Swordfish vs Devastator

[Schweik]

What about the MC202, RE 2001 and the JU 88? I would rate these three as better than what the IJN could bring to fight. The Italian tri motors were also pretty good.

MC 202 was not involved in the early engagements. It was good, but like the 109, very short legged. Was it better than a Zero? I don't think so. My point was that most of the British convoys were up against much older Italian types, including the tri-motors. Re 2001? Sure, nice fighter... they only made 237 of them though and they were only operational in a couple of areas. Some of them did attack Malta.

All of the Japanese fighters, pretty much, were A6M and Ki-43, of a quality sufficient to be at least slightly superior to all of the available Allied fighters in the Pacific. In the MTO the majority of the fighters available to the Axis were obsolescent types in comparison. All of the Japanese bombers were proven ship-killers. Only a few of the Axis ones were. All of the Japanese aircraft had very good range. In the MTO, only a few of the Axis strike aircraft did and none of their fighters had good range.

Ju 88 was a good bomber overall but for ASW? I think I'd rather go with a G4M. You could argue the point, but they didn't have that many Ju 88s operational in the Med during most of those convoy fights. The main ship killer for the Axis in the MTO was the Stuka but it was very short ranged. Second most important was probably the SM.79 (Trimotor) which did kill ships but always took heavy losses.

 

[RCAFson]

Yeah, I don't buy that, for one because quantity is only one factor, there is a big difference in quality especially between Italian and Japanese aircraft vis a vis naval warfare. MC.200, CR 32 and CR 42, SM.79, CANT Z506 and so on don't compare very well to A6M, Ki-43, D3A, G4M in air to air or air to surface combat. The IJN was the strongest navy in the world by far in 1942-43.

Range is another major factor, because the extremely limited range of almost all the Axis aircraft in the MTO (including their best fighter, the Bf 109, and their best bomber, the Ju 87) meant that most of those 600 aircraft could not engage at the same time, but in fact the British convoys were typically only engaging a few dozen aircraft at a time.

So sorry mate, I don't even come close to buying that. Maybe we should start another thread to debate it?

The Me110, Me109F/G, Fw190 were all superior to IJN fighters and all carried drop tanks.

The JU87, even in Jan 1941 could and did, carry 1000kg (2200lb bombs) and the JU88 2000kg bombs, and this is, respectively, 4 and 8 times the bomb load of a Val in June 1942. The initial Ju87 strike against Illustrious in Jan 1941 by ~35 Ju87s carried an equivalent bomb load to 70 - 140 Vals. The Ju87R and Ju88 had excellent range but in any event, the RN had to pass through Axis controlled choke points if it was to escort convoys and/or strike at Axis maritime targets, so the lesser range of a JU87 with a 1000kg bomb wasn't such a disadvantage

This is what the USN had to say:

"ENEMY TACTICS AND EQUIPMENT
German
German air attacks against our surface forces were more effective than those of the Japanese, prior to the latter's use of suicide tactics, for the following reasons:

1. German aircraft were superior.
2. German pilots possessed greater skill.
3. German attacks were more highly co ordinated.
4. Our own air defense was weaker.
5. Our surface forces were not as modern or heavily armed as those in the Pacific.

Early German attacks were conducted against convoys en route to Murmansk, USSR, by way of North Cape, and many merchant ships were lost from hits by bombs and torpedoes.

During the North African campaign dusk and night attacks were made by flare-dropping twin-engined bombers against shipping congregated in harbors.

At Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio the enemy launched heavy attacks against shipping at the beachheads. Dive- and high-level bombing and strafing tactics were employed. In the summer of 1943 the Germans began to use glider and rocket bombs. These pilotless, radio-controlled bombs were released from parent planes, and were directed chiefly against convoy escort ships."
HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II

 

[Schweik]

The Me110, Me109F/G, Fw190 were all superior to IJN fighters and all carried drop tanks.

Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.

The JU87, even in Jan 1941 could and did, carry 1000kg (2200lb bombs) and the JU88 2000kg bombs, and this is, respectively, 4 and 8 times the bomb load of a Val in June 1942. The initial Ju87 strike against Illustrious in Jan 1941 by ~35 Ju87s carried an equivalent bomb load to 70 - 140 Vals. The Ju87R and Ju88 had excellent range but in any event, the RN had to pass through Axis controlled choke points if it was to escort convoys and/or strike at Axis maritime targets, so the lesser range of a JU87 with a 1000kg bomb wasn't such a disadvantage

The D3A was a far more effective naval dive bomber than the Ju 87 - which had a range of 370 miles!

This is what the USN had to say:

"At Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio the enemy launched heavy attacks against shipping at the beachheads. Dive- and high-level bombing and strafing tactics were employed. In the summer of 1943 the Germans began to use glider and rocket bombs. These pilotless, radio-controlled bombs were released from parent planes, and were directed chiefly against convoy escort ships."
HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II

The very small number of glider bombs while quite effective, so far as I know, were never used against any RN convoys to Malta etc.

We should probably start another thread for this particular debate.

