# Swordfish vs Devastator



## Elvis (Dec 31, 2020)

I'm always amazed at how successfully the British used a cloth covered biplane during WWII, yet our own Torpedo bomber, the Douglas Devastator, was such an abomination.
It would seem that the opposite would be true.
What was it that made this happen?
Tactics? Design?
I admit, I've not looked into this very far, but its always raised at least one eyebrow, whenever I think about it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 31, 2020)

The lack of success of the Devastator is down to the circumstances. Swap in a Swordfish attacking the Japanese fleet and the results would be exactly the same. Look up Channel Dash as to how successful the Swordfish was in similar circumstances.

Plus there's the fact that the Devastator was a 1st generation monoplane and was a primitive underpowered death trap that had the manoeuvrability of a cathedral. The Swordfish was for a Biplane pretty sophisticated but was still an underpowered death trap. 

Most if not all the Swordfish successes occurred in foul weather or night time when it didn't matter how slow you were if nobody could see you.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Dec 31, 2020)

Ok, I see what's going on now.
Could you please provide a link to the "Channel Dash" you mentioned?
Thanks.

Elvis


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 31, 2020)

Channel Dash - Wikipedia


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 31, 2020)

Swordfish got ASV radar from late 40 on without ASV no attack on Bismark.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 31, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> The lack of success of the Devastator is down to the circumstances. Swap in a Swordfish attacking the Japanese fleet and the results would be exactly the same. Look up Channel Dash as to how successful the Swordfish was in similar circumstances.
> 
> Plus there's the fact that the Devastator was a 1st generation monoplane and was a primitive underpowered death trap that had the manoeuvrability of a cathedral. The Swordfish was for a Biplane pretty sophisticated but was still an underpowered death trap.
> 
> Most if not all the Swordfish successes occurred in foul weather or night time when it didn't matter how slow you were if nobody could see you.



In other words, the FAA revised its tactics to fit the Swordfish’s shortcomings.

A second issue could be that the USN’s air-launched torpedoes had “issues.”

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 31, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> In other words, the FAA revised its tactics to fit the Swordfish’s shortcomings.
> 
> ”



I agree but would modify your statement to say. The FAA revised it's tactics to fit the Swordfish's strengths.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 31, 2020)

Elvis said:


> I'm always amazed at how successfully the British used a cloth covered biplane during WWII, yet our own Torpedo bomber, the Douglas Devastator, was such an abomination.
> It would seem that the opposite would be true.
> What was it that made this happen?
> Tactics? Design?
> I admit, I've not looked into this very far, but its always raised at least one eyebrow, whenever I think about it.



The Swordfish was due to be replaced as a frontline carrier strike aircraft in 1939/40 by the Albacore, and was largely replaced by the Albacore by late 1941, and the Albacore, in turn, was due to be replaced by the Barracuda by 1941/42. Consequently it's a bit incorrect to compare the TBD to the Swordfish, however, the big advantage the Swordfish had over the TBD was it's versatility and it's ability to carry a wide variety of sensors, ordnance loads and auxiliary fuel tanks. Finally it was fully capable of dive bombing and could even release a torpedo after a dive bomb attack profile, where the TBD was structurally incapable of a DB attack profile. 

Hypothetically, if the Swordfish replaced the TBD at Midway, they would have been launched well before dawn and been out scouting for the IJN via their ASV radar in total darkness, to hopefully make a night attack to avoid IJN CAP. If they had to be launched for a daylight attack, they could be outfitted with bombs (2 x 500lb and 2 x 250lb would be typical) to augment the SBD DB attacks, or they could retain torpedoes but approach at medium altitude and use a DB attack profile, to help evade flak and increase the probability of surprise.

On paper the Swordfish is much slower than the TBD, but in service the TBD was much slower than it's oft reported speeds and so it really wasn't that much faster than the Swordfish.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 31, 2020)

The performance of a torpedo bomber depends entirely on the performance of the torpedoes it carries. As the war progressed torpedoes could be launched higher and faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 31, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The performance of a torpedo bomber *depends entirely* on the performance of the torpedoes it carries.


What? That seems like a nutty absolute.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 31, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> In other words, the FAA revised its tactics to fit the Swordfish’s shortcomings.



The RN had to operate in the North Sea, the Swordfish had to be operational in weather that would ground more modern aircraft so it was slow and if used in daytime against the Japanese fleet at Midway would be wiped out but in the foul weather it was designed for it could strike when nothing else could.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 31, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Hypothetically, if the Swordfish replaced the TBD at Midway, they would have been launched well before dawn and been out scouting for the IJN via their ASV radar in total darkness, to hopefully make a night attack to avoid IJN CAP



That's what smart leaders do, I would send half a dozen Swordfish out in total darkness night after night to attack the IJN fleet, the Japanese have zero defenses against such attacks and that would wear them down, personally I would put great faith in a large well coordinated night time attack against the IJN in the first few days of battle as being very successful, the last thing the Japanese would suspect would be Swordfish running in for a torpedo attack at 0300 in the morning.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 1, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> That's what smart leaders do, I would send half a dozen Swordfish out in total darkness night after night to attack the IJN fleet, the Japanese have zero defenses against such attacks and that would wear them down, personally I would put great faith in a large well coordinated night time attack against the IJN in the first few days of battle as being very successful, the last thing the Japanese would suspect would be Swordfish running in for a torpedo attack at 0300 in the morning.


Had Sommerville’s fleet been differently tasked, this could have been Britain’s Midway.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 1, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Channel Dash - Wikipedia


Thanks Mongrel. Yer alright.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 1, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> What? That seems like a nutty absolute.


Its a statement of the obvious, but what isn't obvious is how much topedoes changed, there is precious little point having a high performance plane that has to slow to almost a standstill to effectively launch its weapons. Later in its life the Swordfish did what became a helicopters job.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 1, 2021)

Elvis said:


> I'm always amazed at how successfully the British used a cloth covered biplane during WWII, yet our own Torpedo bomber, the Douglas Devastator, was such an abomination.
> It would seem that the opposite would be true.
> What was it that made this happen?
> Tactics? Design?
> I admit, I've not looked into this very far, but its always raised at least one eyebrow, whenever I think about it.



-The Germans didn't have aircraft carriers so the Swordfish was not exposed to fighters such as the Messerschmitt Me 109T or A6M Zero.
-The Swordfish often operated at night which suited its easy handling. It could carry radar and it could attack under cover of darkness.
-Speed was not so much an issue since torpedo's are speed and height release limits.
-Swordfish's success against Bismarck was against a ship sent on its maiden mission early and before thorough training and before her air defences were beefed up.
The Bismarck and Prince Eugen had 4 sophisticated triaxial stabilised FLAK directors each with tachymetric computers to calculate a continious firing soluton.

2 were removed on each and sent to the USSR as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This is how Germany paid for her oil and grain.

Also most of the guns were single or double 20mm mounts. On Tirpitz these were increased by 80% and convered to the far more effective quad mount which was very stable. I think gyro reflector sights also came in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 1, 2021)

The TBD did have its one success at Coral Sea. Lexington's VT-2 scored 5 hits against Shoho and contributed to her sinking. The TBDs and the torpedos worked. Shoho's air group was a mix of 8 A6M2, 4 A5M2

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 1, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> The TBD did have its one success at Coral Sea.


I’d also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it’s not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It’s a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 1, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I’d also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it’s not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It’s a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.



Wow...that's one of the bigger stretches I've seen. We're now considering getting decimated as being "operational success"? The primary issue had more to with the IJN's non-existent fighter control, coupled with serendipitous timing that the various USN formations arrived over the Japanese fleet, rather than any performance ability of the Devastators.

Turning to the wider comparison of the Devastator and Swordfish, the latter was able to find a niche thanks to the addition of technology that enabled it to conduct successful night operations, something that certainly the IJN could not counter. For whatever reason, the Devastator never found a workable operational niche, a task not helped by the poor operational reliability of the USN's torpedo.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 1, 2021)

Being s decoy 


Admiral Beez said:


> I’d also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it’s not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It’s a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.



Being a decoy is hardly likely to be an enduring role.

I’m not sure the USN thought took torpedo warfare all that seriously, for evidence of which I use the USN decision to omit torpedo magazines from the USS _Ranger_.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 1, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Wow...that's one of the bigger stretches I've seen. We're now considering getting decimated as being "operational success"? The primary issue had more to with the IJN's non-existent fighter control, coupled with serendipitous timing that the various USN formations arrived over the Japanese fleet, rather than any performance ability of the Devastators.


Had been the other way round, and all the Zeros were at HA beating the hell out of the SBDs and thus not noticing the approaching TBDs at LA, the Devastators may have scored crippling hits. The AA on IJN was apparently rubbish.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 1, 2021)

According to Wiki (dangerous) The TBD had a varied weapons load.
"The normal TBD offensive armament consisted of either a 1,935 lb (878 kg) Bliss-Leavitt Mark 13 aerial torpedo or a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb carried semi-recessed in the fuselage undersides. Alternatively, three 500 lb (230 kg) general-purpose bombs (one under each wing root and one inside the bomb bay), or twelve 100 lb (45 kg) fragmentation bombs (six under each wing root), could be carried."


Part of the problem with the Devastator was that there was no MK II or -2 version. So the US was operating planes built in 1937-38 in 1942. 
In 1939 the Navy was looking for a replacement and the production line was already closed down. 

So no new electronics, no self sealing tanks, no armor, no upgraded armament (like twin guns out the back)

Granted the Swordfish didn't get much in the way of upgrades but the Devastator was out of production before the war in Poland started. With only 129 built there was never going to be an update/upgrade program unless the intended replacements ALL failed miserably.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jan 1, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> According to Wiki (dangerous) The TBD had a varied weapons load.
> "The normal TBD offensive armament consisted of either a 1,935 lb (878 kg) Bliss-Leavitt Mark 13 aerial torpedo or a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb carried semi-recessed in the fuselage undersides. Alternatively, three 500 lb (230 kg) general-purpose bombs (one under each wing root and one inside the bomb bay), or twelve 100 lb (45 kg) fragmentation bombs (six under each wing root), could be carried."
> 
> 
> ...


I agree.
The picture I'm starting to get is that its almost like the Navy never really completely trusted the Devastator.
You'd think they would've outfitted the SBD's to be able to carry torpedo's (at least as a back up), if they had such little confidence in the Devastator, but by the time it was obvious the Devastator was out of its league, I suppose the Avenger development program was probably already under way, so no need to mod the SBD to a (stop-gap) SBD/T.

Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 1, 2021)

Americans had a problem with their torpedo (aside from not working), it was the heaviest torpedo used by any major navy by around 300lbs.

The Devastator used a 422 sq ft wing. The Dauntless used a 325sq ft wing.

When the specification for the Avenger was put out to the manufacturers it called for a stalling speed of 70mph for landing while still carrying the torpedo (torpedoes are expensive).
Granted and Avenger used bigger engine and had a turret and used an enclosed bomb bay but the Avenger used a 490 sq ft wing. 

It wasn't so much a matter of trust but they knew the Devastator was obsolete, being the first of it's kind tends to do that, and the SBD with about the same powered engine was not going to carry the big american torpedo and enough fuel to get very far.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 1, 2021)

The TBD also had some success on the Lae and Salamaua(?) raids. There’s a nice vid on the “Military Aviation History” YouTube site. It’s entitled “In defense of the worst aircraft of world war 2”. I’m sure most of us have seen it before. 
It wasn’t until the battle of Midway that it was shown just how obsolete it was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jan 1, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Americans had a problem with their torpedo (aside from not working), it was the heaviest torpedo used by any major navy by around 300lbs.
> 
> The Devastator used a 422 sq ft wing. The Dauntless used a 325sq ft wing.
> 
> ...


According to wiki, the SBD-5 had enough payload capacity to take on the Mk.13 torpedo.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 1, 2021)

How does the Devastator compare to the Albacore? Both were (in part) replaced in the Avenger.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 1, 2021)

Elvis said:


> According to wiki, the SBD-5 had enough payload capacity to take on the Mk.13 torpedo.


True but the SPD-5 had 20% more power for take off than the SPD-1 through -4, SPD-5 wasn't trying to land on the carrier with that bomb load. 
SPD-5 doesn't show up until the middle or end of 1942? or later? 

Wiki in some cases (and this is one of them) needs to be taken with a large dose of salt (like a 50lb cattle salt lick block). 

see. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SBD-5_PD_-_August_6_1942.pdf
SPD-5 could not carry a 1000lb bomb and full fuel. With 1600lb AP bomb fuel was down to 128 gallons, with the torpedo you would be down to around 78 gallons) 
The bomb load in Wiki (and in many other sources including USN performance data sheets) consists of a 1600lb AP bomb (seldom, *if ever*, carried by an SBD in combat) and a pair of 325lb depth charges. A very unlikely combination but the total sure sounds impressive. Even if you only put a 500lb on the center station the wing stations were still limited to 325lbs. 

Perhaps if the land runway was long enough (and the tail wheel was long enough) you could get the SBD into the air with the torpedo and a decent amount of fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jan 2, 2021)

???...Devastator wasn't taken out of front line service until 1942, so SBD-5 fits in nicely.
...and who cares about landing back on deck with the torpedo still attached.
The point was to _deploy_ it when you reached the target.
...anyway, I only mentioned it as a STOP-GAP measure until the Avenger could be made operational, which was around the same time that year, so maybe the SBD/T wouldn't even need to be considered.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 2, 2021)

By the time the SBD-5 shows up the Avenger is in production. Well into production. The SBD-5 didn't go into production until May of 1943.
Midway was fought with SBD-2s and -3s.

Torpedo storage on carriers was limited. If your strike fails to find the target and returns to the carrier and you have to jettison the torpedoes in order to land you may only have one set of reloads for the torpedo bombers left. 

Basically the TBD first flew in April of 1935, the SBD first flew in May 1940. Avenger first flew in August of 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 2, 2021)

Elvis said:


> According to wiki, the SBD-5 had enough payload capacity to take on the Mk.13 torpedo.



The SBD 2/3 was the service variant until early 1943, IIRC.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 2, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> How does the Devastator compare to the Albacore? Both were (in part) replaced in the Avenger.



The Albacore was generally superior in almost every category, except (on paper) top speed.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 2, 2021)

Elvis said:


> ???...Devastator wasn't taken out of front line service until 1942, so SBD-5 fits in nicely.
> ...and who cares about landing back on deck with the torpedo still attached.
> The point was to _deploy_ it when you reached the target.
> ...anyway, I only mentioned it as a STOP-GAP measure until the Avenger could be made operational, which was around the same time that year, so maybe the SBD/T wouldn't even need to be considered.



The Avenger replaced the TBD after Midway but it was greatly hampered as a TB by the poor performance of the MK 13 torpedo. It could carry a 2000lb bomb load but was hampered as a bomber against naval targets by it's inability to dive bomb.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 2, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> The TBD did have its one success at Coral Sea. Lexington's VT-2 scored 5 hits against Shoho and contributed to her sinking. The TBDs and the torpedos worked. Shoho's air group was a mix of 8 A6M2, 4 A5M2



I think we have to take some of those claimed hits with a grain of salt. Shoho was simultaneously being attacked by SBDs dropping 1000lb GP bombs, and a near miss from a 1000lb GP bomb would be hard to distinguish from a torpedo hit. It also took a very long time for Shoho sink, considering it's size and number of claimed torpedo hits.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 2, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Albacore was generally superior in almost every category, except (on paper) top speed.


https://www.militaryfactory.com/air...m&aircraft1=732&aircraft2=1390&Submit=COMPARE

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 2, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> https://www.militaryfactory.com/air...m&aircraft1=732&aircraft2=1390&Submit=COMPARE



Interesting link but the top speed shown for the Devastator of 206 mph is clean the top speed of the Albacore of 161 mph is with a torpedo. Mind you top speed of the Albacore clean was only 170 mph.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 2, 2021)

Warpaint has the Albacore at 161 mph at 4000 ft but doesn't show whether clean or loaded.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 2, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> Warpaint has the Albacore at 161 mph at 4000 ft but doesn't show whether clean or loaded.



Cruise speed, top speed and climb speed for the Albacore were pretty much the same. It didnt exactly need a 300mph speedometer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 2, 2021)

Elvis said:


> ...and who cares about landing back on deck with the torpedo still attached. The point was to _deploy_ it when you reached the target.


That seems wasteful. I imagine many a Swordfish or Albacore returned to its carrier with a torpedo attached after not finding a target.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 2, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> That seems wasteful. I imagine many a Swordfish or Albacore returned to its carrier with a torpedo attached after not finding a target.


I've not read a lot on the subject but I think some or even many missions were patrols or screens looking for a target. Obviously only one or two in a screen will find what is being looked for.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 2, 2021)

For a bit of context the magazine load for the Essex in 1942 is given as
100lb gp bomb........504
500lb GP bomb........296
1000lb GP bomb.....146
1000lb SAP bomb...129
1000lb AP bomb......110
1600lb AP bomb.........19
2000lb GP bomb........19
325lb DB.......................296
100lb incendiary........296
torpedoes ....................36

The Bennington in 1944 is credited with 50 torpedoes. 

the List for the Lexington in 1936 was
100lb gp bomb........804
500lb GP bomb....... 391
1000lb GP bomb.....240
torpedoes ....................36

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 2, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> Warpaint has the Albacore at 161 mph at 4000 ft but doesn't show whether clean or loaded.


 
That was with a Taurus II loaded with 6 x 250lb bombs, IIRC. Full speed clean was 172mph, again with a Taurus II according to Boscombe Down testing. Full speed with a Taurus XII would be 5-10mph faster.


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 2, 2021)

The Albacore and Swordfish would routinely return with their torpedo - the only times they did not land on the carrier with the torpedo was in extreme sea states where it would be too dangerous. I do not know how common it was for the Devastator to land on the carrier with a torpedo (I do not think there were enough opportunities to get a count), but by early-1944 the SOP for the Avenger (in US service) was to dump the torpedo before attempting to land on board. This was due to multiple incidents where the torpedo came loose during the landing and skittering across the deck, causing damage to the landing aircraft and sometimes causing damage to other aircraft and deck crew. There was at least one instance where the pilot forgot to safe the torpedo before dumping it and ended up torpedoing a friendly ship.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I've not read a lot on the subject but I think some or even many missions were patrols or screens looking for a target. Obviously only one or two in a screen will find what is being looked for.


Perhaps patrols were never made with a torpedo... though depth charges for certain.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 3, 2021)

The real comparison is between cruising speeds. The sortie is usually at some range and the target approached at cruising speed. For bombing maximum speed can be used but for a torpedo run the speed is limited to that at which the torpedo can be launched.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jan 3, 2021)

Never confirmed this, but I once heard a speed of 90 mph was what the Swordfish used during an attack.
Seems agonizingly slow, if you ask me, but we're talking about 75-80 years ago, so maybe that wasn't considered so bad back then.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 3, 2021)

Elvis said:


> Never confirmed this, but I once heard a speed of 90 mph was what the Swordfish used during an attack.
> Seems agonizingly slow, if you ask me, but we're talking about 75-80 years ago, so maybe that wasn't considered so bad back then.


Seems slow now. 90 mph is 78 knots. Imagine flying towards your target into a 20 knot headwind, you‘re now a 58 knot (1,957 yards per min), level flying target for every AA gunner. If you begin your torpedo run at 2,000 yards and drop at 500 yards, you‘re a sitting duck for about 45 seconds.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Seems slow now. 90 mph is 78 knots. Imagine flying towards your target into a 20 knot headwind, you‘re now a 58 knot (1,957 yards per min), level flying target for every AA gunner. If you begin your torpedo run at 2,000 yards and drop at 500 yards, you‘re a sitting duck for about 45 seconds.


Wasn't that speed dictated by the torpedo, not the plane?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 3, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Had been the other way round, and all the Zeros were at HA beating the hell out of the SBDs and thus not noticing the approaching TBDs at LA, the Devastators may have scored crippling hits. The AA on IJN was apparently rubbish.



That's just another way of describing the same problem...that the IJN lacked adequate fighter direction. That still doesn't make the Devastator an effective weapons platform. 

I also highly doubt that crippling hits would have been achieved given the limitations of the USN's torpedo at the time.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 3, 2021)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 3, 2021)

Elvis said:


> Wasn't the Mk. 13 the "improved" torpedo?
> I thought the Mk. 8 was the one that was so bad?


The USN Mk 13 wasn't made reliable until mid-late 1944, ditto for the USN Mk 14 torpedo.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 3, 2021)

Elvis said:


> Never confirmed this, but I once heard a speed of 90 mph was what the Swordfish used during an attack.
> Seems agonizingly slow, if you ask me, but we're talking about 75-80 years ago, so maybe that wasn't considered so bad back then.


 Drop speeds varied but 90 knots was common with a Swordfish but max drop speeds were ~120 knots, IIRC, in 1939/41. By 1942 drop speeds on RN aerial torpedoes increased to ~150 knots.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jan 3, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The USN Mk 13 wasn't made reliable until mid-late 1944, ditto for the USN Mk 14 torpedo.


Shoulda looked it up before I posted.
Simple Wiki article answered it quite thoroughly.
Apologies, but thanks for the info anyway.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 3, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Drop speeds varied but 90 knots was common with a Swordfish but max drop speeds were ~120 knots, IIRC, in 1939/41. By 1942 drop speeds on RN aerial torpedoes increased to ~150 knots.


KNOTS!!...maybe that's what it was, and not mph.
90 kts is almost 104 mph, so that's a little faster.
From what I'm learning here, it seems the torpedoes had wood shrouds over the nose and tail that helped protect and stabilize the torpedo in the air. They sheared off upon impact, but they also slowed the torpedo slightly and that helped them home in on the target.
I guess it was this that allowed launch speeds to increase.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 3, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> That's just another way of describing the same problem...that the IJN lacked adequate fighter direction. That still doesn't make the Devastator an effective weapons platform.


Yes, we need to overlook the sh#tty torpedoes. With the same torpedoes, even if we replace the Devastators with A-1 Skyraiders the damage would be the same. Could Swordfish or Albacore have done better than the Devastator at Midway?

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 3, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Yes, we need to overlook the sh#tty torpedoes. With the same torpedoes, even if we replace the Devastators with A-1 Skyraiders the damage would be the same. Could Swordfish or Albacore have done better than the Devastator at Midway?


The Swordfish/Albacore could have been armed with bombs and flown DB missions.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 3, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Yes, we need to overlook the sh#tty torpedoes. With the same torpedoes, even if we replace the Devastators with A-1 Skyraiders the damage would be the same. Could Swordfish or Albacore have done better than the Devastator at Midway?



I think the Swordfish could have done better. By the summer of 1942, Swordfish had radar and the crews were well-practiced operating at night. The RN's torpedoes also had a much better chance of actually causing damage on an enemy's ships. Given all of these factors, I suspect the IJN would have a really hard time countering the Swordfish threat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 3, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I think the Swordfish could have done better. By the summer of 1942, Swordfish had radar and the crews were well-practiced operating at night.


No, I mean on that same attack, same daylight conditions. At Midway, a total of 41 Devastators were launched from USS Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown to attack the Japanese fleet - only six Devastators returned. Swap out each of these 41 Devastator for a torpedo-armed Swordfish, do any survive to launch their torpedoes and return? 

And forget about torpedo quality, the Devastators at Midway didn’t suffer from torpedo failure, because none of them managed to strike their targets.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 3, 2021)

And those torpedoes seemed to work a few weeks earlier at the Coral Sea action.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 3, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> No, I mean on that same attack, same daylight conditions. Swap out each Devastator for a Swordfish, do any survive to launch and return?



You can replace the Devastator with any other torpedo type--Swordfish, Avenger etc.--and you'll get broadly similar results as happened at Midway. The only difference would be the amount of punishment a particular airframe could take.

I have to ask, though, what's the point of taking an airframe with capabilities that the Devastator didn't have, and then constraining its use by employing it in the same daylight conditions as the Devastators? No operational user would deliberately ignore a platform's key strengths and operate it at a tactical disadvantage. If the USN had a radar-equipped torpedo aircraft in June 1942, surely they'd have used it at night to increase the odds of success...or am I missing something?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2021)

Elvis said:


> KNOTS!!...maybe that's what it was, and not mph.
> 90 kts is almost 104 mph, so that's a little faster.
> From what I'm learning here, it seems the torpedoes had wood shrouds over the nose and tail that helped protect and stabilize the torpedo in the air. They sheared off upon impact, but they also slowed the torpedo slightly and that helped them home in on the target.
> I guess it was this that allowed launch speeds to increase.


Not only launch speed but height too, the ability of the torpedo to keep straight and get itself to the correct depth had to be improved too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 3, 2021)

Hey SaparotRob,

If you can find it (and have not already seen it), there is a very good article on the serious problems with the US torpedoes in the early- to mid-war. It involved all of the new generation of torpedoes (ie the Mk 13 aircraft, Mk14 submarine, and Mk 15 surface ship). When testing was finally done in late-1943(?) it was found that there was a 130% failure rate of the Mk 13. This was due to multiple failure modes for multiple torpedoes. IIRC less than 20% of the torpedoes tested hit their target and exploded. I had a PDF copy of the article on my last computer that crapped out on me about a year ago, otherwise i would post it (it was originally published for government use so the majority of the article is public domain). If you want to search for it, I first ran across it in the Naval Institute Press magazine 'Proceedings' and it had the words "Torpedo Scandal" in the title of the article. There is another article online with the words"Great Torpedo Scandal" which covers some of the same info but is not (I think) the one in Proceedings.

The Mk 13 Mod 0 (the last of which were used up in the early-war battles) had fewer problems (during test pre-war) than the later mods, and the Mod 1 had fewer problems than the Mod 2, etc. . . until whatever Mod was the successful late-war variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2021)

Can someone tell me how you get a 130% failure rate?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2021)

Glider said:


> Can someone tell me how you get a 130% failure rate?


I think it was in the post, when there are many ways things can go wrong a single torpedo can fail in three or four ways at the same time. Statisticians have mysterious ways to perform their wonders. As a logical expression it is nonsense, but as a statistical expression it points to many big problems

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 3, 2021)

Glider said:


> Can someone tell me how you get a 130% failure rate?



Only someone who gives 110% would be able to explain

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 3, 2021)

They would probably get 130% failure rate by examining component failure modes, then adding them together. Failure analysis was, rather obviously, in its childhood as this is invalid reasoning. 

Actually analyzing failure statistics can result in some interesting results. Insurance companies do it all the time, which is why, for example, the insurance rates (as a percentage of aircraft cost) are higher for genav pilots flying twins. While one would think that a twin would crash less, and this is certainly true for highly experienced transport pilots, it's less true for many private pilots who both have less overall experience, fly less often, and have less access to advanced training aids. Another counter-intuitive result is that twin-turbine helicopters (at least in the 1980s, the last time I was actively keeping track) autorotate more often than single turbine helicopters, as the rate of gearbox failure in twins was greater than the combined rate of engine plus gearbox failure in single turbine helicopters. I wonder how the loss rate for the F-18 compares with that of the F-16, as I keep seeing news about F-18s crashing after losing one engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> They would probably get 130% failure rate by examining component failure modes, then adding them together. Failure analysis was, rather obviously, in its childhood as this is invalid reasoning.
> 
> .


Well that depends on your reasoning. There are many ways to present the results of an investigation. Saying there is a 130% failure rate on one of the two main weapons that the aircraft carrier fleet was built for will grab peoples attention. It says that a ship and crew and its pilots are taking huge risks at massive cost to fire something that statistically has no chance of working, the few that do hit the target and explode as planned are lucky quirks.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 3, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey SparrotRob,
> 
> If you can find it (and have not already seen it), there is a very good article on the serious problems with the US torpedoes in the early- to mid-war. It involved all of the new generation of torpedoes (ie the Mk 13 aircraft, Mk14 submarine, and Mk 15 surface ship). When testing was finally done in late-1943(?) it was found that there was a 130% failure rate of the Mk 13. This was due to multiple failure modes for multiple torpedoes. IIRC less than 20% of the torpedoes tested hit their target and exploded. I had a PDF copy of the article on my last computer that crapped out on me about a year ago, otherwise i would post it (it was originally published for government use so the majority of the article is public domain). If you want to search for it, I first ran across it in the Naval Institute Press magazine 'Proceedings' and it had the words "Torpedo Scandal" in the title of the article. There is another article online with the words"Great Torpedo Scandal" which covers some of the same info but is not (I think) the one in Proceedings.
> 
> The Mk 13 Mod 0 (the last of which were used up in the early-war battles) had fewer problems (during test pre-war) than the later mods, and the Mod 1 had fewer problems than the Mod 2, etc. . . until whatever Mod was the successful late-war variant.


Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll check that out. 
Have you seen “Failure is Like Onions” on Drachinifel’s YouTube site? An entertaining history of the whole MK 14 scandal.


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think it was in the post, when there are many ways things can go wrong a single torpedo can fail in three or four ways at the same time. Statisticians have mysterious ways to perform their wonders. As a logical expression it is nonsense, but as a statistical expression it points to many big problems


Thanks for this, I always did tend to think of things simplistically.


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 3, 2021)

Hey SaparotRob,

re “Failure is Like Onions”

Thanks for the info.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 3, 2021)

Elvis said:


> KNOTS!!...maybe that's what it was, and not mph.
> 90 kts is almost 104 mph, so that's a little faster.



Yup, according to the type's Pilot's Notes, its cruise speed was 90 Kts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 4, 2021)

Glider said:


> Can someone tell me how you get a 130% failure rate?



This is from the official history of the USN Bureau of Ordnance:


_"Despite the complications that were attending the other phases
of torpedo development, the Bureau of Ordnance considered the
aircraft torpedo problem so important that it was assigned the
highest priority at the Newport Station. The improvements and
modifications of 1942 and 1943 still left the weapon unpopular,
however, and production problems were as great as those stemming
from incomplete development. *In mid-1943 an analysis of*_
*105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots showed
clearly why aviators distrusted the Mark 13: 36 percent ran cold,
20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18
percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on
the surface, and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total
in excess of 100 percent proved that many torpedoes were subject*
_*to more than one of the defects*, just as the bulk of the problems
were still due to the effects of poor air stabilization on water behavior.
Better performance at reduced aircraft speeds was small
comfort since aviators could not be held down by paper restrictions
that imposed serious and dangerous handicaps in combat. And
even when they accepted the limitations, the water entry behavior
of the torpedo produced frequent hooking and broaching.
Time promised to complicate the problem still further. Unsatisfactory
for existing planes, the torpedo would certainly fail to
utilize the potentialities of aircraft then under development."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2021)

Glider said:


> Thanks for this, I always did tend to think of things simplistically.


Number crunching throws up these things. using imaginary numbers, if you test 1000 guns and two fail due to jamming, one fails because of the feed, one because it didn't reload and one just didn't fire, then it wouldn't be seen as unreasonable to add them together and say 5/1000 or 0.5% were failures. Only when the numbers increase does it become a sort of nonsense. The quoted rate of 130% should be compared to RCAFsons post above where the actual rate in practice was 31% being successful. If you solve one mode of failure and run the test again you may well have more success but you could have less, with a different distribution of reasons to fail.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 6, 2021)

Let's say a torpedo's guidance fouls up and its detonator fails, too, would that torpedo have a 200% failure rate?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2021)

My Uncle was a submariner in the PTO and had mentioned that the only truly terrifying thing they experienced was the sound of the defective torpedoes coming back at them.

Also the disheartening report that their "fish" ran true and struck the side of their target with a dull "thud" was not a moral booster...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2021)

Acheron said:


> Let's say a torpedo's guidance fouls up and its detonator fails, too, would that torpedo have a 200% failure rate?


That is exactly what the statistics mean, not 200% but two failures in the 100 torpedoes tested. A similar and more common expression concerns bomber crews and I have just read it in a history of 617 squadron. If bomber aircraft losses were on average 5% per mission then on a 30 mission tour a crew has a 150% chance on being lost. However 617 squadron was composed almost entirely of crews that finished a 30 mission tour. This shows that losses were not random, the best pilots, the best navigators engineers and gunners improved their chances of survival in many ways. Those lost were frequently on their first or early missions, and their replacements were lost in similar fashion, at the other end of the scale Guy Gibson had completed 3 operational tours before he joined 617 squadron.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 6, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Had been the other way round, and all the Zeros were at HA beating the hell out of the SBDs and thus not noticing the approaching TBDs at LA, the Devastators may have scored crippling hits. *The AA on IJN was apparently rubbish*.






Admiral Beez said:


> I’d also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it’s not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. *It’s a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part*.



Actually no, in Shattered Sword Parshall and Tully bust that myth by actually working out chronologically all the attacks on Kido Butai. VT-8 was shredded an hour before the decisive SBD attack, and point out that their contribution was the same as VT-6 - "_disrupting the counteroffensive activities of the Japanese carriers_".

Although I totally agree with the bolded parts of your posts, it was a team effort, let's not forget the USAAF sent B-17's and B-26's out, which, while they may not have scored any hits, they also disrupted carrier operations prior to the killer strike. Including coming within a whisker of making Nagumo a B-26 hood ornament, and while I'd like to take credit for that witty turn of phrase, it's straight out of Shattered Sword.

On the Swordfish, I agree, I've referenced that link BPF more than once here, and I think the Swordfish would have given a good account of itself in a predawn or night time attack. You're right, Kido Butai for all its supposed invincibility, would have been _*hard pressed*_ against that kind of attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 6, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> VT-8 was shredded an hour before the decisive SBD attack, and point out that their contribution was the same as VT-6 - "_disrupting the counteroffensive activities of the Japanese carriers_".
> 
> Although I totally agree with the bolded parts of your posts, it was a team effort, let's not forget the USAAF sent B-17's and B-26's out, which, while they may not have scored any hits, they also disrupted carrier operations prior to the killer strike.


If there's one thing the Kido Butai should have done is to operate all four carriers as an organic unit, by which I mean stop operating each carrier as a stand-alone combatant. Instead of each fighter having to return to its home carrier to replenish ammunition and fuel and thus block counterstrike launches, assign one carrier for fighter rotation and the other three carriers for strike launch. If the fighter carrier is disabled, rotate the fighter rotation to another carrier, whilst the two remaining continue strike prep.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 6, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> If there's one thing the Kido Butai should have done is to operate all four carriers as an organic unit, by which I mean stop operating each carrier as a stand-alone combatant. Instead of each fighter having to return to its home carrier to replenish ammunition and fuel and thus block counterstrike launches, assign one carrier for fighter rotation and the other three carriers for strike launch. If the fighter carrier is disabled, rotate the fighter rotation to another carrier, whilst the two remaining continue strike prep.


You would loose some efficiency though, no? I mean, four carriers can assemble a strike force faster than three. And they also can bring up a bigger fighter screen in the same time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2021)

If the IJN had allowed composite air groups instead if dedicating an air group to each carrier, then they could have combined the air groups of Shokaku and Zuikaku to bring Zuikaku up to strength and had her back in action with the rest of Kido Butai.
As it stands, they should have never allowed Carrier Division 1 and 2 to become seperated from the main task Force as they did.
The additional scouting aircraft of the 3 battleships and several cruisers would have proven invaluable along with the concentrated AA - plus the two light carriers Zuiho and Hosho would have provided 12 A6M2, 12 B5N2 and 8 B4Y1 aircraft that could have certainly contributed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 6, 2021)

Acheron said:


> You would loose some efficiency though, no? I mean, four carriers can assemble a strike force faster than three. And they also can bring up a bigger fighter screen in the same time.



The biggest issue the Kido Butai had was keeping the A6M's on CAP, the decks were kept clear so when they ran out of 20mm ammunition they could land and immediately rearm, as per shattered sword the pilots didn't seem to have much faith in the 2mg's so having one carrier with a clear deck landing and launching Zero's with the other three carriers having a strike on deck ready to launch sounds like a workable idea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 6, 2021)

Torpedo bombing against ships protected by fighters sounds like a terrible idea unless protected by a strong fighter force which will fail on occasion. I wonder when it was realised it was a bad idea. The Germans seem to have almost given up on the idea and preferred to aim a time delayed bomb at the ships waterline to try and blow up beneath it. Except for night attack they were developing a Fw 190D variant that could carry a torpedo by virtue of an extended tail yoke.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Torpedo bombing against ships protected by fighters sounds like a terrible idea unless protected by a string fighter force which will fail on occasion. I wonder when it was realised it was a bad idea. The Germans seem to have almost given up on the idea and preferred to aim a time delayed bomb at the ships waterline to try and blow up beneath it. Except except for night attack though they were developing a Fw 190D variant that could carry a torpedo by virtue of an extended tail yoke.


Yeah, but isn't that of any kind of bombing scenario?
Without fighter cover, they're just sitting ducks.
I think with torpedo bombing, it becomes a bit redundant, considering one sub can carry a bunch of torpedo and launch multiple strikes simultaneously.
With torpedo bombers, you need a whole squadron, supported by an aircraft carrier, to achieve the same end.
Seems like after Midway, you don't hear a whole lot about Torpedo bombing, although the practice remained though out the rest of the war.

Elvis

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 7, 2021)

Elvis said:


> after Midway, you don't hear a whole lot about Torpedo bombing, although the practice remained though out the rest of the war.
> 
> Elvis



Tell that to the convoy guys going to Murmansk or in the Med.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Torpedo bombing against ships protected by fighters sounds like a terrible idea unless protected by a string fighter force which will fail on occasion. I wonder when it was realised it was a bad idea. The Germans seem to have almost given up on the idea and preferred to aim a time delayed bomb at the ships waterline to try and blow up beneath it. Except except for night attack though they were developing a Fw 190D variant that could carry a torpedo by virtue of an extended tail yoke.


The torpedo armed version of the Beaufighter was just being introduced in 1942 after Midway took place. The carrier version of the "sea Mosquito" only started to be built after March 1944. There are many types of ship on the sea, torpedoes were very effective against them. Maybe not so effective against a battleship but did manage to cripple/damage Bismarck and Lutzow and also Gneisenau in Brest harbour. The Beaufighter acted as its own defence with fighter versions flying with torpedo versions as escort and flak suppression.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Torpedo bombing against ships protected by fighters sounds like a terrible idea unless protected by a string fighter force which will fail on occasion.



Or you take the RN's approach, fully developed by mid-1942, of pairing radar-equipped and torpedo-carrying Swordfish and operating them at night. AFAIK, the IJN didn't have any effective means of operating fighters at night from their carriers.

The Swordfish was anachronistic and absolutely a sitting duck in daylight ops. However, at night against an adversary that lacked radar, it would have been a difficult target to locate and engage. Just look at the results from Taranto which had decent-ish AAA and barrage balloons, and yet only 2 Swordfish were lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 7, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> If there's one thing the Kido Butai should have done is to operate all four carriers as an organic unit, by which I mean stop operating each carrier as a stand-alone combatant. Instead of each fighter having to return to its home carrier to replenish ammunition and fuel and thus block counterstrike launches, assign one carrier for fighter rotation and the other three carriers for strike launch. If the fighter carrier is disabled, rotate the fighter rotation to another carrier, whilst the two remaining continue strike prep.


It's been a while since I studied the Pacific War but didn't the USN do something along these lines later in the war? I think I remember reading where Enterprise came out of refit as the night fighter carrier tasked with just that, after hours protection of the fleet. She embarked an almost all Hellcat -N load out *if my memory serves me correctly* (which I doubt).

Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd genuinely like to know, I'm off to Google this and see if my memory is good or if I'm ready for the home...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2021)

Elvis said:


> Seems like after Midway, you don't hear a whole lot about Torpedo bombing, although the practice remained though out the rest of the war.



The USN was not the rest of the world.
The USN after midway figured out that their aerial torpedo was defective in several different ways and until it was "fixed" there was little point in using it in combat.

Other navies aerial torpedoes were not defective (at least not anywhere near what the US torpedo was) and were effective weapons.
Delivering the torpedo in an effective manner is a somewhat different story. Low slow and daylight is not a good delivery method against fast armed ships even without fighter cover. 

It is doubtful if the the Musashi and Yamato would have been sunk by bombs alone. 
However by 1944 the US MK 13 torpedo was no longer running deep, the exploder was functioning correctly and it could be dropped at much higher speeds and higher altitudes than it could be dropped in 1942. 
Post WW II the major navies had major changes in AA defences and the torpedo bomber was behind the curve again, although som eof th epromisied AA systems took a few years longer to get to work than promised.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 7, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Or you take the RN's approach, fully developed by mid-1942, of pairing radar-equipped and torpedo-carrying and operating them at night. AFAIK, the IJN didn't have any effective means of operating fighters at night from their carriers.


Out of curiosity, would that “mid-1942” have been concurrent with the battle of Midway?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 7, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Out of curiosity, would that “mid-1942” have been concurrent with the battle of Midway?



Battle of Midway was 4-7 June 1942...so, yes, IMHO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Battle of Midway was 4-7 June 1942...so, yes, IMHO.


Concurrent but not really connected. The RAF and R Navy had already seen how vulnerable torpedo bombers were and how difficult ship were to find by sight.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 7, 2021)

Just wondering if mid-1942 could have been by July 1,1942. I did notice the phrase “well developed”. Now if HMS Formidable had been there (stealing Admiral Beez’s idea), that would’ve been interesting. I’m throwing in those radar equipped Stringbags.


----------



## Ovod (Jan 7, 2021)

Was the Swordfish not removed from torpedo bomber duties following the Channel Dash debacle? So it wouldn't have been carrying torpedoes at the time of the Battle of Midway?

I would imagine the Swordfish would be considered lacking the necessary endurance for service in the Pacific Ocean?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 7, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Was the Swordfish not removed from torpedo bomber duties following the Channel Dash debacle? So it wouldn't have been carrying torpedoes at the time of the Battle of Midway?
> 
> I would imagine the Swordfish would be considered lacking the necessary endurance for service in the Pacific Ocean?



Swordfish had a range of 522 miles with normal fuel and carrying a torpedo. Devastator range was 435 miles with a Mk13 torpedo. Also note the Swordfish could have a long-range tank installed at the expense of the third crewman, which would further increase the range.

Based on these figures, it would seem the Swordfish was appropriate for the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 7, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Just wondering if mid-1942 could have been by July 1,1942. I did notice the phrase “well developed”. Now if HMS Formidable had been there (stealing Admiral Beez’s idea), that would’ve been interesting. I’m throwing in those radar equipped Stringbags.





Ovod said:


> Was the Swordfish not removed from torpedo bomber duties following the Channel Dash debacle? So it wouldn't have been carrying torpedoes at the time of the Battle of Midway?
> 
> I would imagine the Swordfish would be considered lacking the necessary endurance for service in the Pacific Ocean?



According to this link Admiral Beez posted earlier, Formidable had Albacores not Swordfish embarked by April 1942 but did have 1 Swordfish aboard. The Albacores were apparently radar equipped and capable of delivering a night torpedo attack. Now wouldn't *THAT* have been a nice surprise for the IJN about June 4, 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 7, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> According to this link Admiral Beez posted earlier, Formidable had Albacores not Swordfish embarked by April 1942 but did have 1 Swordfish aboard. The Albacores were apparently radar equipped and capable of delivering a night torpedo attack. Now wouldn't *THAT* have been a nice surprise for the IJN about June 4, 1942.


The Albacores could have also flown a similar dive bomber attack profile to the SBDs, with an even bigger bomb load.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 7, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The USN was not the rest of the world.


I never stated it was. 
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Thank you.


----------



## beitou (Jan 7, 2021)

Elvis said:


> KNOTS!!...maybe that's what it was, and not mph.
> 90 kts is almost 104 mph, so that's a little faster.
> From what I'm learning here, it seems the torpedoes had wood shrouds over the nose and tail that helped protect and stabilize the torpedo in the air. They sheared off upon impact, but they also slowed the torpedo slightly and that helped them home in on the target.
> I guess it was this that allowed launch speeds to increase.


Were there any allied air dropped homing torpedoes in WW2? I thought they were all unguided other than the depth and speed set before take off on board ship?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 7, 2021)

beitou said:


> Were there any allied air dropped homing torpedoes in WW2? I thought they were all unguided other than the depth and speed set before take off on board ship?



Yes, the USN's ASW Mk 24 'mine', but no air dropped antishipping homing torpedoes, AFAIK.


----------



## Acheron (Jan 7, 2021)

I got the impression that torpedo bombers had a harder time hitting a ship compared to dive bombers but if they did, they could deal more damage. Maybe the explosive shock wave of a detonation is more powerful in water?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 7, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, the USN's ASW Mk 24 'mine', but no air dropped antishipping homing torpedoes, AFAIK.



The "Fido" or MK 24 "Mine" was in all senses a homing torpedo but I suspect it got called a "mine" because it didn't run a set depth or because of security attempting to keep its existence a secret.

The Germans also used acoustic homing torpedo's the G7es series which came in a versions to home on to merchant ships and escorts (which were likely cavitating). More advanced versions that would do a dog leg around a seductive noise source such as foxer came in to service near the end of the war and there was a wire guided version called spinne (spider). The Germans never air dropped these though.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2021)

Acheron said:


> I got the impression that torpedo bombers had a harder time hitting a ship compared to dive bombers but if they did, they could deal more damage. Maybe the explosive shock wave of a detonation is more powerful in water?


There are obviously many types of ship. A battleship like the Bismarck could withstand several hits by torpedo, on the armoured belt. Bismarck was hit 3 times, two damaged it but the third was a lucky strike that crippled the steering. Gneisenau took one repairable hit that gave it a 2 degree list. An Aircraft carrier can be in serious trouble with one bomb penetrating its decks while one bomb or torpedo can sink a freighter or oil tanker.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 7, 2021)

Elvis said:


> Yeah, but isn't that of any kind of bombing scenario?
> Without fighter cover, they're just sitting ducks.
> I think with torpedo bombing, it becomes a bit redundant, considering one sub can carry a bunch of torpedo and launch multiple strikes simultaneously.
> With torpedo bombers, you need a whole squadron, supported by an aircraft carrier, to achieve the same end.
> ...



