Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ever heard of a place called Taranto?
The KM stayed away from RN carriers as much as possible. To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea.
In fact it was the RN that went up against KB with two fleet carriers when the Kido Butai had 5 fleet carriers at Ceylon, versus 4 at Midway, against 3 USN fleet carriers and a much stronger land based airforce on Midway, than the FAA/RAF had on Ceylon.
I think many have stipulated, of the two obsolescent, highly flawed early torpedo bombers, the Swordfish was a bit better than the TBD Devastator. The Swordfish had a marginally better (though still quite bad) range of 522 miles with a Torpedo, vs. 472 for the TBD. But the single thing you can say positively about the TBD is that they only made 130 of them and they were retired in 1942. For some reason they made 2,300 Swordfish and were still using them to the end of the war. It don't think the reason was because they were wildly effective.
From mid 1942 the Allied competition of the Swordfish was the Avenger, which the RN themselves adopted in spite of the torpedo problems. I think that should tell you something. And the Avenger did get radar in 1943 so it could operate at night and in bad weather. They were also robust enough to be used by the USMC in the CAS role, with rockets. In the TAFFY 3 / Samarengagement they proved capable of taking on major /advanced Japanese warships more or less on their own.
1)I don't think ASV radar could be used to locate ships in harbour - why would you need to?
2) Indeed, I agree, but very few night time radar attacks were carried out. So why are you so confident of the track record of such naval attacks when the track record doesn't really exist.
3) I know, and look what happened to HMS Hermes.
The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the Albacore. both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The RN adopted the Avenger on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the Barracuda.
I don't recall any IJN CAP opposing Taffy 3 and there's no reason why Albacores (or Barracudas) couldn't have flown the same missions.
1) ASV was useful for night nav, although not used at Taranto.
2) The IJN used ASV radar to attack and hit USN ships including fleet carriers; it was the lack of opportunity that limited the FAA in doing the same.
3) Yes, the IJN sank an RN light carrier and how many USN carriers?
Ho ho ho! Not so fast. I think that bold statements needs a second look lolol
You are forgetting Coral Sea, where the USN had two carriers vs. three for the IJN, and came out a lot better than the RN did at Ceylon.
1) no it doesn't. Whenever the KM learning that an RN carrier TG was at sea they fled for port, except when weather or lighting made carrier ops unlikely, prior to ASV radar.
Avenger also carried external (and internal) fuel tanks, including two 58 gallon 'slipper' tanks on the wings (which could be used while carrying ordinance) which doubled the range, plus a a jettisonable 275 gal tank in the internal bomb bay which could be used on recon missions, further substantially increasing the range. Again - range being very important in naval / carrier warfare.
The Swordfish and Albacore were definitely good enough in 1937, and though clearly obsolescent were just barely arguably viable by 1942. After that, they were miserably deficient. Which is why they were not known for a lot of major victories after Taranto.
Well I don't know about CAP but there were Japanese aircraft in the area, as there were 30 Kamikaze attacks.
I would say that Albacores could not have survived those missions, at least not as well, due to their limited range and extremely slow operating speed, which would have made them considerably more vulnerable to the improved AAA from the (relatively modern) Japanese fleet at that time. I'm not sure Barracudas could hve operated from those 'Jeep' Carriers, but even if they could, it seems they didn't do well in the Pacific Theater. From the Wiki:
On 21 April 1944 Barracudas of No 827 Squadron aboard Illustrious began operations against Japanese forces.[1][27] The type participated in air raids on Sabang in Sumatra, known as Operation Cockpit.[28] In the Pacific theatre, the Barracuda's performance was considerably reduced by the prevailing high temperatures;[N 1] reportedly, its combat radius in the Pacific was reduced by as much as 30%. This diminished performance was a factor in the decision to re-equip the torpedo bomber squadrons aboard the fleet carriers of the British Pacific Fleet with American-built Grumman Avengers.[30]
Like I said, it seems to have been something of a missed opportunity. Cool name though.
I think it's been pointed out, airborne radar was a huge innovation in 1940, not so rare any more by 1942. And while night (and bad weather) flying is great, it doesn't trump range which is key in naval war.
I was referring to this very bold claim (in bold): ". To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea. "
Silly me. My brain said Meteorite but my fingers typed Meteor.The Meteor was a V12. The V8 was a post war developmen.
Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?
Albacore range was operationally similar to the TBF. It's (and the Swordfish) ability to divebomb would have reduced it's vulnerability to flak vs glidebombing, but still probably worse than a TBF. There was no IJN CAP present.
Barracudas could have operated from any of Taffy 3's CVE because they all had catapults.
Barracuda's carried their bombs externally and the higher temps and humidity did cause a loss of range, but not so much whilst carrying a torpedo, due to the reduced drag. However, TBF performance wasn't unaffected either, as all aircraft suffered in high temps and humidity. However the Barracuda could have exchanged bomb load for range via a drop tank, but since the targets were all land based it wasn't worth the trade off. However, RN Light Fleet Carriers were operating Barracudas and these would have been used against Japan had the war lasted even a month longer.
The Malta Convoys are good examples of this. During Pedestal (Aug 1942) the Axis had ~600 combat aircraft on the bases designated to participate.
Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?
.