Swordfish vs Devastator

[Elvis]

I'm always amazed at how successfully the British used a cloth covered biplane during WWII, yet our own Torpedo bomber, the Douglas Devastator, was such an abomination.
It would seem that the opposite would be true.
What was it that made this happen?
Tactics? Design?
I admit, I've not looked into this very far, but its always raised at least one eyebrow, whenever I think about it.

 

[fastmongrel]

The lack of success of the Devastator is down to the circumstances. Swap in a Swordfish attacking the Japanese fleet and the results would be exactly the same. Look up Channel Dash as to how successful the Swordfish was in similar circumstances.

Plus there's the fact that the Devastator was a 1st generation monoplane and was a primitive underpowered death trap that had the manoeuvrability of a cathedral. The Swordfish was for a Biplane pretty sophisticated but was still an underpowered death trap.

Most if not all the Swordfish successes occurred in foul weather or night time when it didn't matter how slow you were if nobody could see you.

 

[Elvis]

Ok, I see what's going on now.
Could you please provide a link to the "Channel Dash" you mentioned?
Thanks.

Elvis

 

[fastmongrel]

Channel Dash - Wikipedia

 

[fastmongrel]

Swordfish got ASV radar from late 40 on without ASV no attack on Bismark.

 

[swampyankee]

The lack of success of the Devastator is down to the circumstances. Swap in a Swordfish attacking the Japanese fleet and the results would be exactly the same. Look up Channel Dash as to how successful the Swordfish was in similar circumstances.

Plus there's the fact that the Devastator was a 1st generation monoplane and was a primitive underpowered death trap that had the manoeuvrability of a cathedral. The Swordfish was for a Biplane pretty sophisticated but was still an underpowered death trap.

Most if not all the Swordfish successes occurred in foul weather or night time when it didn't matter how slow you were if nobody could see you.

In other words, the FAA revised its tactics to fit the Swordfish's shortcomings.

A second issue could be that the USN's air-launched torpedoes had "issues."

 

[fastmongrel]

In other words, the FAA revised its tactics to fit the Swordfish's shortcomings.

"

I agree but would modify your statement to say. The FAA revised it's tactics to fit the Swordfish's strengths.

 

[RCAFson]

I'm always amazed at how successfully the British used a cloth covered biplane during WWII, yet our own Torpedo bomber, the Douglas Devastator, was such an abomination.
It would seem that the opposite would be true.
What was it that made this happen?
Tactics? Design?
I admit, I've not looked into this very far, but its always raised at least one eyebrow, whenever I think about it.

The Swordfish was due to be replaced as a frontline carrier strike aircraft in 1939/40 by the Albacore, and was largely replaced by the Albacore by late 1941, and the Albacore, in turn, was due to be replaced by the Barracuda by 1941/42. Consequently it's a bit incorrect to compare the TBD to the Swordfish, however, the big advantage the Swordfish had over the TBD was it's versatility and it's ability to carry a wide variety of sensors, ordnance loads and auxiliary fuel tanks. Finally it was fully capable of dive bombing and could even release a torpedo after a dive bomb attack profile, where the TBD was structurally incapable of a DB attack profile.

Hypothetically, if the Swordfish replaced the TBD at Midway, they would have been launched well before dawn and been out scouting for the IJN via their ASV radar in total darkness, to hopefully make a night attack to avoid IJN CAP. If they had to be launched for a daylight attack, they could be outfitted with bombs (2 x 500lb and 2 x 250lb would be typical) to augment the SBD DB attacks, or they could retain torpedoes but approach at medium altitude and use a DB attack profile, to help evade flak and increase the probability of surprise.

On paper the Swordfish is much slower than the TBD, but in service the TBD was much slower than it's oft reported speeds and so it really wasn't that much faster than the Swordfish.

 

[pbehn]

The performance of a torpedo bomber depends entirely on the performance of the torpedoes it carries. As the war progressed torpedoes could be launched higher and faster.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The performance of a torpedo bomber depends entirely on the performance of the torpedoes it carries.

What? That seems like a nutty absolute.

 

[PAT303]

In other words, the FAA revised its tactics to fit the Swordfish's shortcomings.

