Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2?

[tomo pauk]

If the RN wanted a higher performance monoplane torpedo bomber instead of the Albacore, is it possible to also have the DB capability of the Swordfish? I'm thinking not, as no one until the Barracuda of 1942 fielded a monoplane, single-engine aircraft design that started off as a torpedo bomber that could also DB. It had been tried the other way round with torpedo trials on the Stuka. Did the Devastator or Kate try DB?

So, it seems if the FAA wants their own B5N Kate they'd better also field a separate DB aircraft. This won't be be possible on the AFD carriers with their small CAG, unless your fighter is also a DB.... and we saw how the Skua turned out.

As above and before - design the darned TB/DB around the Hercules.

 

[RCAFson]

Sure, no denying it, but it doesn't suggest at all that the Swordfish was a superior dive bomber to the SBD. Again, think about what you are saying here. By 1942 when these things actually happened, the Swordfish was widely regarded as obsolescent, bordering on obsolete. Eric Brown commented as much about the travesty of sending young men off to war in such an antiquated design in the chapter on the Swordfish his book Wings of the Navy. yes, it had a long and distinguished career, but the Royal Navy used what it had when it had it. Swordfish had been replaced by more advanced torpedo bombers and dive bombers not long after that bombing attack you mention.

Let's also not forget that SBDs disabled four Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway, resulting in their destruction, with the first three within the space of six minutes.

There's two different issues here: There's the issue of The Swordfish/SBD as aircraft with their probability of flying a mission and surviving until the attack phase then returning safely to base and then there's the issue of the actual accuracy, hit probability and lethality of the bomb load in the attack phase. I'm arguing that the Swordfish (and Albacore/Barracuda) was superior to the SBD in the actual attack phase. At Midway, if we replace the SBD with Swordfish, in the attack phase, then the results don't change. I would argue that Albacores could have replaced the SBDs and achieved exactly the same results because the IJN didn't intercept the DBs prior to the attack phase of the SBD sorties. With Swordfish it's less clear because of their lower ceiling.

 

[SaparotRob]

Perhaps operating at a lower altitude the Swordfish might have been spotted sooner? Full disclosure, I am biased towards the SBD.

 

[RCAFson]

Perhaps operating at a lower altitude the Swordfish might have been spotted sooner? Full disclosure, I am biased towards the SBD.

Any rational mission planner would balk at sending Swordfish on a daylight DB strike mission against the KB. OTOH, in a dusk/night strike scenario and/or bad weather the mission planner has the option to order a TB or DB strike or some combination of the two.

 

[SaparotRob]

You brought up a good point. I believe the RNAS was better at night fighting than the USN. However, where would the opposing fleets have been at dusk 4 June 1940? I can't see Admiral Nimitz or Admiral Spruance closing with the Kido Butai at night without heavy gun units.

 

[SaparotRob]

Then again we were discussing the capabilities of the Swordfish and the SBD as an academic exercise, not that particular campaign as such.

 

[RCAFson]

You brought up a good point. I believe the RNAS was better at night fighting than the USN. However, where would the opposing fleets have been at dusk 4 June 1940? I can't see Admiral Nimitz or Admiral Spruance closing with the Kido Butai at night without heavy gun units.

Where was the KB at predawn on June 4 1942? Historically the USN launched a morning strike but it could have been a predawn strike, assuming that the KB had been located via ASV radar as they were closing to launch their Midway strike.

 

[SaparotRob]

Where was the KB at predawn on June 4 1942? Historically the USN launched a morning strike but it could have been a predawn strike, assuming that the KB had been located via ASV radar as they were closing to launch their Midway strike.

Excellent points.

 

[SaparotRob]

And thanks for NOT pointing out I wrote 1940.

 

[nuuumannn]

Then again we were discussing the capabilities of the Swordfish and the SBD as an academic exercise, not that particular campaign as such.

Yup, which is why I don't necessarily agree with the statement that the Swordfish is a superior dive bomber to the SBD. A pretty bald statement simply not backed up by operational experience and I am wondering whether RCAFson's motives are genuine in his attempt to add to this thread or just to gauge a reaction...