 

[RCAFson]

I was responding to this post by the way: "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'm not sure what you mean, at some point upthread someone brought up the Albacore, which became part of the discussion, and then later someone asked about why the TBF was considered inferior to the Albacore, and I responded by pointing out that was not the case - TBF is actually significantly better. Better than the Barracuda too according to the Royal Navy. Several other people have chimed in about TBF and Albacore since then (maybe you missed it, re-read the thread?) as well as the original discussion of TBD and Swordfish. As they were all stablemates used by the Western Allies against the same enemies, it is probably relevant as far as context. At any rate, I don't think there is any rule against thread drift, it seems pretty routine in every lengthy discussion I've seen here.

For the record though, as I have already stipulated I think six times, in my opinion the TBD was disaster of a design, obsolescent at the start of the war and barely capable of performing it's mission, and the (also obsolescent) Swordfish was marginally better. Which I think says more about the TBD than it does about the Swordfish. But having airborne AS radar that early is still cool.



Yes, definitely worse than a TBF, which could fly at level speed faster than Swordfish or Albacore could in a dive. I also do not believe Albacore had 'similar' range as a (mid-war) TBF, operationally or otherwise. We'd have to take a deeper dive into those numbers.



Yes, but as noted in the Wiki, they were considered so badly performing in the Pacific Theater that the RN decided to withdraw them... in favor of the Avenger / Tarpon. Which I think puts paid to your theory.



I believe the quote on the bad performance was derived from RN sources. I suspect they would have been much better off using Corsairs Or even Fireflies.

The TBF could not operate from carriers when equipped with drop tanks until the TBF-3 appeared in late 1944.

Operationally in mid-late 1942 the Albacore could conduct strike missions with 280IG -300IG of internal fuel and a 2000lb bomb load or 1610lb torpedo. Range with reserves for climb was 809nm or ~930 miles with torpedo and 280IG internal fuel at 101 knots or 116mph. The no reserve range for a TBF1 with full internal fuel (280IG or 335usg) with a torpedo was 960 nm /1105 miles at 5000ft and 153mph (SAC data). So operationally (range limited by intel) the range was very similar with both being far superior to a TBD,

Taffy3 was conducting short range strike missions in support of land ops and carried no torpedoes, IIRC. The Avenger could carry a heavier bomb load than a Barracuda but it could not dive bomb and consequently a Barracuda even with a 1000 or 1500lb bomb load would have been able to drop the load more accurately, and would probably have been more effective in the strike role, ditto for an Albacore. The FAA certainly preferred the Barracuda over the TBF against Tirpitz. IMHO the Barracuda could have flown all the missions assigned to the FAA's TBF in the IO or PTO, if the Barracuda used a lower bomb load and a drop tank.

 

[RCAFson]

Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.



The D3A was a far more effective naval dive bomber than the Ju 87 - which had a range of 370 miles!



The very small number of glider bombs while quite effective, so far as I know, were never used against any RN convoys to Malta etc.

We should probably start another thread for this particular debate.

The Me110 had excellent range and extreme firepower. Axis fighters with DTs were used for escort as per the Zero and as fighter bombers, unlike the Zero. JU87R range was at least as good as the Val and carried the same or better bomb load. Ditto for the JU88.

The D3A was totally obsolete by mid 1941 by ETO standards and far inferior to the JU87B and R and JU88. The USN wasn't lying in their assessment of IJNAF versus Luftwaffe capability.

 

[Schweik]

Me 110 had a dramatically "less than excellent" combat record in the MTO, even against Hurricanes and Fulmars, firepower doesn't matter a whole lot if you never manage to point your guns at the enemy aircraft. It had mediocre range at best (411 to 530 miles under normal conditions), unless burdened down with huge ferry tanks. As far as comparing it to Japanese fighters, the Bf 110 is equivalent to a shorter ranged Ki-45.

The D3A was totally obsolete by mid 1941 by ETO standards and far inferior to the JU87B and R and JU88.

The Ju 87B had a range of less than 370miles, the D3A1 had a range of 915 miles. That's a big difference. The Ju-87R was equivalent to the D3A1 in range, but only with a bomb load limited to a single 250 kg bomb.

The D3A was still easily capable of killing capital ships well into 1943. It was far more lethal (and had a far better combat record) than the Devastator, the Swordfish, or the Albacore, that is without a doubt.

The drastically limited range of all the single-engined Luftwaffe aircraft severely curtailed their capability for naval operations. Some of the convoys passed very near the shoreline, and frankly they were so pathetically protected (with Sea Gladiators, Skuas and Fulmars for protection in the early days) that even just a few dozen aircraft at a time were able to decimate them. But your claim that the Royal Navy was up against ~600 German and Italian aircraft - in your words a "greater force than the Japanese ever mustered until the Philippine Sea", is ludicrous. The IJN would have annihilated those convoys. They devastated the Royal Navy Far East fleet with far less than they had available for most of the major Sea Battles in 1942-44.

Aircraft with ~400 miles range were fine for frontal aviation, which is mainly how they were used, but certainly would not have been much use operating from a carrier.

As for the assessment, I think you are taking that out of context.