Bombing is more efficient if it can achieve accuracy because you can carry 4 x more explosives. The Luftwaffe started using the "Turnip Planting Method" to get destructive hits on to a ship below the waterline and it kind of was the equivalent of the skip bombing technique the US used. (At one point Europeans worked out how to plant turnips in winter which lead to a massive increase in food production, cows produced milk in winter). The turnip planting method is described in Fleischer's "German Air Dropped Weapons". If done from a Ju 88 the StuVi 5B computing slide/dive bombing sight it used. The bomb is aimed at just ahead of the waterline (the sight computes a continuous impact point into the reflector sight). When the bomb is released it impacts the water and then detonates with a 5.2 second delay which means it blows up about 20m below the ship breaking its back, A direct hit is also useful.
If an Me 109 is used then the pilot calculates the desired dive angle and speed. He sets a second reticule on the Revi gun sight to toss the bomb at the correct angle after a short pullup. He uses the stedometric range finder to pullup and release at the correct angle or an alarm set into the altimeter. The idea was to ultimately use the TSD 2D toss bombing sight which released duing the pullup automatically irrespective of angle or speed or altitude. That sight was being used operationally with evaluation squadrons.

Toss bombing could get a fair amount of stand off distance if released at high speed. The Germans were developing a special type of bomb they called BT or Board Torpedos eg BT700, BT1000 etc with a highly elongated shape that would penetrate and spear under water perhaps 150m. A shock hardened version of the two coil metal detector proximity fuse used in German torpedos post 1942 was to be fitted backed up by impact, time and probably depth fuses.

It was attractive because it could be used from jets and there were even plans to use it on the Me 163 as a pair of BT200 or BT400 under each wing.

There is no way you can use a torpedo from a jet travelling at full speed although torpedo release limits did improve massively.

The Germans did persist in using torpedo's but I think the focus was to be on night attacks. The Ju 188A3 below is carrying a FuG 200 Hohtenweil radar which was widely used on Fw 200 condors and Ju 290and could in theory carry out blind attacks at night You can see 3 aerials, the one in the centre was the transmit aerial and the ones splayed to the left and right are receive aerials. By alternately switching and comparing signals not only could the target be centred but its position could be accurately measured. The bigger aircraft had an array running along the wings to measure for targets out to side as it flew along.







The daylight use of torpedo bombing doesn't seem to have been attractive because it was downright dangerous if the ships had escort carriers around. A variant of the Fw 190D was being developed to carry a torpedo. The latter version of the aircraft probably could have moved at 400mph as sea level and maybe I imagine 10%-15% less (350mph) with. a big torpedo attached That at least gives it a chance to get to the target even if it needs to slow down to 180 knots (200 mph to release) plus the aircraft could of course attack with bombs and use the torpedo to finish of an damaged ship.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2021)

Acheron said:


> I got the impression that torpedo bombers had a harder time hitting a ship compared to dive bombers but if they did, they could deal more damage. *Maybe the explosive shock wave of a detonation is more powerful in water?*



It can be, it depends on the depth of the water. A bomb exploding on the surface (unlikely to explode at the exact surface) of the water has much of it's force dissipated into the air. Much more than 50% because the air offers a path of less resistance than the water does. As the bomb (or torpedo) explodes further beneath the surface more of the force goes into the surrounding water but a fair amount still goes up until you get deeper than most ship hulls. 

If the explosion takes place next to the ships hull much of the force is directed against the ships hull as that, depending on it's construction, is the path of least resistance for the explosion. 




Note the straight line of the lower edge of the armor plate. a torpedo exploding 15 ft below the surface is trying to lift about 960lbs of sea water per square foot of the explosion area. 

Water is technically incompressible but you can put it under a huge amount of pressure. It is not just the shock wave but the venting of the gases generated by the explosion. Which way is the fastest, easiest way for the gases to vent?

Please note that torpedoes for much of the war carried more explosives than common bombs. British 18 in aerial torpedo normally used 388lbs of TNT in the warhead. A British 1000lb GP bomb was around 330lbs of TNT, The 500lb SAP bomb used by the Skua held 90lbs of TNT. 

For the US the MK 13 aerial torpedo started with 401lbs of TNT and ended the war with 600lbs of Torpex. American GP bombs held about 50-52% of their weight in explosive. 
A near miss by a large bomb could be quite damaging but problem is what is meant by "near" a few hundred feet might as well be a mile. 

A single hit by a torpedo could let thousands of tons of water into a ship, and the water could flood vital compartments (like engine rooms or machinery spaces) while a bomb exploding on the deck or even two decks down on a large ship may not let any water into the ship directly. Fires, disruption of fire control equipment, damage to weapons and sighting systems and even damage to machinery could be done by bombs but the bombs needed to be suited somewhat to the ship. Small unarmored ships hit by 500lb Semi AP bombs might wind up with a 12-15in hole right through the ship with no explosion. the same bomb might not make it though the armored deck of a battleship.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 8, 2021)

I believe the saying goes...

"if you want to let a lot of air into a ship, bomb it, if you want to let a lot of water into a ship torpedo it". Or something like that.

According to Shattered Sword, one of the three bombs that were dropped at Akagi (1,000 pounders I believe), one pierced the either the edge of the flight deck or the gun gallery aft, kept going and exploded either under the rudder(s)/props or next to them. They theorize that the water hammer effect is what put the kibosh on the steering/propulsion and began flooding of the engineering spaces.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## K5083 (Jan 8, 2021)

Re the Channel Dash, there is no WW2 torpedo aircraft carrier- or land-based of which six could have successfully attacked that fleet in daytime against the whole of JG26 and more. Not Devastator, not Kate, Jill or Grace, not Avenger, Beaufort, Ju-88 or anything else you can think of. That was a suicide mission. It doesn't count as a black mark for Swordfish.

Swordfish, being so slow, had the option to approach higher and dive into its torpedo run, which did not need to be a long run with the RN torpedoes, unlike the Bliss-Leavitt in its early form.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Jan 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Swordfish had a range of 522 miles with normal fuel and carrying a torpedo. Devastator range was 435 miles with a Mk13 torpedo. Also note the Swordfish could have a long-range tank installed at the expense of the third crewman, which would further increase the range.
> 
> Based on these figures, it would seem the Swordfish was appropriate for the Pacific.



Which would give the Swordfish a combat radius of less than 250 miles - That is an inappropriate range for the Pacific. It's probably a lot less than than Japanese torpedo bombers - which would put a British carrier force at a disadvantage to a Japanese carrier force.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 8, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Which would give the Swordfish a combat radius of less than 250 miles - That is an inappropriate range for the Pacific. It's probably a lot less than than Japanese torpedo bombers - which would put a British carrier force at a disadvantage to a Japanese carrier force.



So the Devastator, with an even shorter range, is appropriate for the Pacific? 

The Kate had a range of 608 miles which isn't a tremendous advantage over the Swordfish...oh, and the Kate couldn't operate as effectively at night due to the lack of radar. Plus radar offers longer detection ranges in poorer weather conditions whereas the Kate capability rests on the "Mk.I Eyeball" enhanced by binoculars. Any Allied carrier force is only at a disadvantage if it is spotted first by the Japanese fleet. Operation of radar-equipped aircraft by the Allied carrier fleet would greatly reduce that risk. 

Bottom line is that the Swordfish with radar was a much more capable and dangerous torpedo platform than anything operated by the USN or IJN in mid-1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2021)

I have found a range carrying a torpedo for the Nakajima B5N2 of 528 nautical miles. Same source gives a range of 454 nautical miles with a torpedo for the Swordfish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Bottom line is that the Swordfish with radar was a much more capable and dangerous torpedo platform than anything operated by the USN or IJN in mid-1942.


I would agree with this with one proviso, adding "at night". I wouldn't give it much of a chance in a daylight attack on Kido Butai.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I would agree with this with one proviso, adding "at night". I wouldn't give it much of a chance in a daylight attack on Kido Butai.



With a heavy fighter escort they might have a chance. AA defence of the Japanese navy in 1942 wasn't particularly strong. Still going to have massive losses.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 8, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I would agree with this with one proviso, adding "at night". I wouldn't give it much of a chance in a daylight attack on Kido Butai.



Agreed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 8, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> With a heavy fighter escort they might have a chance. AA defence of the Japanese navy in 1942 wasn't particularly strong. Still going to have massive losses.



At night? How capable was the IJN fighter force at night operations? How would the IJN defensive fighters locate an attacking formation at night given that the IJN lacked radar and had virtually non-existent fighter control (the latter even in daylight)?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 8, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Which would give the Swordfish a combat radius of less than 250 miles - That is an inappropriate range for the Pacific. It's probably a lot less than than Japanese torpedo bombers - which would put a British carrier force at a disadvantage to a Japanese carrier force.



The Swordfish could carry a aux internal fuel tank or an aux external tank (in lieu of the torpedo), and this would extend the combat radius. However, as I've stated, it's a bit unfair to compare the Swordfish to the TBD, because the Swordfish had largely been replaced by the Albacore by Midway (June 1942) and both of Somerville's fleet carriers were equipped with Albacores. The Albacore could also carry internal and/or external aux fuel tanks.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> At night? How capable was the IJN fighter force at night operations? How would the IJN defensive fighters locate an attacking formation at night given that the IJN lacked radar and had virtually non-existent fighter control (the latter even in daylight)?



Sorry should have said daylight. Going to be a massacre but at least the torpedo would go bang

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 8, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Sorry should have said daylight. Going to be a massacre but at least the torpedo would go bang



Which is precisely why I was recommending the Swordfish operate at night, with the torpedo-carriers led by a radar-equipped Swordfish.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There are obviously many types of ship. A battleship like the Bismarck could withstand several hits by torpedo, on the armoured belt. Bismarck was hit 3 times, two damaged it but the third was a lucky strike that crippled the steering. Gneisenau took one repairable hit that gave it a 2 degree list. An Aircraft carrier can be in serious trouble with one bomb penetrating its decks while one bomb or torpedo can sink a freighter or oil tanker.


You can damage or cripple an aircraft carrier or battleship with dive bombers, but to sink them you need to let the water in, and that needs torpedoes. IIRC, no carrier was ever sunk by dive bombers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 9, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> You can damage or cripple an aircraft carrier or battleship with dive bombers, but to sink them you need to let the water in, and that needs torpedoes. IIRC, no carrier was ever sunk by dive bombers.


HMS Hermes (and several other ships) was sunk by D3As on 9 April 1942.
IJN Ryujo by SBDs on 24 August 1942.
USS St. Lo was sunk on 25 October 1944 by an A6M2 Kamikaze that dove on it, the 1,000 pound bomb penetrating belowdecks. Not a dedicated dive-bomber, granted, but the execution and results are comparable.
IJN Zuiho's loss on 24 October 1944 was credited to attacks by SB2Cs.

Also, if a carrier is damaged beyond saving by dive-bomber and has to be scuttled as a result, which happened to a quite a few carriers during the course of the war, then they have accomplished their objective.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2021)

*Explosive Forming*
Explosive Forming - EngineeringClicks 


Explosive forming is an ideal process for producing low volumes of very large metal part with low tooling costs
Sometimes called "explosive hydroforming", a workpiece and explosive is placed in a tank of water. Detonation of the explosive forces the workpiece to assume the shape of the tool

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 9, 2021)

Earth moving machinery has explosive formed teeth on the buckets and blades.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2021)

I used to inspect pipes made from explosively bonded plate. The plates were bonded in a cave in Switzerland, every explosion dislodged stones from the cave roof and any stone in the sand bed used for the next explosion produced massive defects. Explosive Bonding | NobelClad


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> You can damage or cripple an aircraft carrier or battleship with dive bombers, but to sink them you need to let the water in, and that needs torpedoes. IIRC, no carrier was ever sunk by dive bombers.


As with aircraft which can be shot down with a single rifle bullet but can also limp home with many pieces of the structure missing, some lucky hits could render a battleship useless but it could take a huge amount of hits to actually sink them. With the water tight doors and compartmentalised construction it needed a lot of holes to let enough water in to get them to sink and you could blast the superstructure to pieces. Bismarck took 4 or 5 torpedo hits and about 400 shells to its structure before it was scuttled. Tirpitz was hit by a tallboy and didn't sink.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As with aircraft which can be shot down with a single rifle bullet but can also limp home with many pieces of the structure missing, some lucky hits could render a battleship useless but it could take a huge amount of hits to actually sink them. With the water tight doors and compartmentalised construction it needed a lot of holes to let enough water in to get them to sink and you could blast the superstructure to pieces. Bismarck took 4 or 5 torpedo hits and about 400 shells to its structure before it was scuttled. Tirpitz was hit by a tallboy and didn't sink.


Don't forget the scourging that Yamato received.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2021)

After the Battle of Jutland from gun fire, SMS Seydlitz
e

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Jan 9, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Swordfish was due to be replaced as a frontline carrier strike aircraft in 1939/40 by the Albacore, and was largely replaced by the Albacore by late 1941, and the Albacore, in turn, was due to be replaced by the Barracuda by 1941/42. Consequently it's a bit incorrect to compare the TBD to the Swordfish, however, the big advantage the Swordfish had over the TBD was it's versatility and it's ability to carry a wide variety of sensors, ordnance loads and auxiliary fuel tanks. Finally it was fully capable of dive bombing and could even release a torpedo after a dive bomb attack profile, where the TBD was structurally incapable of a DB attack profile.
> 
> Hypothetically, if the Swordfish replaced the TBD at Midway, they would have been launched well before dawn and been out scouting for the IJN via their ASV radar in total darkness, to hopefully make a night attack to avoid IJN CAP. If they had to be launched for a daylight attack, they could be outfitted with bombs (2 x 500lb and 2 x 250lb would be typical) to augment the SBD DB attacks, or they could retain torpedoes but approach at medium altitude and use a DB attack profile, to help evade flak and increase the probability of surprise.
> 
> On paper the Swordfish is much slower than the TBD, but in service the TBD was much slower than it's oft reported speeds and so it really wasn't that much faster than the Swordfish.



The Swordfish was nicknamed "String Bag" because you could put anything in it.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 9, 2021)

They called a string bag because was a cloth covered airplane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 9, 2021)

Milosh said:


> After the Battle of Jutland from gun fire, SMS Seydlitz
> e
> View attachment 608434


I was always amazed at that photo - she's underway with less than 10 feet between the surface and her freeboard.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I was always amazed at that photo - she's underway with less than 10 feet between the surface and her freeboard.



Would say much less than 10 ft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jan 10, 2021)

Elvis said:


> They called a string bag because was a cloth covered airplane.


I'm afraid that's one for the myths thread, Wingnuts is right, it's because you could put anything in it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 10, 2021)

Elvis said:


> They called a string bag because was a cloth covered airplane.



A very common shopping bag of the time was made of string netting like a fishing net. It was a very useful piece of kit when empty it collapsed down to the size of the palm of your hand but when filled with shopping it could take items like loaves of bread, quarts of milk and bags of fruit. I remember my mother coming home from a trip to the shops once with a giant hand of Bananas in her string bag. We ate bananas till we were sick of them.

The Stringbag was so called because it could carry everything thrown at it. There's a story I read about a Swordfish landing at an airbase at a time when jets ruled the skies. The pilot taxied up to the hangar climbed out unstrapped his bicycle from the centre section rack and pedalled off to the railway station to catch a train.

To modern eyes it looks crazy that it was still in use in 1945 but we should think of it more as filling the role of a Helicopter.

Among carrier aircraft only the Aichi D3 Val sank more vessels in the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 10, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Would say much less than 10 ft.
> View attachment 608438


One thing is clear from the German language captions on those pictures, the Germans referred to the Battle of Jutland as the Battle Of Skagerraeck. (Skagerraek Schlacht). German Battleships had a lot of compartmentalisation. It's worth considering how important her mobility (steering & engines) was to her being able to return.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 10, 2021)

I was looking up the cruising speed of the Devastator and Swordfish and both have been quoted at 128mph. Does anyone have a definitive figure for them? Given that an attack at probable ranges involves flying the approach at cruising speed and the final attack at torpedo release speed it appears that the Devastator is little faster in actual use than a Swordfish. Both are of the same era with similar operational performances.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 10, 2021)

yulzari said:


> I was looking up the cruising speed of the Devastator and Swordfish and both have been quoted at 128mph. Does anyone have a definitive figure for them? Given that an attack at probable ranges involves flying the approach at cruising speed and the final attack at torpedo release speed it appears that the Devastator is little faster in actual use than a Swordfish. Both are of the same era with similar operational performances.



IIRC, at Midway the TBDs were cruising at 105 knots (probably IAS) at ~2000ft, according to Lundstrom. Swordfish cruise would be lower at 85-90 knots (IAS) but at higher altitude.


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 11, 2021)

128 mph was (I think) the maximum continuous rich cruise for the Swordfish.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 11, 2021)

Data sheet figures (mph) -- maximum, max rich, max econ, loiter:

Swordfish I (floats): 128, 115, 110, --
Swordfish I (shipplane): 138, 125, 105, --
Swordfish I (recce): 143, 137, 93, 83
Swordfish I (torpedo): 139, 129, 104, 91

EDIT: all speeds at 5,000 ft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> You can damage or cripple an aircraft carrier or battleship with dive bombers, but to sink them you need to let the water in, and that needs torpedoes. IIRC, no carrier was ever sunk by dive bombers.


I would argue four of them at Midway. Yes they were given the coup de grace by IJN torpedo but that was just to expedite their demise so the remaining units could clear the area.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 11, 2021)

Ascent said:


> I'm afraid that's one for the myths thread, Wingnuts is right, it's because you could put anything in it.


Better than Applecore, being just a play on words I assume. I can just imagine what the flyboys thought of Tarpon.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The lack of success of the Devastator is down to the circumstances. Swap in a Swordfish attacking the Japanese fleet and the results would be exactly the same. Look up Channel Dash as to how successful the Swordfish was in similar circumstances.
> 
> Plus there's the fact that the Devastator was a 1st generation monoplane and was a primitive underpowered death trap t*hat had the manoeuvrability of a cathedral*. The Swordfish was for a Biplane pretty sophisticated but was still an underpowered death trap.
> 
> Most if not all the Swordfish successes occurred in foul weather or night time when it didn't matter how slow you were if nobody could see you.



OMFG.... this is epic. Hilarious. I love this forum. I literally laughed out loud, hard....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## unkated (Jan 14, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I’d also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it’s not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It’s a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.



In addition to the other comments, I would suggest that the strike against the Kido Butai was anything but a team effort a there was little coordinated about the strike or rather strikes, as American air attack arrived a single squadrons or groups from Midway or the carriers at random. The DB squadrons luckily having missed the KB flying out, and following a DD headed somewhere in a hurry, arrived about the time the 3rd Devastator squadron was being finished off. Luck, not planning.

I seem to remember reading in _Shattered Sword_ that at least one torpedo launched by a Devastator hit a carrier, but failed to explode. I cannot help but wonder how at least one hit on a Japanese carrier at Midway would have aided the opinion of the Devastator.

Uncle Ted

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

yulzari said:


> The real comparison is between cruising speeds. The sortie is usually at some range and the target approached at cruising speed. For bombing maximum speed can be used but for a torpedo run the speed is limited to that at which the torpedo can be launched.



This - I'm enjoying the discussion, one thing I think deserves a much closer look is the set of properties of the different torpedoes. This goes way beyond the issues with the US torpedo in the first half of the war. I remember going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole on this once, and I was struck by the very wide differences in terms of performance of the torpedoes - such as:

Maximum height for drop
Maximum speed for drop
Torpedo speed
Torpedo range
Torpedo warhead size
Other / extra properties of torpedo

Perhaps someone can give us a full breakdown by nation and year, and I hope I will be forgiven for speaking in vague generalities. But there is a _huge_ difference in the tactical capabilities of a torpedo which has to be dropped from 100' going 90 mph vs one that can be dropped from 300' going 200 mph. The former makes the attacking aircraft far more vulnerable to flak etc. My memory of this is again vague since I tend to be more interested in fighters generally speaking, but vaguely I remember that aside from all the other problems, the early USN torpedo (mk 13?) was one of those which had to be dropped reaaaaly low and slow, whereas the Japanese had one that could be dropped from much higher and faster. I think the French had a good one and so did the Germans. I think the British one was good too. The Italians had the 'motobomba' or whatever they called it, which could be dropped either in front of or amidst a fleet of ships and would circle around in spirals until it hit something, which was quite innovative (and was considered very effective, IIRC). I can't remember specifics of the Russian air-launched torpedos but I know they used some to good effect (albeit with many casualties) in the Baltic using A-20s and maybe Il-4s.

There was also a significant difference in range, torpedo speed and payload if I remember right. Didn't the long lance (or it's air-dropped equivalent) have a range of like 10,000 yards? But aside from the issues like running too deep or failing to detonate, launching parameters are perhaps among the most important factors. A good or great torpedo bomber is only as good as the weapon it launches...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> And those torpedoes seemed to work a few weeks earlier at the Coral Sea action.



I believe those were a different model. They replaced them with the non-functional ones.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You can replace the Devastator with any other torpedo type--Swordfish, Avenger etc.--and you'll get broadly similar results as happened at Midway. The only difference would be the amount of punishment a particular airframe could take.
> 
> I have to ask, though, what's the point of taking an airframe with capabilities that the Devastator didn't have, and then constraining its use by employing it in the same daylight conditions as the Devastators? No operational user would deliberately ignore a platform's key strengths and operate it at a tactical disadvantage. If the USN had a radar-equipped torpedo aircraft in June 1942, surely they'd have used it at night to increase the odds of success...or am I missing something?



I thought there were actually 5 Avengers plus some B-26 Marauaders at Midway


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Torpedo bombing against ships protected by fighters sounds like a terrible idea unless protected by a strong fighter force which will fail on occasion. I wonder when it was realised it was a bad idea. The Germans seem to have almost given up on the idea and preferred to aim a time delayed bomb at the ships waterline to try and blow up beneath it. Except for night attack they were developing a Fw 190D variant that could carry a torpedo by virtue of an extended tail yoke.



I seem to remember the Germans using torpedos from Ju-88 and He 111 in the Med a fair amount, and of course the Italians used them from (rather antiquated) SM. 79 and CANT bombers quite effectively, albeit with fairly heavy losses.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> Tell that to the convoy guys going to Murmansk or in the Med.



Exactly. Or to Axis shipping in the Med. I think he's forgetting about land based torpedo bombers too.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Or you take the RN's approach, fully developed by mid-1942, of pairing radar-equipped and torpedo-carrying Swordfish and operating them at night. AFAIK, the IJN didn't have any effective means of operating fighters at night from their carriers.
> 
> The Swordfish was anachronistic and absolutely a sitting duck in daylight ops. However, at night against an adversary that lacked radar, it would have been a difficult target to locate and engage. Just look at the results from Taranto which had decent-ish AAA and barrage balloons, and yet only 2 Swordfish were lost.



The addition of radar to the Swordfish was absolutely a stroke of genius, especially given the fact that the airframe could fly around with that radar and score torpedo hits. It gave the aircraft 'legs' as a weapon and put a very effective tool in the hands of Royal Navy leaders. The ability to attack at night in (air to surface) naval combat was remarkable.

However, there were limits. The Swordfish had a pretty bad range for a naval strike aircraft at around 500 miles (though I think the Devastator was even worse). TBF was a bit better (around 900 miles), but for places like the Med or Pacific what was really needed more were land based strike aircraft. To use one of these carrier based torpedo bombers in action they had to get a highly vulnerable aircraft carrier probably within 100 miles of enemy ships, and very likely within strike range of enemy aircraft. Given the level of naval fighter protection in the early war that was a big risk as we know, just look at the attrition rate of US carriers in the PTO and British carriers in the Med. By comparison to the Torpedo bombers though, the SBD had almost double the range of the Swordfish (1,000 miles). That, in combination with the fact that it was a fairly tough, maneuverable plane with a high combat survival ratio, makes it a weapon more likely to be used.

For comparison the B5N is listed by Wikipedia at 600 miles / 1,000 km (also not very good), the B6N a much more respectable 1,000 miles / 1,700 km but not that many were made. And in terms of attrition, not much protection. B7N of course was badass but barely made it into combat.

The PBY had a range more like 2,500 miles and it is the only aircraft to score a torpedo hit at Midway. They proved pretty effective at night attacks around Guadalcanal. 

Beaufighter had a range of 1,700 miles, G4M 'Betty' (which sunk Prince of Wales and Repulse with torpedoes) of 1,700 miles, SM. 79 of 1,600 miles, CANT Z.1007 of 1,100 miles, CANT Z.506 1,200 miles, Ju 88 1,500 miles. So if you are talking about doing raids from a land based field (or a float plane lagoon) like around Midway, land based torpedo bombers are far more lethal. Some of these like the Beaufighter were in fact fitted with radars and used at night. I know they put radar on Ju 88s for use as nightfighter but not sure if they did night-time strikes with them.

I know ranges for land based planes are not necessarily with a torpedo load, and strike ranges are probably 1/4 or 1/5 of the above in all cases, but it gives you a ball park idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Albacores could have also flown a similar dive bomber attack profile to the SBDs, with an even bigger bomb load.



I don't think Albacores would have held up well to attacks by Zeros lol

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

For my $.02 though, on the comparison between the Devastator and the Swordfish, I'd go with the Swordfish. It actually has better range and maneuverability and the radar and night flying capacity is a big deal. I think also probably easier maintenance and better handling / flight safety.

Once TBF Avenger are available though I think wave goodbye to the Swordfish at least as the frontline TB option (maybe keep some for night ops).


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 14, 2021)

A PDF of British and U.S. torpedo development here upon request....https://www.researchgate.net/public...omplex_in_the_United_States_and_Great_Britain

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jan 14, 2021)

This is a very long string so I might have replied before...

Anyway:

Starting with Flight Journal (1996) back when it actually paid authors, I began a campaign to rehabilitate the TBD almost in the Stalinist sense. It was a two-front war involving the Brewster Buffalo as well. The things they had in common: both were first-generation carrier monoplanes and both were/are known almost solely for one disastrous mission each.

Sadly, far too much of what We "know" about the TBD lingers from the Sole Survivor (who wasn't.) But comparing the TBD to the Swordfish is an exercise in futility. Other than both being mid-30s carrier designs, they had almost nothing in common operationally. For starters, nearly 20 Stringbags were built for each Devastator. Then the S/F operated almost wholly in what today is called a Permissive Environment (very very little fighter opposition) hence its longevity.

Fact is (and I stressed the point in my Osprey TBD book), despite the so-called "suicide coffin" of internet wisdom, NO TBDS WERE LOST IN FLIGHT TO ENEMY ACTION IN THE SIX MONTHS AFTER PEARL HARBOR, up to the morning of 4 June. 

Somewhere I also have a side by side comparison of the vaunted B5N "Kate" with TBDs in the same battles, and the overall attrition was roughly comparable, with the Nakajima having the edge.

Just FWIW.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 14, 2021)

....and if you are really into torpedoes, a 580 page book for purchase

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

Any chance for a summary?


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Any chance for a summary?


Added the contents


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2021)

Wiki gives the endurance of a Swordfish as 5 hours, that his a long time to be looking at a radar set on a bi plane.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 14, 2021)

From Stanford University...A Brief History of U.S. Navy Torpedo Development...152 pages

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/hernandez2/docs/TorpDevel-Usn-JolieNusc1978.pdf

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 14, 2021)

From the Montana State University...DAMN THE TORPEDOES: THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND UNDERSEA WARFAREIN WORLD WAR II...334 pages

https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/12808/SimsG0517.pdf?sequence=4


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Wiki gives the endurance of a Swordfish as 5 hours, that his a long time to be looking at a radar set on a bi plane.


How about the radar guy at the other end? How do you find string with a radar?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> How about the radar guy at the other end? How do you find string with a radar?


Very easily I would think if it has a big round engine, metal landing gear, a torpedo and lots of metal wire holding it together, radar found strips of aluminium very easily. I don't know how the rigging wires of a bi plane interact with RADAR, I suspect they would make a big blob on the screen.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 14, 2021)

I dont realley know. But this being 1940-45 i somehow doubt they would get a good spike. Specially at the hights it was flying. Radar at the time did not find alu strips. The strips found it. Masses of them, precisly cut for the wave lenght of the german radar. Not 1 but tonnes where dropped. On specific locations.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> I dont realley know. But this being 1940-45 i somehow doubt they would get a good spike. Specially at the hights it was flying. Radar at the time did not find alu strips. The strips found it. Masses of them, precisly cut for the wave lenght of the german radar. Not 1 but tonnes where dropped. On specific locations.


I know, but I was only speaking from a theoretical POV. I have no idea about radar but in ultrasonics the maximum detectable individual reflector is half a wave length in cross section. However if you have lots of small reflectors near each other the sound bounces and reflects between them so a group of gas pores together can be detected even though non of them individually can be. On stuff like stainless steel the grain boundaries can be impossible to penetrate not because any are too large but because all together they make a wall you cant "see" through.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> ....and if you are really into torpedoes, a 580 page book for purchase
> 
> View attachment 608922
> 
> ...



Ha! That book (as is typical) doesn't go nearly far back enough. Lol.


----------



## wingnuts (Jan 15, 2021)

Elvis said:


> They called a string bag because was a cloth covered airplane.


The RAF and Fleet Air Arm operated a lot of "cloth covered" aircraft, only the Swordfish was called the Stringbag. 

What the Stringbag lacked in speed it made up for in the multiplicity of armament and equipment it could carry, arguably more than any other aircraft: torpedoes, bombs, mines, flares, Air-to-Surface Vessel (ASV) radar, Leigh Lights (20-million-candlepower spotlights powered by a 300-pound battery), rocket-assisted-takeoff units (RATO) and rocket projectiles (on a fabric-covered plane!). Brown described taking off loaded with a Leigh Light, torpedo and eight anti-submarine bombs: “There was really no logical reason why it should ever have flown with this mass of stores, but fly it did.” 

Fairey Swordfish: The Glorious “Stringbag”

The Fairey *Swordfish* was a medium-sized biplane torpedo bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. ... In service, it received the nickname *Stringbag*; this was not due to its biplane struts, spars, and braces, but a reference to the seemingly endless variety of stores and equipment that the type was cleared to carry. 

Fairey Swordfish - Wikipedia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I don't think Albacores would have held up well to attacks by Zeros lol



The SBDs, at Midway, were not intercepted before before they began their attack. Albacores, carrying bombs or torpedoes, could have flown a very similar attack profile.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 15, 2021)

Not to put too fine a point on things but while it's true the morning SBD attack wasn't harassed by Zeros, the late afternoon strike on Hiryu was. Zeros intercepted the Dauntlesses and even followed them down on their attack runs, to no avail obviously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 15, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to put too fine a point on things but while it's true the morning SBD attack wasn't harassed by Zeros, the late afternoon strike on Hiryu was. Zeros intercepted the Dauntlesses and even followed them down on their attack runs, to no avail obviously.


The IJN was surprised prior to the SBD strike on Hiryu as well, with only a few minutes warning prior to the SBD attack dive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The IJN was surprised prior to the SBD strike on Hiryu as well, with only a few minutes warning prior to the SBD attack dive.



It's also the case that those same SBD squadrons had encountered zeros several times prior to Midway, both on scouting and bombing missions, and had mostly managed to survive the encounters. Even as emergency fighters though they were definitely not suited for that (and they lost several planes in that role).

I don't think Swordfish or Albacore equipped units would have survived getting bounced by Zeros or Oscars, or even Japanese floatplane fighters like Misubishi F1M 'Pete's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

It gets back to the whole 'permissive environment' issue. That said, at night it would still be a permissive environment. 

As for the versatility, that seemed to be the case with a lot of torpedo bombers and also float planes as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> It's also the case that those same SBD squadrons had encountered zeros several times prior to Midway, both on scouting and bombing missions, and had mostly managed to survive the encounters. Even as emergency fighters though they were definitely not suited for that (and they lost several planes in that role).
> 
> I don't think Swordfish or Albacore equipped units would have survived getting bounced by Zeros or Oscars, or even Japanese floatplane fighters like Misubishi F1M 'Pete's.


What we're discussing is not the SBD vs Albacore but the TBD vs Albacore. My point is that the Albacore can fly an SBD attack profile which will reduce the probability of interception prior to the strike and during the attack phase the Albacore can use a very steep dive to limit fighter interception and reduce flak accuracy.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> What we're discussing is not the SBD vs Albacore but the TBD vs Albacore. My point is that the Albacore can fly an SBD attack profile which will reduce the probability of interception prior to the strike and during the attack phase the Albacore can use a very steep dive to limit fighter interception and reduce flak accuracy.



Maybe once, or twice, but eventually those slow, vulnerable planes will run into fighters. The comparison is similar to the notion of an SBD carrying a torpedo but not being able to land with one - it's not realistically feasible. The Albacore, Swordfish and TBD were _all_ basically sitting ducks to a real fighter, or even a semi-fighter like an F1M. I think this is especially true for the hypermanueverable Japanese aircraft which could easily slow down to biplane speeds and tear them up. SBD not so much - it had the combination of factors which enabled it to survive such encounters, and even score air to air victories over Japanese bombers and recon aircraft. The Pacific Theater was not a 'permissive' environment in the sense of fighter opposition. 

One thing occurred to me, from what I understand the TBD did not have self-sealing fuel tanks, which was a big problem. Is that true? Did the Swordfish or Albacore have them? The SBD did.

However, Swordfish being able to hit targets at night could have been very useful for example at Guadalcanal when the Japanese night attacks, bombardment sorties and supply runs were coming in. I think that was a real asset, even with the limited range. And I'll grant you, being able to use Albacore's as dive bombers makes them a bit more useful there as well. Ultimately they adapted the PBY for this same mission. I just can't really envision the Swordfish or the Albacore operating effectively during daylight hours anywhere near Japanese fighters, and given the fact that they (Japanese fighter aircraft) had two or three times the range, that put serious limits on the feasibility of their use, at least during the day. 


I think in general, a carrier launched torpedo bomber was a very difficult design problem to solve in WW2, and the effective designs really didn't seem to emerge until near the end of the war (too late to play any significant role) and the beginning of the jet age when even promising designs like the B7N, Douglas BTD, Mrtin AM Mauler, or A1 Skyraider were rapidly becoming obsolescent (even if they did still find a role for the AD / A1 ). In the late 30's or even early 40's, it was barely possible to design such an aircraft and nobody fully rose to the challenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Maybe once, or twice, but eventually those slow, vulnerable planes will run into fighters. The comparison is similar to the notion of an SBD carrying a torpedo but not being able to land with one - it's not realistically feasible. The Albacore, Swordfish and TBD were _all_ basically sitting ducks to a real fighter, or even a semi-fighter like an F1M. I think this is especially true for the hypermanueverable Japanese aircraft which could easily slow down to biplane speeds and tear them up. SBD not so much - it had the combination of factors which enabled it to survive such encounters, and even score air to air victories over Japanese bombers and recon aircraft. The Pacific Theater was not a 'permissive' environment in the sense of fighter opposition.
> 
> One thing occurred to me, from what I understand the TBD did not have self-sealing fuel tanks, which was a big problem. Is that true? Did the Swordfish or Albacore have them? The SBD did.
> 
> ...



I don't think there's any doubt that the Albacore was very vulnerable to fighters, but again the question is whether it was less so than the TBD. I think it was less vulnerable because it had more freedom to use higher altitude during the approach phase to avoid interception and being fully stressed for dive bombing it could use extreme manoeuvres that the TBD simply wasn't stressed for. The Albacore did have SS tanks and pilot armour. It's probable that the lack of SS tanks was a factor in some of the TBD losses, especially after the Zeros ran out of 20mm ammo. 

On 5 April 1942, two recon Albacores were separately intercepted by Zeros, One was shot down but the other escaped by essentially out manoeuvring the intercepting Zero during a lengthy encounter.

The Barracuda was marred by late development and the high wing design (forced upon Fairey by FAA observer visibility requirements), The high wing forced the use of massively heavy and draggy LG and marred the airflow to the tail, causing handling problems. The SB2C-3/4/5 was an excellent combined TB/DB and there were calls to beach the TBF/TBM from USN fleet carriers after the SBC-3/4/5 arrived along with a quick DB to TB conversion kit.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

The Albacore was more flexible (able to dive bomb) and probably safer to fly than the TBD. Had better range, had the potential for radar and therefore night-ops, was almost certainly more maneuverable (not the most acrobatic biplane apparently but nothing like a 'cathedral' hahahahaha), and was stressed for high G turns albeit at very slow speed. So no argument there. But the vulnerability to fighters is a big problem in the Pacific, a 50% loss rate in one encounter is nothing to brag about, and isn't viable for carrier ops in that environment. And ultimately pilots actually preferred the Swordfish

The Barracuda was another disaster on so many levels, apparrently for the most part killed in the pre-design specs phase. I often wondered if this was the main issue with all the FAA designs, naval battleship officers just couldn't get their head around aviation. The SB2C probably _would_ have been a good aircraft if the length hadn't been limited by aircraft carrier elevators and if Curtiss aircraft wasn't having so much trouble. If you lengthened the fuselage by 3' it would have been a good overall design, maybe they could have also fit some more fuel in it. They still did pretty well with it and compensated for some of the problems, but you can see the design flaw just looking at it in profile.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

SB2C was kind of a typical mid-war US design of the school that "If you can't make a proper normal sized aircraft, make one twice as big as normal with a huge radial engine and jam it through ...." and while in the case of the F6F, TBF, F4U and P-47 they more or less pulled it off, in this case they didn't. Probably the internal bay big enough for a torpedo was the "bridge too far"

Trying to jam too many roles in the multi-role design is another chronic problem with American designs, see F-111, F-35...


----------



## Elvis (Jan 15, 2021)

Not to skew my own thread, but at this point.....anyway....

I think there were a few mentions earlier on, that the Albacore was superior to the Avenger, but was it really _that_ much better?

...apologies if I'm misquoting.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

Elvis said:


> Not to skew my own thread, but at this point.....anyway....
> 
> I think there were a few mentions earlier on, that the Albacore was superior to the Avenger, but was it really _that_ much better?
> 
> ...apologies if I'm misquoting.



I really don't think it was...
*
Stat-------------------------TBF ------------------------------ Albacore*
Level speed----------------278 mph------------------------- 169 mph
Cruise speed---------------215 mph------------------------- 140 mph
Range----------------------905 miles------------------------ 710 mph
Bomb load-----------------2,000 lbs------------------------- 2,000 lbs
Offensive Guns------------ 1 x .50"-------------------------- 1 x .30"
Defensive Guns------------1 x .50, 1 x .30------------------- 1 x .30"
Rockets---------------------Yes------------------------------- No (?)
Mines-----------------------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Radar-----------------------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Operate from CVL---------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Sunk IJN Capitol ships-----Yes------------------------------- No
ASW------------------------Yes------------------------------- (Not really)

The Albacore could dive-bomb, but had a significantly shorter range and half the speed of the Avenger. And the SBD was a much better dive bomber anyway. The Avenger wasn't a great air to air combat aircraft but it had a better survival record in the Pacific. They eventually fitted them with rockets for the 'attack' role. I think the only real advantage the Albacore had was being smaller. Maybe easier maintenance though the Taurus didn't have a good rep.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> One thing occurred to me, from what I understand the TBD did not have self-sealing fuel tanks, which was a big problem. Is that true? Did the Swordfish or Albacore have them? The SBD did.


FWIW the Swordfish rear cockpit mounted overload tank came with a bag of corks so that the navigator could plug up any bullet holes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

I remember reading something similar about the Skua, in which the fuel tank was in front of the crewman. yikes.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Maybe easier maintenance though the Taurus didn't have a good rep.



By the time of 1942 the Taurus had been sorted and doesnt seem to have had many reliability problems. I think its problem was it was damned by its early reputation in service with the Beaufort when it was justifiably an awful engine.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I really don't think it was...
> 
> *Stat-------------------------TBF ------------------------------ Albacore*
> Level speed----------------278 mph------------------------- 169 mph
> ...



I don't think there were any prior comparisons of the TBF and Albacore, in this thread anyways. I think someone misread TBD as TBF.

In any event USN SAC TBF-1 performance data states a Vmax of 257mph at 12k ft (military power) with a MK13 torpedo and ~262mph clean (military power, full fuel, no bombs or torpedo). Boscombe Down testing showed 252mph at 4200 ft (with ~2000lb internal ordnance).

FAA stats* for the Albacore (Taurus XII) was Vmax of 140 knots (161mph) at 4500ft with a torpedo and 280IG of internal fuel. Range (with allowance for climb) was 809nm at 101knots.

Boscombe Down testing showed (Taurus II) with four 500lb DC as 160mph at 4800ft and 172mph clean.

* Friedman, _*British Carrier Aviation*_.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

Even if you nudge the TBF speed down to 250 and nudge Albacore up to 160, (and if I wanted to spend the effort I think we could find many other data points to further complicate this) it still looks pretty bad in comparison, at least to me. Not only is that top speed and cruise speed very low, but I don't think it could go very fast even in a dive. It was obsolete before they even made it. As was the Swordfish and the TBD to be honest. Yes they were 1930's designs but so was the Spiftire, Me 109, Curtiss Hawk, SBD etc. 

We can read about the many endearingly ingenious and clever ways they worked around the problems, and the courage of the flight crews who accomplished some successes in spite of the crippling flaws is quite admirable, but the truth is these were seriously flawed designs from the minute they were drafted in blueprint, and in many cases even before that, at the spec level. That was a big problem for those brave crews.

Also I suspect 'Stringbag' had a double meaning. It was versatile but the fact that it was basically made of canvas and wires stood out more and more as the war progressed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

I don't mean to put a damper on all the clever things they came up with to make them more effective though, it's really fun reading about them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Even if you nudge the TBF speed down to 250 and nudge Albacore up to 160, (and if I wanted to spend the effort I think we could find many other data points to further complicate this) it still looks pretty bad in comparison, at least to me. Not only is that top speed and cruise speed very low, but I don't think it could go very fast even in a dive. It was obsolete before they even made it. As was the Swordfish and the TBD to be honest. Yes they were 1930's designs but so was the Spiftire, Me 109, Curtiss Hawk, SBD etc.
> 
> We can read about the many endearingly ingenious and clever ways they worked around the problems, and the courage of the flight crews who accomplished some successes in spite of the crippling flaws is quite admirable, but the truth is these were seriously flawed designs from the minute they were drafted in blueprint, and in many cases even before that, at the spec level. That was a big problem for those brave crews.
> 
> Also I suspect 'Stringbag' had a double meaning. It was versatile but the fact that it was basically made of canvas and wires stood out more and more as the war progressed.



VNE on an Albacore was 215 knots IAS and it seems that exceeding 200 knots was likely in a steep dive. 

I provided the Boscombe Down measured speeds for both aircraft, but as I stated, AFAIK (and I searched the thread) there were no prior comparisons between the Albacore and TBF. As had been discussed in prior threads The FAA needed aircraft that had good STOL characteristics to operate off the RN's older, slower, carriers with their shorter flight decks. The TBD and even the B5N2 would not have met FAA requirements due to their poor STOL characteristics and probably not the SBD-2/3 either.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I really don't think it was..


I agree.
Thanks for posting that A-B listing of performance stats, too.
I obviously misread/misremembered those posts.
Thank you for setting the record straight.

Elvis


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> VNE on an Albacore was 215 knots IAS and it seems that exceeding 200 knots was likely in a steep dive.
> 
> I provided the Boscombe Down measured speeds for both aircraft, but as I stated, AFAIK (and I searched the thread) there were no prior comparisons between the Albacore and TBF. As had been discussed in prior threads The FAA needed aircraft that had good STOL characteristics to operate off the RN's older, slower, carriers with their shorter flight decks. The TBD and even the B5N2 would not have met FAA requirements due to their poor STOL characteristics and probably not the SBD-2/3 either.



I don't know if that makes sense, US had some quite small CVE etc., and they were flying TBFs. Kinda hard to believe if you've ever seen one (they are the size of a bus) but they did. 

Fixed undercarriage, low speed biplane like the Albacore would have been impressive in 1918, in 1942 it was a joke.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2021)

Elvis said:


> I agree.
> Thanks for posting that A-B listing of performance stats, too.
> I obviously misread/misremembered those posts.
> Thank you for setting the record straight.
> ...



You might have been thinking Swordfish - Devastator which is a much closer match.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I don't know if that makes sense, US had some quite small CVE etc., and they were flying TBFs. Kinda hard to believe if you've ever seen one (they are the size of a bus) but they did.
> 
> Fixed undercarriage, low speed biplane like the Albacore would have been impressive in 1918, in 1942 it was a joke.



There were no CVEs until 1941. TBFs used catapults to launch from USN CVEs. RN CVEs without catapults needed aircraft with superior STOL performance.

Anyways, the TBF didn't operate from carriers until July 1942, IIRC, and the Albacore was clearly superior to the TBD, in most respects.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 15, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The Albacore was more flexible (able to dive bomb) and probably safer to fly than the TBD. Had better range, had the potential for radar and therefore night-ops, was almost certainly more manoeuvrable (not the most acrobatic biplane apparently but nothing like a 'cathedral' hahahahaha), and was stressed for high G turns albeit at very slow speed. So no argument there. But the vulnerability to fighters is a big problem in the Pacific, a 50% loss rate in one encounter is nothing to brag about, and isn't viable for carrier ops in that environment. And ultimately pilots actually preferred the Swordfish
> 
> The Barracuda was another disaster on so many levels, apparently for the most part killed in the pre-design specs phase. I often wondered if this was the main issue with all the FAA designs, naval battleship officers just couldn't get their head around aviation. The SB2C probably _would_ have been a good aircraft if the length hadn't been limited by aircraft carrier elevators and if Curtiss aircraft wasn't having so much trouble. If you lengthened the fuselage by 3' it would have been a good overall design, maybe they could have also fit some more fuel in it. They still did pretty well with it and compensated for some of the problems, but you can see the design flaw just looking at it in profile.
> 
> View attachment 609041


"The SB2C probably _would_ have been a good aircraft if the length hadn't been limited by aircraft carrier elevators and if Curtiss aircraft wasn't having so much trouble. If you lengthened the fuselage by 3' it would have been a good overall design"

Its pretty hard to eliminate the problems created by not having a long enough tail moment arm except with fly by wire or some kind of pitch/yaw damper.. Curtiss clearly tried with a big tail area. It's not the first aircraft to suffer this problem, the Me 210 springs to mind. They tried everything slats, wing twist, bigger tail area. Non of these worked. There were many others. A little bit of wing sweep can help pitching characteristics and slats can help as well but neither do much for lateral stability.

