Steamed_Banana
Senior Airman
- 327
- Sep 29, 2025
In the case of Ceylon, Swordfish were involved in the battle. Right? That is something to go by.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The TBF wasn't available until June 1942 and it was not a success as a TB until it was equipped with reliable torpedoes in mid 1944.As I already noted, the Swordfish was clearly superior to the TBD, which was almost as old. I would note, however, that is a very low bar.
Luckily for the US, they had the far more successful TBF / TBM available, which the British made heavy use of for some odd reason. Almost incomprehensible given the Sterling capabilities of the Swordfish and the Ablacore, not to mention the extraordinary Barracuda!
As for the "Merlin engined fighters" requested here... devil's in the details I guess?
I wonder why they didn't call for Seafires? Isn't that the best naval fighter of the war? Or was it the Sea Hurricane? Sea Gladiator? Fulmars!
How much more quickly would the Pacific War have been won if they had re-equipped the entire US fleet with Fulmars and Swordfish?
They were caught by surprise whilst flying between bases.In the case of Ceylon, Swordfish were involved in the battle. Right? That is something to go by.
The TBF wasn't available until June 1942 and it was not a success as a TB until it was equipped with reliable torpedoes in mid 1944.
The F4F-4 was considerably outperformed by the Hurricane II and even the IB had a far superior climb rate and better performance at low altitude where most of the fighting occurred. I don't think the Seafire was a thing in June 1942.
Why would the USN want to re-equip with aircraft that the FAA itself considered to be obsolete in mid 1942?
They were caught by surprise whilst flying between bases.
The USN was in the process of reequipping torpedo squadrons with TBFs. There were 4 TBFs at Midway that were part of Torpedo 8 but had missed the boat. There's a second sole survivor of Torpedo 8 from this group (Thanks, Dave!) The Japanese had, rudely, not informed the US of their upcoming secret attack on PH. Had the JCS been properly informed, the change-over might have been sped up somewhat.As I already noted in this thread, (which you somehow missed?) the Swordfish was clearly superior to the TBD, an obsolete aircraft almost as old. I would note, however, that is a very low bar.
Luckily for the US, they had the far more successful TBF / TBM available, which the British made heavy use of for some odd reason. Almost incomprehensible given the Sterling capabilities of the Swordfish and the Ablacore, not to mention the extraordinary Barracuda!
As for the "Merlin engined fighters" requested here... devil's in the details I guess?How unfortunate all they could find were a few P-40Fs and those new F4Us.
I wonder why they didn't call for Seafires? Isn't that the best naval fighter of the war? Or was it the Sea Hurricane? Sea Gladiator? Fulmars!
How much more quickly would the Pacific War have been won if they had re-equipped the entire US fleet with Fulmars and Swordfish?
They wouldn't have been available even if someone came up with that "interesting" idea.Again, one wonders why the US didn't use the Hurricane, as magnificent as it was, or why the FAA itself, at the suggestion of it's own pilots, seemed to clearly prefer the F4F / FM1 / FM2?
Yes, but after they dropped their bombs over the targets. Their mission was complete.
The Aug 7 strike flew from Rabaul and ditched near Shortland Island.
The only one it surpasses is the miserable Douglas Devastator, which was of similar vintage.
Whether or not the SCS is or is not part of the Pacific, it is certainly not a vast area of open water like the main part of the Pacific east of the Philippines.View attachment 854695
Ah, but let me help you a bit, this is for the geographically challenged, whether they be from your country, my country, or one of the many others represented in this forum. Most of whom already grasp this, like I assume the British planners in 1933 actually knew this fairly well, but from the context of the discussion it is not clear whether you are aware.
1 - The South China Sea
2- The Pacific Ocean, that vast body of water of which the South China Sea is a subset, technically a 'marginal sea of the Western pacific Ocean', according to Wikipedia.
3- The Aleutian islands, Alaska, US, for scale
4 - The Indian Ocean
The goal of an aircraft carrier is in fact to move around the seas and oceans. If one's goal is to sink enemy ships in range of land air bases, as was often possible in the Med and may in some cases be possible in the South China Sea, then you can use land based aircraft (most of which have vastly longer range than a Swordfish). But in naval combat, one presumes that the airbase, i.e. the aircraft carrier, is moving. That being key.
