# Best Pre 1942 Carrier Torpedo Bomber



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2007)

Heres the four choices.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2007)

Interesting u broke it down to pre-1942... Would have liked to seen the comparisons between the generations...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2007)

Les, I figured that 1942 was the year when everyone learned that slow moving torpedo planes were highly vulnerable to AA. Plus as the number of enemy ships decreased, the torpedo bombers had to be able to adapt to new missions.

For me, the "Kate" was the best as it lugged the larger of the torpedo's and performed its mission well. 

I will post another poll for 1943-45 after we discuss this one.


----------



## Desert Fox (Apr 9, 2007)

I'd say the Fairey Swordfish. For a biplane, it did some amazing things in the sky during that time, like sinking the Bismark. That was a big achievement for a supposedly obsolescent aircraft.


----------



## Typhoon (Apr 9, 2007)

The Swordfish also sunk the Italian Battleships as well. Being the first carrier attack on Battleships.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2007)

Based on performance and equipment, it's the Kate. Based on accomplishment, I'd go with the Swordfish, but the Kate is close behind - a good poll!


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

Then why'd u vote for the Devastator then Joe???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

Got to vote for the Kate.

Who cares about what the Swordfish accomplished. It was not the better of the two aircraft. The Kate was faster, better protected, more maneuverable and able to perform the mission better.

If you wish to talk about accomplishments it is still the Kate. 2 Words....

Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 9, 2007)

Agreed Adler. I would of voted for the Swordfish if the Kate hadn't been in the poll but the Swordfish despite what it accomplished was not the best at this time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

I hate to say it but I dont really think it was the best at any point of the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Then why'd u vote for the Devastator then Joe???


My mistake!  Corrected accordingly....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

Uhuh just admit it, you thought you could get away with it. You sly little fox!


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2007)

The B5N1/2 were no better protected than the Fairey Swordfish, defensive armament on both was a single light machine-gun. The Swordfish had a more diverse weapons collection, the 'Kate' could only carry torpedos and bombs in no greater weight than the Swordfish loading. The Swordfish could carry torpedo, bombs, mines and rockets; the latter two being something the 'Kate' never carried. 

The Swordfish sank more tonnage than the 'Kate'. The Swordfish III was deployed with the Mk.X ASV radar which was superior to that on any 'Kate'. While the 'Kate' spear-headed Pearl Harbour it wasn't alone in the attack, the Swordfish on the other hand went into Taranto on its own. 

The B5N1/2 'Kate' looks more modern but it wasn't any better than the Swordfish.

*edit* The Swordfish actually carried a larger bomb-load than the B5N2. The B5N2 carried a single 1764-lb torpedo or three 250-lb bombs, the Swordfish Mk.I could carry a single 1,610-lb torpedo or a 1,500-lb mine or 1,500-lb bombs (2 500-lb under fuselage and one 250-lb under each wing, or 1 500-lb under fuselage and 1 500-lb under each wing).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

The swordfish was a fabric covered biplane...

That is what I meant by protection.

The Kate was more maneuverable and had better performance and this thread is about Torpedo Bomber so who cares about mines, bombs and rockets.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2007)

The B5N2 had no defensive armour or self-sealing fuel tanks, it was no more survivable than the Swordfish. Range and speed of the B5N2 were superior to the Swordfish, while the Swordfish was more stable at the slower speeds during the torpedo run.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The B5N2 had no defensive armour or self-sealing fuel tanks, it was no more survivable than the Swordfish. Range and speed of the B5N2 were superior to the Swordfish, while the Swordfish was more stable at the slower speeds during the torpedo run.



The purpose of a torpedo bomber is to get out to attack the enemy.

The Kates superior range and speed meant attacks could be launched further from the carrier.

In 1942, the USN was at a disadvantage in this regards. Remember that it takes time to launch a full stike force, and the more range you have, the sooner you can get everyone formed up and enroute to your enemy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The B5N2 had no defensive armour or self-sealing fuel tanks, it was no more survivable than the Swordfish. Range and speed of the B5N2 were superior to the Swordfish, while the Swordfish was more stable at the slower speeds during the torpedo run.



The aircraft was still more protected and more "durrable" than a fabric covered aircraft. There is more to it than dodging bullets.

You give me a choice between a faster metal mono wing aircraft or a slow fabric covered bi plane I will take the metal mono wing any day.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

Same here, as well the Kate had a better combat record...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2007)

The Swordfish was an underdog through out its career but performed well but I think much of its accomplishments were based on its crew's skill and determination.


----------



## trackend (Apr 9, 2007)

I agree best and most successful are 2 different things however while I agree with you that the Kate was a better TB, I disagree with you Joe on the Kate being more successful than the Stringbag. IMO the Med campaign supplies evidence that the Stringbags effectiveness was not bettered.
I agree Pearl was a huge success for the Kate but it was also an attack with the opponant whether by suprise or poor leadership unprepared, Taranto was an enemy already at war and geared up for defence. 
21 Stringbags as opposed to (I believe) over 400 Japanese aircraft around a 100 of which I think where Kates.
The tonnage of vessels attributed to Swordfish attacks rose consistantly during the North African campaign although the land based Swordfish claimed an average of 50,000 tonnes per month it is more likely to be a total around 250.000 - 300,000 tonnes of non naval vessels for all stringbags in all campaigns both sea land borne. The total for naval tonnage sunk by torpedo launched attacks is not a figure I have settled on but it does seem to be an amount well in excess of 150,000 tonnes but as I say sorting out the weaponry deployed by the Stringbags for a given action is proving a bit of a devil to find out as it ended up a jack of all trades. Although I can find kills, the details are somewhat more elusive and where a mixed action occured it tends to be hard to define the Coup De Gra aircraft. For ex-sample USS Arizona bombed and torpedoed as opposed to say the 15 Stringbag U boat kills that were solo efforts.(around 18,000 tonnes but again using a mixture of ordanance ) .
Never the less I will deffinately go with the argument that the Kate was a better TB , but I think not as successful as the Stringbag.