Where did the reference to the 3 inch increase in tail length come from?


----------



## yulzari (Jan 16, 2021)

As the Grumman Tarpon has been mentioned, I took a quick look at it and the Fairey Battle. Similar in size but the Tarpon has a 70% more powerful engine which allowed for a 7,000kg loaded weight over 5,000kg for the Battle. Bung the Tarpon engine onto a Battle (and engine test bed Battles did carry more powerful engines) then The Battle could carry the extra weight of the features that the Tarpon did and a similar war load.

My point is that operational comparisons have to include the overall environment. Both Battles and Tarpons need a permissive environment of either a fighter escort or absent enemy fighters to deliver their weapons. In the case of the Swordfish in the OP a night operation is an option the Devastator did not easily have. Both would be shot down by enemy fighters if found in daylight. The Grumman Tarpon was a successful aeroplane but part of it's success was that it went into the bulk of it's service when the USN could provide fighter escort and the IJN was declining in effectiveness. Rivet counters ignore context. Overall I think that the Swordfish gave a better chance of success (and that the Albacore was a substantial step up) over the Devastator but the rivet counters are too busy looking at the minutiae of performance figures to see the context. Later what the Swordfish could do was operate of smaller decks than a Devastator could and performed the role of the ASW helicopter of modern times. Both the Swordfish and Devastator were of the same vintage. The Devastator was the first of it's new design generation and the Swordfish the norm of the day. As is often the case, the first of the new had yet to excel the last of the old.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> "The SB2C probably _would_ have been a good aircraft if the length hadn't been limited by aircraft carrier elevators and if Curtiss aircraft wasn't having so much trouble. If you lengthened the fuselage by 3' it would have been a good overall design"
> 
> Its pretty hard to eliminate the problems created by not having a long enough tail moment arm except with fly by wire or some kind of pitch/yaw damper.. Curtiss clearly tried with a big tail area. It's not the first aircraft to suffer this problem, the Me 210 springs to mind. They tried everything slats, wing twist, bigger tail area. Non of these worked. There were many others. A little bit of wing sweep can help pitching characteristics and slats can help as well but neither do much for lateral stability.
> 
> Where did the reference to the 3 inch increase in tail length come from?



Just a guesstimate, probably more like 3 feet would have been needed. Just saying it was clearly too short. Also, giant tail fins are usually a sign of problems

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 16, 2021)

yulzari said:


> As the Grumman Tarpon has been mentioned, I took a quick look at it and the Fairey Battle. Similar in size but the Tarpon has a 70% more powerful engine which allowed for a 7,000kg loaded weight over 5,000kg for the Battle. Bung the Tarpon engine onto a Battle (and engine test bed Battles did carry more powerful engines) then The Battle could carry the extra weight of the features that the Tarpon did and a similar war load.



I don't think the Battle really compares with the 'Tarpon' for a number of reasons. The Battle was lighter - because it didn't carry any naval gear (like folding wings, arrestor hook, extra navigation kit etc.) was not strengthened for carrier landings, and also didn't have self sealing fuel tanks (as far as I know) didn't have armor, and was far less well armed - it also certainly couldn't carry an internal torpedo! So I don't think it's a realistic comparison. The 'Battle', a much earlier design, was not really ready for "BATTLE", let alone carrier operations. The differences in the combat histories are also pretty stark.



> My point is that operational comparisons have to include the overall environment. Both Battles and Tarpons need a permissive environment of either a fighter escort or absent enemy fighters to deliver their weapons. In the case of the Swordfish in the OP a night operation is an option the Devastator did not easily have. Both would be shot down by enemy fighters if found in daylight. The Grumman Tarpon was a successful aeroplane but part of it's success was that it went into the bulk of it's service when the USN could provide fighter escort and the IJN was declining in effectiveness.



I don't think that is actually true. The Avenger / Tarpon was in action at Midway and pretty heavily engaged from Nov 1942. At that time US fighter protection was pretty marginal both because of limited numbers and relative effectiveness compared to Japanese fighters. Fighter cover tends to sometimes be looked at as a binary thing, either they have it, and you are good, or they don't and your bombers have to fend for themselves. The reality is that it's quite a wide range, and fighter escort does not automatically equal air superiority / supremacy. Until large numbers of F6F and other modern fighters were available in the Pacific in 1944, strike aircraft active there were decidedly not in a permissive environment.

The F4F Wildcat was hard pressed to survive an engagement with A6M or Ki-43 fighters, and often provided little protection for US strike aircraft from 1942 through the end of 1943. This was particularly true in carrier engagements. So any strike aircraft needed to have characteristics - defensive armament, maneuverability, armor, and good handling, that enabled them to survive attack by fighters and evade destruction. The SBD was quite good at this (despite not looking so good on paper or from a 'rivet counting' perspective). The Devastator, Swordfish and Albacore did not seem to be. The Avenger / Tarpon was somewhere in the middle. They took losses but being intercepted wasn't necessarily a death sentence. They were strongly built, armored, had self sealing tanks, and had fairly heavy defensive armament including a power turret with a 12.7mm defensive gun, plus a 7.62 mm in the ventral position. A Fleet Air Arm Tarpon once shot down a Ki-44 in an aerial duel over Sumatra. I don't think you'd want to fight that engagement in a Swordfish, a Devastator, or a Battle.



> Rivet counters ignore context. Overall I think that the Swordfish gave a better chance of success (and that the Albacore was a substantial step up) over the Devastator but the rivet counters are too busy looking at the minutiae of performance figures to see the context. Later what the Swordfish could do was operate of smaller decks than a Devastator could and performed the role of the ASW helicopter of modern times. Both the Swordfish and Devastator were of the same vintage. The Devastator was the first of it's new design generation and the Swordfish the norm of the day. As is often the case, the first of the new had yet to excel the last of the old.



Well, I hope you aren't referring to me as a 'rivet counter'. I am personally far more focused on context, as in the historical records of combat, than on statistics, but I think in naval combat a 100 miles or more of a range advantage is not insignificant, it's one of those hard realities. Things like top speed, dive speed, rate of climb and cruise speed, armament, armor, and so on are more incremental, but they do add up. Ultimately though, the proof is in the pudding. And by that I mean, what actually happened when they were put to hard use in action against the enemy.

I was comparing the Avenger-Tarpon to the Albacore in my post showing relative performance, not the Swordfish / Devastator. The two debates have become somewhat overlapped.

The Devastator was just a bad design. Many other designs of that same early era were far more advanced and effective. Some like the Spitfire and the Bf 109 remained in use through the end of the war because they were so effective. Others like the designs which became the D3A and SBD, proved highly lethal and versatile in combat through at least the mid-war.

The Swordfish may have been the result of the severe limitations of the ships they were meant to fly from, I find less credibility in that explanation for the Albacore. The Avenger was a huge, ungainly, lumbering gas-guzzling beast of an aircraft, certainly not an elegant or beautiful design, but it turned out to be the best torpedo bomber in the Allied service for the period of the war when the fighting was heaviest. It was the one both the Americans and British relied on.

What they did with the Swordfish, such as effectively fitting radar to it, is pretty amazing, and I think it does tip the scales in advantage of the Swordfish over the Devastator. But given the choice for operations in the Pacific, you'd be better off with Avengers/ Tarpons, which is why that is what they actually used.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 16, 2021)

Schweik old son. I was not pointing at you. Merely that the Grumman beast had been mentioned. 

Speaking generally to the forum: The Tarpon was undoubtedly a better choice and the Battle was only mentioned as a comparator in that it was of similar size but with 700bhp less power. By mid war in 1942 even the Albacore was supposed to be being replaced by the Barracuda just as the Swordfish had been replaced as a Fleet TBR by the Albacore. 

Putting it simply all TBR aeroplanes of the day were slower and vulnerable to air attack and all torpedo attacks limited to the dropping speed of the torpedo. The latter did get raised during the war and the British Highball was an attempt to raise that bar even further. The Devastator/Swordfish comparison is a snapshot of one period where one can see the inherent weakness being evident. The RN and USN were choosing different designs for the TBR task at the same time for different environments. Both had similar performances in an actual operation but the Swordfish had the edge in bad conditions and at night. Both needed replacing with more modern aeroplanes and the Swordfish had almost left RN Fleet service in the 4th year of the war for a better design at the time the Devastator had only just begun to be replaced by the Avenger. The nest period comparison should have been Barracuda v Avenger except the RN cocked up the Barracuda with it's changing requirements and it not being around a Griffon instead of the Exe. But that would be another thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 16, 2021)

I think a torpedo carrying carrier aircraft is one of the most difficult design challenges of the war. And I think the early attempts were basically marginal. Swordfish proved a bit more versatile than the Devastator, though it's questionable if they should have made so many. Avenger was ultimately adequate, if not charming. Barracuda seems like a missed opportunity. B5N was also 'marginal', maybe slightly better than the Swordfish and Devastator, but not great. B6N wasn't terrible, but not great either. The B7N may have been the only real standout to actually see combat, but it came too late for more than a token role.

The Italians quite interestingly had torpedo carrying versions of some of their fighters, including the Re 2001 and 2002, but more notably the G.55. That was made for coastal defense but I think it might have had the potential to be a formidable carrier aircraft!

It's also interesting that the Swordfish lingered longer than the Albacore, or is that a myth?

Tell me more about the "highball" is that a torpedo design? I'm interested in the torpedo performance but too lazy to read the books linked up above

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 16, 2021)

Barrett said:


> This is a very long string so I might have replied before...
> 
> Anyway:
> 
> ...


I'm very interested in the TBD's performance as experienced by it's crews in mid 1942. From the accounts that I've read it was somewhat less than it's official stats.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 16, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I think a torpedo carrying carrier aircraft is one of the most difficult design challenges of the war. And I think the early attempts were basically marginal. Swordfish proved a bit more versatile than the Devastator, though it's questionable if they should have made so many. Avenger was ultimately adequate, if not charming. Barracuda seems like a missed opportunity. B5N was also 'marginal', maybe slightly better than the Swordfish and Devastator, but not great. B6N wasn't terrible, but not great either. The B7N may have been the only real standout to actually see combat, but it came too late for more than a token role.
> 
> The Italians quite interestingly had torpedo carrying versions of some of their fighters, including the Re 2001 and 2002, but more notably the G.55. That was made for coastal defense but I think it might have had the potential to be a formidable carrier aircraft!
> 
> ...


Pedantically the Albacore served later in that they were still being operated out of Aden in 1946 but the Swordfish in it's ASW role did outlast the Albacore in escort carriers and lastly Channel ASW in early 1945.

The Highball was the RN mini Upkeep (bouncing bomb) for the Mosquito and some Mosquitos were sent to Australia for service in 1945 but never used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 16, 2021)

Schweik said:


> It's also interesting that the Swordfish lingered longer than the Albacore, or is that a myth?



Swordfish production ended in Aug 44 (~2400 built) versus early 1943 (800 built). By 1945 the few serving Albacores were getting long in the tooth.


----------



## Elvis (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> You might have been thinking Swordfish - Devastator which is a much closer match.


You mean my opening post? LOL!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Swordfish production ended in Aug 44 (~2400 built) versus early 1943 (800 built). By 1945 the few serving Albacores were getting long in the tooth.



The last RAF Albacore squadron in Europe had its planes replaced by Swordfish to combat S-boats and mini U-boats off the coast of Belgium and the Netherlands.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 17, 2021)

The ultimate air dropped torpedo was the British Helmover. 33' long powered by a RR Meteor V8 engine. Range 50miles. A ship launched version would have been 44' long and had a range of 150 miles. Warhead was 1 ton of Torpex.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 17, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The ultimate air dropped torpedo was the British Helmover. 33' long powered by a RR Meteor V8 engine. Range 50miles. A ship launched version would have been 44' long and had a range of 150 miles. Warhead was 1 ton of Torpex.


Trivial pedantry but the V8 was the Rover Meteorite. This is a prototype trial fitting into a Lancaster.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

Good god that's a beast!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 17, 2021)

I’m wondering about the name “helmover. Was it because that thing would chase a ship down no matter how many times it put its helm over?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

Was it a homing torpedo? Seems like that must have been made for dealing with some of those German battleships...


----------



## pbehn (Jan 17, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I’m wondering about the name “helmover. Was it because that thing would chase a ship down no matter how many times it put its helm over?


It started life with the name "Helmore projector" ...…......The other torpedo remote-attack scheme was a radio controlled project initiated by the inventive Gp Capt W Helmore. By 1944 it had become an airborne weapon of gigantic proportions called the Helmore Projector, and scale models of the operational device were constructed by Messrs Stone. By about mid-1944 the weapon became Helmover. from here British Aerial Ordnance Exotica

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I don't think the Battle really compares with the 'Tarpon' for a number of reasons. The Battle was lighter - because it didn't carry any naval gear (like folding wings, arrestor hook, extra navigation kit etc.) was not strengthened for carrier landings, and also didn't have self sealing fuel tanks (as far as I know) didn't have armor, and was far less well armed - it also certainly couldn't carry an internal torpedo! So I don't think it's a realistic comparison. The 'Battle', a much earlier design, was not really ready for "BATTLE", let alone carrier operations. The differences in the combat histories are also pretty stark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The British used the Avenger exclusively as a bomber. Their torpedoes didn’t fit and they didn’t use American torpedoes.
The only redeeming feature of the British Albacore compared to the Swordfish was the enclosed cockpit, otherwise it was a complete anachronism that should never have been built. The Swordfish successor should have been a monoplane.
As to the superior survivability of unescorted Avengers, I have my doubts. Of the 6 that attacked at Midway 5 were shot down and the survivor never flew again with 16 of 18 crew killed. Flying low and slow is a recipe for disaster for any aircraft.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The British used the Avenger exclusively as a bomber. Their torpedoes didn’t fit and they didn’t use American torpedoes.
> The only redeeming feature of the British Albacore compared to the Swordfish was the enclosed cockpit, otherwise it was a complete anachronism that should never have been built. The Swordfish successor should have been a monoplane.
> As to the superior survivability of unescorted Avengers, I have my doubts. Of the 6 that attacked at Midway 5 were shot down and the survivor never flew again with 16 of 18 crew killed. Flying low and slow is a recipe for disaster for any aircraft.



As I pointed out upthread, "escorted" and "unescorted" are not binary phenomena. It's actually a continuum. "Escort" might mean a combination of close escort and roving fighters sufficient to fend off most enemy fighters encountered on a strike most of the time, or (much more often) it might mean seeing the fighters briefly before they become engaged in their own desperate struggle to survive, at best distracting part of the enemy fighter force for a while. In the latter case they can still expected to be attacked a few times, as was typically the case.

I don't think Avengers were capable of taking on a numerically superior force of Zeros as happened at Midway and surviving, (although one did which is somewhat impressive) but if you have those same 6 Avengers attacked by one or two Zeros or Oscars, they may be able to fend them off long enough for most of them to complete their mission. The 12.7mm gun in the power turret makes very aggressive attacks somewhat risky, and if there aren't enough interceptors to coordinate distractions, simultaneous attacks etc., the chances of taking losses go up pretty high for the fighters. I believe Saburo Sakai claimed he was hit by a defensive gunner from a TBF (though he said a lot of things...). TBF is also big enough, armored, strongly built, with the self sealing tanks etc., that it may also take more than one pass to take one out. In addition, it's capable of a higher speed which means less time in the target area (at least, after the torpedo run).

Swordfish or Albacore by contrast, are very lightly defended, and could be engaged from beyond the effective range of their .30 cal defensive guns and they are not robust enough to endure hits by heavy machine guns or 20 mm cannon, IMO. They are also 100 mph slower so will be stuck in the target area far longer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 17, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The ultimate air dropped torpedo was the British Helmover. 33' long powered by a RR Meteor V8 engine. Range 50miles. A ship launched version would have been 44' long and had a range of 150 miles. Warhead was 1 ton of Torpex.


The Meteor was a V12. The V8 was a post war developmen.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

Regarding escorted, semi-escorted and unescorted, for example Blenheim bombers suffered appalling losses in the MTO, whereas Baltimore, Boston and Mitchel bombers had quite low loss rates in that Theater, despite all of the above having roughly the same quality of fighter escort protection ... (that is to say, usually some, but typically light and somewhat sporadic)


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> As I pointed out upthread, "escorted" and "unescorted" are not binary phenomena. It's actually a continuum. "Escort" might mean a combination of close escort and roving fighters sufficient to fend off most enemy fighters encountered on a strike most of the time, or (much more often) it might mean seeing the fighters briefly before they become engaged in their own desperate struggle to survive, at best distracting part of the enemy fighter force for a while. In the latter case they can still expected to be attacked a few times, as was typically the case.
> 
> I don't think Avengers were capable of taking on a numerically superior force of Zeros as happened at Midway and surviving, (although one did which is somewhat impressive) but if you have those same 6 Avengers attacked by one or two Zeros or Oscars, they may be able to fend them off long enough for most of them to complete their mission. The 12.7mm gun in the power turret makes very aggressive attacks somewhat risky, and if there aren't enough interceptors to coordinate distractions, simultaneous attacks etc., the chances of taking losses go up pretty high for the fighters. I believe Saburo Sakai claimed he was hit by a defensive gunner from a TBF (though he said a lot of things...). TBF is also big enough, armored, strongly built, with the self sealing tanks etc., that it may also take more than one pass to take one out. In addition, it's capable of a higher speed which means less time in the target area (at least, after the torpedo run).
> 
> Swordfish or Albacore by contrast, are very lightly defended, and could be engaged from beyond the effective range of their .30 cal defensive guns and they are not robust enough to endure hits by heavy machine guns or 20 mm cannon, IMO. They are also 100 mph slower so will be stuck in the target area far longer.


I would certainly rather be in an Avenger, but an attack on any high value target such as an enemy aircraft carrier is going to meet serious opposition. The USN had serious doubts before WW2 about the viability of torpedo bombers in general, hence the Ranger was built without provisions for torpedoes and the major emphasis on dive bombers.
The British addressed the vulnerability of the torpedo bomber by developing night attack capability, which no other navy had.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Regarding escorted, semi-escorted and unescorted, for example Blenheim bombers suffered appalling losses in the MTO, whereas Baltimore, Boston and Mitchel bombers had quite low loss rates in that Theater, despite all of the above having roughly the same quality of fighter escort protection ... (that is to say, usually some, but typically light and somewhat sporadic)


You’re comparing the Blenheim to aircraft a generation ahead, I would hope their loses would be lighter.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The British used the Avenger exclusively as a bomber. Their torpedoes didn’t fit and they didn’t use American torpedoes.
> The only redeeming feature of the British Albacore compared to the Swordfish was the enclosed cockpit, otherwise it was a complete anachronism that should never have been built. The Swordfish successor should have been a monoplane.
> As to the superior survivability of unescorted Avengers, I have my doubts. Of the 6 that attacked at Midway 5 were shot down and the survivor never flew again with 16 of 18 crew killed. Flying low and slow is a recipe for disaster for any aircraft.



The Albacore was faster, had better STOL whilst carrying a heavier bomb load with a longer range. The Albacore was delayed into production, hence the Swordfish served longer than intended.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Swordfish or Albacore by contrast, are very lightly defended, and could be engaged from beyond the effective range of their .30 cal defensive guns and they are not robust enough to endure hits by heavy machine guns or 20 mm cannon, IMO. They are also 100 mph slower so will be stuck in the target area far longer.



But the Swordfish could operate effectively at night whereas the Avenger and the Devastator couldn't....and the IJN didn't have effective night interception capabilities.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

No amount of praise heaped on the accomplishment of fitting functional radar is too much - particularly on carrier borne aircraft, as early as 1940 with the ASV Mk II. It certainly was a game changer in the sense of adding another Operational capability to not only the Swordfish, but eventually many other aircraft (including PBY Catalinas). However aside from their early successes such as at Taranto, I don't think it can be said that the Swordfish was the terror of the 7 Seas, whether flying at night or during the day. Yes they managed to jam the rudder of the Bismarck, and they sunk quite a bit of more or less undefended merchant shipping, but I don't remember a lot of other major warships being sunk. RN had a really tough time dealing with the few German commerce raiders and pocket battleships which threatened the Atlantic, even though their main problem was Submarines. Allied convoys were routinely devastated and etc.

Japanese torpedo carrying aircraft by contrast, certainly _were_ the terror of the Pacific, well into 1943. They sunk the Prince of Wales and Repulse with torpedoes, the carrier borne rival of Swordfish, the B5N 'Kate" (first flight also in 1937) sunk or substantially helped sink multiple US aircraft carriers, battleships, and heavy cruisers. The TBF, eventually, also wrecked quite a few major IJN ships including carriers and their superbattleships. Even the Italians with their venerable airliner turned torpedo bomber, 3 years older than the Swordfish, (the Sparviero) managed to sink quite a lot of British shipping in the Med.

Swordfish could indeed attack at night, but limited range and the combination of features which made it essentially incapable of operating during the day in environments where it might face fighter attack or intense AAA, limited it rather severely. The fact they were still producing them in 1944 says something was amiss, to me. Not that it's the only example in the FAA by a long shot, and better than some of their other designs without a doubt.

As for the USN, maybe someone was prescient about the torpedoes, it certainly turned out fortuitous that they had put so much emphasis on dive bombing because to make that work, they not only needed good aircraft but also a lot of very good training (witness the relative ineffective of the less well-trained USMC and USAAF units using the Dauntless). They later put a lot of emphasis on skip-bombing and the equivalent with their land based bombers which seemed to turn out pretty effective.

I'd say the Royal Navy's most effective torpedo bomber was probably the Beaufighter, at least in the MTO. The heavy guns and strafing capability helped against ship-borne AAA during the strike. The nature of the torpedoes also made a difference but I'm going to try to tackle that in a later post.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> But the Swordfish could operate effectively at night whereas the Avenger and the Devastator couldn't....and the IJN didn't have effective night interception capabilities.



Yes... but the extreme vulerability and effective inability to operate _during the day_, combined with the very limited range of the Swordfish, meant that in order to be used effectively they would have to get aircraft carrier very close indeed to make Swordfish into a realistic strike weapon, and hope they could get away before dawn, which is one reason why they were not really used as major offensive weapons in naval engagements after the early war. It wasn't really viable in that role, though it could still be used to attack merchant ships etc. which were far from fighter protection.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> As I pointed out upthread, "escorted" and "unescorted" are not binary phenomena. It's actually a continuum. "Escort" might mean a combination of close escort and roving fighters sufficient to fend off most enemy fighters encountered on a strike most of the time, or (much more often) it might mean seeing the fighters briefly before they become engaged in their own desperate struggle to survive, at best distracting part of the enemy fighter force for a while. In the latter case they can still expected to be attacked a few times, as was typically the case.
> 
> I don't think Avengers were capable of taking on a numerically superior force of Zeros as happened at Midway and surviving, (although one did which is somewhat impressive) but if you have those same 6 Avengers attacked by one or two Zeros or Oscars, they may be able to fend them off long enough for most of them to complete their mission. The 12.7mm gun in the power turret makes very aggressive attacks somewhat risky, and if there aren't enough interceptors to coordinate distractions, simultaneous attacks etc., the chances of taking losses go up pretty high for the fighters. I believe Saburo Sakai claimed he was hit by a defensive gunner from a TBF (though he said a lot of things...). TBF is also big enough, armored, strongly built, with the self sealing tanks etc., that it may also take more than one pass to take one out. In addition, it's capable of a higher speed which means less time in the target area (at least, after the torpedo run).
> 
> Swordfish or Albacore by contrast, are very lightly defended, and could be engaged from beyond the effective range of their .30 cal defensive guns and they are not robust enough to endure hits by heavy machine guns or 20 mm cannon, IMO. They are also 100 mph slower so will be stuck in the target area far longer.



I don't know why we're suddenly talking about TBFs, but we also have to bear in mind that it had the same flaw as the TBD, namely that it had a very lightly stressed airframe and could not conduct high G manoeuvre. It's inability to dive bomb seriously hampered it's usefulness as a naval carrier strike aircraft, after the Mk13 was found to be unreliable:

_"CAB 80/78/44 - "EXPANSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FLEET AIR ARM SQUADRONS DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1944" - says:

"2.The ineffectiveness of the American Torpedo has necessitated the withdrawal of Avenger squadrons from HMS VICTORIOUS and the substitution of Barracudas. This has resulted in more Avengers being available for A/S work in the North Atlantic._ "


----------



## Ovod (Jan 17, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I would certainly rather be in an Avenger, but an attack on any high value target such as an enemy aircraft carrier is going to meet serious opposition. The USN had serious doubts before WW2 about the viability of torpedo bombers in general, hence the Ranger was built without provisions for torpedoes and the major emphasis on dive bombers.
> The British addressed the vulnerability of the torpedo bomber by developing night attack capability, which no other navy had.



Both the Japanese Navy and the USN had ASV radar fitted to their torpedo bombers by the end of 1942, but they still carried out torpedo attacks in daylight anyway. 

As well as the the Swordfish, the Albacore and the Barracuda were also equipped with ASV radar - thousands of aircraft - but how many German, Italian and Japanese navy warships (as opposed to cargo shipping) were attacked and sent to the bottom of the sea as a result of RN aerial torpedo attacks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> I don't know why we're suddenly talking about TBFs, but we also have to bear in mind that it had the same flaw as the TBD, namely that it had a very lightly stressed airframe and could not conduct high G manoeuvre. It's inability to dive bomb seriously hampered it's usefulness as a naval carrier strike aircraft, after the Mk13 was found to be unreliable:
> 
> _"CAB 80/78/44 - "EXPANSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FLEET AIR ARM SQUADRONS DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1944" - says:_
> 
> _"2.The ineffectiveness of the American Torpedo has necessitated the withdrawal of Avenger squadrons from HMS VICTORIOUS and the substitution of Barracudas. This has resulted in more Avengers being available for A/S work in the North Atlantic._ "



The Mk 13 (etc.) debacle was of huge significance. If the RN had more of the larger more modern carriers they could have just operated SBDs like the Americans did, which would have helped a lot I think. Why they couldn't modify a British torpedo to fit into an Avenger is a bit baffling, but their main problem was with submarines anyway. 

That said I think by 1944 the US torpedoes had been substantially improved - they were sinking a lot of ships with them in the Pacific anyway, and as we know, the Barracuda was quite a disappointment in itself. Not exactly a "sterling" combat record as the British would say...


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Yes... but the extreme vulerability and effective inability to operate _during the day_, combined with the very limited range of the Swordfish, meant that in order to be used effectively they would have to get aircraft carrier very close indeed to make Swordfish into a realistic strike weapon, and hope they could get away before dawn, which is one reason why they were not really used as major offensive weapons in naval engagements after the early war. It wasn't really viable in that role, though it could still be used to attack merchant ships etc. which were far from fighter protection.



The Swordfish had considerably better range and endurance than the TBD. They could also operate in poor weather and overcast conditions and still have reasonable expectation of finding their targets, but they were replaced as carrier strike aircraft as Albacore production allowed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> No amount of praise heaped on the accomplishment of fitting functional radar is too much - particularly on carrier borne aircraft, as early as 1940 with the ASV Mk II. It certainly was a game changer in the sense of adding another Operational capability to not only the Swordfish, but eventually many other aircraft (including PBY Catalinas). However aside from their early successes such as at Taranto, I don't think it can be said that the Swordfish was the terror of the 7 Seas, whether flying at night or during the day. Yes they managed to jam the rudder of the Bismarck, and they sunk quite a bit of more or less undefended merchant shipping, but I don't remember a lot of other major warships being sunk. RN had a really tough time dealing with the few German commerce raiders and pocket battleships which threatened the Atlantic, even though their main problem was Submarines. Allied convoys were routinely devastated and etc.
> 
> Japanese torpedo carrying aircraft by contrast, certainly _were_ the terror of the Pacific, well into 1943. They sunk the Prince of Wales and Repulse with torpedoes, the carrier borne rival of Swordfish, the B5N 'Kate" (first flight also in 1937) sunk or substantially helped sink multiple US aircraft carriers, battleships, and heavy cruisers. The TBF, eventually, also wrecked quite a few major IJN ships including carriers and their superbattleships. Even the Italians with their venerable airliner turned torpedo bomber, 3 years older than the Swordfish, (the Sparviero) managed to sink quite a lot of British shipping in the Med.
> 
> ...



You beat me by about 5 minutes - agree on every word. People seem to forget that it was the Japanese Navy which sunk a RN aircraft carrier, and not the other way around.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Swordfish had considerably better range and endurance than the TBD. They could also operate in poor weather and overcast conditions and still have reasonable expectation of finding their targets, but they were replaced as carrier strike aircraft as Albacore production allowed.



I think many have stipulated, of the two obsolescent, highly flawed early torpedo bombers, the Swordfish was a bit better than the TBD Devastator. The Swordfish had a marginally better (though still quite bad) range of 522 miles with a Torpedo, vs. 472 for the TBD. But the single thing you can say positively about the TBD is that they only made 130 of them and they were retired in 1942. For some reason they made 2,300 Swordfish and were still using them to the end of the war. It don't think the reason was because they were wildly effective.

From mid 1942 the Allied competition of the Swordfish was the Avenger, which the RN themselves adopted in spite of the torpedo problems. I think that should tell you something. And the Avenger did get radar in 1943 so it could operate at night and in bad weather. They were also robust enough to be used by the USMC in the CAS role, with rockets. In the TAFFY 3 / Samarengagement they proved capable of taking on major /advanced Japanese warships more or less on their own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Both the Japanese Navy and the USN had ASV radar fitted to their torpedo bombers by the end of 1942, but they still carried out torpedo attacks in daylight anyway.
> 
> As well as the the Swordfish, the Albacore and the Barracuda were also equipped with ASV radar - thousands of aircraft - but how many German, Italian and Japanese navy warships (as opposed to cargo shipping) were attacked and sent to the bottom of the sea as a result of RN aerial torpedo attacks?



Ever heard of a place called Taranto?

The KM stayed away from RN carriers as much as possible. To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea.

In fact it was the RN that went up against KB with two fleet carriers when the Kido Butai had 5 fleet carriers at Ceylon, versus 4 at Midway, against 3 USN fleet carriers and a much stronger land based airforce on Midway, than the FAA/RAF had on Ceylon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Yes... but the extreme vulerability and effective inability to operate _during the day_, combined with the very limited range of the Swordfish, meant that in order to be used effectively they would have to get aircraft carrier very close indeed to make Swordfish into a realistic strike weapon, and hope they could get away before dawn, which is one reason why they were not really used as major offensive weapons in naval engagements after the early war. It wasn't really viable in that role, though it could still be used to attack merchant ships etc. which were far from fighter protection.



Again, the "very limited range" of the Swordfish was still greater than the Devastator...so, from a Midway scenario, the US carriers could still be further away from the IJN carriers when the Swordfish were launched. AFAIK, the Devastators typically weren't used for daytime scouting, which was the job of the SBD with its longer range and better performance. 

I entirely agree that the Swordfish was extremely vulnerable to daylight fighters but, it did offer unique capabilities in mid-1942 that no other navy could match.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Ever heard of a place called Taranto?
> 
> The KM stayed away from RN carriers as much as possible. To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea.



Ho ho ho! Not so fast. I think that bold statements needs a second look lolol



> In fact it was the RN that went up against KB with two fleet carriers when the Kido Butai had 5 fleet carriers at Ceylon, versus 4 at Midway, against 3 USN fleet carriers and a much stronger land based airforce on Midway, than the FAA/RAF had on Ceylon.



You are forgetting Coral Sea, where the USN had two carriers vs. three for the IJN, and came out a lot better than the RN did at Ceylon.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Ever heard of a place called Taranto?



I don't think ASV radar could be used to locate ships in harbour - why would you need to?



> The KM stayed away from RN carriers as much as possible. To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea.



Indeed, I agree, but very few night time radar attacks were carried out. So why are you so confident of the track record of such naval attacks when the track record doesn't really exist.



> In fact it was the RN that went up against KB with two fleet carriers when the Kido Butai had 5 fleet carriers at Ceylon, versus 4 at Midway, against 3 USN fleet carriers and a much stronger land based airforce on Midway, than the FAA/RAF had on Ceylon.



I know, and look what happened to HMS Hermes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I think many have stipulated, of the two obsolescent, highly flawed early torpedo bombers, the Swordfish was a bit better than the TBD Devastator. The Swordfish had a marginally better (though still quite bad) range of 522 miles with a Torpedo, vs. 472 for the TBD. But the single thing you can say positively about the TBD is that they only made 130 of them and they were retired in 1942. For some reason they made 2,300 Swordfish and were still using them to the end of the war. It don't think the reason was because they were wildly effective.
> 
> From mid 1942 the Allied competition of the Swordfish was the Avenger, which the RN themselves adopted in spite of the torpedo problems. I think that should tell you something. And the Avenger did get radar in 1943 so it could operate at night and in bad weather. They were also robust enough to be used by the USMC in the CAS role, with rockets. In the TAFFY 3 / Samarengagement they proved capable of taking on major /advanced Japanese warships more or less on their own.



The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the Albacore. both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The RN adopted the Avenger on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the Barracuda.

I don't recall any IJN CAP opposing Taffy 3 and there's no reason why Albacores (or Barracudas) couldn't have flown the same missions.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Ovod said:


> 1)I don't think ASV radar could be used to locate ships in harbour - why would you need to?
> 
> 2) Indeed, I agree, but very few night time radar attacks were carried out. So why are you so confident of the track record of such naval attacks when the track record doesn't really exist.
> 
> 3) I know, and look what happened to HMS Hermes.



1) ASV was useful for night nav, although not used at Taranto.

2) The IJN used ASV radar to attack and hit USN ships including fleet carriers; it was the lack of opportunity that limited the FAA in doing the same.

3) Yes, the IJN sank an RN light carrier and how many USN carriers?

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the Albacore. both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The RN adopted the Avenger on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the Barracuda.



Avenger also carried external (and internal) fuel tanks, including two 58 gallon 'slipper' tanks on the wings (which could be used while carrying ordinance) which doubled the range, plus a a jettisonable 275 gal tank in the internal bomb bay which could be used on recon missions, further substantially increasing the range. Again - range being very important in naval / carrier warfare.

The Swordfish and Albacore were definitely good enough in 1937, and though clearly obsolescent were just barely arguably viable by 1942. After that, they were miserably deficient. Which is why they were not known for a lot of major victories after Taranto. 



> I don't recall any IJN CAP opposing Taffy 3 and there's no reason why Albacores (or Barracudas) couldn't have flown the same missions.



Well I don't know about CAP but there were Japanese aircraft in the area, as there were 30 Kamikaze attacks.

I would say that Albacores could not have survived those missions, at least not as well, due to their limited range and extremely slow operating speed, which would have made them considerably more vulnerable to the improved AAA from the (relatively modern) Japanese fleet at that time. I'm not sure Barracudas could hve operated from those 'Jeep' Carriers, but even if they could, it seems they didn't do well in the Pacific Theater. From the Wiki:

_On 21 April 1944 Barracudas of No 827 Squadron aboard Illustrious began operations against Japanese forces.[1][27] The type participated in air raids on Sabang in Sumatra, known as Operation Cockpit.[28] In the Pacific theatre, the Barracuda's performance was considerably reduced by the prevailing high temperatures;[N 1] reportedly, its combat radius in the Pacific was reduced by as much as 30%. This diminished performance was a factor in the decision to re-equip the torpedo bomber squadrons aboard the fleet carriers of the British Pacific Fleet with American-built Grumman Avengers.[30] _

Like I said, it seems to have been something of a missed opportunity. Cool name though.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 17, 2021)

Swordfish v Devastator.

The world's most boring dogfight.

The loser would be the fans.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> 1) ASV was useful for night nav, although not used at Taranto.
> 
> 2) The IJN used ASV radar to attack and hit USN ships including fleet carriers; it was the lack of opportunity that limited the FAA in doing the same.
> 
> 3) Yes, the IJN sank an RN light carrier and how many USN carriers?



Lol, I think you want to count the number of engagements and the losses on both sides, otherwise you might get a slightly skewed perception


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Ho ho ho! Not so fast. I think that bold statements needs a second look lolol
> 
> 
> 
> You are forgetting Coral Sea, where the USN had two carriers vs. three for the IJN, and came out a lot better than the RN did at Ceylon.



1) no it doesn't. Whenever the KM learning that an RN carrier TG was at sea they fled for port, except when weather or lighting made carrier ops unlikely, prior to ASV radar.

At Coral Sea the USN had two fleet carriers vs two IJN fleet carriers and a light carrier. At Ceylon the RN had two fleet carriers and a disarmed (of aircraft) due to refitting light carrier while the IJN had 5 fleet carriers, and one light carrier.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> 1) no it doesn't. Whenever the KM learning that an RN carrier TG was at sea they fled for port, except when weather or lighting made carrier ops unlikely, prior to ASV radar.



I was referring to this very bold claim (in bold): ". _To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring *far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered*, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea. "_


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

I know some of you guys are deeply patriotic, but do you really want to compare the RN record vs. the IJN as compared to the USN record? Seems a bit 'daft'.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 17, 2021)

My comments have nothing to do with patriotism...I am, after all, American. 

The bottom line is that, in mid-1942, no other navy had the capabilities that the Swordfish brought to the table. Yes, it was long in the tooth and should have been replaced years beforehand....but it wasn't and it offered tactical options that were not available to either the USN or the IJN. Yes, forcing the Swordfish to fly the same daylight profile as the TBDs would be a massacre....but why do that when it could deliver the same punch at night when the IJN defenses wouldn't even know they were coming?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

I was replying to someone else.

I think it's been pointed out, airborne radar was a huge innovation in 1940, not so rare any more by 1942. And while night (and bad weather) flying is great, it doesn't trump range which is key in naval war.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Avenger also carried external (and internal) fuel tanks, including two 58 gallon 'slipper' tanks on the wings (which could be used while carrying ordinance) which doubled the range, plus a a jettisonable 275 gal tank in the internal bomb bay which could be used on recon missions, further substantially increasing the range. Again - range being very important in naval / carrier warfare.
> 
> The Swordfish and Albacore were definitely good enough in 1937, and though clearly obsolescent were just barely arguably viable by 1942. After that, they were miserably deficient. Which is why they were not known for a lot of major victories after Taranto.
> 
> ...



Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?

Albacore range was operationally similar to the TBF. It's (and the Swordfish) ability to divebomb would have reduced it's vulnerability to flak vs glidebombing, but still probably worse than a TBF. There was no IJN CAP present.

Barracudas could have operated from any of Taffy 3's CVE because they all had catapults.

Barracuda's carried their bombs externally and the higher temps and humidity did cause a loss of range, but not so much whilst carrying a torpedo, due to the reduced drag. However, TBF performance wasn't unaffected either, as all aircraft suffered in high temps and humidity. However the Barracuda could have exchanged bomb load for range via a drop tank, but since the targets were all land based it wasn't worth the trade off. However, RN Light Fleet Carriers were operating Barracudas and these would have been used against Japan had the war lasted even a month longer.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 17, 2021)

This is a great thread. This is a set of topics I’m very interested in. I think you guys are offering brilliant points but not for quite the same argument(?). I’d underline “quite” but I haven’t figured that out yet. 
As to the the biplanes, from multiple threads, they were built to a specification and operate from “last year’s model” aircraft carriers. They fulfilled an early ‘40’s equivalent to ASW helicopters though that wasn’t the intent. . Better stuff was on the way. They were brilliant designs to a flawed spec. 
The TBD was essentially a prototype of an untested weapon system/concept. The IJN’s one was better. The USN had very few torpedoes and unwilling to lose any for training. The USN lacked money for most training. The TBD did do a competent job at the Lae Salamaua strike and of course, at the Coral Sea. Midway was a meat grinder for all torpedo planes involved. At least the USN had a better plane in the pipeline. 
As to post #223, 3):
Oh yeah? Well, we had more carriers to lose! Not much of a rebuttal but it’s all I got.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I think it's been pointed out, airborne radar was a huge innovation in 1940, not so rare any more by 1942. And while night (and bad weather) flying is great, it doesn't trump range which is key in naval war.



It absolutely WAS an innovation in 1942 given that neither the USN nor the IJN had airborne radar in mid-1942. Again, the Swordfish had a greater range than the Devastator even without the internal long-range fuel tank....so, again, the Swordfish gives more tactical options in mid-1942 compared to the Devastator.

Frankly, whether a weapon is innovative or not isn't the question. The real question is whether the weapon system can be countered. If it can't, then the weapon still offers advantages. The rifle, as a technology, is very old hat...but if it's being used against an adversary that only has spears, then it's a pretty advanced weapon.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I was referring to this very bold claim (in bold): ". _To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring *far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered*, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea. "_



The Malta Convoys are good examples of this. During Pedestal (Aug 1942) the Axis had ~600 combat aircraft on the bases designated to participate.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 17, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Meteor was a V12. The V8 was a post war developmen.


Silly me. My brain said Meteorite but my fingers typed Meteor.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?



I'm not sure what you mean, at some point upthread someone brought up the Albacore, which became part of the discussion, and then later someone asked about why the TBF was considered inferior to the Albacore, and I responded by pointing out that was not the case - TBF is actually significantly better. Better than the Barracuda too according to the Royal Navy. Several other people have chimed in about TBF and Albacore since then (maybe you missed it, re-read the thread?) as well as the original discussion of TBD and Swordfish. As they were all stablemates used by the Western Allies against the same enemies, it is probably relevant as far as context. At any rate, I don't think there is any rule against thread drift, it seems pretty routine in every lengthy discussion I've seen here.

For the record though, as I have already stipulated I think six times, in my opinion the TBD was disaster of a design, obsolescent at the start of the war and barely capable of performing it's mission, and the (also obsolescent) Swordfish was marginally better. Which I think says more about the TBD than it does about the Swordfish. But having airborne AS radar that early is still cool.



> Albacore range was operationally similar to the TBF. It's (and the Swordfish) ability to divebomb would have reduced it's vulnerability to flak vs glidebombing, but still probably worse than a TBF. There was no IJN CAP present.



Yes, definitely worse than a TBF, which could fly at level speed faster than Swordfish or Albacore could in a dive. I also do not believe Albacore had 'similar' range as a (mid-war) TBF, operationally or otherwise. We'd have to take a deeper dive into those numbers.



> Barracudas could have operated from any of Taffy 3's CVE because they all had catapults.



Yes, but as noted in the Wiki, they were considered so badly performing in the Pacific Theater that the RN decided to withdraw them... in favor of the Avenger / Tarpon. Which I think puts paid to your theory.



> Barracuda's carried their bombs externally and the higher temps and humidity did cause a loss of range, but not so much whilst carrying a torpedo, due to the reduced drag. However, TBF performance wasn't unaffected either, as all aircraft suffered in high temps and humidity. However the Barracuda could have exchanged bomb load for range via a drop tank, but since the targets were all land based it wasn't worth the trade off. However, RN Light Fleet Carriers were operating Barracudas and these would have been used against Japan had the war lasted even a month longer.



I believe the quote on the bad performance was derived from RN sources. I suspect they would have been much better off using Corsairs  Or even Fireflies.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Malta Convoys are good examples of this. During Pedestal (Aug 1942) the Axis had ~600 combat aircraft on the bases designated to participate.



Yeah, I don't buy that, for one because quantity is only one factor, there is a big difference in _quality _especially between Italian and Japanese aircraft vis a vis naval warfare. MC.200, CR 32 and CR 42, SM.79, CANT Z506 and so on don't compare very well to A6M, Ki-43, D3A, G4M in air to air _or_ air to surface combat. The IJN was the strongest navy in the world by far in 1942-43.

Range is another major factor, because the extremely limited range of almost all the Axis aircraft in the MTO (including their best fighter, the Bf 109, and their best bomber, the Ju 87) meant that most of those 600 aircraft could not engage at the same time, but in fact the British convoys were typically only engaging a few dozen aircraft at a time. 

So sorry mate, I don't even come close to buying that. Maybe we should start another thread to debate it?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?
> .



I was responding to this post by the way: "The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the *Albacore.* both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The *RN adopted the Avenger* on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the *Barracuda*. "


----------



## slaterat (Jan 17, 2021)

What about the MC202, RE 2001 and the JU 88? I would rate these three as better than what the IJN could bring to fight. The Italian tri motors were also pretty good.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

slaterat said:


> What about the MC202, RE 2001 and the JU 88? I would rate these three as better than what the IJN could bring to fight. The Italian tri motors were also pretty good.



MC 202 was not involved in the early engagements. It was good, but like the 109, very short legged. Was it better than a Zero? I don't think so. My point was that most of the British convoys were up against much older Italian types, including the tri-motors. Re 2001? Sure, nice fighter... they only made 237 of them though and they were only operational in a couple of areas. Some of them did attack Malta.

All of the Japanese fighters, pretty much, were A6M and Ki-43, of a quality sufficient to be at least slightly superior to all of the available Allied fighters in the Pacific. In the MTO the majority of the fighters available to the Axis were obsolescent types in comparison. All of the Japanese bombers were proven ship-killers. Only a few of the Axis ones were. All of the Japanese aircraft had very good range. In the MTO, only a few of the Axis strike aircraft did and none of their fighters had good range.

Ju 88 was a good bomber overall but for ASW? I think I'd rather go with a G4M. You could argue the point, but they didn't have that many Ju 88s operational in the Med during most of those convoy fights. The main ship killer for the Axis in the MTO was the Stuka but it was very short ranged. Second most important was probably the SM.79 (Trimotor) which did kill ships but always took heavy losses.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Yeah, I don't buy that, for one because quantity is only one factor, there is a big difference in _quality _especially between Italian and Japanese aircraft vis a vis naval warfare. MC.200, CR 32 and CR 42, SM.79, CANT Z506 and so on don't compare very well to A6M, Ki-43, D3A, G4M in air to air _or_ air to surface combat. The IJN was the strongest navy in the world by far in 1942-43.
> 
> Range is another major factor, because the extremely limited range of almost all the Axis aircraft in the MTO (including their best fighter, the Bf 109, and their best bomber, the Ju 87) meant that most of those 600 aircraft could not engage at the same time, but in fact the British convoys were typically only engaging a few dozen aircraft at a time.
> 
> So sorry mate, I don't even come close to buying that. Maybe we should start another thread to debate it?