 

[SaparotRob]

I like what's been added.
I can't see the Swordfish outperforming the SBD. RCAFson did bring up some great points I have never considered. The Swordfish (a great airplane built to an "all singing/all dancing" obsolescent requirement) carried asv radar. And functioning torpedoes. Sorry, we're talking dive bombers. A pre-dawn strike. Nobody has a CAP up. An aspect I hadn't considered and one that could be a force multiplier for the Stringbag.
The numbers brought up here make my eyes bleed. I'll take your word for it that performance is close enough. An interesting concept.
Or am I guaging your reaction?

 

[nuuumannn]

An aspect I hadn't considered and one that could be a force multiplier for the Stringbag.

The Stringbag was certainly there in numbers and what the FAA could field at the time, but it was obsolescent. The RN had the ability of getting the very best out of the equipment it had at the time, which is a testament to the guys and girls doing their jobs at operational level. Let's not forget that the Albacore was designed to supersede the Swordfish and the Barracuda was designed to supersede the Albacore, so the admiralty planners had intended on retiring it at some stage, probably a lot sooner than it was, but war has a funny way of upsetting the best laid plans. That it outlived its intended successor can be put to the usefulness of the aircraft, which is a testament to its qualities though.

Regarding the being fitted with radar, it was ASV radar for surface ship and submarine hunting. The RAF also received Swordfish for anti ship/submarine work equipped with radar, 119 Sqn had all black Swordfish that replaced Albacores in the same role. Funny how that kept happening...
This one is at IWM Duxford.

RAF Swordfish

Or am I guaging your reaction?

Careful buddy... Nah, I've noticed that there are certain members who tend to say stuff that raises eyebrows and hold on to that, is all... It's all good fun and not meant in any derogatory manner.

 

[SaparotRob]

I thought that all along my friend!

 

[SaparotRob]

I was in on the joke.

 

[RCAFson]

Yup, which is why I don't necessarily agree with the statement that the Swordfish is a superior dive bomber to the SBD. A pretty bald statement simply not backed up by operational experience and I am wondering whether RCAFson's motives are genuine in his attempt to add to this thread or just to gauge a reaction...

You'll have to clarify what you mean. Operationally the Swordfish did well as divebomber.

 

[nuuumannn]

Operationally the Swordfish did well as divebomber.

I thought it was obvious. That the Swordfish could dive bomb well is not in question. I responded to your statement that the Swordfish was superior to the SBD as a dive bomber because of trials conducted in testing showing a greater load carrying capability or such like. My argument against that is that simply measuring one aircraft's performance during testing such as that cannot be used as a measure of superiority against another. Operationally, both aircraft had lengthy and rewarding careers, but that is beside the point in assessing your original statement.

 

[RCAFson]

I thought it was obvious. That the Swordfish could dive bomb well is not in question. I responded to your statement that the Swordfish was superior to the SBD as a dive bomber because of trials conducted in testing showing a greater load carrying capability or such like. My argument against that is that simply measuring one aircraft's performance during testing such as that cannot be used as a measure of superiority against another. Operationally, both aircraft had lengthy and rewarding careers, but that is beside the point in assessing your original statement.

I was clear in my statement that I was specifically referring to the Swordfish's ability to accurately deliver a larger bombload in the attack phase of an operational DB sortie.

Ultimately, the only way to account for variables such as crew experience and target availability is to look at the aircraft itself and it's ability to perform it's mission.

 

[nuuumannn]

was clear in my statement that I was specifically referring to the Swordfish's ability to accurately deliver a larger bombload in the attack phase of an operational DB sortie.

That's not what you said. You pointed to a specific trial as evidence that the Swordfish was superior to the SBD.

Keep digging buddy...

 

[RCAFson]

That's not what you said. You pointed to a specific trial as evidence that the Swordfish was superior to the SBD.

Keep digging buddy...

Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

Post 172:

"nuuumannn said:
Perhaps more accurate with a greater load during static trials as opposed to 'superior'?

"If a given aircraft can achieve the same or greater accuracy, with a heavier bomb load, than I would characterize it as being superior in the DB role, although perhaps not superior in overall performance. "

The trials were against static and manoeuvring targets.

 

[nuuumannn]

Look Rainbow Dash, enough now...