Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,683
- Feb 27, 2020
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So it was only the STOL capabilities of the Swordfish and loitier time over Atlantic convoys that made It Outlast the Albacore.The Albacore lifted more off a naval carrier deck, further and faster. Did excellent dive bombing in the Western Desert and the Channel ports. Cruised faster than a Swordfish flat out. Twice the bomb load of a Fairey Battle or Bristol Blenheim and four times that of a Skua. It's operational cruising speed was similar to the Japanese Nakajima B5N.
The Swordfish only survived by being able to launch and land off an escort carrier and cruise for 5 hours around a limited locality. Essentially filled the role now done by ASW helicopters. In it's designed roles it was comfortably out performed by the Albacore. It too dive bombed but over Northern France. Blackburn continued to make spare to maintain the Swordfish but Fairey ceased making spares when the Albacore was replaced by the Barracuda. It was the presence of such spares that kept Swordfish available for anti midget submarines into 1945.
Yes. Operationally, if they could have used Albacores on escort carriers they would have preferred to do so, but the Swordfish did it's one trick well. Plus Blackburns, who made most of the Swordfish and had a purpose built factory to do just that, could continue to support it whilst Fairey needed their factory to make Barracudas instead of Albacores after 1942.So it was only the STOL capabilities of the Swordfish and loitier time over Atlantic convoys that made It Outlast the Albacore.
As most know, the Albacore was designed as the Swordfish sustitute but failed to replace It and get phased out of frontline squadrons, and production, much earlier than its predecesor.
It didn't get the RP that the Swordfish got, neither the ASV radar.
Was It because its flying characteristics were utter bad? Or the gains weren't offset by other problema? Or just it failed to get a niche role as sub hunter in CVEs as the Swordfish did do to not been STOL enough?
According to Eric Brown Albacore was less manoeuvrable and had heavy controls. With only one peashooter rear gun in both Albacore had even less chances to survive interception and was easier target to AA.
The manoeuvrability of the Albacore is a curious one. I have read that during a torpedo attack the planes controls were so heavy that dodging flak was impossible and after the drop all the pilot could do was to fly straight over the target.
Then I have read that the plane was so manoeuvrable during landing that pilots used to try and beat each other by landing and stopping on a cross on the runway. The Albacore was used as a night time bomber aircraft in N Africa dive bombing targets from 3000 feet illuminated by a parachute flare.
RCAFson says that an Albacore outmanoeuvred a Zero I think it also shot it down if it's the same incident I am thinking of. So how is it an aircraft that needs the muscles of an 800 pound Gorilla to dodge Flak can also land on a spot and dodge a Zero.
I wonder if it's those British roundels again they really must have used some extraordinarily heavy draggy paint
The manoeuvrability of the Albacore is a curious one. I have read that during a torpedo attack the planes controls were so heavy that dodging flak was impossible and after the drop all the pilot could do was to fly straight over the target.
The Albacore that I referred to previously didn't shoot down the Zero although they duelled for some minutes. An Albacore did claim a Ju-87 front gun kill during the Kirkenes and Petsamo raid in August 1941.
I'm not sure any torpedo bomber was overly manoeuverable while still carrying its load. Additionally, during the actual attack, the torpedo pilot would be concentrating on ensuring the weapon was correctly aligned towards the target. It's also not that uncommon for torpedo aircraft to have to overfly the target after weapon release, If nothing else, staying low may actually increase chances of survival compared to climbing...and turning a formation of aircraft is much harder, and slower, than just turning an individual aircraft.
AFAIK, the Albacore never participated in an attack on Scharnhorst. Top speed was about 145- 150 knots but they could dive nearly vertically at over 200 knots. The only time they suffered crippling losses was at Kirkenes and Petsamo (Aug 1941) when they had to fly through hills and a fjord lined with flak and then were caught un-escorted by a force of Me-110s, 109s and JU87s, and it's likely that any contemporary torpedo bomber would have suffered similar losses. 11 of the 20 Albacores that attacked Kirkenes were shot down, but probably about 3 were lost due to flak, while 1 of 9 that attacked Petsamo was shot down, probably by a 109.
I think the Albacore was the wrong successor to the Swordfish. The FAA should have just kept ordering Stringbags whilst demanding its successor be something akin (but produced from 1939 onwards) to the Barracuda or a torpedo variant of the Battle/Fulmar. Skip the complexities of high angle divebombing, keep it simple.As most know, the Albacore was designed as the Swordfish sustitute but failed to replace It
The FAA was saddled with a number of older, slower carriers with short flight decks and given available engines a monoplane TB strike aircraft wasn't feasible plus DB capability was a critical requirement. The Albacore itself was delayed due to development problems with the Taurus engine and it would have entered service a year sooner except for the engine problems.I think the Albacore was the wrong successor to the Swordfish. The FAA should have just kept ordering Stringbags whilst demanding its successor be something akin (but produced from 1939 onwards) to the Barracuda or a torpedo variant of the Battle/Fulmar. Skip the complexities of high angle divebombing, keep it simple.
Then just keep making Swordfish until a monoplane TSR with a sufficiently powerful engine for CVL/E ops can be procured. If the Avenger can fly off 15 knot CVEs, so can other monoplane strike aircraft.... the trick is getting a powerful enough Merlin or Hercules engine. Until that's available, keep pumping out the Stringbags. Keep the Swordfish's low angle divebomb capability, I'm saying delaying the Barracuda while sorting out how to combine high speed, high angle divebombing and torpedo capability is a waste of time. The Swordfish's replacement need only mirror the formers existing DB capability.The FAA was saddled with a number of older, slower carriers with short flight decks and given available engines a monoplane TB strike aircraft wasn't feasible plus DB capability was a critical requirement.
Perhaps the Dauntless could be a good answer to keep the DB capability and would be small enough to be fitted in the smaller british carriers.Then just keep making Swordfish until a monoplane TSR with a sufficiently powerful engine for CVL/E ops can be procured. If the Avenger can fly off 15 knot CVEs, so can other monoplane strike aircraft.... the trick is getting a powerful enough Merlin or Hercules engine. Until that's available, keep pumping out the Stringbags. Keep the Swordfish's low angle divebomb capability, I'm saying delaying the Barracuda while sorting out how to combine high speed, high angle divebombing and torpedo capability is a waste of time. The Swordfish's replacement need only mirror the formers existing DB capability.
I suspect this is due to the SBD's non-folding wings, and that the Swordfish and Albacore could already divebomber and carry a torpedo - an important consideration with the RN's small CAGs.EDIT: It is kinda weird that the british didn't field the Dauntless given that they used many others USA carrier planes.
Never know about that and never seen a SBD with british roundels.Nevertheless the FAA did receive nine SBDs said:595649[/ATTACH]
Perhaps the USN wanted them all for themselves, they did have eleven Essex class ordered by the time the Dauntless enters USN service in early 1941.Never know about that and never seen a SBD with british roundels.
I think your explanation must be true but still is some kind of weird since FAA don't hesitate in ordering other non foldable wings aircraft (fighters all, all to be said). It should be interesting to read the evaluation about the SBD.