The Me110, Me109F/G, Fw190 were all superior to IJN fighters and all carried drop tanks.

The JU87, even in Jan 1941 could and did, carry 1000kg (2200lb bombs) and the JU88 2000kg bombs, and this is, respectively, 4 and 8 times the bomb load of a Val in June 1942. The initial Ju87 strike against Illustrious in Jan 1941 by ~35 Ju87s carried an equivalent bomb load to 70 - 140 Vals. The Ju87R and Ju88 had excellent range but in any event, the RN had to pass through Axis controlled choke points if it was to escort convoys and/or strike at Axis maritime targets, so the lesser range of a JU87 with a 1000kg bomb wasn't such a disadvantage

This is what the USN had to say:

*"ENEMY TACTICS AND EQUIPMENT*
_*German*
German air attacks against our surface forces were more effective than those of the Japanese, prior to the latter's use of suicide tactics, for the following reasons:_


_German aircraft were superior._
_German pilots possessed greater skill._
_German attacks were more highly co ordinated._
_Our own air defense was weaker._
_Our surface forces were not as modern or heavily armed as those in the Pacific._
_Early German attacks were conducted against convoys en route to Murmansk, USSR, by way of North Cape, and many merchant ships were lost from hits by bombs and torpedoes._

_During the North African campaign dusk and night attacks were made by flare-dropping twin-engined bombers against shipping congregated in harbors._

_At Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio the enemy launched heavy attacks against shipping at the beachheads. Dive- and high-level bombing and strafing tactics were employed. In the summer of 1943 the Germans began to use glider and rocket bombs. These pilotless, radio-controlled bombs were released from parent planes, and were directed chiefly against convoy escort ships."_
HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Me110, Me109F/G, Fw190 were all superior to IJN fighters and all carried drop tanks.



Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.



> The JU87, even in Jan 1941 could and did, carry 1000kg (2200lb bombs) and the JU88 2000kg bombs, and this is, respectively, 4 and 8 times the bomb load of a Val in June 1942. The initial Ju87 strike against Illustrious in Jan 1941 by ~35 Ju87s carried an equivalent bomb load to 70 - 140 Vals. The Ju87R and Ju88 had excellent range but in any event, the RN had to pass through Axis controlled choke points if it was to escort convoys and/or strike at Axis maritime targets, so the lesser range of a JU87 with a 1000kg bomb wasn't such a disadvantage



The D3A was a far more effective naval dive bomber than the Ju 87 - which had a range of 370 miles! 



> This is what the USN had to say:
> 
> "_At Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio the enemy launched heavy attacks against shipping at the beachheads. Dive- and high-level bombing and strafing tactics were employed. In the summer of 1943 the Germans began to use glider and rocket bombs. These pilotless, radio-controlled bombs were released from parent planes, and were directed chiefly against convoy escort ships."_
> HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II



The very small number of glider bombs while quite effective, so far as I know, were never used against any RN convoys to Malta etc. 

We should probably start another thread for this particular debate.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I was responding to this post by the way: "The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the *Albacore.* both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The *RN adopted the Avenger* on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the *Barracuda*. "






Schweik said:


> I'm not sure what you mean, at some point upthread someone brought up the Albacore, which became part of the discussion, and then later someone asked about why the TBF was considered inferior to the Albacore, and I responded by pointing out that was not the case - TBF is actually significantly better. Better than the Barracuda too according to the Royal Navy. Several other people have chimed in about TBF and Albacore since then (maybe you missed it, re-read the thread?) as well as the original discussion of TBD and Swordfish. As they were all stablemates used by the Western Allies against the same enemies, it is probably relevant as far as context. At any rate, I don't think there is any rule against thread drift, it seems pretty routine in every lengthy discussion I've seen here.
> 
> For the record though, as I have already stipulated I think six times, in my opinion the TBD was disaster of a design, obsolescent at the start of the war and barely capable of performing it's mission, and the (also obsolescent) Swordfish was marginally better. Which I think says more about the TBD than it does about the Swordfish. But having airborne AS radar that early is still cool.
> 
> ...



The TBF could not operate from carriers when equipped with drop tanks until the TBF-3 appeared in late 1944.

Operationally in mid-late 1942 the Albacore could conduct strike missions with 280IG -300IG of internal fuel and a 2000lb bomb load or 1610lb torpedo. Range with reserves for climb was 809nm or ~930 miles with torpedo and 280IG internal fuel at 101 knots or 116mph. The no reserve range for a TBF1 with full internal fuel (280IG or 335usg) with a torpedo was 960 nm /1105 miles at 5000ft and 153mph (SAC data). So operationally (range limited by intel) the range was very similar with both being far superior to a TBD,

Taffy3 was conducting short range strike missions in support of land ops and carried no torpedoes, IIRC. The Avenger could carry a heavier bomb load than a Barracuda but it could not dive bomb and consequently a Barracuda even with a 1000 or 1500lb bomb load would have been able to drop the load more accurately, and would probably have been more effective in the strike role, ditto for an Albacore. The FAA certainly preferred the Barracuda over the TBF against Tirpitz. IMHO the Barracuda could have flown all the missions assigned to the FAA's TBF in the IO or PTO, if the Barracuda used a lower bomb load and a drop tank.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Me110 had excellent range and extreme firepower. Axis fighters with DTs were used for escort as per the Zero and as fighter bombers, unlike the Zero. JU87R range was at least as good as the Val and carried the same or better bomb load. Ditto for the JU88. 

The D3A was totally obsolete by mid 1941 by ETO standards and far inferior to the JU87B and R and JU88. The USN wasn't lying in their assessment of IJNAF versus Luftwaffe capability.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

Me 110 had a dramatically "less than excellent" combat record in the MTO, even against Hurricanes and Fulmars, firepower doesn't matter a whole lot if you never manage to point your guns at the enemy aircraft. It had mediocre range at best (411 to 530 miles under normal conditions), unless burdened down with huge ferry tanks. As far as comparing it to Japanese fighters, the Bf 110 is equivalent to a shorter ranged Ki-45.



> The D3A was totally obsolete by mid 1941 by ETO standards and far inferior to the JU87B and R and JU88.



The Ju 87B had a range of less than 370miles, the D3A1 had a range of 915 miles. That's a big difference. The Ju-87R was equivalent to the D3A1 in range, but only with a bomb load limited to a single 250 kg bomb.

The D3A was still easily capable of killing capital ships well into 1943. It was far more lethal (and had a far better combat record) than the Devastator, the Swordfish, or the Albacore, that is without a doubt.

The drastically limited range of all the single-engined Luftwaffe aircraft severely curtailed their capability for naval operations. Some of the convoys passed very near the shoreline, and frankly they were so pathetically protected (with Sea Gladiators, Skuas and Fulmars for protection in the early days) that even just a few dozen aircraft at a time were able to decimate them. But your claim that the Royal Navy was up against ~600 German and Italian aircraft - in your words a "greater force than the Japanese ever mustered until the Philippine Sea", is ludicrous. The IJN would have annihilated those convoys. They devastated the Royal Navy Far East fleet with far less than they had available for most of the major Sea Battles in 1942-44.

Aircraft with ~400 miles range were fine for frontal aviation, which is mainly how they were used, but certainly would not have been much use operating from a carrier.

As for the assessment, I think you are taking that out of context.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 17, 2021)

Wikipedia had this to say about Stuka operations in the MTO after Summnr of 1942:

_"As the tide turned and Allied air power grew in the autumn of 1942, the Ju 87 became very vulnerable and losses were heavy. The entry of the Americans into North Africa during Operation Torch made the situation far worse; the Stuka was obsolete in what was now a fighter-bomber's war. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 could at least fight enemy fighters on equal terms after dropping their ordnance but the Stuka could not. The Ju 87's vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942, when 15 Ju 87 Ds were shot down by United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) Curtiss P-40Fs in minutes.[147] (According to Ring/Shores there were 15 Ju 87 on mission, 2.SAAF Sqn. shot down 8 with 4 probable and 3shot down by 57.Fighter Group. 2 South-African and 1 American loss shot down by german fighter escort. Three Stuka -crews were captured, 1 was wounded no dead. [148]

By 1943, the Allies enjoyed air supremacy in North Africa. The Ju 87s ventured out in Rotte strength only, often jettisoning their bombs at the first sight of enemy aircraft.[149] Adding to this trouble, the German fighters had only enough fuel to cover the Ju 87s on takeoff, their most vulnerable point. After that, the Stukas were on their own.[150]"_


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 17, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Me 110 had a dramatically "less than excellent" combat record in the MTO, even against Hurricanes and Fulmars, firepower doesn't matter a whole lot if you never manage to point your guns at the enemy aircraft. It had mediocre range at best (411 to 530 miles under normal conditions), unless burdened down with huge ferry tanks. As far as comparing it to Japanese fighters, the Bf 110 is equivalent to a shorter ranged Ki-45.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I'm sorry but you've lost all perspective now and are arguing against the actual historical record. I don't think there's any point in continuing this.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 18, 2021)

Lol right back a you! Everything I said was a fact. The actual historical record of the Bf110 in the MTO was that it was considered so hopeless in combat it was basically grounded except for occasional fighter bomber strikes. I am very familiar with the actual historical record of combat in the MTO - I have a whole bookshelf on that including all of the 'Mediterranean Air War' series which go through each engagement day by day. Your claims do not jibe with the data.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jan 18, 2021)

I came late to this trhread, and haven't gotten further than the radar equipped swordfish attacking at night, apologies if the following already has been brought up.

It is not about whether a ship could be spotted and attacked by radar, but i am wondering how precisely the target could be identified by radar alone. Certainly it must be difficult to discern between a carrier and a battleship, and i am wondering if even a cruiser or a destroyer wouldn't look pretty much the same on a 1942 screen as a carrier?

So maybe there could be at least a serious challenge picking out the high priority targets?


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 18, 2021)

Hey Just Schmidt,

In the early-war period we are talking about (ie Devastator) there was not really any blindfire capable radar system (I think).

As for distinguishing one class of ship from another, it would be difficult unless the radar operator is experienced and the radar environment is amenable to doing so.

The photo below is from a Yagi aerial ASV Mk II radar such as used on the Swordfish I (& II?). The spike at the bottom is most likely clutter from immediately in front of the radar platform (either ground or water). The spike about half-way up the 'A' scope is from the target and indicates its range. The overall width of the target spike is an indication of its size, while the greater amplitude of the spike on the left of the centerline indicates that the target is slightly to the left of the line of flight of the aircraft. An experienced operator might be able to estimate the target size from the ratio of range vs the width of the target spike. But the spike width would change considerably depending on the target (ie a ship in this case) aspect, ie whether the ship was heading toward/away from the radar, or moving cross-heading (ie the target is broadside to the radar).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 18, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Just Schmidt,
> 
> In the early-war period we are talking about (ie Devastator) there was not really any blindfire capable radar system (I think).
> 
> ...



ASV radar was used to find the target but attacks were made visually, and if ambient lighting was insufficient the FAA would use air dropped flares.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 18, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The drastically limited range of all the single-engined Luftwaffe aircraft severely curtailed their capability for naval operations. Some of the convoys passed very near the shoreline, and frankly they were so pathetically protected (with Sea Gladiators, Skuas and Fulmars for protection in the early days) that even just a few dozen aircraft at a time were able to decimate them. But your claim that the Royal Navy was up against ~600 German and Italian aircraft - in your words a "greater force than the Japanese ever mustered until the Philippine Sea", is ludicrous. The IJN would have annihilated those convoys. They devastated the Royal Navy Far East fleet with far less than they had available for most of the major Sea Battles in 1942-44.





Schweik said:


> Lol right back a you! Everything I said was a fact. The actual historical record of the Bf110 in the MTO was that it was considered so hopeless in combat it was basically grounded except for occasional fighter bomber strikes. I am very familiar with the actual historical record of combat in the MTO - I have a whole bookshelf on that including all of the 'Mediterranean Air War' series which go through each engagement day by day. Your claims do not jibe with the data.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 18, 2021)

The only devastation the IJN ever caused the RN was the destruction of Force Z, but lets be clear force Z was an unbalanced force completely devoid of air cover. Even with their massive advantage in numbers in the Indian Ocean, they didn't seem too interested in forcing the issue against Somerville's two fleet carriers. The radar equipped Swordfish and Albacores were capable of detecting and sinking surfaced u boats at night.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 18, 2021)

Let me be sure I have the context strait before I respond, this is operation Pedestal?


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 18, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.
> The D3A was a far more effective naval dive bomber than the Ju 87 - which had a range of 370 miles!
> .



The Ju 87B series had a 500 Litre fuel tank. The Ju 87R series increased fuel capacity by adding plumbing for 2 x 300Litre drop tanks (600 Litre total) which added about 220 miles to the 372 it already had while carrying bombs. IE 592 miles.

The Ju 87D increased internal fuel volume from 500L to 800L via the use of wing tanks. The ability to carry the 600L of fuel in drop tanks was retained. I'm not sure of the additional range but I would assume a 60% increase in internal fuel would add about 50% range on internal fuel i.e. about 180 miles when the additional weight and fuel burn of the more powerful Jumo 211F/J engine is considered and this works out at about 500 miles on internal fuel.

The range of the Ju 87D-5 (which had a greater wing span) was recorded as 715 km (443 mi) at ground level and 835 km (517 mi) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft).
With drop tanks we might get another 200 miles (700 miles total)

Wing tanks were not popular with Luftwaffe and RLM planners due to their vulnerability and they avoided them on fighters and ground attack aircraft however its not as paramount with a naval strike variant.

The Ju 87 could carry a torpedo, it was done so for the folding wing carrier based Ju 87C variant, but never implemented in practice.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 18, 2021)

Of the 115 aircraft on Sardinia, I see:





27 x CR 42 (biplane fighter), 





14 x G.50bis, 





8 x Z1007bis (lumbering trimotor), 





20 x Z506B (flying boat / bomber), 





10 x Z501 (early flying boat), 





11 x Ro 37 (recon biplane), 





2 x S.66 (very early flying boat airliner / search and rescue), 





18 x S.84 (trimotor bomber, similar to SM. 79) and 





26 x SM 79.

Does this in any way resemble what I suggested upthread? yes or no?

This would have been a state of the art air armada - during the Spanish Civil War. By the time of Operation Pedestal, this collection of early war innovations was pretty long in the teeth. Nowhere near comparable to what the Japanese had available at Coral Sea or Midway or Guadalcanal ...

The next page is basically more of the same, with just as I pointed out upthread, modern fighters and strike aircraft forming a distinct minority. Really neat list of antiques and oddballs there, and truthfully some of my favorite planes of the war, (it's quite interesting to note that those two S.66 were actually used in a combat zone, I thought they were just pre-war experimental planes) but none of these are even close to being on par with the Japanese Naval or Army air forces. Should we do a side by side comparison of the CR 42 and G.50 vs. the Ki-43 and A6M? Or of the Z 506B vs. the G4M? The CR 42 "Dive bomber" version with the D3A?

Of the 659 planes, it looks like less than half were what you could call modern fighting planes, and more than half of those were limited to very short range. The best asset they had were a large number (124) of Ju 88s. But given the short range of the relatively limited number of modern fighters (39 x Bf 109 and 27 x MC 202) many of their strikes had to be unescorted. And lets not forget, in addition to what the Royal Navy had on their four aircraft carriers, there was also the aircraft on Malta, *and the Desert Air Force in North Africa, which also had ~600 aircraft*. So whenever the fleet was close to the North African airbases, they wouldn't have to worry to much about those Ju 88s.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 18, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The range of the Ju 87D-5 (which had a greater wing span) was recorded as 715 km (443 mi) at ground level and 835 km (517 mi) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft).
> With drop tanks we might get another 200 miles (700 miles total)



Thanks, good post. 443 miles range is less than half the range of a D3A. By coincidence it's exactly 1/4 the range of a G4M.

Ju 87 was designed as a frontal aviation bomber, and it was good in that role. As a naval aircraft (or land based aircraft use against maritime targets) it was extremely limited. Fine for attacking ships in the English channel, but limited in as large an arena as the Mediterranean, let alone the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 19, 2021)

By the way, Pedestal was a late convoy in the siege of Malta, one of the last to come under determined attack. Most of the earlier ones like Operation Collar (1940), Operation Excess (1941), Tarigo convoy (1941), operation Substance / GM1 (1941) - if they did encounter aircraft, were against even _older _German and Italian aircraft types - the older, shorter ranged Ju 87B, CR 32, He 111, older model SM.79, Bf 110C and etc. BF 109s came into the Theater later.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 19, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Thanks, good post. 443 miles range is less than half the range of a D3A. By coincidence it's exactly 1/4 the range of a G4M.
> 
> Ju 87 was designed as a frontal aviation bomber, and it was good in that role. As a naval aircraft (or land based aircraft use against maritime targets) it was extremely limited. Fine for attacking ships in the English channel, but limited in as large an arena as the Mediterranean, let alone the Pacific.



443 miles is the low altitude range and dive bombers tend to fly high, so even do torpedo bombers on their way to target. 

There was probably more room in those wings for even more fuel and with the drop tanks the range was probably around 650 miles at low altitude (more, abut 700, if high and dive bombers fly high when dive bombing). If there was a practical application for it a longer range Ju 87 it would probably have been built.

The range of the Ju 87 can be considered as the range of its escort which if it was a Fw 190 with one drop tank was about 700 miles. IE a radius of about 200 miles more if two drop tanks were carried as in the Fw 190G.

In an European environment with allied air power, escort carriers and fleet carriers it was pointless.

If we look at the D3A what capability does it to press home an attack compared to the Ju 87? The Ju 87 was heavily armoured and had protected fuel tanks. It's likely to survive some 20mm AAA hits that would cause a D3A to burn,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 19, 2021)

1) Of the relatively low number of Stukas involved in strikes against the Malta convoys (only 41 were involved in the battle against Operation Pedestal which was probably the biggest battle of them all), prior to 1942 it was mostly Ju 87B - i.e. 370 miles range.
2) So far as I know there were no Fw 190s flying either strikes or bomber escort missions against any of the Malta convoys. There was only one Fw 190 fighter unit in North Africa and they were there a short time. They did use some Fw 190s during the invasion of Sicily though not with spectacular results, because by then they were up against a massive force.
3) Therefore most of the escorts for the Ju 87s, if they had any, were either Bf 109 or MC 202 (if they were lucky) or MC 200, G.50, or CR 42. All short ranged aircraft.
4) But regardless, according to the Axis accounts, the Ju 87 itself was very limited in range, this was a constant complaint. To be honest, I flat out don't believe any Stuka had an operational range of 700 miles during the war. Even if they did carry a ton of extra fuel in external tanks, that would severely limit the bomb load they could carry as I already pointed out upthread.
5) The D3A did tend to take high casualties, but they pressed home their attacks anyway. They managed to fight their way through US fighter CAP (Wildcats / Martlets for the most part, plus some P-39, Buffalo, and P-40s) and score crippling or killing hits against well defended targets with a lot of AAA on numerous occasions. What they lacked in armor they made up to some extent in agility and from having very good pilots. The combat record of the D3A in naval warfare is hard to beat.


My point about the short range of the Axis aircraft involved, is that in comparison to some of the battles in the Pacific, these convoy fights went on and on and covered quite a bit of distance. Thus, not all the enemy aircraft arrayed for battle were involved at the same time. So it's a bit off base to imply that these were the equivalent engagements, aside from all the biplanes and bizarre oddball planes involved on both sides.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 19, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Of the 115 aircraft on Sardinia, I see:
> 
> View attachment 609449
> 
> ...



The DAF was too far away to intervene and opposite them was the Axis AFs based in north Africa. But lets see what the IJNAF had in their inventory in mid 1942 - pick a battle and show us the numbers?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 19, 2021)

Actually, the DAF _did _intervene at least once that I know of during Pedestal, specifically to chase off some Ju 88s. Some of the DAF fighters had relatively good range. DAF Beaufighters (deployed as a Night Fighter unit) also did a bunch of maritime strikes and ASW patrols.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 19, 2021)

The Axis aircraft were operating from 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and had much more staying power than IJN carrier aircraft as a consequence.

The 89 CR42, G.50, Re2000, and Mc200s were at least as good as the A5M4 Claude which was still a common aircraft in the 1942 IJN inventory. Biplane and flying boat recon aircraft were still common in the IJN.

The 78 x M202 and Re2001 were as good or better than the Zero.

I counted 176 trimotor RAI bombers - these all had similar performance to the G3M Nell and G4M Betty and typically the same or better bomb loads and many carried torpedoes. Again, the IJN was never able to assemble a Multiengine strike force this large against the USN from 1942 to mid 1944.

41 x JU87 = 164 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.
144 Ju88 = 1126 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.

total strike bomb load = 1290 x D3A1 Vals.

These aircraft alone probably had more striking power than the IJN ever assembled in the mid war period and to them we can add 10 x He111Hs

The 43 x Bf109Fs were far superior to the Zero and to any Allied naval fighter at that time. The Bf110C was also faster than any Allied naval fighter and had fearsome firepower and would be devastating to Allied strike aircraft. In the fighter bomber role they were extremely hard to intercept.

Range is a yes/no binary. Did the Axis aircraft have the range to escort and/or attack Allied naval forces? = yes.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 19, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Of the 115 aircraft on Sardinia, I see:
> 
> 4) But regardless, according to the Axis accounts, the Ju 87 itself was very limited in range, this was a constant complaint. To be honest, I flat out don't believe any Stuka had an operational range of 700 miles during the war. Even if they did carry a ton of extra fuel in external tanks, that would severely limit the bomb load they could carry as I already pointed out upthread.
> .



On the same day (11 Jan 1941) that Illustrious was attacked with 500 or 1000kg bombs, Ju87Rs also attacked the cruisers HMS Southampton and Gloucester which were almost 300 miles from Sicily and therefore assumed they were out of range of the Luftwaffe's Stukas:

_ They were still within
the reach of the long-range Ju 87R-1
'Richards'. The ships had been sighted car-
lier and now, at 1500, led by an He 111 to
the spot, twelve Stukas of Maj Ennec-
cerus's IL./St. G. 2 surprised the British
squadron in an attack from out of the sun
in position 34 degrees, 54 min N, 18
degrees 24 min E, almost 300 miles east of
their Sicilian bases. (Smith Ju87 Stuka)_

Southampton was sunk and Gloucester damaged.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 19, 2021)

Late to the party as usual but I'm a bit confused by:



RCAFson said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> In fact it was the RN that went up against KB with two fleet carriers when the Kido Butai had 5 fleet carriers at Ceylon, versus 4 at Midway, against 3 USN fleet carriers and a much stronger land based airforce on Midway, than the FAA/RAF had on Ceylon.



Um, did I miss a major battle in the Pacific War? It's a bit of a stretch to say the RN "went up against the KB" because yes, both fleets were in the same ocean if that's what you mean. As _memory serves_, Sommerville spent most of his time keeping well away from KdB. Granted I believe he was angling for the much adored night radar torpedo attack, but I don't see much correlation to the Coral Sea action soon afterwards, and certainly not the battle off Midway in June.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 19, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Axis aircraft were operating from 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and had much more staying power than IJN carrier aircraft as a consequence.
> 
> The 89 CR42, G.50, Re2000, and Mc200s were at least as good as the A5M4 Claude which was still a common aircraft in the 1942



Woah... hold on there tiger. Nice try Please show me where 89 A5M4 were involved in _any _combat in the Pacific? Their combat use was primarily in China, and only a handful ever saw action against the USN, there were a handful on the CVL _Shōhō_, of which TWO were in action the day it got sunk at Coral Sea (May 1942). As far as I know, no A5M saw action against the USN after that day. 

The vast majority - more than 95% of Japanese fighters that saw action in the Pacific Theater were either A6M, Ki-43, or more modern types like the Ki-61. There were a few of the lumbering Ki-45 around here and there (basically identical to Bf 110 but with twice the range).



> IJN inventory. Biplane and flying boat recon aircraft were still common in the IJN.



Yeah they had a few biplane recon aircraft, I think just the F1M flying from cruisers etc., but not biplane _fighters _homeboy. In fact their main float plane was the excellent A6M2-N which was far superior to all of those planes stationed on Sardinia. Nor did the Japanese try to use flying boats as bombers or strike aircraft but the RA did with those 506Z.



> The 78 x M202 and Re2001 were as good or better than the Zero.


The MC 202 is probably comparable, but better? I don't think so. Keep in mind the Zero had 20mm cannon. The Re 2001 was a promising design but I don't think it was up to the level of an A6M.



> I counted 176 trimotor RAI bombers - these all had similar performance to the G3M Nell and G4M Betty and typically the same or better bomb loads and many carried torpedoes.



The combat record of these aircraft says otherwise.



> 41 x JU87 = 164 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.


Lol, yet another very long reach. 41 Ju 87 are not equal to 41 D3A1 let alone 4 times as many. In a naval strike, how much ordinance were they carrying? More importantly, how far could they carry it? The Ju 87 carried a single bomb capable of harming a large ship, same as the D3A1.



> 144 Ju88 = 1126 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.


So now the Ju 88 is a carrier aircraft?



> total strike bomb load = 1290 x D3A1 Vals.



Wow... considering that "Vals", operating with no more than a few dozen at a time, sunk 3 or 4 full size fleet carriers, the HMS Hermes (RN carrier), at least 3 heavy cruisers, 12 destroyers (a few of them British) and scores of merchant ships and lesser vessels, I guess this means that the Luftwaffe must have sunk 20 or 30 carriers and 40 or 50 other warships, right?



> The 43 x Bf109Fs were far superior to the Zero and to any Allied naval fighter at that time. The Bf110C was also faster than any Allied naval fighter and had fearsome firepower and would be devastating to Allied strike aircraft. In the fighter bomber role they were extremely hard to intercept.
> 
> Range is a yes/no binary. Did the Axis aircraft have the range to escort and/or attack Allied naval forces? = yes.



Actually no, range is not a yes / no binary. Range is about little circles on a map, and each of the 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' represents the epicenter of one of those circles. In naval combat, as soon as an enemy ship or fleet moves beyond that range, it can no longer be attacked. In the case of fighter aircraft being used as escorts, it means that if your bomber range circle is bigger, it can still attack but without escort. Which is in fact what frequently happened during 'Pedastal'. 

Whether the Bf109F was 'far superior' to the Zero is another questionable claim, but I'll cover this a bit more in the next post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 19, 2021)

Ok time for a reality check.

If you want a realistic comparison of aircraft involved in the naval air war in the Mediterranean vs. the Pacific, you need look no further than a few miles south of where the convoys were steaming past... the Desert Air War.

The Desert Air War was very intense by the time of Pedestal. But it took a while to get there.

When the fighting first started in 1940, the fighting was done mainly between Gloster Gladiators and CR 32s and later more and more CR 42 biplanes. It was like a late WW I redux. The Gladiators had a slight edge in the fighter combat but struggled to catch Axis bombers, and bombers on both sides (mainly Blenheims and some Lysanders on the British side, with SM 79, Br 20 and later a few He 111s on the Axis side) were fairly safe, the notion that 'the bomber always gets through' holding true for a little while. Bombers in Theater weren't really that effective at ground attack though as they were still figuring that out, and the war carried on in spite of them.

But it gradually heated up, with each side escalating and introducing new and better aircraft. The British brought in Hurricanes and got Maryland bombers into action, which were too fast for Italian biplanes to catch. The Italians brought in their Fiat G.50 and Macchi MC 200 fighters to help even the odds, and the Germans sent in some Ju 87s which were far better at ground attack than any other bombers in the Theater. To help even the air to air score the Germans also sent some Bf 110s. The British then deployed Tomahawks, which proved dangerous opponents for both the Bf 110 and the MC 200. Hurricane Mk IIs with 4 x 20 mm cannon were very good at destroying bombers and were dangerous strafers, capable of destroying light armored vehicles and ordinance efficiently. The Germans brought in the first elements of JG .27 with Bf 109E and later F fighters. The Brits got fast Baltimore and Boston bombers and brought in Kittyhawks, and the Germans deployed the first Ju 88s. And so on.

By the time of Pedestal, all of the third and fourth tier aircraft had been forced out of the front line in the Desert, to be replaced by the best available. The first Spitfire Mk V had arrived on Malta in April 1942 and in North Africa shortly after, forming the top fighter tier. Kittyhawk Mk II and III were the main fighter after that, followed by Tomahawks and Hurricane II, Kittyhawk I and a few Hurricane I though the latter were mostly being used as fighter-bombers by then. The Americans sent some P-39s but after a few disastrous engagements they were quickly relegated to 'coastal patrol'. They also had a few Martlets. The Blenheims and Lysanders were also long gone, as were the SM. 79s, CANT 1007s, Bf 110s and He 111s - all basically relegated to maritime operations. Ju 88s and Ju 87s flew very careful sorties and were quick to jettison their bombs and flee for home when they saw Allied fighters, and took heavily casualties every time they were caught. P-38s arrived in Nov 1942 and the Americans brought in B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers, and B-25s and B-26s. The Germans were flying Bf 109F and G fighters, the Italians MC 202s and only a few MC 200. The elite JG 27 was starting to crack under the strain and started to rotate out by Oct 1942, being replaced by JG 77.

Now here's the thing. The Allied fighters involved in the land battle in North Africa in 1942 consisted of the following:

P-38F / G
Spitfire V
P-40
Hurricane
P-39
Martlet

Bombers consisted of:

Baltimore
Boston / A-20
B-25
B-26
B-17
B-24

*This is basically the same mix of aircraft the Allies were using in the Pacific. *In both cases, the Allied fighters struggled against the Axis, achieving something slightly below parity but gradually wearing down the Axis opposition through steadily increasing numbers and gradually improving tactics. The tactics used were different, because the Axis aircraft and _their _tactics were different, but there was a remarkably similar curve - from defeat and doom in the early part of 1942 to near parity by the middle.

In the Pacific, the Spitfire, as we know, for whatever combination of reasons struggled against the A6M. The P-40s got slaughtered early in the year in the Philippines and Java but held their own at Milne Bay etc. mid-year The P-39 was barely surviving in Guadalcanal etc., the Hurricanes got slaughtered every time they encountered A6M or Ki 43 fighters as far as I know. The F4F Martlet / Wildcat was much more prominent in the Pacific, and was basically on par with the P-40, that is to say, they just barely held their own against A6M.

Basically, these were the best combat aircraft the Allies had and *they were struggling roughly to the same extent against the Japanese as they were against the Germans and Italians using the same planes*. To me this suggests that the opposition was roughly of equal potency.

However, if we then pan the camera north, the scene changes dramatically. It's almost like going back in time 5 years to the Spanish Civil War era. In the maritime conflicts and convoy fights, all the antiques were heavily engaged. Allied fighters included:

Spitfire (a few, never enough)
Hurricanes
Sea Hurricanes
Fairey Fulmars
Blackburn Skuas
Gloster Gladiators
Sea Gladiators

and of course.. the bombers included Swordfish and Albacores. This too is where the Italians were able to still use their obsolescent SM 79, SM 84, SM 82, and CANT 1007 and 506 bombers, as well as their few remaining venerable CR 42 and G.50 fighters, their MC 200s, and the Germans could roll out their Bf 110s and He 111s along with Ju 87s and their (quite good) Ju 88s.

To me this highlights the fact that the convoy fights, important as they were, were a tertiary level of combat compared to the Pacific OR to the Western Desert.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 19, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Late to the party as usual but I'm a bit confused by:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, did I miss a major battle in the Pacific War? It's a bit of a stretch to say the RN "went up against the KB" because yes, both fleets were in the same ocean if that's what you mean. As _memory serves_, Sommerville spent most of his time keeping well away from KdB. Granted I believe he was angling for the much adored night radar torpedo attack, but I don't see much correlation to the Coral Sea action soon afterwards, and certainly not the battle off Midway in June.



That's not true. On the afternoon of April 5 Somerville's two carriers closed to within 150nm of the KB (and 5 IJN fleet carriers), located the KB via recon Albacores, whilst being undetected themselves and were preparing to launch a night strike, when the IJN intercepted the 2nd Albacore and prevented it from sending an accurate position report. The KB, which knew it had been detected by RN carrier aircraft, turned east to disengage and didn't move west again for 3 more days. Somerville spent that entire night probing for the KB with a strike prepared to go, but thought the KB had moved north west and could not reacquire them. On 6 or 7 April Somerville learned that he was up against the entire KB (less one fleet carrier), but also learned that no invasion was imminent, and then sent his older battleships to Kenya and his fast carriers north to Bombay.

If Fletcher had learned that the entire KB was heading towards him at Coral Sea, he too would have had to disengage or risk complete destruction. At Midway, the KB was down to 4 fleet carriers, whilst the USN had 3 and the equivalent of one or two more via strike aircraft at Midway Island, including ASV equipped PBYs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2021)

“Schweik, please report to the principles office.”

A fellow student in your class complained about you calling him a homeboy. (What is a homeboy anyhow that makes it so offensive?) Please address your fellow students by their name from now on.

To anyone listening. Threatening a “war of insults” over the word homeboy will not be tolerated either. This is not the 4th grade. Start acting like adults. There is no need for insults, real or perceived. At the same time, a little thicker skin would not be so bad either.

Now can we all debate like adults, and get along? Act amicable at the very least?

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 19, 2021)

I apologize for the use of "homeboy". It is a common colloquialism where I live, with no negative connotations that I am aware of. To the contrary, it implies a friendly failiarity, similar (or so I have been lead to believe) to 'mate' in the UK and elsewhere in the Anglo-American sphere.

I also meant nothing pejorative by the appellation "tiger". It was meant in the spirit of friendly banter, nothing more.

If I was being overfamiliar, I apologize for that as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 19, 2021)

All kidding aside, I think what is actually being revealed here is that years ago when many of us were youngsters being educated on military history, each national (or pan-national, in the case of the Commonwealth) tradition had it's own heavy emphasis on the exploits of the home nation. On the kit used and especially designed and produced by their own countrymen. And on the Theaters where their uncles and fathers and grandfathers fought. 

So as a kid growing up in the US, and my dad a Navy veteran, I learned all about the exploits in the Pacific Theater. Read the books, listened to the interviews, watched the documentaries and played the SPI games (and later even a few computer games, though they were never as fun). I didn't really know much about the Mediterranean Theater until fairly recently, and most of what I know about the Channel front I learned on this board.

As the result our assumptions are _different,_ our emphasis is different, our sense of perspective is skewed toward what is deeply familiar to us. I always grew up thinking of the Imperial Japanese Navy as _by far_ the most dangerous Axis foe at sea, (and to be honest, I still think that was the case) but I can understand why someone growing up in the UK or Commonwealth, or Italy, might think the Med was more important. To be honest until I got on this board I didn't know about the Swordfish carrying radar or the Albacore being capable of dive bombing, and that's quite interesting. Doesn't mean I changed my mind about MTO convoys vs. Pacific Theater naval throwdowns, but it is great to learn new things about all this. And helps me partly understand why those types remained in production and use for so long. 

Until yesterday I had no idea what the radar screen on a WW2 aircraft looked like, and now I do. Fantastic. It looks fantastic. So maybe we should do more learning from each other and less getting bent out of shape every time we disagree on the range of a Bf 110 or a Ju 87.

After all, though it's hard to even conceive of this right now that I'm mentally sitting in the backseat of a Swordfish, there are millions, no I think it's fair to say billions of people out there who don't give a crap about WW2, or torpedo planes, or radar, and will never know the joy of arguments like this. We have far more in common with each other than we do with those poor deprived souls.

Just my $.02.

S

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 19, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The Barracuda was another disaster on so many levels, apparrently for the most part killed in the pre-design specs phase. I often wondered if this was the main issue with all the FAA designs, naval battleship officers just couldn't get their head around aviation.



Yup, agree, but the insistence of the FAA on producing specs where one aircraft does everything makes for a complicated beast. The Barra spec was written at a time when the FAA was going from RAF to navy control and could have benefitted from some restraint. It should have been a better aircraft than it was but the navy had already decided that modern (that is, all-metal, high performance) aircraft should be able to do as much as possible for several reasons back in the early 1930s; that is, because their increase in size and complexity meant limited space on a small number of carriers, which accounted for torpedo/dive bomber/reconnaissance aircraft, and the slightly impracticable fighter/dive bomber specification.



Schweik said:


> Trying to jam too many roles in the multi-role design is another chronic problem with American designs



I think the British may have beat the USA to that particular thing!



Reluctant Poster said:


> The Swordfish successor should have been a monoplane.



Yup, in hindsight. Britain had a march over every other navy in aerial torpedo operations and old habits die hard. The very first aircraft carrier based torpedo aircraft had no armament at all (apart from the torpedo) and were single-seaters. Their defence was flying low and slow and evading enemy interference by manoeuvring. This was the Sopwith T.1 of 1917 vintage and carried through to the post war RAF Fleet Air Arm's first torpedoplane, the Blackburn Dart, again a single-seater with no defensive armament. The Swordfish wasn't far removed in technology from the Dart, as was its replacements in the Baffin and Ripon, which were essentially based on the Dart's design, but enlarged and fitted with more equipment and people on board to satisfy increased roles, such as fleet spotter/reconnaissance duties. The Albacore was the ultimate in the British torpedoplane thought process and, to all intents and purposes a sound design, but, as with so many aircraft we discuss on this forum, was overtaken by technological development, yet, by sheer experience and practicability was eminently suited for the role it was designed to fulfil. The Barracuda was supposed to be the Applecore's _and_ the dive bomber Skua's replacement - see above.




Schweik said:


> I also meant nothing pejorative by the appellation "tiger". It was meant in the spirit of friendly banter, nothing more.



Yup, same as the phrase "easy tiger" (which I've used recently!) - it's a colloquialism designed to highlight someone's over enthusiasm, rather than said as an insult.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 20, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Axis aircraft were operating from 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and had much more staying power than IJN carrier aircraft as a consequence.
> 
> The 89 CR42, G.50, Re2000, and Mc200s were at least as good as the A5M4 Claude which was still a common aircraft in the 1942 IJN inventory. Biplane and flying boat recon aircraft were still common in the IJN.
> 
> ...



What? Ju 87B-2 could carry 1000 kg bomb only as an overload and it meant that the rear gunner was leaved on the ground. A Ju 87 B as a single seater carrying a 1000 kg bomb would be a sitting duck for any enemy fighter. And if a Ju 87 R was carrying droptanks for extra range, its bombload was limited to one 250 kg bomb.

Ju 87 B/R could carry in short range attacks heavier loads, that is true because Val's load was either one 250 kg bomb OR two 60 kg bombs, the latter was really a rather laughable load for an anti-shipping strike. But for long range missions both Ju 87 R and Val carried the same max. bomb load, namely one 250 kg bomb

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 20, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> That's not true. On the afternoon of April 5 Somerville's two carriers closed to within 150nm of the KB (and 5 IJN fleet carriers), located the KB via recon Albacores, whilst being undetected themselves and were preparing to launch a night strike, when the IJN intercepted the 2nd Albacore and prevented it from sending an accurate position report. The KB, which knew it had been detected by RN carrier aircraft, turned east to disengage and didn't move west again for 3 more days. Somerville spent that entire night probing for the KB with a strike prepared to go, but thought the KB had moved north west and could not reacquire them. On 6 or 7 April Somerville learned that he was up against the entire KB (less one fleet carrier), but also learned that no invasion was imminent, and then sent his older battleships to Kenya and his fast carriers north to Bombay.
> 
> If Fletcher had learned that the entire KB was heading towards him at Coral Sea, he too would have had to disengage or risk complete destruction. At Midway, the KB was down to 4 fleet carriers, whilst the USN had 3 and the equivalent of one or two more via strike aircraft at Midway Island, including ASV equipped PBYs.


I'm well aware of the information in both of those paragraphs thank you. Fact is, Fletcher WAS there to stop an invasion like it or not. Although he did have the luxury of reinforcements in the form of Enterprise and Hornet i.e. TF16, which was hauling ass down from Pearl Harbor after the Doolittle strike. So if KdB showed up in force (5 - 6 CV's), Fletcher could have bided his time until help arrived. Then it's mano a mano boys, bring your A game and may the best carriers win. Also remember, American carrier air groups were larger than their IJN counterparts, so the USN may be outnumbered in flight decks but would have almost parity in numbers of aircraft engaged. As it was, the IJN came whithin a whisker of losing all three carriers devoted to the MO operation.

No disrespect to the RN in the Indian Ocean at the time, but Sommervile was a one trick pony, he could hazard a night torpedo attack, which in my estimation stood a very good chance of success. But that was all, once daylight comes it might get ugly, but I tend to think he could have put down a couple of IJN carriers in the night attack. I don't like his odds fending off a daylight attack from KdB the next morning if he's still in range. I think he would have been savvy enough to get the hell out of Dodge as soon as the night strike was back.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 20, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'm well aware of the information in both of those paragraphs thank you. Fact is, Fletcher WAS there to stop an invasion like it or not. Although he did have the luxury of reinforcements in the form of Enterprise and Hornet i.e. TF16, which was hauling ass down from Pearl Harbor after the Doolittle strike. So if KdB showed up in force (5 - 6 CV's), Fletcher could have bided his time until help arrived. Then it's mano a mano boys, bring your A game and may the best carriers win. Also remember, American carrier air groups were larger than their IJN counterparts, so the USN may be outnumbered in flight decks but would have almost parity in numbers of aircraft engaged. As it was, the IJN came whithin a whisker of losing all three carriers devoted to the MO operation.



Fletcher also had the potential support of land based aircraft from New Guinea, which he may have needed to move closer to in the event of being more heavily outnumbered.



> No disrespect to the RN in the Indian Ocean at the time, but Sommervile was a one trick pony, he could hazard a night torpedo attack, which in my estimation stood a very good chance of success. But that was all, once daylight comes it might get ugly, but I tend to think he could have put down a couple of IJN carriers in the night attack. I don't like his odds fending off a daylight attack from KdB the next morning if he's still in range. I think he would have been savvy enough to get the hell out of Dodge as soon as the night strike was back.



Yep. I don't think you'd want to rely on Fulmars to protect you from ~150 Japanese strike aircraft. The likelihood of swift doom would have been very high. It would also be a big risk to make a night attack during the night itself, because due to the very short range of the Swordfish, the RN fleet would have to get very close to launch and recover a strike, and there was the distinct possibility of running into a Japanese surface fleet. If the IJN sent out some of their destroyers with those long-lance torpedoes, even a few of them could have wrecked the British fleet. Not to even speak of the larger surface ships.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 20, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> What? Ju 87B-2 could carry 1000 kg bomb only as an overload and it meant that the rear gunner was leaved on the ground. A Ju 87 B as a single seater carrying a 1000 kg bomb would be a sitting duck for any enemy fighter. And if a Ju 87 R was carrying droptanks for extra range, its bombload was limited to one 250 kg bomb.
> 
> Ju 87 B/R could carry in short range attacks heavier loads, that is true because Val's load was either one 250 kg bomb OR two 60 kg bombs, the latter was really a rather laughable load for an anti-shipping strike. But for long range missions both Ju 87 R and Val carried the same max. bomb load, namely one 250 kg bomb



The Luftwaffe (OB from Operation Pedestal) was flying JU87Ds and I know that they were carrying 1000kg bombs, because they hit Indomitable with two of them. In the Fall of 1941 Ju87Bs hit the Soviet battleship Marat with 1000kg AP bombs and there is strong evidence that they used the same on HMS Illustrious in Jan 1941. The JU87R could carry the same bomb weight for short range missions, and due to the operational requirements of the Malta Convoys FAA carriers had to operate within the JU87B radius of action with a 1000kg bomb. I already indicated, in a prior post (#245), that the JU87-R traded bomb weight for extra fuel for long range missions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 20, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'm well aware of the information in both of those paragraphs thank you. Fact is, Fletcher WAS there to stop an invasion like it or not. Although he did have the luxury of reinforcements in the form of Enterprise and Hornet i.e. TF16, which was hauling ass down from Pearl Harbor after the Doolittle strike. So if KdB showed up in force (5 - 6 CV's), Fletcher could have bided his time until help arrived. Then it's mano a mano boys, bring your A game and may the best carriers win. Also remember, American carrier air groups were larger than their IJN counterparts, so the USN may be outnumbered in flight decks but would have almost parity in numbers of aircraft engaged. As it was, the IJN came whithin a whisker of losing all three carriers devoted to the MO operation.
> 
> No disrespect to the RN in the Indian Ocean at the time, but Sommervile was a one trick pony, he could hazard a night torpedo attack, which in my estimation stood a very good chance of success. But that was all, once daylight comes it might get ugly, but I tend to think he could have put down a couple of IJN carriers in the night attack. I don't like his odds fending off a daylight attack from KdB the next morning if he's still in range. I think he would have been savvy enough to get the hell out of Dodge as soon as the night strike was back.



Basically, you are saying that Fletcher would probably withdraw until reinforced (if intel indicated he was up against the entire KB) , and I'm sure Somerville thought the same, after he learned that he was up against the entire KB (of course there was only a single RN fleet carrier due to arrive in May). Somerville's initial intel was that he faced a two fleet carrier IJN force.

Somerville was prepared to launch daylight strikes if the weather conditions gave the Albacores a reasonable chance of evading CAP, but of course he would not dare to do this against the actual forces against him and the historical weather.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 20, 2021)

There is more to bomber effectiveness than tonnage carried. At the time of the April 1942 slaughter of the RN fleet near Ceylon, the 85 x D3A1, escorted by 9 zeros which easily breezed past the escort of Fairy Fulmars (shooting down two on the way) and half of them locating their target, quickly sunk the HMS Hermes, these IJN dive bombers with their original highly trained crews had a bombing accuracy rate of over 80%. They had developed a new method for attacking warships of using general purpose HE bombs in the first wave, to wipe out the light AA, and then the armor-piercing bombs in the second wave. Their 250 kg bombs had no trouble sinking the Hermes and 5 other ships, then later another 3 more for the loss of 4 only bombers to all causes.