PS
(800kg Torpedo for Kate) (730kg for Swordfish) so very close in torpedo payload and although the Japanese plane launched type 91 torpedos were very good so were the 18inch Duplex triggered British models (neither IMO as good as the ship borne Long Lance though).


----------



## Bernhart (Apr 9, 2007)

Don't forget they used the swordfish in 1944 against the german e-boats with a fair amount of sucess too.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2007)

I also think the Swordfish would have been at an even worse situation as compared to the Devestator when it came to attacking IJN carrier task forces.

It simply didnt have the speed to get in close enough to launch its torpedo.


----------



## trackend (Apr 9, 2007)

I agree SYS 3 it was a real old bus and totally out of date by 1939 when up against any real aircover the Stringbag got shot to bits (re the channel dash)


----------



## Udet (Apr 9, 2007)

Being pretty much an eurocentric is that i want to make a question regarding the planes of the Navy in the PTO:

Did all their planes carry their torpedoes internally? That seems like a very interesting feature; it would seem to me that particular caracteristic greatly improved the performance of the plane while flying loaded with a torpedo.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> Being pretty much an eurocentric is that i want to make a question regarding the planes of the Navy in the PTO:
> 
> Did all their planes carry their torpedoes internally? That seems like a very interesting feature; it would seem to me that particular caracteristic greatly improved the performance of the plane while flying loaded with a torpedo.



I know the Avenger carried its torpedo internally for just that reason.

I will have to check the IJN designs.

But, prior to 1942, all torpedo bombers carried its payload externally.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2007)

Heres some info on the IJN aerial torpedo's.

Type 91
Mod 1 17.7" diameter, 17' 4" length, 1728 lbs. weight, 331 lbs. warhead. 2000m @ 41 kts 260 kts. An older torpedo that was still being used in some land-based JNAF torpedo-bomber squadrons at the beginning of the war, including some of the units ('Nells') which attacked and sank Repulse and the Prince of Wales.

Type 91
Mod 2 17.7" diameter, 18' 0" length, 1841 lbs. weight, 452 lbs. warhead. 2000m @ 41 kts 260 kts. First deployed in April, 1941. Carried by the 'Kate' torpedo bombers which attacked Pearl Harbor. 

Type 91
Mod 3 17.7" diameter, 17' 4" length, 1872 lbs. weight, 529 lbs. warhead. 2000m @ 41 kts 260 kts. First deployed in mid- to late-1942.


----------



## Udet (Apr 9, 2007)

Very interesting syscom. Thanks.

So the avenger was the only torpedo bomber used by the Navy?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2007)

trackend said:


> I disagree with you Joe on the Kate being more successful than the Stringbag.


Actually I said the opposite...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2007)

If we're solely comparing the Swordfish Mk.I to the B5N2 and disregarding everything but the torpedo-bomber role, then the B5N2 is quite extensively superior to the Swordfish. 

The Swordfish was not completely fabric covered; the front sections were metal and the lower wings on the Mk.II were also metal. The survivability on both types was poor if any enemy aircraft were about. 

All the torpedo bombers were painfully slow when carrying their torpedo, especially when going in for the bomb run. The Swordfish was the more stable of them all when doing the low speed run required to drop the torpedo. 

I'm not saying the Swordfish is the best but it can't be written off instantly because looks older than the rest.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> Very interesting syscom. Thanks.
> 
> So the avenger was the only torpedo bomber used by the Navy?



The TBD devestator was used through the battle of Midway and then quickly retired.

The TBF Avenger made its debut at Midway in a limited role (it was based on the island, not the carriers).

Those are the only two USN torpedo bombers I know of.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> If we're solely comparing the Swordfish Mk.I to the B5N2 and disregarding everything but the torpedo-bomber role, then the B5N2 is quite extensively superior to the Swordfish.
> 
> The Swordfish was not completely fabric covered; the front sections were metal and the lower wings on the Mk.II were also metal. The survivability on both types was poor if any enemy aircraft were about.
> 
> ...



This is striclty for the torpedo role, through the middle of 1942, when the Avenger began to be deployed.

Ultimatly, the aircraft must be able to carry its torpedo at a fast enough rate to keep up with the carriers fighters and dive bombers, as well as out to a good range.


----------



## trackend (Apr 10, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I said the opposite...


Sorry Joe, still you're used to me making the odd **** up


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2007)

trackend said:


> Sorry Joe, still you're used to me making the odd **** up


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I'm not saying the Swordfish is the best but it can't be written off instantly because looks older than the rest.



I agree, I am certainly not trying to take away anything from the Swordfish. It was a great aircraft and performed with distinction throughout the war but when compared to more modern Torp Bombers such as the Kate and eventually the Avenger it was outdated and outclassed due to its design.


----------



## trackend (Apr 10, 2007)

I totally agree Adler


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 12, 2007)

Gave my vote to the Swordfish, on acount of the huge Bismarck getting horribly burned and drowned by this plane's torpedos.

Sunk to Davy Jones.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Gave my vote to the Swordfish, on acount of the huge Bismarck getting horribly burned and drowned by this plane's torpedos.
> 
> Sunk to Davy Jones.



Only one torpedo hit the Bismark that did any damage.

But look at the scores of warships the Kate as responsible for (in part or whole).


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

Kate, hands down I'm afraid.


----------

