Fairey Albacore. Was so awful?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Yes, SBDs were deployed aboard Sangamon class CVEs during Operation Torch in 1942.

Two US Navy, and some of the Royal Navy CVEs, operated Hellcat squadrons for Operation Dragoon, in August of 1944.

In the summer of 1945, four CVEs assigned to the US Marine Corps flew Corsairs successfully. Photos below, but complete and detailed information can be found with a simple Google search.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I'd guess that the Swordfish killed more submarines than any other aircraft. With the ability to operate in all weathers, to fly slowly to observe targets, and with a good bomb load it's ideal for the job.
Click to expand...

So far at least 6 aircraft killed more U-boats than the Swordfish.
Perhaps the Swordfish does better on kills per 100 planes deployed of kills per 1000 missions?

However some of the high scoring aircraft used weapons unavailable to the Swordfish, like homing torpedoes.
 
Which 6 aircraft killed more U-boats?
 
fastmongrel said:
Liberator 72 sunk
Click to expand...

Liberator is the stand out in the much higher number than the next below it, but not surprising when its thought about; long range, ASV radar, good performance...

Admiral Beez said:
With its rare twin torpedo armament, the Wellington could have been a good early war anti-.ship platform
Click to expand...

Definitely. Interesting that both it, the Hampden and the Manchester, aside from their heavy bomber roles, were given land based torpedo carrier role within their original specification and could carry torpedoes internally. Both the Hampden and Welli were used in that role during the war, the Hampden TB variant got extensive RAF service, with examples also built in Canada. RAF RCAF, New Zealand and Australian squadrons operated the Hampden TB variant.
 

It is my understanding that Hampden was not initially designed as a torpedo capable. The original H.P. 53, Hampden was H.P. 52, a near twin to Hampden was designed as a torpedo capable coastal patrol plane for the Swedish AF but only one was built. H.P. had also offered a slightly wider fuselage version of Hampden as a shore-based torpedo bomber already in 1935 but Bristol Beaufort was chosen. Hamden TB I was suggested by the RAE Farnborough in 1941, it was found possible but the reat of a Mk XII torpedo projected some 3½ in below the bottom line of the bomb-bay doors closed, so the centre bomb doors were removed and the hinged side panels were fixed open. Some internal structural mods also were made to the rear of the bomb-bay. Easiest way to distinguish TB I from the bomber is the step at the end of the bomb-bay.
 
Yes Juha, right you are, but initially the HP.52 and HP.53 were, on the drawing board at least, pretty much the same aeroplane, but yes, the original spec B.9/32 doesn't stipulate a torpedo carrying requirement.

Juha3 said:
Some internal structural mods also were made to the rear of the bomb-bay. Easiest way to distinguish TB I from the bomber is the step at the end of the bomb-bay.
Click to expand...

The last time I was at Cosford I took some close up images of the rear position and the mods for the fitting of the torpedo, of the RAF Museum's example. There has been some confusion over the modifications made to the TB variant over the years - the step has often been regarded as evidence of the doors being altered, but they weren't; the rear gunner's position was reduced in depth and a prominent 'vee' was built into its underside to accommodate the torpedo with stabilising fins.

This image shows the Hampden TB.1's rear cupola and window layout, what isn't evident is the change in size compared to the standard bomber variant, but the windows are different.

Hampden TB cupola i

This image shows the prominent cutout in the underside of the cupola for the torpedo, giving it reduced depth.

Hampden TB cupola ii

This profile drawing shows the bomber variant profile, note the cupola design is different.

http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/1271/pics/9_1.jpg

This common image of a 489 (New Zealand) Sqn Hampden shows the prominent step that you mention, which is caused by the reduced size of the cupola, not an increase in the door size at their rear end.

ADF-Serials Image Gallery :: Handley Page Hampden :: HAMPDEN_AN127_455SQN_XA_Y
 
Last edited:

Thanks a lot for the photos, very interesting ones!
I remembered that I have read from somewhere that they also modified the lower rear gun position, but could remember how and I could not find the source.
 
No worries, I took quite a few images of the aircraft in bits. It'll be impressive when its finished.

Juha3 said:
Thanks a lot for the photos, very interesting ones!
I remembered that I have read from somewhere that they also modified the lower rear gun position, but could remember how and I could not find the source.
Click to expand...