In spite of being unarmored, the D3A was agile and maneuverable enough to survive combat with naval _or land based_ fighters. When they engaged the land based fighters of 258 Squadron in Ceylon in two raids on April 5 1942, the toll on the IJN was 5 x D3A and 1 A6M lost, for 8 x Hurricanes and 3 x Fulmars. Then in a second engagement 1 x D3A was lost and 8 more Hurricanes destroyed.. In all 16 x Hurricanes, 4 Fulmars, 4 Blenheims and 6 Swordfish (which were just flying through the area) were shot down. Numerous fighters and light bombers were also destroyed on the ground. They lost at least one Albacore and two PBYs flying recon missions. As far as I can determine the IJN lost a total of 9 x Val bombers and 3 x A6M. In addition to the Hermes (which was hit by no less than *40* x 250 kg bombs), the British lost the armed merchant cruiser Hector, the Cruisers Dorsetshire and Cornwall, 2 destroyers, 23 merchant ships, and 2 light war vessels. One US and one Australian ship were also lost. I think that proves the deadliness of the Japanese naval forces against RN and RAF at that time.

But if you are extremely fixated on heavy bomb weights, D3A was not the only Japanese strike aircraft available in the mid-war. the Yokosuka D4Y (combat debut in 1942), which made 340 mph and had a 950 mile range _with ordinance_, carried a 500 kg bomb. Not that you really need that if you can hit an enemy carrier 40 times.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 20, 2021)

Here's another way to look at it. I would say on that one day of April 5 the IJN wroght more havoc than the losses of the entirety of operation Pedestal which went on for 12 days, and suffered fewer losses themselves in the process. 

At least according to Wikipedia, in and near *Ceylon*, the IJN almost all on April 5, destroyed the following - 

1 x Carrier (Hermes)
2 x Heavy cruisers
2 x Destroyers
1 x "Armed merchant cruiser"
1 x Corvette
1 x Sloop
23 x Merchant ships
40+ aircraft

The Japanese lost 20+ aircraft

During *Pedastal *3-15 August, according to Wikipedia the Germans and Italians destroyed the following:

1 x Aircraft Carrier + 1 damaged
2 x Light Cruisers + 2 damaged
1 x Destroyer
9 x Merchant ships +3 damaged
34 aircraft destroyed

and lost 2 x submarines and 40-60 aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 20, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Luftwaffe (OB from Operation Pedestal) was flying JU87Ds and I know that they were carrying 1000kg bombs, because they hit Indomitable with two of them. In the Fall of 1941 Ju87Bs hit the Soviet battleship Marat with 1000kg AP bombs and there is strong evidence that they used the same on HMS Illustrious in Jan 1941. The JU87R could carry the same bomb weight for short range missions, and due to the operational requirements of the Malta Convoys FAA carriers had to operate within the JU87B radius of action with a 1000kg bomb. I already indicated, in a prior post (#245), that the JU87-R traded bomb weight for extra fuel for long range missions.


Ok, I was thinking on 1941 battles, anyway Peter C. Smith, a dive-bomber enthusiast if there is one, in his Junkers Ju 87 Stuka (Crowood 1998) and Armoured Aircraft Carriers (armouredcarriers.com) agreed that Indomitable was hit by two 250 kg bombs. And what "_strong evidence that they used the same on HMS Illustrious in Jan 1941._" there is. I have not seen a German report showing the ordinance used in the attacks but Report: (armouredcarriers.com) says that the 6th hit was at first estimated to be made by a 500 kg bomb but then re-valuated to be a 1000 kg bomb, but according to Smith it also was a 500 kg bomb as were the 4th and 5th hits and the 8th [I corrected this, I had missed the one hit of undetermined size achieved during the last attack on 10th Jan. which was the 7th hit] on 16th Jan at Malta. 
On Marat, IIRC something what I read decades ago, a few 1000 kg bombs were allocated to some specially selected pilots for the attack, not something to be used by an ordinary pilot flying Ju 87 B.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 20, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Ok, I was thinking on 1941 battles, anyway Peter C. Smith, a dive-bomber enthusiast if there is one, in his Junkers Ju 87 Stuka (Crowood 1998) and Armoured Aircraft Carriers (armouredcarriers.com) agreed that Indomitable was hit by two 250 kg bombs. And what "_strong evidence that they used the same on HMS Illustrious in Jan 1941._" there is. I have not seen a German report showing the ordinance used in the attacks but Report: (armouredcarriers.com) says that the 6th hit was at first estimated to be made by a 500 kg bomb but then re-valuated to be a 1000 kg bomb, but according to Smith it also was a 500 kg bomb as were the 4th and 5th hits and the 7th on 16th Jan at Malta.
> On Marat, IIRC something what I read decades ago, a few 1000 kg bombs were allocated to some specially selected pilots for the attack, not something to be used by an ordinary pilot flying Ju 87 B.



The Ju87s that attacked Illustrious was a specialist anti-shipping unit that was specifically tasked with sinking her. Even If they carried 'only' 500kg bombs this is still double the load of a D3A1 Val, and gave the Ju87 the ability to potentially sink heavily armoured ships, such as Illustrious or damage them severely enough that they would be forced to scuttle. A dive-bomber delivered 250kg bomb could never penetrate the armoured box around her machinery spaces. However, we know that 1000kg bombs were available to the JU87s in Jan 1941 and we know that they could carry them, and that Illustrious was within range of the JU87 armed with a 1000kg bomb.


----------



## Ascent (Jan 20, 2021)

Some pictures of Illustrious under attack from my Grandfathers collection. He was an RN gunner on a destroyer.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 20, 2021)

German account of attack on Illustrious:
_
"On or about 10 January the Geschwader received news that the British
aircraft carrier "Illustrious" was bound from Gibraltar for Malta.
It was expected to pass in the next few hours the offshore island
of Pantellaria, south of Trapani. It was said to cruise quite
unsuspectingly as if the British ruled the Mediterranean,
proudly ignoring the existence of any Italian Fleet or Air Force,
not to mention the German Stukas on Sicily. It seemed to be a
fine catch for us. It was decided to attack the carrier, taking
it by surprise. Our two Gruppen prepared for action, loading the
500-kg bombs with armor-piercing heads. Soon we were given the
operation order. My friend, the valiant commander of II/Stuka 2,
Major Enneccerus (Brigadier General after the war), flew the
first attack while I was on another mission... 

...Now this aircraft carrier was for the Supreme Command of the Luft-
waffe a matter of prestige, also a precedent. It had to be sunk
under all circumstances. If the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht
could have reported the sinking of an aircraft carrier by German
Stukas, both friend and foe would have sat up and taken notice.
So commenced our attacks, with heavy losses, against the aircraft
carrier in La Valetta. In La Valetta more than 90 AA batteries
of all calibers spit their fire against us, the attackers. At
the same time a strong unit of "Hurricanes" seriously interfered
with us on the approach route and after our departure. In prac-
tically every sortie I lost three or four of my old-battle-tested
crews--an irreparable loss. It was just impossible to replace
those thoroughly trained and experienced pilots and their back-
seaters. During those actions the carrier was hit by four 1,000-kg
bombs, the heaviest a JU-87 could carry. Still we did not succeed
in sinking it, though she must have suffered terrible inner damage...

from: 
"CONVERSATIONS WITH A STUKA PILOT"
CONFERENCE FEATURING
Paul-Werner Hozzel
Brig. General (ret.). German Air Force
AT
The National War College
November 1978" pages 44-45._

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 21, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> German account of attack on Illustrious:
> 
> _"On or about 10 January the Geschwader received news that the British
> aircraft carrier "Illustrious" was bound from Gibraltar for Malta.
> ...



Interesting, but Stukas got only one hit during their attacks on HMS Illustrious at Malta. Plus one or two damaging very near miss(es)while flying 44 sorties on 16 (causing the 8th hit) and 42 sorties on 19th (one or two near misses). Now Valletta situates only under 100 km south of Sicily and Germans knew the exact position of Illustrious, so they could keep the rear gunner and simply took 100 - 120 kg less fuel, same goes to Marat. But in open sea shipping strikes one needs some fuel reserves for possible search for targets, so IMHO your scenario that Ju 87 is worth of 4 Vals as load carrier is not very realistic, at least when talking on Bs and Rs. D model was fairly different animal, capable to carry even 1,800 kg bomb for short range sorties, but I don't have just now time to study it closer.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 21, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Ju87s that attacked Illustrious was a specialist anti-shipping unit that was specifically tasked with sinking her. Even If they carried 'only' 500kg bombs this is still double the load of a D3A1 Val, and gave the Ju87 the ability to potentially sink heavily armoured ships, such as Illustrious or damage them severely enough that they would be forced to scuttle. A dive-bomber delivered 250kg bomb could never penetrate the armoured box around her machinery spaces. However, we know that 1000kg bombs were available to the JU87s in Jan 1941 and we know that they could carry them, and that Illustrious was within range of the JU87 armed with a 1000kg bomb.



What was the range of Ju 87 B-2 with a rear gunner and a 1,000 kg bomb? And HMS Indomitable was badly crippled by two 250 kg hits and three near misses.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 21, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Interesting, but Stukas got only one hit during their attacks on HMS Illustrious at Malta. Plus one or two damaging very near miss(es)while flying 44 sorties on 16 (causing the 8th hit) and 42 sorties on 19th (one or two near misses). Now Valletta situates only under 100 km south of Sicily and Germans knew the exact position of Illustrious, so they could keep the rear gunner and simply took 100 - 120 kg less fuel, same goes to Marat. But in open sea shipping strikes one needs some fuel reserves for possible search for targets, so IMHO your scenario that Ju 87 is worth of 4 Vals as load carrier is not very realistic, at least when talking on Bs and Rs. D model was fairly different animal, capable to carry even 1,800 kg bomb for short range sorties, but I don't have just now time to study it closer.



I don't expect him to know the details of all the hits, only of the ordnance that was carried. The luftwaffe knew the position of Illustrious when she was first attacked by Stukas and it was less than 100nm miles from the Luftwaffe bases in Sicily and no further than when Illustrious was in Malta Harbour. This map shows the distances involved and the risks that the RN had to run to escort a convoy to Malta:

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...MshLAGzx4R3EDFOm1kBS/IMG_0469.PNG?format=750w

In this interview the Stuka Squadron Commander that attacked Indomitable states that they carried 1 x 500kg and 2 x 250kg bombs each:


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

It looks like Indomitable was indeed hit by two 500 kg bombs dropped by Stukas of StG 3. The same unit also scored four hits on the HMS Warspite during the earlier operation Excess, but it too failed to sink. Later the same Stukas managed to damage the light cruiser HMS Southampton badly enough that it was scuttled. They never sunk any capital ships as far as I could determine.

This is footage of the actual attack here:



And yet, unlike HMS Hermes in the Indian Ocean, the Stukas couldn't sink Indomitable. Apparently at least in part because even with bombs twice as big (possible due to the very short range at the time of the strike) they got comparatively much fewer hits. Apparently 40 250kg or smaller bombs was fatal whereas 2 x 500kg bombs were not. Indomitable went on to survive till the end of the war and was flying Seafires and Albacores from 1943, then Hellcats and Avengers in 1945....

Hermes was an older design, but the key factor in the difference is the ability of the bombers to score hits. Air defense was similar though it is possible that Indomitable was flying 12 x Martlets at the time of Pedestal, which would have been more effective air defense than the Fulmars.


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 21, 2021)

Additional differences relative to survival that should be noted:

Hermes was ~1/2 the displacement of Indomitable and built along heavy cruiser lines, while the Illustrious/Indomitable class was built along capital ship lines.

The Hermes had only a 1" flight deck, while the Illustrious/Indomitable class had a 3" armoured deck, with a 1" hanger deck on the Illustrious group, or the 1" of both hanger decks (I think) on the Indomitable.

Do not misunderstand, I do not think the Illustrious/Indomitable class would have survived an attack equal to the one against Hermes. I doubt that any carrier operational in WWII would have survived that many hits, unless it was due to luck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> It looks like Indomitable was indeed hit by two 500 kg bombs dropped by Stukas of StG 3. The same unit also scored four hits on the HMS Warspite during the earlier operation Excess, but it too failed to sink. Later the same Stukas managed to damage the light cruiser HMS Southampton badly enough that it was scuttled. They never sunk any capital ships as far as I could determine.
> 
> This is footage of the actual attack here:
> 
> ...




Hermes had no CAP over her at the time of the IJN attack. A total of 14 Fulmars were despatched in two formations but they arrived after Hermes had been hit and was either sunk or sinking. The Fulmars then attacked the remaining 30 or 40 Vals which were in the process of attacking several merchant vessels and their escorts. Hermes did suffer multiple hits, but certainly not 40. The Fulmars shot down 4 Vals whilst suffering two losses. 

Hermes was one of the first purpose built carriers but was only 10,000 tons with almost no armour and no Side Protection System (SPS). Illustrious and Indomitable were heavily armoured 23000 ton modern carriers whose armoured flight deck and hangers were designed to withstand 500lb AP bombs delivered by divebombers and whose SPS was designed to protect her machinery from torpedoes and the effects of near miss bomb hits, which are deadly to ships without an SPS, as a near miss will typically stave in the hull allowing flooding of the machinery spaces. 

Neither Warspite or Valiant was hit during operation Excess. This is the official damage summary:

_"WARSPITE 10th Jan., 1941- One Near WARSPITE was operating off Malta when a near miss bomb burst off the starboard side
No major damage was caused to the hull structure but the starboard lower hawse pipe was split, the anchor damaged and the peravane chains severed.

Fighting Efficiency - Not impaired.

Bomb, judged
to have been 1000kgm

VALIANT 10th Jan., 1941
Five near misses with 500kgm direct action fuzed bombs.

VALIANT operating off Malta, suffered superficial splinter damage from five near miss
bombs. The yoke on the starboard rudder was loosened and dropped 3/16 inch. 

Fighting Efficiency - Not impaired" from: HM Ships damaged or sunk by enemy action._

However during the Crete operation on 22 May Warspite suffered heavy damage from a 250kg SAP bomb via an Me109 fighter bomber attack.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Additional differences relative to survival that should be noted:
> 
> Hermes was ~1/2 the displacement of Indomitable and built along heavy cruiser lines, while the Illustrious/Indomitable class was built along capital ship lines.
> 
> ...



Understood, good points. My main point is that other factors like range and how accurate the bombing is also matter quite a bit in assessing the effectiveness of a bomber (and what was needed for a bomber to destroy targets), not just the bomb load. This has been a debate that has come up over and over on this forum in many threads. Some people think bomb load was the only real measure of a bomber. The Stuka was a very accurate bomber by WW2 standards, that's why it remained in use for so long after it's slow speed and other limitations made it obsolete, but it did also have a very short range compared to pretty much all 'modern' naval aircraft by the time of Pedestal, no matter how you try to spin it.

And nearly every one of the Japanese bombers were exceptionally accurate as well, based on their combat histories, at least when they still had their highly trained crews. Not just the D3A but also the land based strike aircraft like the G4M and G3M and many of the Army types as well. B5N Kates even sunk some ships with level-bombing attacks in that Indian Ocean raid, a very rare accomplishment by WW2 standards.

One of the realities of WW2 aviation is that many, arguably most bomber designs were pretty ineffective at their main job (bombing), because they couldn't hit their targets often enough. Bombing accuracy was typically abyssmal. Even unusually accurate bombers like the Stuka only hit their targets a small percentage of the time. This was true both for Strategic bombing and Tactical bombing of the type so important in Naval War.

No doubt Indomitable was a tough ship and aptly named. It was apparently also hit by a torpedo later in the war launched from an SM.79 and survived that too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Neither Warspite or Valiant was hit during operation Excess. This is the official damage summary:
> 
> _"WARSPITE 10th Jan., 1941- One Near WARSPITE was operating off Malta when a near miss bomb burst off the starboard side
> No major damage was caused to the hull structure but the starboard lower hawse pipe was split, the anchor damaged and the peravane chains severed._
> ...



You are right about Warspite, my bad for trusting a Wikipedia article - it was apparently four claims of strikes by the Stuka pilots, but no actual hits. 

Interesting that Warspite was also at the site of the battle off of Ceylon, though she saw no action.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Understood, good points. My main point is that other factors like range and how accurate the bombing is also matter quite a bit in assessing the effectiveness of a bomber (and what was needed for a bomber to destroy targets), not just the bomb load. This has been a debate that has come up over and over on this forum in many threads. Some people think bomb load was the only real measure of a bomber. The Stuka was a very accurate bomber by WW2 standards, that's why it remained in use for so long after it's slow speed and other limitations made it obsolete, but it did also have a very short range compared to pretty much all 'modern' naval aircraft by the time of Pedestal, no matter how you try to spin it.
> 
> And nearly every one of the Japanese bombers were exceptionally accurate as well, based on their combat histories, at least when they still had their highly trained crews. Not just the D3A but also the land based strike aircraft like the G4M and G3M and many of the Army types as well. B5N Kates even sunk some ships with level-bombing attacks in that Indian Ocean raid, a very rare accomplishment by WW2 standards.
> 
> ...



The IJN Vals were not exceptionally accurate and we have to remember that attacking nearly unarmed merchant vessels allowed aircraft to drop from very low altitudes. This is a summary, from Lundstrom, of the very similar attack on USS Sims and the tanker Neosho, which had a maximum speed of only 14 knots.

_"By 1115, Lt. Cdr. Takahashi determined there definitely was no American carrier nearby and released the carrier attack group and its escorts to return to the carriers. His dive bombers would attack the oiler and accompanying destroyer. At 1126 he began his attacks. He led four carrier bombers against the destroyer Sims, and they scored three direct hits on the radically maneuvering tincan. The remaining thirty-two carrier bombers made slow, deliberate dives against the Neosho and inflicted at least seven hits, including a flaming crash by one of the Zuikaku carrier bombers. Noon found the Neosho adrift without power and perilously listing 30 degrees to starboard. Only her extensive compartmentation and tanks kept her afloat. For the loss of one carrier bomber, the Japanese had sunk one destroyer and fatally crippled a fleet oiler. "_

Unlike Hermes, which sank rapidly, the crew of Neosho had time to assess the damage and number of hits. 32 bombs dropped and ~7 hits on a lightly armed 14 knot tanker versus ~35 bombs dropped and 6 hits on Illustrious moving at 24 knots and having some degree of CAP and a lot more flak. Hermes was probably hit ~10 times.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

In that same raid they hit a destroyer three out of four times that was trying to evade! That is extremely unusual accuracy for bombers in WW2. They generally could hit the larger capital ships (and big equivalents like the Neosho) but smaller warships like Destroyers were considered very hard to get.

Since this whole thread has now become Indian Ocean / Pacific vs. MTO Theater, I would be_ delighted _to compare the bombing accuracy of the D3A "Val" which was indeed one of the most accurate bombers of WW2, with that of the Stuka (also one of the most accurate bombers, but not quite in the same league in the naval role) in detail.

I'm also glad to expand that to the other Japanese bombers and compare those to the Italian and German types. 

Against the Hermes, Cornwall and Dorsetshirte the D3A had a hit accuracy of better than 80%.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Against the Hermes, Cornwall and Dorsetshire the D3A had a hit accuracy of better than 80%.



The official damage summary states 19 direct hits (9 + 10) on Cornwall and Dorsetshire out of 53 bombs dropped. This was excellent bombing but not 80% accuracy and there's no reason to suppose that the attack on Hermes was more accurate (the damage summary states she "was repeatedly hit"). Remember it was the same crews that were attacking Neosho a month later. BWOC to the attack on USS Sims, 26 Vals attacked USS Edsall, on 1 March 1942, which was limited to about 26 knots and managed to score one direct hit, which stopped her and allowed pursuing IJN ships to sink her with gunfire.

On 11 May 1942, 31 x JU88s sank 3 RN destroyers (one was scuttled) each suffering at least one hit.


When we look at very small sample sizes, we often get skewed results, but typically anything over 25% is exceptionally accurate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

My understanding is that the 80% figure (specifically 82%) includes the strikes on all of the RN ships they hit in that one day engagement . I agree about the small sample size skewing results, that 82% number is often and prominently mentioned in conjunction with the D3A though it's not something I cherry picked for this debate.

The source cited for the number is listed as Francillon, René J. _Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War_. London: Putnam & Company Ltd., 1970 (2nd edition 1979

The wikipedia article says the Hermes was attacked by 32 "Vals" escorted by 9 A6M, and that they were intercepted by 6 Fulmar II fighters from 273 Sqn RAF, plus another six from 803 and 806 arrived afterward. They also sunk RFA Althelstone, the corvette Hollyhock, the oil tanker SS British Sereant (which had less luck than Neosho) and the Norwegian SS Norviken and the HMAS Destroyer Vampire.

The article says the Japanese lost FOUR D3A in this attack and the British lost two Fulmars.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> My understanding is that the 80% figure (specifically 82%) includes the strikes on all of the RN ships they hit in that one day engagement . I agree about the small sample size skewing results, that 82% number is often and prominently mentioned in conjunction with the D3A though it's not something I cherry picked for this debate.
> 
> The source cited for the number is listed as Francillon, René J. _Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War_. London: Putnam & Company Ltd., 1970 (2nd edition 1979



IJN claims cannot be used as a basis for hits scored. We have to look at bombs dropped vs hits reported by the vessels engaged.

At Coral Sea 31 Vals attacked Lexington and Yorktown and scored 5 hits yet:

_"The Japanese believed they had dealt mortal blows to at least one and probably both American flattops. Indeed, Takahashi at 1125 radioed that they had sunk the “Saratoga.” The strike crews claimed a total of nine torpedo and ten bomb hits on the “Saratoga,” and two torpedo and eight to ten bomb hits on the Yorktown. Actually, as we have seen, they had not hurt Task Force 17 nearly so badly. Now the Japanese would have to fight their way back out the cordon of defending aircraft, already embroiled in several melees with escort Zeros."_ (Lundstrom)

Yet claimed 18-20. The IJNAF was notorious for making greatly inflated claims.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

In the strike against Hermes, 18 D3A pilots from _Shōkaku_ struck first, and claimed 13 hits, then _Zuikaku's_ 14 pilots attacked, also claiming 13 hits. After that, the Hermes was already sinking, so only 11 of _Hiryū's_ 18 attacked the carrier and they claimed 9 hits. Lt. Zenji Abe and FPO 1/c Tamotsu Akimoto of _Akagi_ were the last two to attack, both claiming hits on the sinking carrier. The other 12 bombers from _Akagi_ broke off their attack.

The remaining 7 bombers from _Hiryū, _seeing that Hermes was already doomed, then joined 12 more from _Akagi_ to attack _HMAS Vampire_, which was split in half and "torn apart" according to the British report, with three direct hits and five near misses according to the RN report. This ship also sunk very quickly and of the 19 D3A which attacked, only 15 were able to drop bombs before it disappeared into the water in a series of violent explosions. So four D3A from _Hiryū_ and _Akagi_ flew back to their original target and dove on the now definitely sinking hulk of the Hermes, scoring four more hits (and these were confirmed by RN survivors floating in the water who were later picked up by the hospital ship)

After that 18 aircraft from_ Sōryū_ arrived and since Hermes was half underwater, they flew off to look for more targets, which they soon found and they were the ones which sunk _Hollyhock, Athelstane,_ and _Norviken_. This was when the four D3A were shot down by 14 Fulmars, as this group was caught without their escorts. One more D3A from this group crashed while landing on the _Sōryū_.

So that's actually a total of 40 hits _claimed_ on the Hermes, plus 3 on the destroyer Vampire and an unlisted number on three other ships. You are right we can't take all the claims at face value, but the damage was rather telling. Hermes sunk so fast that many of the D3A which were intending to bomb it had to find other targets.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

In other words, after HMS Hermes was attacked by the first 32 D3A dive bombers, it was _done_. The precise number of hits may be up for debate, they would have to examine the wreck on the bottom of the Indian Ocean and count the holes. But that was sufficient to sink it, and it sounds like it did have some fighter protection at the time.

I think they could have scored _many _more hits, and in fact they hit it several more times after it was already sinking, but there was no point in further belabouring the issue.

In the direct comparison with Pedastal, the IJN does not come across as the inferior opponent.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> In the strike against Hermes, 18 D3A pilots from _Shōkaku_ struck first, and claimed 13 hits, then _Zuikaku's_ 14 pilots attacked, also claiming 13 hits. After that, the Hermes was already sinking, so only 11 of _Hiryū's_ 18 attacked the carrier and they claimed 9 hits. Lt. Zenji Abe and FPO 1/c Tamotsu Akimoto of _Akagi_ were the last two to attack, both claiming hits on the sinking carrier. The other 12 bombers from _Akagi_ broke off their attack.
> 
> The remaining 7 bombers from _Hiryū, _seeing that Hermes was already doomed, then joined 12 more from _Akagi_ to attack _HMAS Vampire_, which was split in half and "torn apart" according to the British report, with three direct hits and five near misses according to the RN report. This ship also sunk very quickly and of the 19 D3A which attacked, only 15 were able to drop bombs before it disappeared into the water in a series of violent explosions. So four D3A from _Hiryū_ and _Akagi_ flew back to their original target and dove on the now definitely sinking hulk of the Hermes, scoring four more hits (and these were confirmed by RN survivors floating in the water who were later picked up by the hospital ship)
> 
> ...



The same or smaller numbers of Stukas (or SBDs, or Skuas or bomb armed Albacores or Swordfish) were quite likely to have achieved the same results. None of these ships represented difficult or hard to sink targets and the end result is not surprising or exceptional.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The same or smaller numbers of Stukas (or SBDs, or Skuas or bomb armed Albacores or Swordfish) were quite likely to have achieved the same results. None of these ships represented difficult or hard to sink targets and the end result is not surprising or exceptional.



Hahahahah yeah, I don't agree. SBD's yes- they too were quite deadly. Skuas? You gotta be kidding. Albacores or Swordfish would have been hard pressed to even reach the target and wold have been decimated by the CAP (before and after the raid)

I think this is the real crux of the debate we have. You (and I know some others here as well) seem to rate a bomber exclusively by bomb load. I think, based on reading the operational histories, many of the other factors like range, accuracy, maneuverability etc. actually mattered more. Particularly range and accuracy, especially when it comes to naval war. Few bombers in the war really had decent bombing accuracy, and the D3A was definitely one of those in that rare category.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Hahahahah yeah, I don't agree. SBD's yes- they too were quite deadly. Skuas? You gotta be kidding. Albacores or Swordfish would have been hard pressed to even reach the target and wold have been decimated by the CAP (before and after the raid)
> 
> I think this is the real crux of the debate we have. You (and I know some others here as well) seem to rate a bomber exclusively by bomb load. I think, based on reading the operational histories, many of the other factors like range, accuracy, maneuverability etc. actually mattered more. Particularly range and accuracy, especially when it comes to naval war. Few bombers in the war really had decent bombing accuracy, and the D3A was definitely one of those in that rare category.



The 16 Skuas that attacked Konigsberg scored 5 x 500lb bomb hits. The Skua was a very competent divebomber but suffered in this role because they were so often used as fighters. Well trained DB crews are going to achieve similar results, regardless of aircraft types, given a large sample size as all except for the Stuka had simple bomb sights. Prewar trials of Swordfish produced these results:

In 1939 Swordfish dropped 366 practise bombs against the target ship Centurion and averaged about a 70 yd error at dive angles from 60-70 degrees (Smith, _Dive Bomber_), and this would equate to about 33-50% hit rate against a Hermes sized target. Being able to drop multiple bombs per attack sortie should increase the hit rate per sortie.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 21, 2021)

The last several pages have taught me so much about the Swordfish Vs Devastator. Is it time to mention the P39 yet?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 21, 2021)

Only if it can drop nutsacks from 1,500 feet, at a dive angle of 60 degrees .......................


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2021)

When discussing whether a not a particular aircraft is a_ ship killer _we tend to overlook two things (or more).

1. the plane does not actually sink the ship, that is the bomb or torpedo. The plane just gets the bomb/torpedo to the drop location.

2. skill/determination of the pilots/crew. Best bomb/torpedo in the world doesn't work if dropped from too far away. or too hastily and trajectory does not take it to the target. 

Once you know that the bombs/torpedoes were equal and that the skill and/or training of the pilots/crews were somewhat equal then the stability/speed/whatever of the plane can be discussed. 

Skua gets a bad rap, In 1939 few other dive bombers carried much more bomb load as far. The first SBD-1 didn't fly until May of 1940, Anybody want to compare the Northrop BT-1 to the Skua??
Skua also had a crap bomb, A semi-armor piercing bomb with about 92lbs of explosive. The RAF and the FAA didn't have a1000lb when the Skua was designed and in fact the British only built 159 of the 1000lb GP in 1940 so the RNs chances of getting ahold of any were effectively zero. 
The British 500lb bomb wasn't going to penetrate a battleships deck (or even a good heavy cruiser) and it didn't have enough explosive to really wreck lightly armoured or unarmored ships or battleship topsides. A german 250kg SC bomb held 267-287lbs of HE, depending on exact model and type of explosive. Stuka with a single 250kg SC bomb is delivering almost 3 time the explosive of the bomb the Skua carried. US 500lb GP bomb carried about 250lbs of HE. 
Something to consider when _evaluating_ hits.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

By 1942, bombs are a lot better all around. The ordinance still makes a lot of difference with torpedoes, but bombs are only so different.

Crew training is certainly a real factor - the IJN in early 1942 was much, much scarier than the IJN in 1944. Same thing for the Luftwaffe whose bombers were not nearly as intimidating as they had once been. But factors like effective range are still hard limits (quite literally) on how effective a bomber can be. Which is where this particular side-debate actually started.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> In 1939 Swordfish dropped 366 practise bombs against the target ship Centurion and averaged about a 70 yd error at dive angles from 60-70 degrees (Smith, _Dive Bomber_), and this would equate to about 33-50% hit rate against a Hermes sized target. Being able to drop multiple bombs per attack sortie should increase the hit rate per sortie.



There were all kinds of wildly optimistic tests done pre-war. Dropping a bomb when there is no flak or light AAA shooting at you is like shooting targets at a range as opposed to in a real firefight. Or punching a heavy bag instead of a jerk in a bar who might punch you back.

Billy Mitchell arranged a series of stunts where B-17s were intercepting and dropping bombs on the decks of ships at sea. The government spent a half billion dollars developing the supposedly miraculous Norden bombsight and were convinced that they could drop a bomb in a pickle-barrel as the propaganda line went, from 30,000 ft. They were certain that four-engined heavy bombers could take out ships at sea too. Pre-war testing made it look highly plausible.

But that's a far cry from the battlefield. In the actual Pacific War B-17s and B-24s dropped thousands of tons of bombs _at_ Japanese ships. From the point of view of bombs carried and bombs dropped, which is all some people think actually matters for a bomber, they were far superior to the D3A or the SBD. But they sunk _vastly fewer _ships. Once actual fighting started they found out what really worked and what really didn't. In the Pacific, the B-17s and B-24s were good for recon and submarine patrol, or bombing the occasional airfeild, but that's about it. When it came to sinking ships, the D3A worked. So did the SBD. So did the B5N, even though it was definitely obsolescent. So did the completely obsolete Swordfish under the perfect conditions, but Swordfish were _well_ past their heyday by the time of Pedestal. With all due respect to the Italians, the IJN was a _far cry_ more well organized and dangerous than the Regia Marina. And the RN learned this the hard way off of Ceylon in April 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2021)

By 1942 bombs were better, British are still behind. The British 1000lb GP bomb held about 33% explosive by weight. The British MC bomb carried about 47% explosive by weight. But it doesn't show up in numbers worth counting until 1943 the tail fin design was not finalized until March of 1943. German 500kg SC bomb held 551-573lbs of explosive or about 19% more than the British 1000lb MC and about 68% more explosive than the British 1000lb GP bomb. German 500kg SD bombs varied but some would be just under 400lbs of explosive. The German SD bombs, depending on version were semi armour piercing. Best (with less explosive) could penetrate a 50mm armour deck at a 60 degree angle (30 degrees from vertical but height/impact speed not given. 

Many dive bombers traded fuel for bombload. SBDs had great range with no bomb or with the 500lb bomb, with the 1000lb bomb range wasn't so great. SBD-3 manual says 100 gals with the 1000lb bomb, 140 gallons with 500lb bomb and 260 gallons with no bomb. Gross weight may have been changed (raised) later. This is for the SBD with protected tanks and armor, manual also gives fuel capacities without armor and protected tanks.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

It's a lot better to still have the option to be able to hit ships with 500 lb bombs when they are far away (and retaining the capability of hitting them with 1,000 lbs bombs when they are close) than to be limited to less than half of that effective range with _any _bomb, like the Swordfish (and I'm talking to you too Ju 87).

With Naval strike aircraft, that extra range is extra important especially when tangling with an opponent like the IJN who definitely won't be confused during a night time naval engagement and have plenty of 20,000 yard range type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes ready to go.

The 1,100 mile range on the SBD translated to about 250 mile effective range for a strike (350 for scouting). To me that suggests the effective strike range for a Swordfish is closer to 100 or maybe 120 miles. That is within fairly easy distance for a ship to move in a few hours. A few Japanese destroyers could wreak havoc on a British fleet like at Pedestal.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2021)

When evaluating bombers you also have to consider the targets. B-24s and B-17s may have sucked at bombing moving ships. 
But Vals/Ju-87s/SBDs would have sucked trying to bomb factories 300-500 miles away from bases. 

They may have gotten hits but the loss rate would have been horrendous. 
Dive bombers work great against small, high value targets where you can trade several (or more than several) planes for single ship or bridge or other high value point. 
They also work great against 2nd class AA systems. Or 3rd class. 

The B-17s and B-24s (and the British bombers) forced the Germans to build thousands of large AA guns and fire control systems and fire thousands of shell per bomber shot down.

Dive bombers wind up within range of even infantry machineguns (at least for a few seconds) so you can take out a lot of dive bombers using small (20-40 mm) automatic guns. 

Trying to be too simplistic in comparing planes wind up with rather useless comparisons.
If you are trying to compare bombers attacking strategic land based targets then range and bombload are good starting points. 

BTW for a starting point on dive bombing/low level bombing see the July 24-28th 1945 attacks on Kure Japan. The US lost 133 planes due to enemy action and accidents. Number damaged unknown. 
And basicly Japanese light AA sucked.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 21, 2021)

I was speaking specifically about the Pacific Theater - B-17s and B-24s were used over and over again to attack Japanese warships, right to the end of the war, and they missed over and over _and over _again, despite dropping thousands of tons of bombs. For the most part all they ever killed was fish. So for those people who are routinely so simplistic as to base their entire evaluation of a bomber on the bomb load, I'd say read up on that reality.

The merits of Strategic bombing per se as distinct from Tactical bombing is a completely different debate, and this thread is derailed enough already - but I will note that the Germans had great success with their Stuka dive bombers in the MTO until probably the third quarter of 1942, when they had become no longer viable (not due to AAA so much as because of enemy fighters). Because while an accurate bomber and maneuverable, the Stuka was slow as molasses on a cold day. But they continued to be quite useful on the Russian Front right up until the end of 1944 if I recall correctly, and in both cases (and others like in the Battle of France) they proved decisive in various battles not from high loss attacks on high value targets like Capital ships or even bridges, but against much more prosaic targets like troop concentrations, tanks and artillery.

The US had similar but somewhat lesser success with the A-36, and the DAF in general with fighter bombers flying in low-level attacks and sometimes a semi- dive-bomber role.

Similarly in the Pacific, dive bombers including some unlikely specimens, were used to attack troops, as were fighter bombers and fast twin engined bombers. That was the preferred method of attack, because level bombing usually just didn't work. At least not in that Theater.

Dive bombers, Kure notwithstanding, actually tended to have pretty good survival rates overall compared to most level bombers, though it depended in part on the training level of the crews. Naval crews did much better with SBDs both offensively and in terms of attrition than Army or Marine crews.


----------



## muskeg13 (Jan 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Billy Mitchell arranged a series of stunts where B-17s were intercepting and dropping bombs on the decks of ships at sea. The government spent a half billion dollars developing the supposedly miraculous Norden bombsight and were convinced that they could drop a bomb in a pickle-barrel as the propaganda line went, from 30,000 ft. They were certain that four-engined heavy bombers could take out ships at sea too. Pre-war testing made it look highly plausible.



Impossible. Mitchell was court martialed in 1925 and put out of the service. He died in 1936. The Army Air Corps didn't receive their first 13 YB-17s until 1937. I think you are mixing up air power demonstration tests. Mitchell's "stunts" were conducted in 1921 against stationary ships from relatively low altitude. During the 1930s, there were a number of airplane vs ship "maneuvers" conducted by both the Air Corps and the Navy, including intercepting and dropping flower sacks and water bombs on moving warships, from low altitudes. The long-range search and ship bombing capabilities of the new B-17s were highlighted several times in 1937 (several hits scored from an altitude of 400 feet) and culminating in the May 1938 interception of the Italian liner Rex approximately 700 miles of off the U.S. east coast. This prompted a USN protest that the Army (Air Corps) was getting too much into USN business and all Army aircraft were restricted to operating no more than 100 nautical miles off the U.S. coasts which remained in effect until WW2 broke out. The first Norden bomb sight wasn't installed in B-17s until 1939. 

During WW2, there were several examples of U.S. Army medium altitude bombers (including B-17s and B-24s) successfully attacking ships, but usually these were either stationary or very slow moving merchant vessels in restricted waters and certainly were not from 20,000 or 30,000 feet. The Army ship killers were 5th Air Force B-25s and A-20s using 500 pound bombs in skip and mast height bombing, like during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 22, 2021)

I would also note, although I can't find the source right at the moment, that AAF B-17's doctrine was to approach any moving ship from the stern with at least 12 bombers in a line abreast formation in a bit of a Vee shape. The idea was that once the bombs were released it didn't matter which way the ship turned, it would be turning into one of the sticks of bombs dropped ergo it would have no safe maneuver left open to it. As memory serves, you can count on one hand how many times it was used in practice. In fact, it was rarely practiced in training so there's that.

At Midway, Col. Sweeney showed up over KdB in the 8 o'clock hour with 15 B-17's which he divided into 3 groups, I suppose he hoped to hit more than just one carrier and as it was, both _Hiryu_ and _Soryu_ were bracketed by near misses. It might have been interesting if he had used all 15 to attack one carrier in the formation above, but again, the USAAF didn't practice it very much so he probably felt he was getting better odds of a hit if he went after more than one CV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 22, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> I don't expect him to know the details of all the hits, only of the ordnance that was carried. The luftwaffe knew the position of Illustrious when she was first attacked by Stukas and it was less than 100nm miles from the Luftwaffe bases in Sicily and no further than when Illustrious was in Malta Harbour. This map shows the distances involved and the risks that the RN had to run to escort a convoy to Malta:
> 
> https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...MshLAGzx4R3EDFOm1kBS/IMG_0469.PNG?format=750w
> 
> In this interview the Stuka Squadron Commander that attacked Indomitable states that they carried 1 x 500kg and 2 x 250kg bombs each:




This is really basic, if the target is in the dock, one knows where it is when he takes off and when he arrives over it. It the target is a ship in the open sea capable to 30 knots, even if its position is known at the take-off it will be somewhere else when one arrived over it if it is not circling around. Even if one has a shadower to watch it it might turn to whatever direction during inflight and especially in the case of a carrier a CAP might got the shadower at any time and the position given by the shadower might be somewhat off. This latter was a thing that U-boats fairly often complained. So when taking off to attack targets in the open sea it is better to have more fuel reserves than in the case of attacking a fixed target.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> It looks like Indomitable was indeed hit by two 500 kg bombs dropped by Stukas of StG 3. The same unit also scored four hits on the HMS Warspite during the earlier operation Excess, but it too failed to sink. Later the same Stukas managed to damage the light cruiser HMS Southampton badly enough that it was scuttled. They never sunk any capital ships as far as I could determine.
> 
> This is footage of the actual attack here:



...
You did not bother to read the Armoured Aircraft Carriers link I posted in my message Swordfish vs Devastator? The main point in it to confirm the size of the bombs was "_It was pointed out the 14-in hole reported in the 60lb steel plate alongside the forward lift was too small for a 1100lb (500kg) SD-style bomb. Intelligence recorded the diameter of this weapon was 18in, with an older style being 15.5in._

_Only the 550lb (250kg) SD bomb had a 14in diameter_."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2021)

muskeg13 said:


> Impossible. Mitchell was court martialed in 1925 and put out of the service. He died in 1936. The Army Air Corps didn't receive their first 13 YB-17s until 1937. I think you are mixing up air power demonstration tests. Mitchell's "stunts" were conducted in 1921 against stationary ships from relatively low altitude. During the 1930s, there were a number of airplane vs ship "maneuvers" conducted by both the Air Corps and the Navy, including intercepting and dropping flower sacks and water bombs on moving warships, from low altitudes. The long-range search and ship bombing capabilities of the new B-17s were highlighted several times in 1937 (several hits scored from an altitude of 400 feet) and culminating in the May 1938 interception of the Italian liner Rex approximately 700 miles of off the U.S. east coast. This prompted a USN protest that the Army (Air Corps) was getting too much into USN business and all Army aircraft were restricted to operating no more than 100 nautical miles off the U.S. coasts which remained in effect until WW2 broke out. The first Norden bomb sight wasn't installed in B-17s until 1939.



You are right I conflated the two series of tests (or stunts or maneuvers or whatever you want to call them) and with the actual wartime use of the big bombers. - the point being that petty interservice rivalries aside, the US had wildly optimistic notions (particularly pre-war) about the accuracy of their heavy bomber fleet, and especially for the Pacific, in the notion of it's efficacy as a high altitude level bomber against ships. They could hit a moving cruise liner with a sack of flour 700 miles offshore, but during the war, even when they were very big ships sitting at docks, the heavy bombers had trouble hitting them. For example the IJN Battleship Ise, after already being hit by four bombs dropped by USN Corsairs and Helldivers, was attacked while at dock by 18 x B-24s, without a single hit being scored. Throughout the war and right up to the end, heavy bombers were used to attack shipping and repeatedly failed, with only a few successes - despite the vast quantity of bomb tonnage dropped.









> During WW2, there were several examples of U.S. Army medium altitude bombers (including B-17s and B-24s) successfully attacking ships, but usually these were either stationary or very slow moving merchant vessels in restricted waters and certainly were not from 20,000 or 30,000 feet. The Army ship killers were 5th Air Force B-25s and A-20s using 500 pound bombs in skip and mast height bombing, like during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.



Yes I did mention this upthread - the mast-head and skip-bombing turned out to be quite effective, especially in conjunction with heavy strafing, though it wasn't used with as much success against the really heavily defended ships as dive bombing.

They did actually use B-17s in some low-level bombing raids with some success in New Guinea on a couple of occasions. And in the MTO, the B-24 proved quite efficient at wrecking airfields from medium altitude so long as they were well protected by fighters. Against better protected targets like Ploesti though as we know, the low level strikes proved extremely hazardous for the bomb crews.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> ...
> You did not bother to read the Armoured Aircraft Carriers link I posted in my message Swordfish vs Devastator? The main point in it to confirm the size of the bombs was "_It was pointed out the 14-in hole reported in the 60lb steel plate alongside the forward lift was too small for a 1100lb (500kg) SD-style bomb. Intelligence recorded the diameter of this weapon was 18in, with an older style being 15.5in._
> 
> _Only the 550lb (250kg) SD bomb had a 14in diameter_."



I stand corrected.


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 22, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The IJN Vals were not exceptionally accurate and we have to remember that attacking nearly unarmed merchant vessels allowed aircraft to drop from very low altitudes. This is a summary, from Lundstrom, of the very similar attack on USS Sims and the tanker Neosho, which had a maximum speed of only 14 knots.
> 
> _"By 1115, Lt. Cdr. Takahashi determined there definitely was no American carrier nearby and released the carrier attack group and its escorts to return to the carriers. His dive bombers would attack the oiler and accompanying destroyer. At 1126 he began his attacks. He led four carrier bombers against the destroyer Sims, and they scored three direct hits on the radically maneuvering tincan. The remaining thirty-two carrier bombers made slow, deliberate dives against the Neosho and inflicted at least seven hits, including a flaming crash by one of the Zuikaku carrier bombers. Noon found the Neosho adrift without power and perilously listing 30 degrees to starboard. Only her extensive compartmentation and tanks kept her afloat. For the loss of one carrier bomber, the Japanese had sunk one destroyer and fatally crippled a fleet oiler. "_
> 
> Unlike Hermes, which sank rapidly, the crew of Neosho had time to assess the damage and number of hits. 32 bombs dropped and ~7 hits on a lightly armed 14 knot tanker versus ~35 bombs dropped and 6 hits on Illustrious moving at 24 knots and having some degree of CAP and a lot more flak. Hermes was probably hit ~10 times.



USS Neosho was a fleet oiler armed with four 5"/38 DP guns and four 20 mm Oerlikon.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jan 22, 2021)

I may have mentioned on another thread, my late father in law was a B-17 crew chief in the 19th BG. He told me some pilots conducted skip bombing with the B-17. They painted two horizontal white lines inside the pilot's windscreen, one for 500 lb the other for 1000lb bombs. By attacks, they determined the position of the white lines by speed and height, so that when at the proper speed, with the right size bomb, the corresponding white line was at the ship's water line the bomb was released.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2021)

That's really interesting! I read about some low-level attacks they did with B-17s against Lae (I think) in New Guinea which were successful. This at a time when attacking that base was almost a death-sentence for many strike aircraft (and escorting fighters too).


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 22, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> USS Neosho was a fleet oiler armed with four 5"/38 DP guns and four 20 mm Oerlikon.