And in a combat between moving warships, even within the confines of the South China Sea (which covers 3,500,000 square kilometers) one will still need to outrange enemy aircraft, or at least come close to their range, otherwise your strike aircraft is dangerously obsolete really by definition, and your fleet sailing into treacherous waters in mortal peril. Like just a teensy bit further out into the vast Pacific or Indian Oceans which are contiguous bodies of water, the latter of which borders arguably the most important colonial holdings of the British Empire.
So once again, yes, a Swordfish was indeed probably adequate for 1933. Seven years later it's looking a little old. Nine years later it's looking positively creaky.
I did myself emphasize the ability to use the Swordish, in fact I think I introduced the concept to this very thread.
The ability to use radar on board aircraft, even painfully obsolete aircraft like the Swordfish, was a major achievement by the British, for which they should be (and by all appearances are) extremely proud.
However, the idea that one could rely on the enemy being unable to approach within range of their daylight bombers when they out-range your strike aircraft by hundreds of miles, and when their ships are even a fair bit faster over the water, is shall we say, an extremely optimistic way of looking at things.
No matter how much you want it to be the case, this
View attachment 854684
was not in the same league as this
View attachment 854689
Those Americans were clearly fools not to re-equip all of their navy squadrons with Swordfish and Sea-Hurricanes! I suspect this may have been only the latest by that time in a long series of dreadful mistakes they kept making, and might have been talked out of had they only been willing to listen.
You brought up the TBF...I would suggest that the US and indeed, the Fleet Air Arm combat histories contradict this view
However, I never suggested the TBF be applicable to this exact scenario. I can't imagine why you seem to suggest here that I did. I pointed out that it was available to the US Navy. For that matter, TBD were not available to the British for Ceylon either.
Again, one wonders why the US didn't use the Hurricane, as magnificent as it was, or why the FAA itself, at the suggestion of it's own pilots, seemed to clearly prefer the F4F / FM1 / FM2?
I wonder why F4F had so much better of a combat record against the A6M and Ki-43 than the Hurricane II did, given the superority of the Hurricane?
I would ask the same about the Hurricane, but I must be crazy
There's quite a difference in the tactical situation for Zero's flying carrier CAP and land based fighters.
You brought up the TBF...
You'll have to argue with Nimitz... The FAA's experience with the F4F variants was mixed. It had better range and endurance but it's climb rate was abysmal for a single seat fighter, which is the main complaint against it in the USN, and as I stated it was outperformed by the SHIB at low altitude. It's biggest advantage was that it had folding wings which was a big deal for the FAA as four of their fleet carriers in mid 1941 had lifts that were too small for a fixed wing aircraft.
In any event this is getting OT from the topic at hand.
I think most people here are respectful of others, so please stop with the emojis.
Yes, but if they had hit and damaged or sunk Akagi, which navy/AF would consider the attrition rate too high? The real tragedy here, IMHO, was the RAF's opposition to tactical strike missions and the needed tactics and the reliance on level bombing. If we replace those 9 Blenheim with 9 Battles, each carrying 4 x 250lb bombs and attacking in a steep glide, I suspect that they would have had a fair chance of success.That is still 44% attrition, an entirely unsustainable rate. USN and IJN both had to spend time recuperating a month or so after each battle to overcome those sorts of losses. Fighting off a raid, okay, but remember, it wasn't clear that this was only a raid at that time.
Whether or not the SCS is or is not part of the Pacific, it is certainly not a vast area of open water like the main part of the Pacific east of the Philippines.
Free movement is heavily restricted by large areas of shoal water ready to catch out the unwary. Large areas are still oob for large vessels. Those are the bits China is attempting to claim today.
View attachment 854719
Try asking the crews of vessels like the sub USS Darter or the frigate HMS Aire.
Yes, but if they had hit and damaged or sunk Akagi, which navy/AF would consider the attrition rate too high? The real tragedy here, IMHO, was the RAF's opposition to tactical strike missions and the needed tactics and the reliance on level bombing. If we replace those 9 Blenheim with 9 Battle, each carrying 4 x 250lb bombs and attacking in a steep glide, I suspect that they would have had a fair chance of success.
The issue is whether it's a safe assumption in a naval war that a conflict would somehow be contained within this specific area, and never take place, for example, in the Indian Ocean or a bit further on the other side of Malaya, or a bit south of Java etc.
I don't really find that a credible suggestion. It may somehow be possible that the FAA thought this was credible, but that to me would be a reflection of yet another really bad decision made by the FAA. Which is more or less how they ended up with a biplane as their main torpedo bombing aircraft in the beginning of the war. And then replaced it with another one.