syscom3
Pacific Historian
Heres the four choices.
Best Pre 1942 Carrier Torpedo Bomber (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Interesting u broke it down to pre-1942... Would have liked to seen the comparisons between the generations...
- Thread starter
- #3
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
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
Senior Airman
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Brigadier General
Then why'd u vote for the Devastator then Joe???
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.
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.
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.
I hate to say it but I dont really think it was the best at any point of the war.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
My mistake!
Corrected accordingly....
Uhuh just admit it, you thought you could get away with it. You sly little fox!
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).
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).
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #16
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
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
Brigadier General
Same here, as well the Kate had a better combat record...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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).
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).