See this report:

_"Although the three inch fifty caliber anti-aircraft guns fired throughout the attacks it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness against the enemy. " 
Battle of Coral Sea: USS Neosho (AO-23) Action Report_

Although she was able to increase speed to 18 knot and did have several 20mm guns, this was still less speed or AA armament than Hermes.

I confess that I got Neosho confused with Neches but it doesn't really change the equation:

USS Neches (AO-5) - Wikipedia


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 22, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> This is really basic, if the target is in the dock, one knows where it is when he takes off and when he arrives over it. It the target is a ship in the open sea capable to 30 knots, even if its position is known at the take-off it will be somewhere else when one arrived over it if it is not circling around. Even if one has a shadower to watch it it might turn to whatever direction during inflight and especially in the case of a carrier a CAP might got the shadower at any time and the position given by the shadower might be somewhat off. This latter was a thing that U-boats fairly often complained. So when taking off to attack targets in the open sea it is better to have more fuel reserves than in the case of attacking a fixed target.



It's also really basic that the course an RN ship has to take to Malta is very constrained and Axis recon aircraft were plentiful. An aircraft flying ~100nm from base will arrive at the last reported position in ~40min and even a 30 knot ship can only travel 20nm in that time.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2021)

Here is a map which may be helpful in the discussion. The choke point was especially at the very end when they were rounding Tunisia.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2021)

Worth pointing out that Pantellaria was a major Axis airbase, there was one at Lampedusa, and there were bases at Bizerta and Cape Bon, as well as Sicily and Sardinia. 

Looks like the torpedo boats wrought some serious havoc right by Cape Bon, and the Submarines just before that. The aircraft often failed to get hits but caused more havoc when the convoy got close to Tunis.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Here is a map which may be helpful in the discussion. The choke point was especially at the very end when they were rounding Tunisia.
> 
> View attachment 609805



For reference Palermo to Cagliari is ~210nm (386km).


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The 1,100 mile range on the SBD translated to about 250 mile effective range for a strike (350 for scouting). To me that suggests the effective strike range for a Swordfish is closer to 100 or maybe 120 miles. That is within fairly easy distance for a ship to move in a few hours. A few Japanese destroyers could wreak havoc on a British fleet like at Pedestal.



I'd like to understand your reasoning for your assessed strike range of the Swordfish. I'm pretty certain the 1,100 mile range for the SBD was without weapon load whereas the shorter ranges you quote were applicable when carrying bombs.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

No the shorter range is actual strike range, including the needed extra fuel to find the target, conduct the strike, fly the return trip, find their carrier and recover. It's always much shorter than the listed operational range. It's consistent in US military records across a wide variety of types.

If you know of a more accurate strike range for the Swordfish, post it.


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 23, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> See this report:
> 
> _"Although the three inch fifty caliber anti-aircraft guns fired throughout the attacks it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness against the enemy. "
> Battle of Coral Sea: USS Neosho (AO-23) Action Report_
> ...



Thanks for the link. I usually check what I read from Wiki, but not in this time, so 3"/50s, not 5"/38s, on Neosho.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> No the shorter range is actual strike range, including the needed extra fuel to find the target, conduct the strike, fly the return trip, find their carrier and recover. It's always much shorter than the listed operational range. It's consistent in US military records across a wide variety of types.
> 
> If you know of a more accurate strike range for the Swordfish, post it.



I already have in an earlier post - 522 miles with normal fuel (no long-range tank in the 3rd cockpit) and with a torpedo. Yes, that's not strike range but it gives some indication. That range could be extended, as was the case at Taranto, with an additional internal fuel tank. 

What version of the SBD are you claiming for the 1,000 mile range and what was its bomb load at that range? Range will vary with bomb load so there won't be just one strike radius for an aircraft that can carry different weapon loads.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

Maximum range for the Dauntless SBD-3 (standard model from Coral sea onward) is reported as between 1,115 miles and 1,370 miles, but for a strike that translates to 325 miles with a 500 lb bomb or 250 miles with a 1,000 lb bomb, according to Navy practice. With no bomb load they could fly out to 400 miles, but usually they carried a bomb even on scouting missions so they could hit targets of opportunity. This is with 310 gallons of fuel.

Source: The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: SBD Dauntless, American Dive Bomber

522 miles is not a strike range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Here is a map which may be helpful in the discussion. The choke point was especially at the very end when they were rounding Tunisia.
> 
> View attachment 609805



One thing I notice about this map, is that almost half (3/7) of the air attacks resulted in "no damage". This is not the typical pattern with IJN strikes in 1942. Most of the carnage seems to have been wrought by Italian submarines and Torpedo boats.

It's well known that the IJN surface fleet was also far more dangerous than anything in the Med.


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 23, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> It's also really basic that the course an RN ship has to take to Malta is very constrained and Axis recon aircraft were plentiful. An aircraft flying ~100nm from base will arrive at the last reported position in ~40min and even a 30 knot ship can only travel 20nm in that time.



Yes, but a few clouds between approaching bombers and their ship targets would complicated the situation and Illustrious was not the only ship in the area. Because a carrier could support a convoy from a fair distance away, there might be a need to spend some time to locate the carrier. Anyway, for some reason Ju 87s attacking Illustrious at sea were carrying 500 kg bombs, or mainly 500 kg bombs, the No. 6 hit was at first estimated to be made by a 500 kg bomb, but later revaluated as a 1000 kg bomb and its entry hole was wide enough for a 1000 kg bomb.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Maximum range for the Dauntless SBD-3 (standard model from Coral sea onward) is reported as between 1,115 miles and 1,370 miles, but for a strike that translates to 325 miles with a 500 lb bomb or 250 miles with a 1,000 lb bomb, according to Navy practice. With no bomb load they could fly out to 400 miles, but usually they carried a bomb even on scouting missions so they could hit targets of opportunity. This is with 310 gallons of fuel.
> 
> Source: The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: SBD Dauntless, American Dive Bomber
> 
> 522 miles is not a strike range.



I never said 522 miles is a strike range. 

My question relates to the range reduction factors you are applying to the Swordfish. It seems like you're saying that the SBD had a 1,000 mile max range and an operational radius, with 1,000lb bomb load, of 250 miles, therefore that same reduction factor of 4 should also apply to the Swordfish (hence 522 miles becomes just north of 100 miles for an operational radius. Am I correct in that interpretation of your math?

My problem with the above is that the 1,000 mile max range doesn't identify what load was being carried to attain that range. The max range cannot possibly be the same for unladen, 500lb bomb load and 1,000lb bomb load configurations since the extra ordinance weight will require more power to be applied for longer during climb-out and to maintain altitude. This fact is borne out by the difference in the numbers you cite between the "no load" operational radius of 400 miles and the operational radius of 350 miles with a 1,000lb bomb load. 

The "factor of 4" that you seem to be applying only works if the SBD airframe is loaded identically for both the max range (1,000 miles) and the operational radius (250 miles). If they aren't, then the factor will change, which will impact your analysis of the Swordfish's operational radius. For example, If the 1,000 mile max range is with a 500lb bomb, then the range with a 1,000lb bomb will be considerably less, perhaps 800 miles. This, in turn, reduces the factor from 4 to about 3 between max range and operational radius.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

I never said that the way to determine the actual strike range of the Swordfish was to divide exactly by four. It was speculation, a guess which I indicated when I wrote "To me that suggests..."

The way to determine the _actual_ strike range of the Swordfish is to find it written down in British records which I'm certain is available somewhere. That kind of record would overrule any and all speculation.

Also, the maximum range with a bomb for the SBD was ~1100- 1350 miles, as noted above. So the ratio to strike range with a 1,000 bomb was actually 4.48 (if we take the lower range value) or 5.4 if we take the higher.

However all that said, an operational range of the Swordfish being roughly half that of the SBD, it does stand to reason that it's range with a torpedo would be less than half of the range of the SBD with the heavier 1,000 lb bomb. I say less than half because a torpedo is considerably larger, heavier, and draggier than a 1,000 lb bomb, and because the Swordfish itself had more drag and flew at a lower altitude. The Swordfish ceiling was 16,000 ft and their cruising altitude was considerably lower than that from what I understand (Wikipedia says 5,000 ft though I have no idea if that is accurate). Did they even normally carry oxygen? The SBD had a ceiling of 25,000 ft and usually cruised at 18,000 ft, though of course that all depended on the range to the target and other factors. Cruising at 18,000 ft means much less drag.

So my *guess* is that the actual strike range of a Swordfish with a torpedo was more in the order of ~ 100 miles or so, maybe even less. But I do not claim this is anything other than a casual guess, for the record.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Also, the maximum range with a bomb for the SBD was ~1100- 1350 miles, as noted above.



Again, I'd like to know what the actual ranges were with the actual bomb load(s). I see lots of claims about the range of the SBD but none of them specify the actual weapon load, which makes direct comparisons difficult. 



Schweik said:


> So my *guess* is that the actual strike range of a Swordfish was more in the order of ~ 100 miles or so. Never claimed it was anything other than a guess, for the record.



But that's exactly my point. You keep saying the Swordfish had inadequate range for the Pacific Theater and yet its range WITH a torpedo was better than that of the Devastator WITHOUT a torpedo...and that's before we consider putting the long-range tank into the Swordfish.

My frustration is that you keep asserting short range for the Swordfish with no actual source data to prove it, while ignoring the fact that it had longer range than the TBD (which is the whole thrust of this thread, anyway).


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Again, I'd like to know what the actual ranges were with the actual bomb load(s). I see lots of claims about the range of the SBD but none of them specify the actual weapon load, which makes direct comparisons difficult.



You seemed to have missed my previous reply to the same claim, so I'll repeat it. To help, I have bolded the relevant sections:

Maximum range for the Dauntless SBD-3 (standard model from Coral sea onward) is reported as between 1,115 miles and 1,370 miles, but for a strike that translates to *325 miles with a 500 lb bomb* or *250 miles with a 1,000 lb bomb*, according to Navy practice. With no bomb load they could fly out to 400 miles, but usually they carried a bomb even on scouting missions so they could hit targets of opportunity. This is with 310 gallons of fuel.

Source: The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: SBD Dauntless, American Dive Bomber



> But that's exactly my point. You keep saying the Swordfish had inadequate range for the Pacific Theater and yet its range WITH a torpedo was better than that of the Devastator WITHOUT a torpedo...and that's before we consider putting the long-range tank into the Swordfish.
> 
> My frustration is that you keep asserting short range for the Swordfish with no actual source data to prove it, while ignoring the fact that it had longer range than the TBD (which is the whole thrust of this thread, anyway).



The comparison between the TBD and the Swordfish was settled many pages ago, and there are two versions of it, which I believe I can summarize:

Version 1: Both the TBD and the Swordfish were obsolete embarassments of combat aircraft, but the Swordfish was slightly better, mainly due to having radar.
Version 2: The Swordfish was better, and it was great!

The one thing that I can say in defense of the TBD is that they very wisely only made 130 of them. The reason the Swordfish ends up being compared with these other naval aircraft like the Japanese B5N, B6N, D3A, and D4Y, the German Ju 87, and the US TBF and SBD, is that the latter were direct competitors. The Albacore was also both a competitor and a stablemate.

So the conversation broadened a bit.

My source for the short range of the Swordfish is basically every single online reference to the Swordfish, which quotes a range (carrying a torpedo) of about 520 miles. Which is extremely short range for a naval strike aircraft. The recent discussion was on calculating an estimate for an actual *strike range*, but I don't have any data on that, so I can only guess. I have a lot of books on WW2 aircraft but the Swordfish isn't one of them, I mostly skipped the biplanes.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

According to that same site by the way, the TBF had a maximum range of 1215 miles (1955 km) at 153 mph (246 km/h) with full weapons load, or 1450 miles (2330 km) as a scout, which translated to 259 miles (417 km) nominal combat radius with a 1,600 lb torpedo.

Source: The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: TBF Avenger, U.S. Carrier Torpedo Bomber

The same site does have an entry for the Swordfish but it is much more limited, showing only the same range number as the others

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Swordfish, British Carrier Torpedo Bomber


----------



## slaterat (Jan 23, 2021)

Here is a decent video on the early FAA and the attack on Taranto. It has some nice footage of Swordfish operating off carriers.



The range was 175 miles, completed at night, with just 2 losses in combat with the rest all rtb.

Its interesting at the end how it is noted that the Swordfish, attacking at night, were *6 times *more efficient than the B5ns attacking in daylight at Pearl Harbor. That night attack was without radar and using flares to illuminate the targets.

The RN was quite ready and trained for night action and proved it in the Mediteranean and at, Battle of the Malacca Strait - Wikipedia , against the IJN.

Nagumo was quite right to be scared of the RN fleet under Somerville. I think that many historians brush off the early maneuverings, by both forces, in the Indian Ocean as unimportant. It was a high stakes game of poker with almost a winner takes all. A daylight action favours Nagumo, night time Somerville. They did come very close to a deadly action.

Here's a short account of the Battle of Ceylon"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 23, 2021)

I've already posted how JU87-Rs were able to sink HMS Southhampton in Jan 1941 at ~300 miles from their bases:

Actual range the SBD-5:

_Performance of SBD-5 ( USN Pacific Fleet Air Force report dated 26 oct 1943)
Cruising Performance test

"...It is to be noted that the indicated attack range of 600 miles under
the favorable conditions of the performance test is far less than the
range of 1,370 miles claimed for the SBD-5 with 1,000 pound load, It
is also materially less Than the figure of 1,150 miles claimed by BuAero
as the maximum cruising range of the SBD-5 with 1,000 pound bomb.

Combat experience in the Solomons demonstrated that under the ex-
acting air operational conditions obtained there the range of the
with a 1,000 pound bomb was 500 miles. Commander Air Group, USS Saratoga
reported that the working search radius of the Group's SBDs was about
230 miles - "That would be the absolute maximum". The results of the
performance test tend to show that the range of the SBD-5 in spite of
its increased weight should not be less than that of the SBD-3 and 4..."_

_Similarly_ Skuas sank Konigsberg at ~300nm from their base.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> According to that same site by the way, the TBF had a maximum range of 1215 miles (1955 km) at 153 mph (246 km/h) with full weapons load, or 1450 miles (2330 km) as a scout, which translated to 259 miles (417 km) nominal combat radius with a 1,600 lb torpedo.
> 
> Source: The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: TBF Avenger, U.S. Carrier Torpedo Bomber
> 
> ...



At Philippine Sea the USN sent a large strike force to ~300nm and something like 30% of the strike aircraft despatched, ended up running out of fuel, including, IIRC about 25% of the TBFs.


----------



## Ovod (Jan 23, 2021)

slaterat said:


> Here is a decent video on the early FAA and the attack on Taranto. It has some nice footage of Swordfish operating off carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> The range was 175 miles, completed at night, with just 2 losses in combat with the rest all rtb.




It would appear that would be close to the maximum combat radius for torpedo-toting Swordfish - they remained in the air for more than 5 hours to complete the attack on the Italian naval base. Did the Swordfish ever carry out a strike at a greater distance?



> Its interesting at the end how it is noted that the Swordfish, attacking at night, were *6 times *more efficient than the B5ns attacking in daylight at Pearl Harbor. That night attack was without radar and using flares to illuminate the targets.



how did you work that one out? 3 battleships at Pearl Harbor never sailed again after the raid, and far more warships were seriously damaged. Only one Italian ship never made it back into service again following the Taranto attack.



> The RN was quite ready and trained for night action and proved it in the Mediteranean and at, Battle of the Malacca Strait - Wikipedia , against the IJN.



All of those navies whose warships were normally equipped with radar were "ready and trained for night action" - this of course excluded the Regia Marina. The Battle of the Malacca Strait was in May 1945, 3 years after the Battle of Midway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 23, 2021)

Two battleships. U.S.S. Utah had been decommissioned as a battleship. Great trick question, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> At Philippine Sea the USN sent a large strike force to ~300nm and something like 30% of the strike aircraft despatched, ended up running out of fuel, including, IIRC about 25% of the TBFs.



Do you _not_ understand the difference between range and strike or operational range of a carrier aircraft?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

Ovod said:


> It would appear that would be close to the maximum combat radius for torpedo toting Swordfish - they remained in the air for more than 5 hours to complete the attack on the Italian naval base. Did the Swordfish ever carry out a strike at a greater distance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And years after most of the trained sailors and officers of the IJN had already been killed...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> At Philippine Sea the USN sent a large strike force to ~300nm and something like 30% of the strike aircraft despatched, ended up running out of fuel, including, IIRC about 25% of the TBFs.


A calculated risk and a big risk, but the operation was a success and I believe most downed pilots/crew were recovered?


----------



## Ovod (Jan 23, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> _Combat experience in the Solomons demonstrated that under the ex-
> acting air operational conditions obtained there the range of the
> with a 1,000 pound bomb was 500 miles. Commander Air Group, USS Saratoga
> reported that the working search radius of the Group's SBDs was about
> ...



These range figures would still be about 40-50% greater than for the Swordfish?

_



Similarly

Click to expand...

_


> Skuas sank Konigsberg at ~300nm from their base.



That was with a 500 Ib bomb. No doubt the Douglas SBD could achieve the same.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> A calculated risk and a big risk, but the operation was a success and I believe most downed pilots/crew were recovered?



Many crews were picked up, but the attack indicated the actual range of the aircraft. Operationally during that strike, the USN used smaller deck load strikes than usual, to minimize TO and form-up time and the aircraft cruised as economically as possible, to and from the targets. The strike indicates that the oft quoted SAC range figures were not achievable in combat and that stated range figures for USN aircraft tend to be rather optimistic.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

Those Skuas were also flying from a land base. Land bases don't move, and have a lot more room to land. Flying ops a carrier requires A) finding the carrier and B) flying around in circles in a queue until you get a slot where you can land on the carrier. It requires much more fuel. That's part of the difference between 'range' and 'operational range in carrier ops' and 'strike range in carrier ops'.

At the Philippine sea, due to the time of the strike in the late afternoon, the USN aircraft arrived back from their sorties at night, and had trouble finding their fleet, and then the right carrier to land on. Most of the ones that crashed or ditched did so amidst the fleet. They recovered roughly 60 crews out of the 80 aircraft that ditched or crashed on the flight decks.

Those TBFs were mostly carrying loads of four x 500 lb bombs, they managed to sink the _Hiyō_ , with two bomb and one torpedo hit. There were also 51 Helldivers and 26 SBD on that mission, the Dauntlesses were within their range and did not run out of fuel - all 26 made it back to their carriers. So 300 miles was not actually beyond their range, despite the difficult conditions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 23, 2021)

Ovod said:


> These range figures would still be about 40-50% greater than for the Swordfish?
> 
> 
> 
> That was with a 500 Ib bomb. No doubt the Douglas SBD could achieve the same.



Not really. When carrying a 2 x 500lb bombs, the Swordfish at max TO weight could carry a 60IG internal tank and/or a 69IG external tank. Practical combat range with a 1610lb torpedo and internal aux tank was about 240nm based upon a mission flown against Scharnhorst in June 1940. Range with 2 x 500lb bombs and aux internal fuel would be ~300nm and with the external tank, somewhat more.

I don't doubt that the SBD could do the same, or better than the Skua, but the point is that real world combat range is actually very similar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Jan 23, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Two battleships. U.S.S. Utah had been decommissioned as a battleship. Great trick question, though.



But you still haven't explained how the attack on Taranto was so more "efficient" than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Bear in mind USN ships weren't the only targets - there were many land targets included, airfields, etc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> With no bomb load they could fly out to 400 miles, but usually they carried a bomb even on scouting missions so they could hit targets of opportunity. This is with 310 gallons of fuel.



Trouble is very few, if any, SBDs were in combat with 310 gallons of fuel. 

The SBD-3 held fuel in four tanks.
the main tanks held 90 gallons each *unprotected*
the auxiliary tanks held 65 gallons each *unprotected*. 
total 310 gallons. 
The main tanks held 75 gallons *when protected *
The Auxiliary tanks held 55 gallons *when protected*. 
total 260 gallons. 

weight of protection for the main tanks was 232lbs for the pair.
weight of protection for the auxiliary tanks was 212lbs for the pair. 
weight of protection for the oil tank was 30lbs. 

This is all from the manual for SBD-3. 

The gross weight of the SBD _may have been increased after the manual was written_. 

Fuel load with a 1000lb bomb in combat condition (protection fitted) was 100 gallons. 
Fuel load with a 500lb bomb in combat condition (protection fitted) was a nominal 140 gallons. 
I say nominal because the gross weight was 245lbs less than than the 1000lb and 100 gallon combo so you probably could have put another 40 gallons in the tanks. 

This manual makes no mention of wing bombs.
Gross weight with 1000lb bomb and 100 gallons was 9031lbs which was the highest gross weight of any combination of fuel and bombs listed either protected tanks or unprotected.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 23, 2021)

Ovod said:


> But you still haven't explained how the attack on Taranto was so more "efficient" than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Bear in mind USN ships weren't the only targets - there were many land targets included, airfields, etc.


I never said it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 23, 2021)

Ovod said:


> It would appear that would be close to the maximum combat radius for torpedo-toting Swordfish - they remained in the air for more than 5 hours to complete the attack on the Italian naval base. Did the Swordfish ever carry out a strike at a greater distance?



Looks like RCAF answered that.



RCAFson said:


> Not really. When carrying a 2 x 500lb bombs, the Swordfish at max TO weight could carry a 60IG internal tank and/or a 69IG external tank. Practical combat range with a 1610lb torpedo and internal aux tank was about 240nm based upon a mission flown against Scharnhorst in June 1940. Range with 2 x 500lb bombs and aux internal fuel would be ~300nm and with the external tank, somewhat more.






Ovod said:


> how did you work that one out? 3 battleships at Pearl Harbor never sailed again after the raid, and far more warships were seriously damaged. Only one Italian ship never made it back into service again following the Taranto attack.



That was from the video, which it doesn't appear that you bothered to watch. From the video " 21 swordfish dropped 11 torpedoes , and 52 bombs disabling or, sinking 7 warships, at Pearl Harbor 252 attack aircraft dropped 169 torpedoes and 103 bombs to sink or disable 14 warships". So the Japanese used 12 times the number of attack aircraft to get twice the results, which makes the FAA 6 times more efficient in their night attack.



Ovod said:


> All of those navies whose warships were normally equipped with radar were "ready and trained for night action" - this of course excluded the Regia Marina. The Battle of the Malacca Strait was in May 1945, 3 years after the Battle of Midway.



I used the example of Malacca Strait to compare directly RN night ops equipped with radar, to IJN night ops. If you had bothered to watch the video you would of learned that the FAA was practicing night ops in 1939 to 40. The RN practiced and fought many night ops early in the war of which Cape Matapan is probably the most well known. By 1942 the RN has surface and airborne radar, putting the IJN at a very large disadvantage at night.



Schweik said:


> And years after most of the trained sailors and officers of the IJN had already been killed...




Are you sure that applies to the Haguro, a veteran cruiser with veteran commanders on it?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

In 1945? Yes. The most deadly ships in the IJN, aside from their battleships, were the destroyers, But in 1945 the navy had been all but wiped out.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Trouble is very few, if any, SBDs were in combat with 310 gallons of fuel.
> 
> The SBD-3 held fuel in four tanks.
> the main tanks held 90 gallons each *unprotected*
> ...



So what?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> So what?




So did the US operate any SBDs in combat areas without protected tanks?

If not then the SBDs fuel capacity was 260 gallons max regardless of bomb load.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 23, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> So did the US operate any SBDs in combat areas without protected tanks?
> 
> If not then the SBDs fuel capacity was 260 gallons max regardless of bomb load.


AFAIK, they only used the unprotected tanks for ferry missions.

In the SBD-5 range test = 600nm that I mentioned earlier the following conditions applied:

Full internal fuel in protected tanks (10400lb and 254usg according to SBD-5 SAC data; SBD-3 SAC data indicated 10400lb and 249usg for 1000lb bomb missions but typically 260usg carried)
15 minutes form-up from land base
cruise to target at an average 137 knots
cruise climb to 13000ft
10 min at 200 knots prior to attack dive whilst reducing altitude to 10500ft
attack dive from 10500ft
return cruise at 1000ft and 135 knots

Aircraft averaged 15% remaining fuel upon landing, which was judged to be the minimum safe requirement.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 23, 2021)

Ovod said:


> But you still haven't explained how the attack on Taranto was so more "efficient" than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Bear in mind USN ships weren't the only targets - there were many land targets included, airfields, etc.


How many sorties did the IJN fly during the attack on Pearl Harbor? How many for the RN/FAA at Taranto?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2021)

I have my doubts about some of the SAC data.

However operational considerations may also have affected range/radius.

And using data from different models of the SPD can really confuse things.

The SPD-5 with it's 1200hp engine could take-off into a 25kt wind at 10,400lbs in 466ft but the older planes with the 1000hp engines needed 580ft under the same weight and wind conditions. 

Increasing the gross weight from 9030lbs to 10,400lbs certainly affects the range with large bombs but when was it done? In time for Midway?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 23, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I have my doubts about some of the SAC data.
> 
> However operational considerations may also have affected range/radius.
> 
> ...



AFAIK, the SBD-3 at Midway, with SS tanks and armour would have weighed 10400lb and at Midway the first SBDs in the range would carry 500lb bombs, then 500lb plus 2 x 100lb and then finally (about 1/2 of a ~30 plane range) a 1000lb bomb.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I have my doubts about some of the SAC data.
> 
> However operational considerations may also have affected range/radius.
> 
> ...



I think you mean SBD


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> So did the US operate any SBDs in combat areas without protected tanks?
> 
> If not then the SBDs fuel capacity was 260 gallons max regardless of bomb load.



It's irrelevant because the ranges quoted are the actual ranges the USN used their standard.


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 24, 2021)

Hey swampyankee,

Taranto
The Illustrious launched a total of 21x Swordfish in two waves (1x aborted after TO) of which 20x made it to Taranto. 2nd wave launched 90 min after the first. The torpedo carrying aircraft carried the 60 Impgal LR fuel tank in the cockpit in order to allow sufficient reserve for the operation. The bomb carrying aircraft carried an external 69 Impgal drop tank on the center-line.
The safe operational ROA of the Swordfish carrying a torpedo or 6x 250 lb bombs was considered to be 175 miles with normal fuel, or 225 miles with the LR tank fitted.
The 1st wave attack was composed of 12x Swordfish.
The 2nd wave attack was composed of 8x Swordfish.

Pearl Harbor
The 1st wave attack was composed of 48x D3A 'Val' and 88x B5N 'Kate', plus 43x A6M 'Zero'.
The 2nd wave attack was composed of 75x D3A 'Val' and 54x B5N 'Kate', plus 34x A6M 'Zero'.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

Can we admit that Pearl Harbor was a somewhat more difficult target than Taranto (more flak at least after the first wave plus even a few fighters), and note that many of the IJN planes were attacking airfields and other land targets as well as ships?

Is Wikipedia correct that they sunk 4 Battleships plus 1 "ex-battleship" at Pearl?


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 24, 2021)

The flak was actually quite heavy at Taranto (quite possibly heavier that at Pearl Harbor), and a few aircraft (Cr.42s?) were launched but none managed to intercept any of the Swordfish.

Having said that, yes the environment was much more dangerous during the daylight attack on Pearl Harbor.

However, if the same type of night time strike by the RN/FAA had occurred at Pearl Harbor, there is no reason that the results would have been any worse than Taranto. (The RM ships were a bit more dispersed than the USN ships, and the attack(s) at Taranto did not last as long, which may have been a contributing factor to the excellent results.)


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey swampyankee,
> 
> Taranto
> The Illustrious launched a total of 21x Swordfish in two waves (1x aborted after TO) of which 20x made it to Taranto. 2nd wave launched 90 min after the first. The torpedo carrying aircraft carried the 60 Impgal LR fuel tank in the cockpit in order to allow sufficient reserve for the operation. The bomb carrying aircraft carried an external 69 Impgal drop tank on the center-line.
> ...



Originally the (prewar) plan called for Taranto to be attacked by 3 carriers and ~72 Swordfish, and then two carriers (Eagle and Illustrious) and ~40 Swordfish but carrier losses before Italy entered the war and damage to Eagle scuppered those plans. Had the original plans been possible the RMI would have been dealt a truly staggering blow.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2021)

Taranto was protected by 101 AA guns plus 193 machine guns. These totals don't include the ships' AA defences. It wasnt just flak at Taranto. The harbour was also protected by 30 barrage balloons.

At Pearl Harbor, most of the Army's AA batteries didn't engage because the guns weren't at their firing positions and the ammo was in a separate location under lock and key. The Navy's AA defences did respond to the IJN air attack but only a few of the Army's AA guns got into action, and it took some time for even that limited contribution.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 24, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> So did the US operate any SBDs in combat areas without protected tanks?
> 
> If not then the SBDs fuel capacity was 260 gallons max regardless of bomb load.



Probably Marine SBD-2s at Midway did not have self-sealing tanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 24, 2021)

In a more analogue illustration of a practical operational range of the Swordfish I would point to the mining sorties on the Dutch coast in 1941. With a 1,500 lb mine and an internal (navigator's position) overload tank they flew from Bircham Newton in Norfolk to the Dutch coast to deliver the mines. The limiting factor was not range but time. In the winter they could perform the task but as summer approached there was simply not enough hours of darkness for the Swordfish to reach the targets and return in the dark and operations had to be suspended.

There is an apocryphal tale of a Boeing engineer who came over with the first RAF Flying Fortresses. He proudly spoke of them going over to bomb Dutch targets with their mighty 4 engined wonder bomber with it's 8 crew and 6,000 lb of bombs, then a FAA officer quietly mentioned that they also could do a Dutch bombing sortie with 4 engines and 8 crew. It was just that they used eight wings instead of two for the task.......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Can we admit that Pearl Harbor was a somewhat more difficult target than Taranto (more flak at least after the first wave plus even a few fighters), and note that many of the IJN planes were attacking airfields and other land targets as well as ships?
> 
> Is Wikipedia correct that they sunk 4 Battleships plus 1 "ex-battleship" at Pearl?


Without looking it up, battleships California, Oklahoma, Nevada (beached) and either West Virginia or Tennessee. It’s more fun being corrected.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 24, 2021)

.. and of course, U.S.S. Utah, a target ship and/or anti-aircraft gunnery training ship.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 24, 2021)

Ovod said:


> These range figures would still be about 40-50% greater than for the Swordfish?
> 
> 
> 
> That was with a 500 Ib bomb. No doubt the Douglas SBD could achieve the same.


If it had existed. The first prototype SBD flew after the sinking of the Konigsberg.


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Can we admit that Pearl Harbor was a somewhat more difficult target than Taranto (more flak at least after the first wave plus even a few fighters), and note that many of the IJN planes were attacking airfields and other land targets as well as ships?
> 
> Is Wikipedia correct that they sunk 4 Battleships plus 1 "ex-battleship" at Pearl?



Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California plus Utah

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 24, 2021)

Juha3 said:


> Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California plus Utah


How did I miss typing U.S.S. Arizona? I must’ve been thinking too hard about whether or not Nevada counted as being sunk. BB-39 was the first one I thought of so I guess I was trying to remember West Virginia or Tennessee. 
In other words, “am I ever embarrassed.”


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Taranto was protected by 101 AA guns plus 193 machine guns. These totals don't include the ships' AA defences. It wasnt just flak at Taranto. The harbour was also protected by 30 barrage balloons.
> 
> At Pearl Harbor, most of the Army's AA batteries didn't engage because the guns weren't at their firing positions and the ammo was in a separate location under lock and key. The Navy's AA defences did respond to the IJN air attack but only a few of the Army's AA guns got into action, and it took some time for even that limited contribution.



But it's a lot easier to aim during the day mate  and there were 5 or 6 fighters attacking the enemy forces at Pearl Harbor, which actually shot a few planes down. I'd hate to see what would happen to a couple of squadrons of Swordfish if they were jumped by P-40 and P-36s. I'll be posting some of their combat records from around the time of Pedastal though for comparison to Japanese, Italian, German and US raids.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> But it's a lot easier to aim during the day mate  and there were 5 or 6 fighters attacking the enemy forces at Pearl Harbor, which actually shot a few planes down. I'd hate to see what would happen to a couple of squadrons of Swordfish if they were jumped by P-40 and P-36s. I'll be posting some of their combat records from around the time of Pedastal though for comparison to Japanese, Italian, German and US raids.



Which is exactly why the Swordfish attacked at night. Yes, everyone accepts the Swordfish would have been on a suicide mission in daylight against any target that had fighter defences. However, it could (and did) hit targets at night, with both bombs and torpedoes. 

I can't understand why pretty much every post you make seeks to diminish the record of the Swordfish, from guesses about its operational radius to your suggestion that the flak at Pearl Harbor was worse than that at Taranto (another statement made without evidence).

Why is it so hard to accept that the Swordfish actually was capable of hitting targets at night and that it could survive? For someone who doesn't have much info on the Swordfish, you seem pretty intent on denigrating it.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Which is exactly why the Swordfish attacked at night. Yes, everyone accepts the Swordfish would have been on a suicide mission in daylight against any target that had fighter defences. However, it could (and did) hit targets at night, with both bombs and torpedoes.
> 
> I can't understand why pretty much every post you make seeks to diminish the record of the Swordfish, from guesses about its operational radius to your suggestion that the flak at Pearl Harbor was worse than that at Taranto (another statement made without evidence).
> 
> Why is it so hard to accept that the Swordfish actually was capable of hitting targets at night and that it could survive? For someone who doesn't have much info on the Swordfish, you seem pretty intent on denigrating it.



I think it's more the opposite, I am just not schooled in all the charming anecdotes about how great it supposedly was in spite of being so clearly obsolete. 

This is common trope of aviation writing in the second half of the 20th Century, and something many of us grew up with. It leans toward the patriotic and emphasizes the positive. Stuff like claiming various USN fighters, even the Wildcat, had 7-1 or 10-1 or whatever kill ratios, when we know upon closer scrutiny this wasn't the case (claim to loss ratios aren't "kill" ratios).

It's true there are also the opposite trends, where the 'official' and unofficial rep of a WW2 aircraft is a lot worse than it actually was, due to wartime propaganda or spin. The Finnish experience with the F2A is a good example of that. But that is a bit more rare and I don't think it's really the case with the Swordfish.

I've read the records of the Mediterranean air war, and while the did some amazing things with it in 1940 or 41, by the time of Pedastal the Swordfish was really bad. It seemed like a proverbial anchor around the neck of the RN. I feel sorry for the pilots stuck flying a biplane against Bf 109s or even Bf110s, Ju 88Cs or MC 200s.

When you debunk these legends like "_but it was great! Yeah the cloth covering was splendid because the bullets went right through harmlessly!_ _And they could just put a cork in the fuel tank!_" people can sometimes bristle and take it as a patriotic attack. I get this kind of reaction almost every time I say anything disparaging about a British aircraft, but somehow nobody notices when I praise one, or when I disparage US aircraft, (like in this thread TBD or the US heavy bombers). It's almost like there is a sacred third rail around here that you can't say anything bad about anything Commonwealth. I don't follow that particular religion mate.

Maybe you should ask yourself why it's so important to praise a biplane still being produced and used to the end of the war as being a great idea, in spite of all the crews that lost their lives in it. Yes Taranto was a brilliant victory, nobody is taking that away. Was it on par with Pearl Harbor or Midway? Personally I don't think so. But the Swordfish was still innovative up to 1942. After that it was rapidly becoming a liability. Same for the Albacore, Skua, Fulmar etc., and on the American side, P-39, F2A, of course the TBD and so on.

One of the benefits of accurately figuring out military history is contributing even in a very small way to people being a tiny bit less likely to make the same mistakes over and over. Every country did make such mistakes, insisting the one you identify with _never_ made any doesn't actually help and int't actually patriotic, IMO.To the contrary. It's also not a great idea to be extremely brittle in your response to information, even if you find it challenging to your beliefs. This isn't a great way to actually learn. I've learned a lot on this board from people I disagreed with at least initially. My views have become far more nuanced. Which actually makes it all that much more interesting and fun.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> When you debunk these legends like "_but it was great! Yeah the cloth covering was splendid because the bullets went right through harmlessly!_ _And they could just put a cork in the fuel tank!_" people can sometimes bristle and take it as a patriotic attack. I get this kind of reaction almost every time I say anything disparaging about a British aircraft, but somehow nobody notices when I praise one, or when I disparage US aircraft, (like in this thread TBD or the US heavy bombers). It's almost like there is a sacred third rail around here that you can't say anything bad about anything Commonwealth. I don't follow that particular religion mate.



Please show me a single post where I've made overstated claims about the capabilities of the Swordfish. The only point I've ever tried to make is that, in the summer of 1942, the Swordfish offered more tactical options that the TBD (longer range, able to operate at night, operate with radar) and that it could have provided good service at the Battle of Midway.




Schweik said:


> Maybe you should ask yourself why it's so important to praise a biplane still being produced and used to the end of the war as being a great idea, in spite of all the crews that lost their lives in it.



Again, show me where I said it was a great idea to keep producing the Swordfish to the end of WW2? This thread is about the situation in the summer of 1942. I've constrained my comments to that timeframe and to the tactical situation as it pertained to the TBD's operational implementation at Midway. 




Schweik said:


> It's also not a great idea to be extremely brittle in your response to information, even if you find it challenging to your beliefs. This isn't a great way to actually learn. I've learned a lot on this board from people I disagreed with at least initially. My views have become far more nuanced. Which actually makes it all that much more interesting and fun.



If I'm brittle it's because you're putting words in my mouth, diverting the topic (like comparing the Swordfish to the SBD), and ignoring facts that don't agree with your perceptions (e.g. the fact that self-sealing fuel tanks in SBDs would have reduced the operational radius). I agree that we can all learn a lot on this forum...but we all learn a lot faster if we pause to read what other people are actually writing rather than assuming we know what they're thinking.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

So now thanks to ThomasP we have at least some real operational numbers for Swordfish. 175 miles strike range with a torpedo, vs. 225 with (presumably unprotected?) LR tanks instead of one crew.

I made a provisional chart with all the basic stats, for comparison, of the main WW2 carrier aircraft and single engined dive bombers involved in naval operations. Not complete, but I'll add to it / correct it per feedback. I'm manly missing data on Japanese aircraft, if someone who knows those numbers could help out that would be grand.
I also assume some of the Stuka stats are wrong, but I'm ready to correct them.

I'm also not sure on the combat history of the RN ships so help there would be appreciated. How many warships did they sink.

*Aircraft* -- Strike rng (hvy) - Strike rng (lt) - Scout rng - Direct fly rng - bomb load - air combat - radar - Spd - Crus- DiveB -Torp
TBD ------------ 150 ------------ 175 -------------- ??? --------- 435 ------ 1000/1600 --- Poor ------ No --- 206 - 128 - No -- Yes
TBF ------------ 259 ------------ 300 -------------- ??? --------- 1215 ----- 1600/2000 --- Marginal - 1942? - 275 - 153 - No - Yes
SBD-3---------- 250 ------------ 325 -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No
SB2C ----------- ??? ------------ 276 -------------- ??? --------- 1100 ----- 1000/1600 --- Fair -------1944? - 281 - 158 - Yes - No
D3A ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 915 ------ 550 / 870 ---- Fair ------- No --- 240 - 184 - Yes -- No
D4Y ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 910 ------ 550 /1100 ---- Fair ------- No --- 340 - ??? - Yes -- No
B5N ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 978 ------ 1100/1760 --- Bad ------ No --- 235 - 161 - No -- Yes
B6N ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? --------- 1085 ----- 1100/1760 --- Poor ------1943 -- 300 - 207 - No -- Yes
Swordfish ------ 175 ------------ 225 -------------- ??? --------- 522 ------ 1500/1670 --- Bad ------1940 -- 143 - 131 - Yes-- Yes
Albacore ------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 710 ------ 1670/2000 --- Bad ------1940 -- 161 - 140 - Yes-- Yes
Barracuda ------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? --------- 1150------ 1500/1650 --- Poor -----1943 -- 240 - 195 - No -- Yes
Skua ----------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ----------- 760 ------ 500/???? ----- Fair ------ No? -- 225 - 187 - Yes-- No
Ju87B ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 370 ------ 1100/1540 --- Poor ----- No --- 236 - 209 - Yes-- No
Ju87R ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 492 ------ 1100/1540 --- Poor ---- No --- 236?- 209?- Yes-- No
Ju87D ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 683?------ 1100/2204 --- Fair -----No --- 210?- 160?- Yes-- No

Direct fly range means test range with a normal bomb load but not an actual strike.

Barracudas range was reportedly reduced 30% in the Pacific.

*Combat history: Warships Sunk* (not counting Pearl Harbor) (this is what I could find with quick googling)
D3A ----------- 1 x Aircraft Carrier, 2 x Heavy Cruiser, 11 x Destroyers, 1 x Merchant cruiser, 1 x Oiler
D4Y ----------- At least one Carrier (Princeton) and Franklin crippled.
B5N ----------- At least two Carriers
B6N ----------- None I could find?
SBD ----------- 6 x Carriers, 14 x Cruisers, 6 x Destroyers, 15 x military transports
TBD ----------- None?
TBF ------------ 2 x Super-battleships (shared), 3 carriers (shared, Philippine sea), 1 heavy Cruiser (Taffy 3 / Samar) - also destroyed 2 enemy torpedos at Samar
SB2C ---------- 2 x Super-battleships (shared), 3 carriers (shared, Philippine sea)
Swordfish ----- ? 2-3 Battleships at Taranto and a _lot_ of merchant ships, Bismark damaged. At least 22 U-boats.
Albacore ------ ?
Skua----------- ?
Barracuda----- ?
Ju 87----------- ?

*A few points:*
We must keep in mind there is a big difference between range from a land base vs. range in carrier ops. Stukas only operated from land, most of the others did both land based and carrier based strikes and scout missions. Range is considerably longer for land based operations because it's much easier to find your way 'home' and takes less time to land, and less time between landings. On the other hand planes on a land base are out of the fight once their target moves out of range, unless there is another closer base they can fly to, while carriers can go anywhere (so long as they survive)

In addition to the above, the D3A and B5N of course also contributed to the 4 Battleships lost at Pearl Harbor. It's hard to say which one got which ships though, most I think got hit with both bombs and torpedoes.

Ceylon battle had far more losses for the British in three days (8 warships + 23 merchant) than they suffered in 12 days during Pedastal (4 warships + 9 merchant). Half of the Axis air attacks in Pedastal also resulted in either no sunk or (3 of the 7) 'no damage'.

Combat aircraft used by the Allies in the Pacific were equivalent to the combat aircraft used in the Desert War at the same time, but the aircraft fighting in the Med were at least a generation older and more obsolescent, objectively.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

Next I'm going to post some of the daily combat record for Swordfish, Albacore etc. from MAW if I can find it.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Please show me a single post where I've made overstated claims about the capabilities of the Swordfish. The only point I've ever tried to make is that, in the summer of 1942, the Swordfish offered more tactical options that the TBD (longer range, able to operate at night, operate with radar) and that it could have provided good service at the Battle of Midway.



"Could have provided good service at Midway" is just such an overstated claim, IMO. I think that is extremely unlikely. But to be fair it's just an educated guess and I've been making plenty of those too. I think it's Ok to have opinions.



> Again, show me where I said it was a great idea to keep producing the Swordfish to the end of WW2? This thread is about the situation in the summer of 1942. I've constrained my comments to that timeframe and to the tactical situation as it pertained to the TBD's operational implementation at Midway.



The Swordfish was better than the TBD, all around. I think that part of the discussion was settled many pages ago. For obvious reasons, the discussion moved past that point, I'm not the only one to blame lol.



> If I'm brittle it's because you're putting words in my mouth, diverting the topic (like comparing the Swordfish to the SBD), and ignoring facts that don't agree with your perceptions (e.g. the fact that self-sealing fuel tanks in SBDs would have reduced the operational radius).



You missed the point, e.g. that the operational radius i quoted was _with _the self-sealing fuel tanks, obviously. Shortround was quibbling about how much fuel they could carry with different tank configurations, but as far as I know they never operated without self-sealing tanks on combat missions in the Pacific from the time of Coral Sea or later. The ranges I listed were operational ranges from the time of Midway and Guadalcanal. Also, should you really be talking about SBDs I thought this was a "TBD vs., Sworfish only" discussion? (just kidding)



> I agree that we can all learn a lot on this forum...but we all learn a lot faster if we pause to read what other people are actually writing rather than assuming we know what they're thinking.



I will continue to try to do so, though I admit I don't always catch everything on the first reading, my eyes aren't so good and my glasses need replacing, which is delayed due to the plague. So I do sometimes need to read a post two or three times to catch it all.


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 24, 2021)

Another US naval a/c participating combat probably with unprotected fuel tanks, Marine Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators, also at Midway

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 24, 2021)

Hello Schweick
Albacore or Swordfish hit the Italian heavy cruiser Pola with a torpedo crippling it, because of that British BBs Warspite, Barham and Valiant were able to obliterated from point blank range its sisters Zara and Fiume plus two Italian DDs, which were there to help Pola. Pola was sunk by British DDs. This on 28 - 29 March 1941 during the Battle of Cape Matapan

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> *Aircraft* -- Strike rng (hvy) - Strike rng (lt) - Scout rng - Direct fly rng - bomb load - air combat - radar - Spd - Crus- DiveB -Torp
> 
> SBD-3---------- 250 ------------ 325 -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No
> 
> ...



I made a detailed post regarding SBD range, as tested in the field which equals 600nm with a 15% reserve, with a 1000lb bomb and there's no way to stretch it to 1300 statute miles.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> I made a detailed post regarding SBD range, as tested in the field which equals 600nm with a 15% reserve, with a 1000lb bomb and there's no way to stretch it to 1300 statute miles.



This is the "official" range, which is very different than the strike range or operational range (which I also posted). It is probably quoted for a 500 lb bomb and a not a 1,000 lb bomb as well land takeoff (which I think you said the test you mentioned had), flown out to a target, and fly back to the land base. This is the type of test that aviation companies do to prove they met the contract requirements. This is very similar for just about every country in the war. Quite often it is the only range figure quoted in available data sources (especially online) whereas true operational radius is rarely included.

