
Petropavlovsk 17-Aug-19 1 Sunk. Salvaged.
KM Scharnhorst 8-Jun-40 1 Crippled.
KM Bismarck 27-May-41 5 Crippled. Finished after shelling.
HIJMS Hiei 13-Nov-42 1 Put down after shell and torp damage.
KM Scharnhorst 26-Dec-43 4-6 Crippled. Finished after shelling.
HIJMS Fuso 25-Oct-44 2 Sunk.
HIJMS Yamashiro 25-Oct-44 4 Sunk. Finished after shelling.


bombs were far from as effective as torpedoes against capital ships

bombs were alot more effective against smaller ships as they were harder to dodge and had higher accuracy than torpedoes but also did alot less damage per bomb

I think you can make a case for either aircraft with stats from battles and combat missions but the problem is in the details. Many books use the Midway action as a source to prove that the dive bomber was better. The problem is in the details. The Japanese carriers were not prepared for the dive bombers and fuel plus ordnance was still in the hangar when the bombs struck. That is just a matter of luck. That does not mean the dive bomber was better. The US Navy was partial to dive bombers for many reasons. Their dive bomber was faster, more maneuverable and more reliable than their torpedo bombers and its torpedoes. The Navy during the interwar period realized through testing and wargames that you do not have to sink a ship, just mission kill it. It took more to refurbish a ship than it did to replace it, especially for the Japanese navy. In a fleet there are more destroyers, transports, cruisers etc. that a far more vulnerable to dive bombers than battleships. Carrier were very fragile weapons and could be mission killed rather easily as Coral proved. The British used their torpedo bombers to good use because of a good torpedo. The German's used their twin engine bombers as torpedo bombers but were partial to the dive bomber. The Japanese Navy, due to its strategy of attrition for our fleet as it came across the Pacific and their superior torpedoes were always partial to the torpedo bombers and they performed well except that most of the best crews were killed due to lack of fighter support. 

There many reasons why both are excellent weapons. The USN used its dive bombers as scouts, ASW, and low level fighter support against torpedo bombers. They were also effective against land based targets during island hopping. Again, it how you use it and the results that will matter. Both weapons are effective.