The RN had to operate in the North Sea, the Swordfish had to be operational in weather that would ground more modern aircraft so it was slow and if used in daytime against the Japanese fleet at Midway would be wiped out but in the foul weather it was designed for it could strike when nothing else could.

 

[PAT303]

Hypothetically, if the Swordfish replaced the TBD at Midway, they would have been launched well before dawn and been out scouting for the IJN via their ASV radar in total darkness, to hopefully make a night attack to avoid IJN CAP

That's what smart leaders do, I would send half a dozen Swordfish out in total darkness night after night to attack the IJN fleet, the Japanese have zero defenses against such attacks and that would wear them down, personally I would put great faith in a large well coordinated night time attack against the IJN in the first few days of battle as being very successful, the last thing the Japanese would suspect would be Swordfish running in for a torpedo attack at 0300 in the morning.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That's what smart leaders do, I would send half a dozen Swordfish out in total darkness night after night to attack the IJN fleet, the Japanese have zero defenses against such attacks and that would wear them down, personally I would put great faith in a large well coordinated night time attack against the IJN in the first few days of battle as being very successful, the last thing the Japanese would suspect would be Swordfish running in for a torpedo attack at 0300 in the morning.

Had Sommerville's fleet been differently tasked, this could have been Britain's Midway.

 

[Elvis]

Channel Dash - Wikipedia

Thanks Mongrel. Yer alright.

 

[pbehn]

What? That seems like a nutty absolute.

Its a statement of the obvious, but what isn't obvious is how much topedoes changed, there is precious little point having a high performance plane that has to slow to almost a standstill to effectively launch its weapons. Later in its life the Swordfish did what became a helicopters job.

 

[Koopernic]

I'm always amazed at how successfully the British used a cloth covered biplane during WWII, yet our own Torpedo bomber, the Douglas Devastator, was such an abomination.
It would seem that the opposite would be true.
What was it that made this happen?
Tactics? Design?
I admit, I've not looked into this very far, but its always raised at least one eyebrow, whenever I think about it.

-The Germans didn't have aircraft carriers so the Swordfish was not exposed to fighters such as the Messerschmitt Me 109T or A6M Zero.
-The Swordfish often operated at night which suited its easy handling. It could carry radar and it could attack under cover of darkness.
-Speed was not so much an issue since torpedo's are speed and height release limits.
-Swordfish's success against Bismarck was against a ship sent on its maiden mission early and before thorough training and before her air defences were beefed up.
The Bismarck and Prince Eugen had 4 sophisticated triaxial stabilised FLAK directors each with tachymetric computers to calculate a continious firing soluton.

2 were removed on each and sent to the USSR as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This is how Germany paid for her oil and grain.

Also most of the guns were single or double 20mm mounts. On Tirpitz these were increased by 80% and convered to the far more effective quad mount which was very stable. I think gyro reflector sights also came in.

 

[pinehilljoe]

The TBD did have its one success at Coral Sea. Lexington's VT-2 scored 5 hits against Shoho and contributed to her sinking. The TBDs and the torpedos worked. Shoho's air group was a mix of 8 A6M2, 4 A5M2

 

[Admiral Beez]

The TBD did have its one success at Coral Sea.

I'd also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it's not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It's a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.

 

[buffnut453]

I'd also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it's not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It's a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.

Wow...that's one of the bigger stretches I've seen. We're now considering getting decimated as being "operational success"? The primary issue had more to with the IJN's non-existent fighter control, coupled with serendipitous timing that the various USN formations arrived over the Japanese fleet, rather than any performance ability of the Devastators.

Turning to the wider comparison of the Devastator and Swordfish, the latter was able to find a niche thanks to the addition of technology that enabled it to conduct successful night operations, something that certainly the IJN could not counter. For whatever reason, the Devastator never found a workable operational niche, a task not helped by the poor operational reliability of the USN's torpedo.

 

[swampyankee]

Being s decoy

I'd also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it's not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It's a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.

Being a decoy is hardly likely to be an enduring role.

I'm not sure the USN thought took torpedo warfare all that seriously, for evidence of which I use the USN decision to omit torpedo magazines from the USS Ranger.