There are many factors which effect range. Quite often aircraft could carry more fuel in overload tanks or external tanks, but may not typically do so because of effects on performance or vulnerability, or things like bomb load. Also, often, aircraft did fly scouting missions without ordinance which is a longer range. Ferry range is usually double the "official" range, but it generally is only relevant when the aircraft is being ferried from one location to another. Atmospheric conditions also made a big difference, that is why the Barracuda had a 30% less range in the Pacific than in the North Atlantic, apparently.

The test you mentioned was with an SBD-5 which had a bigger engine than the SBD-3 I listed stats for, and was also flown at a 5,000' lower cruising altitude than was apparently typical in combat for the SBD. But the strike range I quoted with a 1,000 lb bomb was considerably less than

I use the "official" range because that is what is available for almost every combat aircraft, and it allows us to compare like with like even when we don't have other / better information.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> "Could have provided good service at Midway" is just such an overstated claim, IMO. I think that is extremely unlikely. But to be fair it's just an educated guess and I've been making plenty of those too. I think it's Ok to have opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The USN used PBYs at night with ASV radar to find and attack IJN ships at Midway. Obviously the Swordfish could have done the same. On the evening of 4 June 6 x SBDs (and 5 x SBU-3s) took off from Midway to make a night strike against the IJN and Swordfish could have done this as well, and with far greater chance of success, and by replacing the TBDs Swordfish could have launched predawn from the USN carriers to hit the IJN at night, and would certainly have suffered fewer losses than the TBDs.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> This is the "official" range, which is very different than the strike range or operational range (which I also posted). It is probably quoted for a 500 lb bomb and a not a 1,000 lb bomb as well land takeoff (which I think you said the test you mentioned had), flown out to a target, and fly back to the land base. This is the type of test that aviation companies do to prove they met the contract requirements. This is very similar for just about every country in the war. Quite often it is the only range figure quoted in available data sources (especially online) whereas true operational radius is rarely included.
> 
> There are many factors which effect range. Quite often aircraft could carry more fuel in overload tanks or external tanks, but may not typically do so because of effects on performance or vulnerability, or things like bomb load. Also, often, aircraft did fly scouting missions without ordinance which is a longer range. Ferry range is usually double the "official" range, but it generally is only relevant when the aircraft is being ferried from one location to another. Atmospheric conditions also made a big difference, that is why the Barracuda had a 30% less range in the Pacific than in the North Atlantic, apparently.
> 
> ...



The SBD-3 and -5 both used an R1820 engine, but the -5 variant produced more power at high throttle, however fuel consumption at cruise power was almost identical.

C'mon, there have been lots of post here showing actual mission ranges for various aircraft. UK range testing and reports seem to have been far more accurate than the 'fictional' ranges shown for some USN aircraft via their SAC data sheets.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The USN used PBYs at night with ASV radar to find and attack IJN ships at Midway. Obviously the Swordfish could have done the same. On the evening of 4 June 6 x SBDs took off from Midway to make a night strike against the IJN and Swordfish could have done this as well, and with far greater chance of success, and by replacing the TBDs Swordfish could have launched predawn from the USN carriers to hit the IJN at night, and would certainly have suffered fewer losses than the TBDs.



The PBY had a range of almost 3,000 miles. I am not sure what that translates to in actual combat radius but it's a hell of a lot more than the Swordfish. This is exactly where the whole debate about range started.

Swordfish range with a torpedo was apparently 175 miles or 225 miles, apparently.

My understanding is that the Japanese fleet was 230 miles from Pearl Harbor and a PBY detected the Japanese fleet when they were 500 miles west of Midway. 

I'm not sure how far the Japanese fleet was from Midway during the day of the battle, they probably got pretty close, but I don't think they had any reason to remain within strike range of Midway during the _night_, since their strike aircraft didn't operate at night. And you wouldn't want to send Swordfsh against the Japanese fleet during the day any more than TBDs. 

Range matters a lot in naval warfare.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The SBD-3 and -5 both used an R1820 engine, but the -5 variant produced more power at high throttle, however fuel consumption at cruise power was almost identical.
> 
> C'mon, there have been lots of post here showing actual mission ranges for various aircraft. UK range testing and reports seem to have been far more accurate than the 'fictional' ranges shown for some USN aircraft via their SAC data sheets.



Lol, I think they were done under different conditions and for different reasons. Commercial tests in the UK by UK aircraft (done by the manufacturer) were also different in outcome than the ones done at Boscombe Down. 

You can find tests which say many different things about different aircraft, done in different circumstances. I've pointed out a few of the factors. By trying to streeeetch the data to fit a particular worldview or preconceived notion, you can try to make it look different than the reality, but all this does is dig in the more intractable debates you find on here.

As I said, I'm trying to compare like with like. With regard to the SBD (and TBF), I think the actual strike ranges which have been quoted and sourced a few times in this thread, are what the Navy actually used as a guideline, and seemed to be real. For example, as I already mentioned, they didn't lose any of the SBDs launched in the battle of the Philippine Sea, at targets 300 miles away. You can compare this to the no doubt optimistic range of 1,300 miles reported by the manufacturer, and make certain correlations as I have also done.

The test you quoted was with a 1,000 lb bomb. You do get that right? And you know that makes a difference right? I think you've got your thumb on the scale here, I really don't know why. 

But I think it's also increasingly obvious what the limitation of the Swordfish was doing night attacks in naval warfare. They were really better off using PBYs for that purpose, as they did (though on too small a scale) at Midway and later around Guadalcanal with the "Black Cats".


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

I do concede though it would have been better to have some Swordish available than the TBDs.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The PBY had a range of almost 3,000 miles. I am not sure what that translates to in actual combat radius but it's a hell of a lot more than the Swordfish. This is exactly where the whole debate about range started.
> 
> Swordfish range with a torpedo was apparently 175 miles or 225 miles, apparently.
> 
> ...



We're not talking about replacing the PBYs with Swordfish but augmenting them. 

A Swordfish with ASV radar and carrying a 69IG external tank had a range of about 700nm with a one hour reserve. Adding two x 500lb bombs reduced range to about 600nm.

Crippled ships either can't move or move slowly, and the night SBD strike was sent out to search for crippled IJN carriers.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

I think you need a torpedo for a Swordfish to hurt a warship at night, though I'm willing to be proven otherwise. Did the Swordfish sink ships in night dive or level bombing attacks?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Lol, I think they were done under different conditions and for different reasons. Commercial tests in the UK by UK aircraft (done by the manufacturer) were also different in outcome than the ones done at Boscombe Down.
> 
> You can find tests which say many different things about different aircraft, done in different circumstances. I've pointed out a few of the factors. By trying to streeeetch the data to fit a particular worldview or preconceived notion, you can try to make it look different than the reality, but all this does is dig in the more intractable debates you find on here.
> 
> ...



The SAC range at 5000ft for an SBD-3 with a 1000lb bomb was 1205 statute miles (~1050nm) and for the -5, 1115 statute miles (970nm). These are figures that the USN presented to combat pilots. The field test I summarized was a response to these numbers.

I am not trying to stretch any data, and that's why I have used real world data from actual combat missions. The results from Philippine Sea are consistent with the SBD-5 range test that I summarized.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I think you need a torpedo for a Swordfish to hurt a warship at night, though I'm willing to be proven otherwise. Did the Swordfish sink ships in night dive or level bombing attacks?



Swordfish accounted for 22.5 U-boats, with most operations performed at night with ASV. While attacking a U-boat clearly isn't the same as a larger surface vessel, it does indicate the ability of the aircraft and its crews to locate and engage small targets at night.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Swordfish accounted for 22.5 U-boats, with most operations performed at night with ASV. While attacking a U-boat clearly isn't the same as a larger surface vessel, it does indicate the ability of the aircraft and its crews to locate and engage small targets at night.



Fair enough, I've added that to the chart.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I think you need a torpedo for a Swordfish to hurt a warship at night, though I'm willing to be proven otherwise. Did the Swordfish sink ships in night dive or level bombing attacks?



???

Do you think the SBDs were sent off at night with torpedoes?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

Did they sink any ships on that night mission?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Did they sink any ships on that night mission?


No, they found no targets and lost an SBU (5 accompanied the SBDs) on the way back. Without ASV radar, acquiring a target would have been problematic, at best, although the IJN had probably scuttled their carriers by then.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

How many successful night time dive- or level-bombing attacks by Swordfish or Albacores were there during the war?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> How many successful night time dive- or level-bombing attacks by Swordfish or Albacores were there during the war?



Excluding submarines? We're already established that night bombing was possible and was successful. I don't have ready access to every night attack made by Swordfish and Albacores.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2021)

Here's another Swordfish stat:

"In the Mediterranean, radar equipped Swordfish operating from Malta sank 50,000 tons of Italian shipping per month on average over nine months - with a record of 98,000 tons in one month."

That makes 450,000 tons of Italian shipping alone from just the Swordfish operating out of Malta. That seems like a pretty impressive tally to me....and, again, the operations were primarily at night for reasons that have been discussed up-thread (i.e. the presence of German and Italian fighter aircraft that would make daylight operations impractical for the Swordfish.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

It is impressive, I knew they got a lot of them particularly in the early war. But I think that's mostly unprotected merchant ships right? It's not like the Germans or Italians were operating carriers. If they did that much damage to the Japanese I'd be a lot _more_ impressed.

I think the ability to do strikes at night is very useful, so did the USN which is why they put radar on PBYs and TBFs and even had carrier borne night fighters eventually (F6F-N).

But I think not being able to effectively operate in the day time is a pretty significant limitation. That in combination with limited range amounts to a substantial liability in carrier warfare at that time.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2021)

Awww dang. This thread is descending into one of those dick comparing competitions, despite good information being offered. From an historical and strategic points of view, BOTH raids were pivotal moments in history, but for different reasons and in terms of size and scale (don't go there...) Pearl Harbor was most definitely the biggest, but in terms of impact, Pearl and the US Navy recovered a LOT faster than Taranto and the Regia Marina. Despite the loss of fewer capital ships in Taranto, the raid was a severe blow to Italian pride and their ability to successfully challenge the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. It was a master stroke in tactical and strategic planning and achieved exactly what the navy wanted it to, that of reducing the impact of the Italian fleet in the Med. Its success arguably affected the Italian fleet in subsequent battles, such as Matapan. Did the Japanese achieve the same at Pearl? Not at all. In fact, it infused the Americans with a resolve that would end the war, with the development and deployment of nuclear weapons - that was the strategic impact of the Pearl Harbor raid. It backfired on the Japanese, not to mention their own tactical mistakes.

So, the next point that is of interest, to me anyways is whether Taranto 'influenced' Pearl. Maybe; it's debated and claimed to be the case. I'm pretty certain the Japanese would have studied the impacts of Judgement, no doubt in my mind, but documentary evidence is scarce to what extent it actually influenced their strategy or tactics. What is known is that the whole idea of sinking warships in their own anchorages was initially ratified as policy within the Royal Navy long before Pearl and Taranto. The latter was the actioning of policy that had been discussed many times before within the Admiralty and even before the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, the promise of using aircraft to disable ships in their home anchorages had been proposed.

The British even went as far as to plan such a raid against the German High Seas Fleet in 1919, using aircraft carrier based torpedoplanes not much less sophisticated than the Swordfish, for such an attack, called a 'Copenhagen' in naval parlance after Lord Nelson's attack against the Danish fleet in 1801. Needless to say, resources, which involved the converting of merchant ship hulls into flat top carriers, were devoted to countering German submarine warfare from early 1917. So the raid took longer to prepare for than its supporters, Adm Sir David Beattie being its foremost protagonist, chafed at the bit to action it and saw delays as typical admiralty stalling.

How did the Japanese get wind of this? In 1921, the British Naval Mission sent torpedoplanes and instructors that were involved in the planning and training of aircrew in torpedo dropping techniques to the IJN's naval base outside of the greater Tokyo area at Kasumigaura. Did this activity contribute to the planning of the Pearl raid? Almost certainly in terms of training of techniques. The Japanese took what the British taught them and ran with it. Their inter-war torpedo fleets grew in size and sophistication to what we know of them at Pearl.

Blame the British.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

Pearl Harbor backfired mainly because the Japanese didn't declare war first - that also might have been part of what made it possible, though who knows.

The Italians inability to bounce back also had something to do with their trade and supply lines being highly vulnerable and to their being a much smaller economy at the time. Also much deeper into Fascism than their buddies up north with the corruption and malaise having longer to set in.

But Taranto was undoubtedly a masterstroke. No doubt about that.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> It is impressive, I knew they got a lot of them particularly in the early war. But I think that's mostly unprotected merchant ships right? It's not like the Germans or Italians were operating carriers. If they did that much damage to the Japanese I'd be a lot _more_ impressed.
> 
> I think the ability to do strikes at night is very useful, so did the USN which is why they put radar on PBYs and TBFs and even had carrier borne night fighters eventually (F6F-N).
> 
> But I think not being able to effectively operate in the day time is a pretty significant limitation. That in combination with limited range amounts to a substantial liability in carrier warfare at that time.



Those merchant shipping figures were for 1941, so hardly "early war" from the UK's perspective. I'd argue that putting any contemporaneous naval bomber type (torpedo, dive bomber etc) into the Mediterranean in 1940-1941 probably would have suffered just as bad losses in daylight as the Swordfish. Certainly the SBD would have done better in the bombing role and was certainly more survivable but, even then, operating in an environment where it would encounter high-performance, land-based fighter opposition in daylight was likely asking for trouble. 

The only way ANY torpedo bomber could survive against strong fighter defences was if it had an equally strong fighter escort...or it was incredibly lucky. The Avenger was a far better aircraft than the Swordfish and yet the 6 airframes operating from Midway didn't do any better than the Devastators operating off the carriers against the Japanese fleet - 5 shot down and the one that returned to Midway was written off. The TBF came into its own right at the time when IJN aviation was starting its terminal decline...so, no surprise, it suffered fewer losses because the opposing fighter pilots weren't as experienced or capable. 

Arguably, the USN's key strength in aviation was a collection of solidly-performing aircraft that, when operated in concert, presented more challenges than the IJN was able to counter. In no small part, this was due to the lack of IJN early warning and the inability to control interception to meet the most critical threats. Essentially, IJN interception was like 6-year-olds playing soccer....all the players clustered around wherever they saw the ball. Conversely, the USN played to positions, and hence could exploit gaps in the IJN defences. The flip side of the coin was exemplified in the Marianas Turkey Shoot where USN radio intercepts of IJN aircraft transmissions essentially enabled robust quarterbacking of the USN fighter forces.


----------



## special ed (Jan 24, 2021)

There was only a year between Taranto and Pearl Harbor. Is that enough time from concept, training, modifying torpedoes, testing, and equipment supply before attacking?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2021)

I think the whole "Taranto inspired Pearl Harbor" idea is something of a myth. Certainly Yamamoto was already exploring how to take out Pearl Harbor before the Taranto raid went in - he was discussing potential attacks on Pearl Harbor as early as April 1940. 

Certainly, Taranto may have given the IJN a clue that torpedo attacks against ships in harbour could be successful...however, to say it "inspired" Pearl Harbor is, at best, an exaggeration.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2021)

Apparently 826 Sqn Albacores were helping doing pathfinder / strike spotting for Wellingtons (with flares) in the MTO in Dec 1941


----------



## yulzari (Jan 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> How many successful night time dive- or level-bombing attacks by Swordfish or Albacores were there during the war?


Well Taranto for one involved night time dive bombing (illuminated by flares).


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2021)

I wouldn't argue that the TBD was any more survivable or less survivable than the Swordfish in any given scenario, to be frank - as has been pointed out, heavy anti-aircraft fire and fighter defence doesn't discriminate against a slow moving straight and level target. 

The reality is that how we view them and regard them has been influenced heavily by their actions during the war. Both were products of their time, one gained a reputation as something of a loser - perhaps unfairly and the other as a winner, both as a result of us believing the hype/media/propaganda that was posted at the time and since about them. Both types had qualities and drawbacks, but it is clear to see that the Devastator didn't fare too well from its negative press following Midway and the Swordfish was definitely boosted in the mind's eye because of Taranto. 

These things obviously affect our perceptions. Would either have been any more successful in the other scenario? Hard to say and a moot argument really. The circumstances behind our perception of their actions are arguably not going to have changed much if either type were reversed where the Swordfish was at Midway or the Devastator was at Taranto, to be honest. There was nothing that either the Devastator or Swordfish brought to the table that especially influenced how each of the attacks were to be conducted or what the outcomes would have been, or, if it would have been any different if either type was used...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I think the whole "Taranto inspired Pearl Harbor" idea is something of a myth.



I agree. Like I said, the Japanese definitely would have examined it, but did Taranto suddenly make the Japanese sit up and decide to do that? No, of course not. Like I mentioned, the strategy and tactics of attacking enemy ships in their harbours with air attack had been introduced to the Japanese as far back as 1921 and earlier. A Japanese seaplane bombed German shipping at Tsingtao in August 1914, so the idea had been around for awhile.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

Well Swordfish had a better range than TBD, so on that level alone it was definitely more effective, and it could attack at night which defintiely made it safer from fighters than a TBD.


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 25, 2021)

It is hard sometimes to separate the strengths of the aircraft from its electronic equipment, and maybe you shouldn't. The British were the early-war leaders in airborne radar, and it shows in their ability to use the Swordfish offensively at night in 1940. It was rare for US carrier-based bombers to have radar before 1943, and not universal even then. The ability to conduct night operations was a force-multiplier favoring the British. 

Similarly, how much do you weigh the superior radio equipment and (eventually) IFF gear in the F4F vs the A6M? The Zero's main weakness as a naval fighter was the inability to be vectored by radio to the location of the threat. American fighter-direction was flawed (especially at Santa Cruz), but it was effective sometimes.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> I wouldn't argue that the TBD was any more survivable or less survivable than the Swordfish in any given scenario, to be frank - as has been pointed out, heavy anti-aircraft fire and fighter defence doesn't discriminate against a slow moving straight and level target.
> 
> The reality is that how we view them and regard them has been influenced heavily by their actions during the war. Both were products of their time, one gained a reputation as something of a loser - perhaps unfairly and the other as a winner, both as a result of us believing the hype/media/propaganda that was posted at the time and since about them. Both types had qualities and drawbacks, but it is clear to see that the Devastator didn't fare too well from its negative press following Midway and the Swordfish was definitely boosted in the mind's eye because of Taranto.
> 
> These things obviously affect our perceptions. Would either have been any more successful in the other scenario? Hard to say and a moot argument really. The circumstances behind our perception of their actions are arguably not going to have changed much if either type were reversed where the Swordfish was at Midway or the Devastator was at Taranto, to be honest. There was nothing that either the Devastator or Swordfish brought to the table that especially influenced how each of the attacks were to be conducted or what the outcomes would have been, or, if it would have been any different if either type was used...



I agree entirely with your first 2 paragraphs but I have to disagree with the third. 

For one thing, the shorter range of the TBD would mean the carrier would have to get closer to enemy territory, increasing risk of detection.

Secondly, if we're taking the US capability in toto as an integrated weapon system, then the torpedo clearly was an achilles heel to achieving operational effects.

Finally, I'm not sure how the Devastator would have fared flying into barrage balloon defences at night. I think the greater manoeuvrability of the Swordfish (once it's torpedo has been dropped) would be a distinct advantage that would increase overall survivability.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure how far the Japanese fleet was from Midway during the day of the battle, they probably got pretty close, but I don't think they had any reason to remain within strike range of Midway during the _night_, since their strike aircraft didn't operate at night. And you wouldn't want to send Swordfsh against the Japanese fleet during the day any more than TBDs.



From the top of my head the Japanese continued to close on Midway, as they were hoping to force a night action with their capital ships, for which they were well trained and (barring radar) equipped.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The reality is that how we view them and regard them has been influenced heavily by their actions during the war. Both were products of their time, one gained a reputation as something of a loser - perhaps unfairly and the other as a winner, both as a result of us believing the hype/media/propaganda that was posted at the time and since about them.



I think one was recognized as a loser early on, which is why they only made 130 of them, while the other kept being made (and used) through the war, in spite of it's severe limitations, because they had a hard time coming up with anything else.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Those merchant shipping figures were for 1941, so hardly "early war" from the UK's perspective. I'd argue that putting any contemporaneous naval bomber type (torpedo, dive bomber etc) into the Mediterranean in 1940-1941 probably would have suffered just as bad losses in daylight as the Swordfish. Certainly the SBD would have done better in the bombing role and was certainly more survivable but, even then, operating in an environment where it would encounter high-performance, land-based fighter opposition in daylight was likely asking for trouble. The only way ANY torpedo bomber could survive against strong fighter defences was if it had an equally strong fighter escort...or it was incredibly lucky. The Avenger was a far better aircraft than the Swordfish and yet the 6 airframes operating from Midway didn't do any better than the Devastators operating off the carriers against the Japanese fleet - 5 shot down and the one that returned to Midway was written off. The TBF came into its own right at the time when IJN aviation was starting its terminal decline...so, no surprise, it suffered fewer losses because the opposing fighter pilots weren't as experienced or capable.



Well, the TBF did do better than the TBD, in that one out of the six did make it back to Midway, that is kind of remarkable in and of itself considering the conditions.

I think 1941 still counts as early war. A lot had happened by then for the British, but they were in it to 1945.

If you consider the tradeoff between aircraft and warships, there were torpedo bombers which could attack targets and survive at an "acceptable" rate without really good fighter escort, they were just mostly land based aircraft and mostly twin-engined. SM. 79 did pretty well for a while, taking increasingly higher losses but they certainly sunk ships well into 1942. The Ju 88 did well too. The Beaufort and Beaufighter both had success in sinking ships, and the A-20 was used with success as a torpedo bomber by the Soviets in the Baltic, albeit with heavy losses. G4Ms sunk some ships with torpedoes. The Italian G-55 torpedo fighter probably could have done pretty well.

A lot of it did depend on the torpedoes of course - not only the American ones not working, but various others speed and launch parameters could make a big difference. It is true to some extent as well for radio and radar.



> Arguably, the USN's key strength in aviation was a collection of solidly-performing aircraft that, when operated in concert, presented more challenges than the IJN was able to counter. In no small part, this was due to the lack of IJN early warning and the inability to control interception to meet the most critical threats. Essentially, IJN interception was like 6-year-olds playing soccer....all the players clustered around wherever they saw the ball. Conversely, the USN played to positions, and hence could exploit gaps in the IJN defences. The flip side of the coin was exemplified in the Marianas Turkey Shoot where USN radio intercepts of IJN aircraft transmissions essentially enabled robust quarterbacking of the USN fighter forces.



If you read the accounts in First Team etc., the early battles like Coral Sea, Midway, and many of the engagements in the Solomons and around New Guinea, fighter support was spotty and erratic, radio notwithstanding. No doubt the radio helped, but they just didn't have enough fighters and the fighters they did have could barely handle their Japanese counterparts. Quite often bombers were on their own and had to fend for themselves. They even pressed SBDs into service as emergency CAP on a couple of famous occasions.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

That said, if you had Martlets and SBDs in those convoys like Pedestal instead of Fulmars and Swordfish or Skuas, I do think they would have done much better. They did have a few Martlets (I think 6) at Pedestal but not enough to make a difference. & I know the SBDs were probably too big because they lacked folding wings.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

Some info on the JU-87R2:

Range:

779 statute miles (1254km) with a 550kg bomb and two (66IG) drop tanks at 180mph outbound and 205mph return, at 13120ft (4000m). I have no info on reserve fuel. (data from Vanags-Baginskis)


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

I thought they didn't typically use drop tanks?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> That said, if you had Martlets and SBDs in those convoys like Pedestal instead of Fulmars and Swordfish or Skuas, I do think they would have done much better. They did have a few Martlets (I think 6) at Pedestal but not enough to make a difference. & I know the SBDs were probably too big because they lacked folding wings.



I'm not sure how the fixed wing SBD would have made a difference, and in any event it had no advantage over the folding wing Skua, as fighter. We've gone over Fulmar vs Martlet performance before. The Martlet II, according to Boscombe Down testing was good for 293mph at 13.8K and 5.4K ft and 298mph at 14.6k ft and 278 at 4k ft for the Martlet IV. The Martlet II fighter was not available, with folding wings, prior to late 1941 and late 1942 for the Martlet IV, and without folding wings there was little rationale for it's use over the Sea Hurricane, which had substantially better performance.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I thought they didn't typically use drop tanks?



The R variant was specifically modded to use DTs (and had extra fuel in wing tanks). It was used extensively in Norway as well.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> I'm not sure how the fixed wing SBD would have made a difference, and in any event it had no advantage over the folding wing Skua, as fighter. We've gone over Fulmar vs Martlet performance before. The Martlet II, according to Boscombe Down testing was good for 293mph at 13.8K and 5.4K ft and 298mph at 14.6k ft and 278 at 4k ft for the Martlet IV. The Martlet II fighter was not available, with folding wings, prior to late 1941 and late 1942 for the Martlet IV, and without folding wings there was little rationale for it's use over the Sea Hurricane, which had substantially better performance.



Boscombe down notwithstanding, the Martlet could actually make well over 320 mph, including the folding wing F4F-4, (this British report says 317 for Martlet II), in other words it was at least as fast as a Sea Hurricane and much faster than a Fulmar, and more to the point, by 1942 had a _much _better combat record than the Sea Hurricane (or land based Hurricane) including in the MTO, and is in another league than the pathetic Fulmar or Skua. The Martlet also had almost twice the range of a Hurricane (460 -500 miles vs. 850 for the Martlet II, according to the British chart). As I keep pointing out, *range matters *a lot in naval warfare.

SBDs would not be used for fighters - but as strike and ASW aircraft. Those convoys were threatened by surface ships and subs as well as aircraft, in fact the Axis air strikes against Pedestal were so ineffective that most of the damage seems to have been done by subs and torpedo boats.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Boscombe down notwithstanding, the Martlet could actually make well over 320 mph, including the folding wing F4F-4, (this British report says 317 for Martlet II), in other words it was at least as fast as a Sea Hurricane and much faster than a Fulmar, and more to the point, by 1942 had a _much _better combat record than the Sea Hurricane (or land based Hurricane) including in the MTO, and is in another league than the pathetic Fulmar or Skua. The Martlet also had almost twice the range of a Hurricane (460 -500 miles vs. 850 for the Martlet II, according to the British chart). As I keep pointing out, *range matters *a lot in naval warfare.
> 
> SBDs would not be used for fighters - but as strike and ASW aircraft. Those convoys were threatened by surface ships and subs as well as aircraft, in fact the Axis air strikes against Pedestal were so ineffective that most of the damage seems to have been done by subs and torpedo boats.



That data card is wrong. It states it's a folding wing Martlet II but the weights and fuel capacity are for an F4F-3A with fixed wings no armour and no SS tanks. This data card states that it supersedes the link you posted:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-II-ads.jpg

The Sea Hurricane had an excellent combat record and for that matter, so did the Fulmar.

Axis strikes against Malta convoys were met by effective fighter cover which kept losses low during that part of the route where the carriers could provide CAP.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

I'm going to start another thread to compare Theaters


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 25, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> For one thing, the shorter range of the TBD would mean the carrier would have to get closer to enemy territory, increasing risk of detection.
> 
> Secondly, if we're taking the US capability in toto as an integrated weapon system, then the torpedo clearly was an achilles heel to achieving operational effects.
> 
> Finally, I'm not sure how the Devastator would have fared flying into barrage balloon defences at night. I think the greater manoeuvrability of the Swordfish (once it's torpedo has been dropped) would be a distinct advantage that would increase overall survivability.



I dunno, Mark, there's a lot of hypothesising the TBD would be at a disadvantage without real evidence. Firstly, the launch point for Judgement was 170 nautical miles from Taranto, so you are telling me that because the 378 nm range of a TBD carrying a torpedo or the 633 nm range carrying bombs would cause a relocation of the carrier?

Secondly, if the TBD was being operated by the Royal Navy, these things wouldn't apply, would they.

Finally, there's no guarantee that this is the case. I'm pretty certain the TBD was capable of manoeuvring, perhaps not as much as a Swordfish, but to write it off because it _might_ hit a cable? If the RN had TBDs instead of Swordfish, I'm pretty certain they'd be used.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Boscombe down notwithstanding, the Martlet could actually make well over 320 mph, including the folding wing F4F-4, (this British report says 317 for Martlet II), in other words it was at least as fast as a Sea Hurricane and much faster than a Fulmar, and more to the point, by 1942 had a _much _better combat record than the Sea Hurricane (or land based Hurricane) including in the MTO, and is in another league than the pathetic Fulmar or Skua. The Martlet also had almost twice the range of a Hurricane (460 -500 miles vs. 850 for the Martlet II, according to the British chart). As I keep pointing out, *range matters *a lot in naval warfare.
> 
> SBDs would not be used for fighters - but as strike and ASW aircraft. Those convoys were threatened by surface ships and subs as well as aircraft, in fact the Axis air strikes against Pedestal were so ineffective that most of the damage seems to have been done by subs and torpedo boats.



More on this:

_"Performance testing took place at A&AEE in April 1942 using AM991 at a take-off weight of 7790 lb. The testing showed a maximum rate of climb of 1940 ft/min at 7600 ft in MS gear and 1570 ft/min at 13,700 ft in FS gear. Compared with most land-based fighters, the climb performance of the Martlet II was relatively sedate, taking 5.3 minutes to reach 10,000 ft and 12.5 minutes to reach 20,000 ft. For its naval role this was considered acceptable, but its climb rate deteriorated rather dramatically above this height, the aircraft taking a full 30.6 minutes to get to 30,000 ft. Its service ceiling (100 ft/min climb rate) was estimated at 31,000 ft. Level speed tests showed a maximum of 293 mph TAS at 5400 ft in MS gear, with an identical speed at 13,800 ft in FS gear."_

and:

_"Directionally and laterally, the Martlet IV was stable under all conditions of flight.
Trials to assess the climb rate and maximum level speed were also made using FN111, which although capable of carrying two 100-lb bombs under the wings, did not have racks fitted. Take-off weight was 7740 lb. Its performance proved to be somewhat worse than the Martlet II, with a maximum rate of climb of 1580 ft/min at 6200 ft in MS gear and 1440 ft/min at 14,600 ft in FS gear. The times to height were: 10,000 ft – 6.6 minutes; 20,000 ft – 14.6 minutes; 28,000 ft –29.1 minutes. The estimated service ceiling was 30,100 ft. The maximum speed in MS gear was 278 mph TAS at 3400 ft and 298 mph TAS at 21,000 ft in FS gear."_ ( Both excepts from Mason_, Flying to the Limit)_

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I think one was recognized as a loser early on, which is why they only made 130 of them,



Someone enlighten me as to what it was about the Devastator that made it a loser _before_ the Midway attack. A low production run doesn't necessarily confer bad design, not only that, but what was considered a low production run in 1934 when it was ordered? The Vindicator had a production run of 260, which also included foreign orders from Britain and France, so, 130 appears about what the US Navy required at any rate. To all intents and purposes, for an aeroplane that was ordered in 1934 it was an entirely modern aircraft. I can see that it had corrosion issues in the wing skins, easily fixed, and a rudder hinge needed modification, again, not beyond the manufacturer and certainly not enough to bring production to a standstill (but enough to ground the fleet). The other issue was the canopy profile, which was altered, but what else? Why, exactly is this aircraft considered bad, other than suffering heavy losses at Midway? Did it handle poorly? Was it a maintenance hog full of defects? Did it suffer structural failure?

To me it appears that by the time of Midway it was under replacement by the TBF at any rate, so it was recognised by the navy it was approaching obsolescence from 1940. Yet, it had, from what I can see, a relatively trouble free service career with the navy, with VT-3 taking part in a Fleet Exercise attack against Pearl Harbor in 1938, which was apparently successful. TBDs were also used without loss to the enemy against Japanese positions on various islands held by them in early 1942. All of a sudden due a squadron being wiped out, even though its replacement didn't fare any better, the aircraft is a pariah?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

I'm all for revisionism, at least as a way to double check assumptions, but i think the notion that the Sea Hurricane and the Fulmar had "excellent" combat records _or _that the TBD was anything other than a dog are ludicrous. You can defend just about any position if you try hard enough but I don't think these stand on firm ground.

Yes, the TBD is a pariah, because yes, it did handle poorly and was noted for it's poor maneuverability, it was in fact disliked by it's crews, and also because it had abysmal range especially for a strike aircraft, was poorly armed (one offensive and one defensive .30 cal), was one of the slowest aircraft in the navy inventory (to speed barely 200 mph with a cruise speed of 128 mph, which is even slower than the Swordfish, and all this bad performance with barely any armor and (I believe) no self-sealing fuel tanks. With modern defensive gear it would have had even worse performance. TBDs were already being pulled out line units before the war and some had already been assigned to fly as Target Tugs, always a bad sign.

Like the Vindicator, it was quickly recognized as a very limited design which helped the Navy get up to speed bridge the gaps between biplanes and monoplanes, but not ready for prime time.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> I dunno, Mark, there's a lot of hypothesising the TBD would be at a disadvantage without real evidence. Firstly, the launch point for Judgement was 170 nautical miles from Taranto, so you are telling me that because the 378 nm range of a TBD carrying a torpedo or the 633 nm range carrying bombs would cause a relocation of the carrier?
> 
> Secondly, if the TBD was being operated by the Royal Navy, these things wouldn't apply, would they.
> 
> Finally, there's no guarantee that this is the case. I'm pretty certain the TBD was capable of manoeuvring, perhaps not as much as a Swordfish, but to write it off because it _might_ hit a cable? If the RN had TBDs instead of Swordfish, I'm pretty certain they'd be used.



The TBD was very limited in it's ability to manoeuvre because it was very lightly stressed and badly overweight by mid 1942. 

The TBD could not have operated from RN carriers because it's minimum folded width was too much to fit into modern RN carriers (except Indomitable) and it's STOL performance was already marginal on USN carriers and unacceptable for operation from RN carriers.
from the TBD manual:
_"SECTION VI
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS

A. Restricted Maneuvers
___ 1. Maneuvers Restricted By Design
______ a. Acrobatics
______ b. Inverted flight
______ c. *Dives in excess of 45°, 205 knots* and 2950 r.p.m.
______ d. Pull-outs in excess of 4 g at a normal gross weight of 9300#
3. Overload Flight Restrictions
_____ a. When overloaded, applied accelerations must be reduced. At 10176# gross, the acceleration loads are restricted to +3.52 g and -1.76 g as compared to +4 g and -2 g at 9300# gross."_

By 1942 it was probably around 10400lb TO weight. 

The Swordfish was fully stressed for Divebombing and VNE was 206 knots, which is actually higher than the TBD!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 25, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Swordfish was fully stressed for Divebombing and VNE was 206 knots, which is actually higher than the TBD!



Yup, I'm not disputing this, none of what you are saying, but none of what you've shown me could be used as a reason why the TBD could not have been used in place of the Swordfish at Taranto, which took place in late 1940 (that is, if the Royal Navy had TBDs instead of Swordfish - highly implausable and unrealistic, but you and I have been here before  ). Again however, you say the aircraft was overweight, I'm not doubting it, as in 1940 the decision was made to phase the type out of service over the next few years and replace it with the TBF once it entered service, so it was recognised that it was due for replacement, but that doesn't answer why the TBD could not have done what the Swordfish did at Taranto.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I'm all for revisionism, at least as a way to double check assumptions, but i think the notion that the Sea Hurricane and the Fulmar had "excellent" combat records _or _that the TBD was anything other than a dog are ludicrous. You can defend just about any position if you try hard enough but I don't think these stand on firm ground.
> 
> Yes, the TBD is a pariah, because yes, it did handle poorly and was noted for it's poor maneuverability, it was in fact disliked by it's crews, and also because it had abysmal range especially for a strike aircraft, was poorly armed (one offensive and one defensive .30 cal), was one of the slowest aircraft in the navy inventory (to speed barely 200 mph with a cruise speed of 128 mph, which is even slower than the Swordfish, and all this bad performance with barely any armor and (I believe) no self-sealing fuel tanks. With modern defensive gear it would have had even worse performance. TBDs were already being pulled out line units before the war and some had already been assigned to fly as Target Tugs, always a bad sign.
> 
> Like the Vindicator, it was quickly recognized as a very limited design which helped the Navy get up to speed bridge the gaps between biplanes and monoplanes, but not ready for prime time.


Perhaps you can provide some sources that state a "poor" combat record for the Sea Hurricane?

Both aircraft had very positive kill-loss ratios. Sea Hurricane performance was far superior to the Martlet II/IV. The Fulmar II was slower than the Martlet II/IV at all altitudes, but less so under 10K ft. Climb performance to 10K ft was about the same, but deteriorated rapidly above that altitude. The Fulmar II benefitted greatly by using the Combat rating of the engine, while the Martlet had no combat rating and there was only a marginal increase in power by using the Military rating.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

Yes, I'll be glad to discuss this in detail, and we can examine the _actual _victories and losses (as distinct from claims) but lets do it in another thread so as not to further derail this one:

Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Yes, the TBD is a pariah, because yes, it did handle poorly and was noted for it's poor maneuverability, it was in fact disliked by it's crews, and also because it had abysmal range especially for a strike aircraft, was poorly armed (one offensive and one defensive .30 cal), was one of the slowest aircraft in the navy inventory (to speed barely 200 mph with a cruise speed of 128 mph, which is even slower than the Swordfish, and all this bad performance with barely any armor and (I believe) no self-sealing fuel tanks. With modern defensive gear it would have had even worse performance. TBDs were already being pulled out line units before the war and some had already been assigned to fly as Target Tugs, always a bad sign.



Well, thank you, that's what I'm after, but I do think criticising it because it doesn't have self sealing tanks is harsh - when the Devastator entered service, NO US navy aircraft had self-sealing tanks, and the navy did foresee it was approaching obsolescence three years later in 1940 by looking for a replacement well before the US entered the war, so an early design being equipped with modern equipment is a characteristic that reduced the service life of many early 1930s designs still in service when the war began. 

As for its range and defensive armament, again, who are you fighting against in 1934/35 when the specification is being drawn up and the type flies for the first time? Remember that the average fighter in service in foreign air forces at the time the TBD first flew were biplanes that didn't have much better cruise speeds and could only just go over 200 mph maximum speed, and were armed with two to four rifle calibre machine guns. The pace of technology caught up with these aircraft pretty darn quick. By 1942, yes, it's overweight, underpowered and due for retirement, but its replacement is already in service and took part in the same battle - it was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, I'm not disputing this, none of what you are saying, but none of what you've shown me could be used as a reason why the TBD could not have been used in place of the Swordfish at Taranto, which took place in late 1940 (that is, if the Royal Navy had TBDs instead of Swordfish - highly implausable and unrealistic, but you and I have been here before  ). Again however, you say the aircraft was overweight, I'm not doubting it, as in 1940 the decision was made to phase the type out of service over the next few years and replace it with the TBF once it entered service, so it was recognised that it was due for replacement, but that doesn't answer why the TBD could not have done what the Swordfish did at Taranto.



The TBD did not have enough range. The TBD only carried 150IG of fuel, compared to 227IG for the Swordfish and a LR internal tank. It's very difficult to determine the actual range of the TBD but it seems pretty certain that it didn't have the range or endurance required unless the carrier moved somewhat closer to Taranto prior to launch.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Pearl Harbor backfired mainly because the Japanese didn't declare war first.


They tried, but were defeated by their own embassy's incompetence in decoding and translating.



buffnut453 said:


> The only way ANY torpedo bomber could survive against strong fighter defences was if it had an equally strong fighter escort...or it was incredibly lucky. The Avenger was a far better aircraft than the Swordfish and yet the 6 airframes operating from Midway didn't do any better than the Devastators operating off the carriers against the Japanese fleet


BINGO! Add to this, the TBFs were brand new and their crews were new to them; not exactly a representative sample of the aircraft's potential. In addition, the TBFs didn't have the advantage of fighter support or a coordinated strike, thus facing the full undiluted fury of the CAP and AAA fire.


Just Schmidt said:


> From the top of my head the Japanese continued to close on Midway, as they were hoping to force a night action with their capital ships, for which they were well trained and (barring radar) equipped.


Well, not exactly. KB was trying to close on TF's 16 & 17, which were withdrawing to the NE, more or less AWAY from Midway to avoid that very night surface engagement Nagumo was seeking. Read _Shattered Sword._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 25, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> They tried, but were defeated by their own embassy's incompetence in decoding and translating.
> 
> 
> BINGO! Add to this, the TBFs were brand new and their crews were new to them; not exactly a representative sample of the aircraft's potential. In addition, the TBFs didn't have the advantage of fighter support or a coordinated strike, thus facing the full fury of the CAP and AAA fire.
> ...


Yup.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Well, thank you, that's what I'm after, but I do think criticising it because it doesn't have self sealing tanks is harsh - when the Devastator entered service, NO US navy aircraft had self-sealing tanks, and the navy did foresee it was approaching obsolescence three years later in 1940 by looking for a replacement well before the US entered the war, so an early design being equipped with modern equipment is a characteristic that reduced the service life of many early 1930s designs still in service when the war began.
> 
> As for its range and defensive armament, again, who are you fighting against in 1934/35 when the specification is being drawn up and the type flies for the first time? Remember that the average fighter in service in foreign air forces at the time the TBD first flew were biplanes that didn't have much better cruise speeds and could only just go over 200 mph maximum speed, and were armed with two to four rifle calibre machine guns. The pace of technology caught up with these aircraft pretty darn quick. By 1942, yes, it's overweight, underpowered and due for retirement, but its replacement is already in service and took part in the same battle - it was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.



There were many aircraft designed in the mid thirties which had much more potential for development. Hurricane, Spitfire, P-36, Bf 109, Stuka... Ultimately that was what made any of those early designs good or bad, how much could they be improved? Could you fit a bigger engine, armor, more guns, self-sealing tanks, and more fuel into the thing without it becoming unflyable? With with a torpedo strapped on, the TBD was barely airworthy as it was, it did not have further room for the development. If it's range wasn't so poor it might have been a decent scout or ASW plane but it really easn't qualified for even that humble role. The ginormous TBF was not exactly a graceful design, but it did have room for more and more improvements and could carry things like radar, mines and rockets and lots more fuel than when it first flew.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 25, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The TBD did not have enough range. The TBD only carried 150IG of fuel, compared to 227IG for the Swordfish and a LR internal tank. It's very difficult to determine the actual range of the TBD but it seems pretty certain that it didn't have the range or endurance required unless the carrier moved somewhat closer to Taranto prior to launch.



OK, it's kinda hard to determine that it didn't have the range then saying you don't know its range figures, but I'll concede (mainly because its a moot point and I cannae be a*sed devoting too much more brain power debating this) - perhaps the task force might have to get a little closer. 

Like I said above though, the Lusty launched its aircraft 170 nm from Taranto, _are you sure _the TBD couldn't do that? According to wiki its range with a torpedo was 378 nm, according to McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 (Rene Francillon, Putnam, 1988) the TBD's range with a torpedo is 435 miles or 700km.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> OK, it's kinda hard to determine that it didn't have the range then saying you don't know its range figures, but I'll concede (mainly because its a moot point and I cannae be a*sed devoting too much more brain power debating this) - perhaps the task force might have to get a little closer.
> 
> Like I said above though, the Lusty launched its aircraft 170 nm from Taranto, _are you sure _the TBD couldn't do that? According to wiki its range with a torpedo was 378 nm, according to McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 (Rene Francillon, Putnam, 1988) the TBD's range with a torpedo is 435 miles or 700km.



Those figures don't indicate a sufficient reserve range for safe mission planning. They are actually less than the Swordfish with no LR tank and 167IG internal fuel which was ~460nm at 5000ft with a 50min reserve. (Sturtivant - data based upon combat missions)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2021)

The poor TBD never got some of the improvements the Swordfish got.

like radar, is there any reason it could not have been fitted had sets been available?
Range, hmm, take the 3rd crew man out and mount a big tin can in the middle of plane full of fuel, give the rear gunner a bag of corks to plug the bullet holes, range problem _solved _

comments have been made about it's short range and having only one forward firing gun and one gun out the back for defense. 
Well the guns are exactly what the Swordfish had. and the TBD had a longer range and the same gun armament as the other US strike aircraft. 





performance for a later version.

*Maximum speed:* 234 mph (377 km/h, 203 kn) at 15,200 ft (4,600 m)
*Cruise speed:* 175 mph (282 km/h, 152 kn)
*Range:* 405 mi (652 km, 352 nmi)
*Service ceiling:* 24,000 ft (7,300 m)
*Rate of climb:* 1,630 ft/min (8.3 m/s)
This plane's prototype first flew about 8 months after the TBD prototype.
The TBD flew 2 years after and only 4 months after the production contract was placed for this aircraft





For those keeping track of technical innovation in 1933 this plane had a variable (two pitch) propeller and adjustable cowl flaps for adjustable engine cooling. 

If we are going to compare the TBD to other aircraft lets compare it to contemporaries and please remember that the last TBD was ordered in 1938. 
No more were built after early 1939 and no refit program with better engine/prop, electronics, armor, new fuel tanks etc was ever done.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 25, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The poor TBD never got some of the improvements the Swordfish got.
> 
> like radar, is there any reason it could not have been fitted had sets been available?
> Range, hmm, take the 3rd crew man out and mount a big tin can in the middle of plane full of fuel, give the rear gunner a bag of corks to plug the bullet holes, range problem _solved _
> ...



The airframe was already at it limits in terms of weight, mainly because it was very lightly built. Additionally it was already overweight with full fuel and a torpedo and USN torpedoes got progressively heavier over time. There's just no reserve in the airframe to accommodate extra fuel and/or engine weight or drag.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Those figures don't indicate a sufficient reserve range for *safe mission planning.* They are actually less than the Swordfish with no LR tank and 167IG internal fuel which was ~460nm at 5000ft with a 50min reserve. (Sturtivant - data based upon combat missions)


What is you basis for this? I always knew of 30 mins as a norm, you mention a 50 min reserve. Is this from a FAA directive or from the flight manual?