It's been debated in various places and what doesn't help is that there aren't that many contemporary images showing the mods made to the TB variants, which has led to the confusion.

Here's a piccie someone has generated of the same 498 Sqn Hampden, but with the standard bomber cupola and bigger doors, just to confuse.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2e/38/2a/2e382ad04453eaeaea60adfb4f42bfcf.jpg

And the photo again for comparison. Even in this image you can clearly see the differences in the cupola.

ADF-Serials Image Gallery :: Handley Page Hampden :: HAMPDEN_AN127_455SQN_XA_Y
 
from Characteristics of WW2 Air Launched torpedoes from different nations

Can anyone expand on why it was so difficult to fit radar in the Albacore, but was done much sooner in the Swordfish. Given its enclosed cockpit, I'd have though the Albacore far more suited for ASR, and greater effort spent on fitting it.
 
The Swordfish is one the better known aircraft of WWII and also has a morale boosting and practical list of achievements.

Bismark and Taranto are well known with the some less so including Trondheim (first torpedo attack of the war) and the
sinking of a U-boat at Narvik (first FAA success against a U-boat). Highest tonnage sunk is very important given the planes role.

It's less known achievement is in the Atlantic convoys where it was used on MAC ships from 1943 on. 3 or 4 were carried depending on
the ship type and these escorted over 200 convoys with the loss of 4 escorts and 8 merchant ships. Although there were no recorded
U-boat sinkings by the Swordfish it was a strategic success as the aircraft stopped U-boats from surfacing to follow and then
congregate for attacks.
 
As far as the Swordfish's escort carrier service is concerned, the objective was to get the convoy through, not to sink U-Boats. What is not recorded is the number of times the presence of Swordfish caused U-Boats to dive or remain dived.

These mission kills were quite as valuable as actual sinkings of U-Boats in achieving the given task. Sinking, of course, is even better but is the icing on the cake and the cake is the core role.

If they could operate off the same carriers the Albacore would have been better though.
 
In 1939 the intention was that the Albacore would replace the Swordfish on the Fairey production line at Hayes at the end of that year. Blackburn were to build and run a new shadow factory as a second source for that aircraft. The first part of that plan occurred with only slight delays.

Late 1939, in an effort to get more aircraft for the FAA and quicker, the Blackburn contract was switched to the Swordfish. The intention then was that Fairey could transfer the no longer required Swordfish jigs to Blackburn and provide assistance to speed up the process of setting up the shadow factory. The Swordfish also used less in the way of what were then considered strategic materials. But it took until the end of 1940 for Blackburn to produce its first Swordfish. Then due to delays elsewhere more contracts kept getting awarded until 1943. Blackburn produced its last Swordfish in Aug 1944 at which point contracts for another 600 were cancelled.

Fairey had two factories. Broadly the pre-war plan for them was as follows (ignoring overlaps of production between types):-
Fairey Hayes - Swordfish to Albacore to Firefly
Fairey Stockport - Battle to Fulmar to Barracuda (plus some Halifax and Beaufighter along the way as the plant expanded)

All this was of course at a time (late 1939) when the Barracuda was expected to begin production in April 1941 instead of the historical April 1942. The Firefly, selected in early 1940, was also expected, optimistically, to enter production at the very end of 1941. Historically the prototype Firefly didn't fly until Dec 1941 and it was mid-1943 before Firefly production really got going.

Meanwhile the Albacore remained in production at Hayes until Dec 1942, by which point 800 had been produced. Thereafter it became a diminishing asset. FAA frontline service continued until the end of 1943. The RAF continued to use them in 415/119 squadrons until Jan 1945 when they were superseded by the Swordfish, but in its pregnant Mk.III guise, with the centimetric ASV Mk.X between its legs.
 
The last Albacore service was with the Royal Air Force with the Aden Communications flight who received 17 Albacores and operated them until August 1946. So they remained in service long after the Royal Navy had finished throwing Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs and Avengers over the side of their carriers.
 

Avengers served in the FAA into the 50s. Forgive the Wiki: Grumman TBF Avenger - Wikipedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Why was the Seafire Mk.III so slow?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
don4331
D
H
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
6K
EwenS
E
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
1K
cammerjeff
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
1K
GregP
How good was the soviet air force?
16 17 18
Replies
356
Views
18K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register