As above and before - design the darned TB/DB around the Hercules.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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 Swordfish had been replaced by more advanced torpedo bombers and dive bombers not long after that bombing attack you mention.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.
Perhaps operating at a lower altitude the Swordfish might have been spotted sooner? Full disclosure, I am biased towards the SBD.
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.
Excellent points.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.
Then again we were discussing the capabilities of the Swordfish and the SBD as an academic exercise, not that particular campaign as such.
An aspect I hadn't considered and one that could be a force multiplier for the Stringbag.
Or am I guaging your reaction?
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...
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.
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...