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 25, 2021)

The TBD did ok for a plane that was developed in the heart of the Great Depression on a limited budget, produced in limited quantities, and hardly updated. By the time of Pearl Harbor, the Navy had commissioned, not one, but two replacements. the prototype for the Grumman TBF first flew in August 1941, and the prototype for the Vought (Later Consolidated) TBY Sea Wolf first flew December 1941. (Consolidated eventually delivered 180 Sea Wolves, almost as many as there were TBDs.) The TBD had the misfortune of having its most important crucible of fire (Midway) only weeks before it was going to be replaced. 

In addition, the SB2C Helldiver was designed to have a secondary capability to take a torpedo instead of bombs. The SB2C's prototype first flew in December 1940, The Navy likely expected the SB2C to be in service by June 1942, but as we know the delays of the Helldiver are legendary. 

The bottom line is that neither the US Navy nor Douglas saw much return in updating the TBD, not when it was about as easy to bring in a completely new design, a plane designed around an R-2600 or R-2800 engine, or even a Wright R-3350. By December 1941, Douglas had a contract to build prototypes for an aircraft to replace both the TBD and the SB2C. The prototype for this aircraft, designated *XSB2D-1* eventually evolved into the BTD Destroyer, and 24 of these were delivered by V-J Day. A single-seat version of the BTD evolved into the AD/A-1 Skyraider.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The airframe was already at it limits in terms of weight, mainly because it was very lightly built. Additionally it was already overweight with full fuel and a torpedo and USN torpedoes got progressively heavier over time. There's just no reserve in the airframe to accommodate extra engine weight or drag.



Overweight in terms of the airframe breaking or overweight to poor power to weight ratio? 

The early MK 13 torpedoes had a 400lb charge and weighed 1927lbs. Later ones got heavier but the early ones were what the plane was designed for.
Contemporary British torpedo went about 1548lbs with a 388lb charge. British did change warhead weights and other things in addition to fitting tails and nose protection. 
US also went to a heavier warhead and wooden add ons. 

Devastator might have had some rather amazing range if it used a 1600lb torpedo and carried an extra 50 gallons of fuel  

Devastator used an early R-1830 that ran on 87 octane fuel and used light construction. A slightly later version running on 91 octane offered 150hp more for take-off and more cruising power higher up for less than 150lbs. AS used on PBY-3s 

Would like to see where the overweight comment is from.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The poor TBD never got some of the improvements the Swordfish got.
> 
> like radar, is there any reason it could not have been fitted had sets been available?



Yes, it was already barely able to handle the weight it was already carrying.



> comments have been made about it's short range and having only one forward firing gun and one gun out the back for defense.
> Well the guns are exactly what the Swordfish had. and the TBD had a longer range and the same gun armament as the other US strike aircraft.



The Swordfish had a longer range and could fly at night, though besides that, it too was a pretty obsolete aircraft. At least it was maneuverable.

What US strike aircraft had a shorter than than the TBD? Even the Vindicator had double it's range. And even the Vindicator had better armament. The SBD had two .50 cals in the nose. The TBF had a .50 cal defensive gun in a power turret. The B-26 was far more heavily armed etc.



> If we are going to compare the TBD to other aircraft lets compare it to contemporaries and please remember that the last TBD was ordered in 1938.
> No more were built after early 1939 and no refit program with better engine/prop, electronics, armor, new fuel tanks etc was ever done.



It never got the extra stuff because it didn't have the growth potential as a platform, that's why they went with the newer Grumman alternative.

But as we know very well, many aircraft ordered, designed and first flown in the 30's did have the chops to continue being used well into the war, some to the very end albeit sometimes in very different form. The TBF remained in service to the end of the war and after.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> The TBD did ok for a plane that was developed in the heart of the Great Depression on a limited budget, produced in limited quantities, and hardly updated. By the time of Pearl Harbor, the Navy had commissioned, not one, but two replacements. the prototype for the Grumman TBF first flew in August 1941, and the prototype for the Vought (Later Consolidated) TBY Sea Wolf first flew December 1941. (Consolidated eventually delivered 180 Sea Wolves, almost as many as there were TBDs.) The TBD had the misfortune of having its most important crucible of fire (Midway) only weeks before it was going to be replaced.
> 
> In addition, the SB2C Helldiver was designed to have a secondary capability to take a torpedo instead of bombs. The SB2C's prototype first flew in December 1940, The Navy likely expected the SB2C to be in service by June 1942, but as we know the delays of the Helldiver are legendary.
> 
> The bottom line is that neither the US Navy nor Douglas saw much return in updating the TBD, not when it was about as easy to bring in a completely new design, a plane designed around an R-2600 or R-2800 engine, or even a Wright R-3350. By December 1941, Douglas had a contract to build prototypes for an aircraft to replace both the TBD and the SB2C. The prototype for this aircraft, designated *XSB2D-1* eventually evolved into the BTD Destroyer, and 24 of these were delivered by V-J Day. A single-seat version of the BTD evolved into the AD/A-1 Skyraider.



Near never heard of the TBY Sea Wolf ... seems like it never got into action until 1944. Pretty good performance & well armed, if it had come a bit earlier.

Consolidated TBY Sea Wolf - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Overweight in terms of the airframe breaking or overweight to poor power to weight ratio?.



Well it could barely make 200 miles per hour and a rate of climb of 700 feet per minute, and it's crews said it handled like an overloaded truck. That sounds like either it was overweight for the engine or the wing or both, or just a bad design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The TBD did not have enough range. The TBD only carried 150IG of fuel, compared to 227IG for the Swordfish and a LR internal tank. It's very difficult to determine the actual range of the TBD but it seems pretty certain that it didn't have the range or endurance required unless the carrier moved somewhat closer to Taranto prior to launch.


What was the actual round trip undertaken by the Swordfish during Taranto?


----------



## slaterat (Jan 25, 2021)

About 180 miles completed at night.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What was the actual round trip undertaken by the Swordfish during Taranto?



The nominal range at TO was 170nm, but night missions required more loiter time to allow for form-up, nav errors and landing on. The 1st range began TO at 2035 and the last aircraft returned at ~0200 for ~5hr 20min in the air. The 2nd range had TO starting at 2128, formed up and departed at 2145, nominal range 177nm, and returned at ~0230 for ~5hrs in the air.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Overweight in terms of the airframe breaking or overweight to poor power to weight ratio?
> 
> The early MK 13 torpedoes had a 400lb charge and weighed 1927lbs. Later ones got heavier but the early ones were what the plane was designed for.
> Contemporary British torpedo went about 1548lbs with a 388lb charge. British did change warhead weights and other things in addition to fitting tails and nose protection.
> ...



The TBD carried it's torpedo semi recessed so it wasn't really possible to carry a different design, and it was designed around the Mk13 (as was the TBF) rather than being able to carry generic designs as per the Swordfish. Max designed overload TO weight with full fuel and torpedo was 10176 lb but by 1942 max TO weight was pushing 10400lb due to armour, avionics and armament mods. Designed mission weight with a torpedo was only 9300lb (and 97usg of fuel!!! and 248nm) and after that there was increased G load restrictions, and even with 100usg burned, gross weight would still be ~9800lb. 

A mid 1941 RN Mk XII torpedo weighed 1610lb and carried a ~440lb warhead.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The ginormous TBF was not exactly a graceful design


Stand next to a TBF when you get a chance. It's a plane you can truly look UP to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 26, 2021)

I dunno, harshing on a stressed skin monoplane with an enclosed cockpit that was designed in _1934_ _(amidst a score of fabric covered biplane, open cockpit designs)_ for failing in hitting KdB in _1942 (when it was already recognized as obsolete and being phased out)_ without any fighter protection seems rather disingenuous to me.

Strangely, it seemed able to survive and contribute from December 8, 1941 from the Marshal and Gilbert islands, Wake and Marcus island raids, strikes around New Guinea through the battle of the Coral Sea (helping sink _Shoho_) in 1942 without falling out of the sky because it was such an awful design. Perhaps that bit of history needs revision, maybe the old TBD didn't actually accomplish these feats and we should just write those off as wartime propaganda and patriotic chest thumping?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

Not chest thumping here, I just think it was a bad design. The stats don't lie.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

The TBD was perhaps a bad design but, imho, it was a great prototype. 
As outlined above, it had a list of firsts. As pointed out above, the USN knew it served its purpose and was being replaced. ( See post #444). In isolationist America, that was happening as “fast” as it could. World War Two just happened sooner than expected. It flew in one battle too many.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

But many of the earlier war designs from (roughly) the same vintage proved to have much better potential. Partly this is because a torpedo bomber is such a difficult design challenge. But it was a pretty marginal design.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The nominal range at TO was 170nm, but night missions required more loiter time to allow for form-up, nav errors and landing on. The 1st range began TO at 2035 and the last aircraft returned at ~0200 for ~5hr 20min in the air. The 2nd range had TO starting at 2128, formed up and departed at 2145, nominal range 177nm, and returned at ~0230 for ~5hrs in the air.





slaterat said:


> About 180 miles completed at night.



So a few things (regressing back to earlier posts)

There was mention of "safe mission planning." I don't know where that taken from but depending on aircraft, operations and operators, there can be anything from a calculated fuel reserve based on time in the air (30 minutes has been a norm in many aviation communities for years) or a percentage of calculated fuel remaining. I seen B-17 flight manuals that talk about certain mission profiles that required either a 5 or 10% fuel reserve.

Since I don't have a TDB flight manual in front of me (I looked at an early SBD flight manual and it had all kind of charts except one for range calculations based on cruise settings) I'll use the internet source of 435 miles for the range of the TBD. I'll also assume that range was based on operating at cruising speed which was shown as a whopping 128 mph. Rough calculations give me about 3 hours and 10 minutes in the air. So since we don't have fuel consumption charts and just have to go off internet numbers, let's subtract 20% of the range given, this accounts for a 10% fuel reserve and 10% for higher power settings during takeoff, formation form up and combat. Take that 20% away from the google flight manual reference of 435 miles, that gives the TBD a combat radius of about 175 miles, enough range to marginally complete the Taranto raid, at least on paper.

Do I think the TBD could have done the Taranto raid? Based on the way it was actually carried out, no way!

As mentioned, the TBD, for the mid 30's was state of the art but was quickly eclipsed by development. At the end of the day it was a lumbering truck that should have been replaced before Pearl Harbor and I do think it's limited successes were based more on luck and perhaps the skill, determination and bravery of the crews that flew them.

With THAT said, do I think the Swordfish would have performed any better at Midway if deployed under the same conditions? - NO. I think the results would have been the same or worse. And before someone tries to say that the Swordfish was more maneuverable than the TBD and "could have" evaded better, the Japanese pilots flying CAP that day were the best in the world and I'm sure would have had no problem adjusting firing solutions for a target moving under 100 mph.

I believe the Swordfish's ability to "grow" (take on radar) and it's low speed handling characteristics contributed to it's use well beyond it's obsolescence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 26, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I dunno, harshing on a stressed skin monoplane with an enclosed cockpit that was designed in _1934_ _(amidst a score of fabric covered biplane, open cockpit designs)_ for failing in hitting KdB in _1942 (when it was already recognized as obsolete and being phased out)_ without any fighter protection seems rather disingenuous to me.


I'd agree, it is like giving the Fairey Battle a hard time for its performance in the Battle of France, both the TBD and Battle were spaceship-like advanced in the mid 30's. I wonder if given the option in 1939, would the RN had swapped every Swordfish in its inventory for Devastators. The FAA pilots were probably looking enviously across the Atlantic at the sleek metal monoplanes of their cousins

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

But the Bf 109, the Ju 87, the Hurricane, the B-17, all had their first flight in 1935. The Spitfire in 1936. Not all mid-30's aircraft turned out so dismal.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> But the Bf 109, the Ju 87, the Hurricane, the B-17, all had their first flight in 1935. The Spitfire in 1936. Not all mid-30's aircraft turned out so dismal.



But there was growth in their design, either by virtue of the design or by the manufacturer and/or operators seeking improvements


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

And because the designs were robust enough to incorporate a lot of improvements and growth.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So a few things (regressing back to earlier posts)
> 
> There was mention of "safe mission planning." I don't know where that taken from but depending on aircraft and operations and operators, there can be anything from a calculated fuel reserve based on time in the air (30 minutes has been a norm in many aviation communities for years) or a percentage of calculated fuel remaining. I seen B-17 flight manuals that talk about certain mission profiles that required either a 5 or 10% fuel reserve.
> 
> ...



Wartime mission planning had to be extremely conservative because even short periods of combat would use fuel at a very high rate and flight deck accidents or confusion could slow TO or recovery to a crawl. The net result of this is that the TBF-1C, for example, had a rated combat radius of 225nm (range 450nm) with a torpedo versus a nominal, no reserve, range of ~960nm at 132 knots. (USN SAC data). Similarly, RN planning at Taranto provided for a strike radius and range which was ~half the nominal range of the aircraft. The standard USN formula for this was:

"_The TBF-1B Avenger 1, which was the Lend-Lease equi-
valent of the initial production TBF-1 for the US Navy, had a
practical combat radius of 225 nm (417 km) with a Mk 13-2
torpedo or four 500-lb (226,8-kg) bombs and standard
internal fuel, this being based on 20 min warm-up and idling,
a minute for take-off, 10 min for rendezvous at 60 per cent
normal sea level power, climb to cruise altitude of 15,000 ft
(4 570 m), five minutes combat at 1,500 ft (457 m) with full
military power plus 10 min at full normal power, return cruise
at 1,500 ft (457 m) at 60 per cent NSP and 60 min for
rendezvous, landing and reserve_..." (from _Wings of the Navy_ but this is a near verbatim quote from the USN SAC data sheet for the TBF-1C)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

TBF got a lot more fuel added after the first mark - per the Wiki: "_After hundreds of the original *TBF-1* models were built, the *TBF-1C* began production. The allotment of space for specialized internal and wing-mounted fuel tanks doubled the Avenger's range._ "


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> TBF got a lot more fuel added after the first mark - per the Wiki: "_After hundreds of the original *TBF-1* models were built, the *TBF-1C* began production. The allotment of space for specialized internal and wing-mounted fuel tanks doubled the Avenger's range._ "



USN TBF-1C strike radius was 225nm with 335usg of internal fuel (same as the RN TBF-1B and later TBF-3). While the TBF-1C could carry external DTs, it was not operable from a carrier with these tanks and a full weapons load.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The net result of this is that the TBF-1C, for example, had a rated combat radius of 225nm (range 450nm) with a torpedo versus a nominal, no reserve, range of ~960nm at 132 knots. (USN SAC data). Similarly, RN planning at Taranto provided for a strike radius and range which was ~half the nominal range of the aircraft. The standard USN formula for this was:
> 
> "_The TBF-1B Avenger 1, which was the Lend-Lease equi-
> valent of the initial production TBF-1 for the US Navy, had a
> ...



Yes - but did this exist at for the TBD during Midway? I've seen no rated combat radius mentioned for the TBD. As mentioned, the SBD early flight manual didn't have range/ fuel consumption charts, something that was void in many pre-war designs and then developed as the war progressed.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes - but did this exist at for the TBD during Midway? I've seen no rated combat radius mentioned for the TBD. As mentioned, the SBD early flight manual didn't have range/ fuel consumption charts, something that was void in many pre-war designs and then developed as the war progressed.



The problem with the TBD is that the fuel consumption and range data is based upon the ~1936/7 flight test data, which was suspiciously optimistic then and by 1942 was complete fiction because the aircraft were operating at much higher weights than the data had been calculated for. The SAC data sheets seem to have begun including combat radius in late 1942/early 43.

The SBD-5 calculated combat radius was 240nm with a 1000lb bomb and 254usg and SBD-3 radius/range would have been near identical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 26, 2021)

I do note that when the Devastator began to be replaced the Swordfish had pretty much already been replaced as a Fleet strike aeroplane by the Albacore which itself was due for replacement by the under engined Barracuda.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

Which sadly didn't happen until 1943, and even then ... not fantastic success. Definitely better than Albacore or Swordfish though IMO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The problem with the TBD is that the fuel consumption and range data is based upon the ~1936/7 flight test data, which was suspiciously optimistic then and by 1942 was complete fiction because the aircraft were operating at much higher weights than the data had been calculated for. The SAC data sheets seem to have begun including combat radius in late 1942/early 43.
> 
> The SBD-5 calculated combat radius was 240nm with a 1000lb bomb and 254usg and SBD-3 radius/range would have been near identical.


Agree so therefore comparisons would be a little difficult to make. I believe that at Midway, with no inclusion of a "combat radius" enabled the missions to be operated at the full extent of their range (plus what ever reserve factor was planned in by mission ops or individual pilots). So to my point, the TBD did have the range to potentially complete the Taranto mission, at least on paper.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

I show very different numbers than RCAF:

---------Strike radius (heavy)---(light) ------------ Scout-------- Max Range---Bombs---Dogfight---Radar-Speed-Crusie-DB-Torp
TBD ------------ *150 *------------ *175* -------------- ??? --------- 435 ------ 1000/1600 --- Poor ------ No --- 206 - 128 - No -- Yes
TBF ------------ *259* ------------ *300* -------------- ??? --------- 1215 ----- 1600/2000 --- Marginal - 1942? - 275 - 153 - No - Yes
SBD-3---------- *250* ------------ *325* -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No
SB2C ----------- ??? ------------ *276 *-------------- ??? --------- 1100 ----- 1000/1600 --- Fair -------1944? -- 281 - 158 - Yes - No 

Those are from US Navy, and seem to be realistic. For example no SBDs were lost at Philippine Sea, which strike was sat 300 miles


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I show very different numbers than RCAF:
> 
> ---------Strike radius (heavy)---(light) ------------ Scout-------- Max Range---Bombs---Dogfight---Radar-Speed-Crusie-DB-Torp
> TBD ------------ *150 *------------ *175* -------------- ??? --------- 435 ------ 1000/1600 --- Poor ------ No --- 206 - 128 - No -- Yes
> ...



What publication? Nautical miles or statute miles?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe the Swordfish's ability to "grow" (take on radar) and it's low speed handling characteristics contributed to it's use well beyond it's obsolescence.


AND it never faced Kido Butai in daylight. Or any other threat scenario/strike radius like the PTO regularly offered. 


Schweik said:


> But the Bf 109, the Ju 87, the Hurricane, the B-17, all had their first flight in 1935. The Spitfire in 1936. Not all mid-30's aircraft turned out so dismal.


And not one of your examples was a carrier based design for a cash starved navy whose very raison d'etre was being questioned by a depressed isolationist nation feeling no threats.
The TBD suffered from a particularly anemic early version of its basic engine. Higher powered later versions could have been bolted on in 1940/41 and improved performance significantly for a modest increase in fuel consumption, and could have hauled the extra fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

Wasn't everybody cash starved in the 30s?

Your suggestions for possible improvements are plausible, but I think that is a different discussion. Is there any reason to do that with TBDs instead of just switching to TBFs?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Is there any reason to do that with TBDs instead of just switching to TBFs?



In looking at photos, the TBD was a dated airframe. Partially retracting landing gear, corrugated wings and a rather thin fuselage that probably couldn't accept a larger engine. As the ole saying goes, "you can't polish a turd."

The TBF was huge and complex, powered turret, bomb bay cavernous fuselage, it had room to grow and was a generation ahead although as pointed out, had it's limitations.

In the TBD aftermath, look at Douglas and their attempt to stay in the torpedo bomber race. No resemblance of the Devastator, looks like they started from scratch.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In looking at photos, the TBD was a dated airframe. Partially retracting landing gear, corrugated wings and a rather thin fuselage that probably couldn't accept a larger engine. As the ole saying goes, "you can't polish a turd."
> 
> The TBF was huge and complex, powered turret, bomb bay cavernous fuselage, it had room to grow and was a generation ahead although as pointed out, had it's limitations.
> 
> ...


Ed Heineman(?), the designer of said plane, called it a turkey. I wouldn’t argue with Mr. Heineman. He said pretty much it was “designed by committee”. This is how I remember his quote in the book “The World’s Worst Aircraft”. As pointed out earlier in this thread it did lead to the Skyraider.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

Looks really cool though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Looks really cool though.



Is that "cool" as in "butt ugly"?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

maybe


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Wasn't everybody cash starved in the 30s


Yes, and the others all had nearby potentially hostile neighbors. Different sense of urgency.



Schweik said:


> Your suggestions for possible improvements are plausible, but I think that is a different discussion. Is there any reason to do that with TBDs instead of just switching to TBFs?


If Yamamoto had only adhered to Grumman's timeline, everything would have worked out just fine, but he jumped the gun and the TBD was around for one battle too many.



SaparotRob said:


> Ed Heineman(?), the designer of said plane, called it a turkey. I wouldn’t argue with Mr. Heineman. He said pretty much it was “designed by committee”.


Remind anyone of any more recent history?
This must have been early in his career, before he developed enough clout to banish kibitzers from his drafting table. It must hurt to be labeled "chief designer" of an abortion you had little actual control over. Sorta like "paternity".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

Re: Mr Heineman’s Destroyer looking cool. 
Remember, I REALLY like the Buffalo.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2021)

Chief Buffalo Hunter on warpath, take many scalps!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

I really don't condemn the TBD on the basis of Midway, that situation was impossible. Other planes which were pretty good like the TBF and B-26 also got whacked. For me it's more a matter of the basic parameters: range, speed, gear etc.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In looking at photos, the TBD was a dated airframe. Partially retracting landing gear, corrugated wings and a rather thin fuselage that probably couldn't accept a larger engine. As the ole saying goes, "you can't polish a turd."


 exactly



> The TBF was huge and complex, powered turret, bomb bay cavernous fuselage, it had room to grow and was a generation ahead although as pointed out, had it's limitations.



I've seen one in the New Orleans D-Day museum. It's shocking how big they are. It looks like a twin engined aircraft, like the size of a bus. Not elegant. But it seemed fairly capable.



> In the TBD aftermath, look at Douglas and their attempt to stay in the torpedo bomber race. No resemblance of the Devastator, looks like they started from scratch.
> 
> View attachment 610288
> 
> ...



Yeah I kinda like that XTB2D "Skypirate" though it is definitely ugly, I think I saw one at the Pennsacola air museum. Another late war torpedo bomber design that was too late for the party (but was also pretty near) is the Martin Mauler







Martin AM Mauler - Wikipedia

Looks pretty good on paper, though the Wiki said it handled poorly, seemingly, just arrived in the jet age.

And yet another slightly more plausible, the Douglas BTD Destroyer






which came out before the XTB2D and seemed a bit more sensible, but again, too late.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

Seems I was mixing up Destroyer with Skypirate.


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Near never heard of the TBY Sea Wolf ... seems like it never got into action until 1944. Pretty good performance & well armed, if it had come a bit earlier.
> 
> Consolidated TBY Sea Wolf - Wikipedia



I don't think the Sea Wolf ever left the United States. Maybe we should start a thread for aircraft that never left the United States.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

Yeah sorry, I should have said - "never flew". I wasn't implying it had been in combat. I just learned about today and read the wiki, which I linked.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I've seen one in the New Orleans D-Day museum. It's shocking how big they are. It looks like a twin engined aircraft, like the size of a bus.


Summer of 1960 we were driving over the pass between Yosemite and Reno and found ourselves in the path of a fast moving wildfire. They didn't get the roadblock up until we were already past the checkpoint, and Dad was scurrying to get us out of zone when one of CalFire's Avengers flew 100 feet over us, just closing its dump doors after dropping on the other side of the ridge the road was on. He couldn't have cleared the ridge by more than 50 feet. Size of a bus for sure. A very sudden and VERY LOUD bus! Dad almost drove off the road. And borate and cinders raise hell with your car's paint.
Back in the '70s New York DEC had an Avenger that was used for fish stocking, acid rain amelioration experiments, and the occasional fire drop. It could be seen from time to time prowling around the Adirondacks, and one day at SLK with a student, we each got to climb up the wing and sit in the cockpit. Talk about the catbird seat!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 26, 2021)

We're getting pretty far afield now, but there was also the Kaiser-Fleetwings_XBTK, which made it to prototype stage but was cancelled in 1946. It looked _a lot_ like the Douglas Skyraider. 

Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Summer of 1960 we were driving over the pass between Yosemite and Reno and found ourselves in the path of a fast moving wildfire. They didn't get the roadblock up until we were already past the checkpoint, and Dad was scurrying to get us out of zone when one of CalFire's Avengers flew 100 feet over us, just closing its dump doors after dropping on the other side of the ridge the road was on. He couldn't have cleared the ridge by more than 50 feet. Size of a bus for sure. A very sudden and VERY LOUD bus! Dad almost drove off the road. And borate and cinders raise hell with your car's paint.
> Back in the '70s New York DEC had an Avenger that was used for fish stocking, acid rain amelioration experiments, and the occasional fire drop. It could be seen from time to time prowling around the Adirondacks, and one day at SLK with a student, we each got to climb up the wing and sit in the cockpit. Talk about the catbird seat!



So cool! I didn't know they used them for fires


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> We're getting pretty far afield now, but there was also the Kaiser-Fleetwings_XBTK, which made it to prototype stage but was cancelled in 1946. It looked _a lot_ like the Douglas Skyraider.
> 
> Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK - Wikipedia



Wow that's the second one today I hadn't heard of! What a neat lookin airplane

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

Same here. The wiki on it touches on a point brought up earlier. BuAer was looking for replacements for the SB2C in 1942. The pace certainly picked up from that of the TBD to TBF.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Stand next to a TBF when you get a chance. It's a plane you can truly look UP to.



You mean like this?




DSC_7831 



Schweik said:


> I really don't condemn the TBD on the basis of Midway, that situation was impossible.



Now, I confess to not knowing much about the Devastator and this discussion has got me intrigued as to where I can get more in-depth information other than standard reference sources, Schweik. What is a good reference source? You speak of the pilots not liking it, and it's been spoken of here as being lightly constructed and other faults that are not common knowledge. Where does this come from, or, where might I find a better insight into the TBD and all its faults?

Someone compared the TBD and the Fairey Battle, which is intriguing and a probable thing to do, but the two are different from the fact that the Battle had room to grow and could have been a far more useful airframe given its size and performance, which was better than the Devastator, but the issue with the Battle was that its role, which defined it, naturally, was flawed. The single-engined day bomber as the RAF saw it, was at fault by the time the war breaks out - said with a HUGE dose of hindsight though, which is what we are doing with the Devastator, I fear. The TBD was designed as a carrier based topedo bomber and did that job as intended, albeit with a few snags along the way and I'm led to believe it was a bad aircraft, whereas the Battle was not. It handled well, flew well, it was modern and, like the TBD was technologically advanced at the time of its debut.

The one thing that surprises me about the Battle is its sheer size. Okay, this is a photo of a Mosquito, but compare the Battle alongside it...




Royal Museum 66 




Royal Museum 65

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> You mean like this?
> 
> View attachment 610312
> DSC_7831
> ...


You might want to check out a video on YouTube about the TBD. It’s by Military Aviation History. The video is entitled “In defense of the worst airplane of WW2” (or thereabouts, you might wind up with his piece on the Defiant). 
I’m afraid that’s where most of my info on the TBD comes from. I’d love to hear some opinions about the video from forum members.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 26, 2021)

Battle seems like a more sophisticated design to me, and yes I did know it was that big. Those pics are from Belgium, right? The only real problem is that it was just too big and the wing was too big and thick etc.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

This is from Yorktown's Coral Sea action report:

_"Torpedo Planes
From the experience gained by VT-5 in the attacks of May 4th, 7th, and 8th, certain factors became apparent insofar as Material, Personnel, and Tactics are concerned:

Material
As previously stated in the report on the engagement of the 7th, it is essential that a torpedo plane must be fast, have a long range, the ability to dive, and sufficient gun power to defend itself. In connection with this, a torpedo must be developed that can be dropped at high speed and from a height of 200 feet.

Personnel
Torpedo plane pilots must be given every opportunity to make practice drops against a maneuvering target, and to observe the torpedo run. This will bring out clearly to the pilot: (a) the relative slowness of the torpedo after striking the water, (b) the great amount of lead necessary for a beam or close to beam shot, and (c) the large effect of small errors in target course and speed if torpedo is dropped at long range. The practice of carrying and dropping dummy torpedoes is considered useless and a waste of time except for brand new pilots.

Tactics
In the recent engagements the Japanese screen has scattered instead of closing in to support the ship being attacked. This is, however, no indication that their screen will not close in on future attacks. Closing-in tactics would be an excellent counter to our

--25--
system of attack. Due to the slow speed and low altitude of drop required for the Mk. 13 torpedoes, our planes are forced to come in low and slow. In the event that the Japanese change their system and put a heavy cordon of ships around their large vessels, it is doubtful that a successful torpedo attack could be launched by TBD's without the loss of the major part of the squadron.

In order to inflict the maximum damage on a maneuvering ship it is essential that the torpedo and dive bombing attacks be coordinated so that the dive bombing attack starts just before and continues through the torpedo attack. This has the following advantages:

It provides mutual support and forces the enemy to divide his fire.
The spray and smoke from close misses will partially obscure the torpedo planes from the target, and the concussion will reduce the accuracy of the AA fire.
With the present type of torpedo planes it is essential that they be furnished with fighter protection. It is considered that on the attack of May 8th VT-5 would have suffered severe losses from enemy aircraft if the TBD's had been unescorted. While it is understood that TBF's are being provided, and that the present type torpedo is being modified to allow for dropping at higher altitudes and greater speeds, the need for these has been so clearly emphasized by the Battle of the Coral Sea that it is again urgently recommended that immediate steps be taken to replace the TBD's with TBF's.

--26--
Torpedoes
In recent operations against enemy forces, VT-5 has had occasion to drop 41 torpedoes; of these, 32 were Mark 13, and 9 were Mark 13 Mod 1. All of the Mark 13 Mod 1 made erratic runs. The reason for this is unknown. They were inspected carefully before use and apparently were in perfect condition. Photograph No. 9 of enclosure (A) shows what may be two erratic torpedo tracks." U.S.S. Yorktown--Action Report of the Battle of the Coral Sea_

The probability of disaster to unescorted TBDs was clearly known and predicted, as were the issues with the MK 13 mod 1 torpedo (used at Midway IIRC). Prior to Midway the TBD simply didn't encounter fighters in any numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Those pics are from Belgium, right?



Yup, when we could do foreign travel 

Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and of Military History | Flickr


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

RE: post #496
In the second paragraph “Material”, the requirement for diving is mentioned. Do you know if the author meant dive bombing ability or a more maneuverable airframe? As I read it, a professional Naval authority is requesting an “all singing-all dancing” airplane. This opinion seems to be counter to some of the posts written on other threads


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The problem with the TBD is that the fuel consumption and range data is based upon the ~1936/7 flight test data, which was suspiciously optimistic then and by 1942 was complete fiction because the aircraft were operating at much higher weights than the data had been calculated for. The SAC data sheets seem to have begun including combat radius in late 1942/early 43.
> 
> The SBD-5 calculated combat radius was 240nm with a 1000lb bomb and 254usg and SBD-3 radius/range would have been near identical.



Perhaps, but the SBD-5 used a 1200hp engine while the SBD-3 used a 1000hp engine. Better take-off and climb with the same load.

Lets also remember that the SBD started out as this




First flight 19 August 1935 order placed in 1936 with planes entering service in 1938. 
Another US strike aircraft.





first flight 4 January 1936 

Much is made of the range of the dive bombers but they were carrying 1/2 the load of the torpedo bomber and wings about 3/4 the size for the monoplanes. 
The SBD didn't have any real advantage in range until sometime in late 1941 or early 1942 when it's allowable gross weight went up over 1000lbs. 
The Vindicator was not an outstanding success as the planned use of the constant speed prop as dive brake didn't work and they had to resort to lowering the landing gear and diving at a shallower angle. This was going to reduce accuracy. 

I would note the Japanese, the only other country in the carrier borne torpedo bomber and dive bomber contest (aside from France) started with monoplanes powered with 9 cylinder radials and went to 14 cylinder radials by the time Japan was fighting anywhere but China. 

The TBD was never upgraded, wither it_ couldn't be _or the Navy _didn't bother_ once they new they could get planes powered by the R-2600 engine I don't know. There is only so much money to go around and upgrading old planes or trying to reinstate production (Build TBDs instead of SBDs ? or some of each?) 

For a crappy, poor handling airplane there were certainly a fair number of the 130 built still flying in 1942, three years after the last one left the production line.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> For a crappy, poor handling airplane there were certainly a fair number of the 130 built still flying in 1942, three years after the last one left the production line.


IIRC by Midway there were only 100 operational due to attrition and I think the writing was on the wall when the TBF was starting to be delivered. It seems the Navy just drug it's feet for one reason or another getting the TBD removed from the fleet, and as we all know with disasterous results.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> TBF got a lot more fuel added after the first mark - per the Wiki: "_After hundreds of the original *TBF-1* models were built, the *TBF-1C* began production. The allotment of space for specialized internal and wing-mounted fuel tanks doubled the Avenger's range._




You do have to be careful with Wiki ; 

The huge increase in range was due to the increase in fuel from 335 gallons to 726 gallons, _however_ this increase in fuel was due to two 58 gallon drop tanks (wing mounted tanks) and a 275 gallon auxiliary tank* mounted in the bomb bay*. (_specialized internal tank). _Which rather limits the usefulness of the extra range for combat. 

Due to the increase of nearly 2750lbs gross weight in the later TBM-1Cs Grumman investigated other engines and settled on the 1900hp R-2600-20 which powered 4657 of the TBM-3 version form April of 19444 on. 

Source Grumman Aircraft since 1929 by Rene J Francillon


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> IIRC by Midway there were only 100 operational due to attrition and I think the writing was on the wall when the TBF was starting to be delivered. It seems the Navy just drug it's feet for one reason or another getting the TBD removed from the fleet, and as we all know with disasterous results.



I don't know about the foot dragging. They ordered 285 TBF-1s and one XTBF-2 on Dec 30th 1940, 7 months before the XTBF-1 flew and it needed a fair amount of change.
Engine moved forward to correct CG problems, insufficient engine cooling, and vertical surfaces that were too small. The XTBF-1 crashed Nov 28th 1941 with only 25 hours of flying time. First production plane wasn't rolled out the door until Jan 3rd 1942. 
The navy might not have had much choice if it wanted torpedo bombers as part of the force mix?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> You might want to check out a video on YouTube about the TBD. It’s by Military Aviation History. The video is entitled “In defense of the worst airplane of WW2” (or thereabouts, you might wind up with his piece on the Defiant).




Thanks man, I'll do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> IIRC by Midway there were only 100 operational due to attrition



I read that there were 39 left in service after Midway - it was definitely on its way out, but what choice did the units have but to use them? Why would you leave serviceable aircraft on the ground when your territory is being threatened?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> RE: post #496
> In the second paragraph “Material”, the requirement for diving is mentioned. Do you know if the author meant dive bombing ability or a more maneuverable airframe? As I read it, a professional Naval authority is requesting an “all singing-all dancing” airplane. This opinion seems to be counter to some of the posts written on other threads



I think it was a request for some ability to approach at medium altitude, to overfly screening ships, and then be able to dive steeply to release altitude. The TBF could not use a DB attack profile but it had a high enough VNE that a fairly steep approach could be used, especially when the Mk13's allowable drop speeds increased. OTOH, the RN TBs could all use a true DB attack profile as could the SB2C-4/5 after they acquired the rapid changeover gear to convert to a TB.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know about the foot dragging. They ordered 285 TBF-1s and one XTBF-2 on Dec 30th 1940, 7 months before the XTBF-1 flew and it needed a fair amount of change.
> Engine moved forward to correct CG problems, insufficient engine cooling, and vertical surfaces that were too small. The XTBF-1 crashed Nov 28th 1941 with only 25 hours of flying time. First production plane wasn't rolled out the door until Jan 3rd 1942.
> The navy might not have had much choice if it wanted torpedo bombers as part of the force mix?



I would think someone would have been aware of the TBD's shortcomings and saw the need to expedite TBM production. Granted you had training and logistic challenges



nuuumannn said:


> I read that there were 39 left in service after Midway - it was definitely on its way out, but what choice did the units have but to use them? Why would you leave serviceable aircraft on the ground when your territory is being threatened?


 A good point but RCAF posted the Yorktown's Coral Sea action report. That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different!



Exactly... Putting that report into context, given that the TBD was already being replaced, that was perhaps not the biggest reveal of the report, the torpedo problems are more significant and far reaching, as they turned out to be. By the Coral Sea action, the TBD's days are numbered anyways and I'm picking the guy who wrote that report knew that, but you'd still throw whatever you've got at the enemy. Fascinating stuff though.

It reminds me of the use of the Boulton Paul Defiant units during the Battle of Britain on frontline squadron rosters - all two of them, Dowding knew that the idea wasn't the best for a fighter and that its performance was too low for frontline use, but the type was put in the firing line, it carried out standing patrols, intruder raids, intercepts against heavy escort fighter opposition, all the things it was not really suited for. Simply because Fighter Command needed fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> You do have to be careful with Wiki ;
> 
> The huge increase in range was due to the increase in fuel from 335 gallons to 726 gallons, _however_ this increase in fuel was due to two 58 gallon drop tanks (wing mounted tanks) and a 275 gallon auxiliary tank* mounted in the bomb bay*. (_specialized internal tank). _Which rather limits the usefulness of the extra range for combat.
> 
> ...


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

Sorry, accidentally clicked “reply”.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> You might want to check out a video on YouTube about the TBD. It’s by Military Aviation History. The video is entitled “In defense of the worst airplane of WW2” (or thereabouts, you might wind up with his piece on the Defiant).
> I’m afraid that’s where most of my info on the TBD comes from. I’d love to hear some opinions about the video from forum members.


Just watched it, very good discussion!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just watched it, very good discussion!



Me too and it is certainly enlightening. The pilots' view is perhaps not what is being painted on this forum though, being described as nice to fly with pleasant handling although all agree its performance was sluggish and that it was outdated by 1942, but it certainly doesn't appear to have been the terrible aeroplane it's being depicted as here. I do suspect that a little Midway-itis is creeping in to perceptions, as I suspected, and I stand by my assertion that it was at the wrong place at the wrong time at Midway - not to mention bad torpedoes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2021)

One of the pilots quoted mentions the actual speed of the TBD may have been 200 when it was new but by 1942 he could get it to 150 only by “going downhill”. The pilot also said they knew it was obsolete by that time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> by 1942 he could get it to 150 only by “going downhill”.



To all intents and purposes it did that really well

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 27, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> With THAT said, do I think the Swordfish would have performed any better at Midway if deployed under the same conditions? - NO. I think the results would have been the same or worse. And before someone tries to say that the Swordfish was more maneuverable than the TBD and "could have" evaded better, the Japanese pilots flying CAP that day were the best in the world and I'm sure would have had no problem adjusting firing solutions for a target moving under 100 mph.



I agree with you 100%. The Swordfish and probably the Albacore were /would be death traps in daylight operations in the Pacific, especially if carrying torpedoes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 27, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> One of the pilots quoted mentions the actual speed of the TBD may have been 200 when it was new but by 1942 he could get it to 150 only by “going downhill”. The pilot also said they knew it was obsolete by that time.



In Defense of the Worst Aircraft of World War II - TBD-1 Devastator - YouTube

The PW R-1830-64 of the Devastator had only 900hp. The R-1830 soon reached 1100hp, 1200hp and finally 1350hp. I wonder what 1100hp or 1200hp would have done for the aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jan 27, 2021)

A good point but RCAF posted the Yorktown's Coral Sea action report. That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different![/QUOTE]

Indeed, if the TBDs hadn't flown, the Zeros wouldn't have been down low slaughtering them, and might have been available to stop the Dauntlesses up high. That would have altered things immensely.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 27, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Sorry, accidentally clicked “reply”.



i purpose that when this happens in the future we post our favourite recipe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 28, 2021)

glennasher said:


> A good point but RCAF posted the Yorktown's Coral Sea action report. That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different!
> 
> Indeed, if the TBDs hadn't flown, the Zeros wouldn't have been down low slaughtering them, and might have been available to stop the Dauntlesses up high. That would have altered things immensely.


Actually no, the TBD's contribution to the victory at Midway was the disruption of counterattack preparations of KdB, VT-8s demise happened a full hour before the SBD reign of terror on KdB started. See page 432 of "Shattered Sword" for debunking of this particular myth.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jan 28, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Actually no, the TBD's contribution to the victory at Midway was the disruption of counterattack preparations of KdB, VT-8s demise happened a full hour before the SBD reign of terror on KdB started. See page 432 of "Shattered Sword" for debunking of this particular myth.




How long would it take the Japanese to recover, rearm, and refuel after taking down the torpedo planes? All of those things would be factors, no?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

glennasher said:


> How long would it take the Japanese to recover, rearm, and refuel after taking down the torpedo planes? All of those things would be factors, no?


Yes those factors were. There’s a great set of videos that deal exactly with that. They’re by Montemayor. It’s called “Midway from the Japanese perspective” or close to it. He shows how the uncoordinated attacks kept Admiral Nagumo from being able to re-arm and launch later strikes much better than I could describe it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 28, 2021)

glennasher said:


> How long would it take the Japanese to recover, rearm, and refuel after taking down the torpedo planes? All of those things would be factors, no?


If you haven't read it, I highly recommend "Shattered Sword", it answers all those questions and many more. But in essence, what you've just stated is part of the disruption that the IJN was suffering that morning which led to the SBD's pounding KdB before they could strike at TF16 and 17.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

As I went walking I remembered an “uninterrupted 40 minutes” as being the time Admiral Nagumo needed to stage and launch a strike. Due to the scattered attacks AND having to recover the first strike at some point (40 minutes for that?), the time wasn’t there.


----------



## Acheron (Feb 2, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So a few things (regressing back to earlier posts)
> And before someone tries to say that the Swordfish was more maneuverable than the TBD and "could have" evaded better, the Japanese pilots flying CAP that day were the best in the world and I'm sure would have had no problem adjusting firing solutions for a target moving under 100 mph.


The Zero/Reisen was one of the most maneuverable fighter of the war, no? I can't see how the Swordfish would have fared better. Heck, how would the Avenger have fared in that situation, being jumped on by multiple hostile fighters without an escort??


----------



## Schweik (Feb 2, 2021)

Acheron said:


> The Zero/Reisen was one of the most maneuverable fighter of the war, no? I can't see how the Swordfish would have fared better. Heck, how would the Avenger have fared in that situation, being jumped on by multiple hostile fighters without an escort??



It fared poorly - losing 5 out of 6 planes at Midway. This was arguably better than the Devastator though.


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 2, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Yes those factors were. There’s a great set of videos that deal exactly with that. They’re by Montemayor. It’s called “Midway from the Japanese perspective” or close to it. He shows how the uncoordinated attacks kept Admiral Nagumo from being able to re-arm and launch later strikes much better than I could describe it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2021)

Acheron said:


> The Zero/Reisen was one of the most maneuverable fighter of the war, no? I can't see how the Swordfish would have fared better. Heck, how would the Avenger have fared in that situation, being jumped on by multiple hostile fighters without an escort??



It wouldn't of fared better but might have been a more difficult target to hit

When you have a slow flying aircraft like the Swordfish, it's turning radius can be very tight and brought down to speeds below the Zero's VS1 or even below VS0 making it a difficult target to hit. IIRC the Zero stalled at 60 knts VS1, the Swordfish at 40. Make sense?

Again - the Japanese pilots flying CAP that day were the best in the world at that time. They would have adjusted accordingly.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 2, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Yes those factors were. There’s a great set of videos that deal exactly with that. They’re by Montemayor. It’s called “Midway from the Japanese perspective” or close to it. He shows how the uncoordinated attacks kept Admiral Nagumo from being able to re-arm and launch later strikes much better than I could describe it.



After reading Shattered Sword it's pretty clear the Japanese were beaten the moment they left port, they did not train to loose, they trained to win to the point the practice scenario's the pilots were taught heavily favored them so the training wasn't realistic, the CAP procedures/doctrine was based around the A6M's lack of 20mm ammunition which meant the decks were kept clear for them to rearm instead of launching bombers, the fire control damage control was centrally organised with a clear pecking order of who was in charge, when those central people were killed no one knew what to do, the ships themselves were poorly designed so when they were hit they burned out, the IJN was a strong force on paper but when the shooting started it had a glass jaw.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 2, 2021)

On Drachinifel’s YouTube site, there’s a great video on the differences between USN and IJN damage control entitled “Differences between American and Japanese damage control “. Kinda says it all. 
There’s also an interesting one called “IJN Taiho-always train your crew.”


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 2, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> After reading Shattered Sword it's pretty clear the Japanese were beaten the moment they left port, they did not train to loose, they trained to win to the point the practice scenario's the pilots were taught heavily favored them so the training wasn't realistic, the CAP procedures/doctrine was based around the A6M's lack of 20mm ammunition which meant the decks were kept clear for them to rearm instead of launching bombers, the fire control damage control was centrally organised with a clear pecking order of who was in charge, when those central people were killed no one knew what to do, the ships themselves were poorly designed so when they were hit they burned out, the IJN was a strong force on paper but when the shooting started it had a glass jaw.


The problem with the IJN plans was that the USN never did what it was “supposed” to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 3, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The problem with the IJN plans was that the USN never did what it was “supposed” to do.



Enemies are annoying when they do that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 3, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Enemies are annoying when they do that.


I know, right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Wiki gives the endurance of a Swordfish as 5 hours, that his a long time to be looking at a radar set on a bi plane.



And that's just to get down to the 7-Eleven on the corner.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> And that's just to get down to the 7-Eleven on the corner.


I dont follow?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I dont follow?



7-Eleven is a ubiquitous American convenience-store chain, with one every km or so. My comment was a joke aimed at the low speed of the Swordfish, nothing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 13, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> We're getting pretty far afield now, but there was also the Kaiser-Fleetwings_XBTK, which made it to prototype stage but was cancelled in 1946. It looked _a lot_ like the Douglas Skyraider.
> 
> Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK - Wikipedia


Much smaller, intended for escort carriers. R-2800 vs R-3350

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