 

[Schweik]

Wikipedia had this to say about Stuka operations in the MTO after Summnr of 1942:

"As the tide turned and Allied air power grew in the autumn of 1942, the Ju 87 became very vulnerable and losses were heavy. The entry of the Americans into North Africa during Operation Torch made the situation far worse; the Stuka was obsolete in what was now a fighter-bomber's war. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 could at least fight enemy fighters on equal terms after dropping their ordnance but the Stuka could not. The Ju 87's vulnerability was demonstrated on 11 November 1942, when 15 Ju 87 Ds were shot down by United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) Curtiss P-40Fs in minutes.[147] (According to Ring/Shores there were 15 Ju 87 on mission, 2.SAAF Sqn. shot down 8 with 4 probable and 3shot down by 57.Fighter Group. 2 South-African and 1 American loss shot down by german fighter escort. Three Stuka -crews were captured, 1 was wounded no dead. [148]

By 1943, the Allies enjoyed air supremacy in North Africa. The Ju 87s ventured out in Rotte strength only, often jettisoning their bombs at the first sight of enemy aircraft.[149] Adding to this trouble, the German fighters had only enough fuel to cover the Ju 87s on takeoff, their most vulnerable point. After that, the Stukas were on their own.[150]"

 

[RCAFson]

Me 110 had a dramatically "less than excellent" combat record in the MTO, even against Hurricanes and Fulmars, firepower doesn't matter a whole lot if you never manage to point your guns at the enemy aircraft. It had mediocre range at best (411 to 530 miles under normal conditions), unless burdened down with huge ferry tanks. As far as comparing it to Japanese fighters, the Bf 110 is equivalent to a shorter ranged Ki-45.



The Ju 87B had a range of less than 370miles, the D3A1 had a range of 915 miles. That's a big difference. The Ju-87R was equivalent to the D3A1 in range, but only with a bomb load limited to a single 250 kg bomb.

The D3A was still easily capable of killing capital ships well into 1943. It was far more lethal (and had a far better combat record) than the Devastator, the Swordfish, or the Albacore, that is without a doubt.

The drastically limited range of all the single-engined Luftwaffe aircraft severely curtailed their capability for naval operations. Some of the convoys passed very near the shoreline, and frankly they were so pathetically protected (with Sea Gladiators, Skuas and Fulmars for protection in the early days) that even just a few dozen aircraft at a time were able to decimate them. But your claim that the Royal Navy was up against ~600 German and Italian aircraft - in your words a "greater force than the Japanese ever mustered until the Philippine Sea", is ludicrous. The IJN would have annihilated those convoys. They devastated the Royal Navy Far East fleet with far less than they had available for most of the major Sea Battles in 1942-44.

Aircraft with ~400 miles range were fine for frontal aviation, which is mainly how they were used, but certainly would not have been much use operating from a carrier.

As for the assessment, I think you are taking that out of context.

I'm sorry but you've lost all perspective now and are arguing against the actual historical record. I don't think there's any point in continuing this.

 

[Schweik]

Lol right back a you! Everything I said was a fact. The actual historical record of the Bf110 in the MTO was that it was considered so hopeless in combat it was basically grounded except for occasional fighter bomber strikes. I am very familiar with the actual historical record of combat in the MTO - I have a whole bookshelf on that including all of the 'Mediterranean Air War' series which go through each engagement day by day. Your claims do not jibe with the data.

 

[Just Schmidt]

I came late to this trhread, and haven't gotten further than the radar equipped swordfish attacking at night, apologies if the following already has been brought up.

It is not about whether a ship could be spotted and attacked by radar, but i am wondering how precisely the target could be identified by radar alone. Certainly it must be difficult to discern between a carrier and a battleship, and i am wondering if even a cruiser or a destroyer wouldn't look pretty much the same on a 1942 screen as a carrier?

So maybe there could be at least a serious challenge picking out the high priority targets?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Just Schmidt,

In the early-war period we are talking about (ie Devastator) there was not really any blindfire capable radar system (I think).

As for distinguishing one class of ship from another, it would be difficult unless the radar operator is experienced and the radar environment is amenable to doing so.

The photo below is from a Yagi aerial ASV Mk II radar such as used on the Swordfish I (& II?). The spike at the bottom is most likely clutter from immediately in front of the radar platform (either ground or water). The spike about half-way up the 'A' scope is from the target and indicates its range. The overall width of the target spike is an indication of its size, while the greater amplitude of the spike on the left of the centerline indicates that the target is slightly to the left of the line of flight of the aircraft. An experienced operator might be able to estimate the target size from the ratio of range vs the width of the target spike. But the spike width would change considerably depending on the target (ie a ship in this case) aspect, ie whether the ship was heading toward/away from the radar, or moving cross-heading (ie the target is broadside to the radar).

 

[RCAFson]

Hey Just Schmidt,

In the early-war period we are talking about (ie Devastator) there was not really any blindfire capable radar system (I think).

As for distinguishing one class of ship from another, it would be difficult unless the radar operator is experienced and the radar environment is amenable to doing so.

The photo below is from a Yagi aerial ASV Mk II radar such as used on the Swordfish I (& II?). The spike at the bottom is most likely clutter from immediately in front of the radar platform (either ground or water). The spike about half-way up the 'A' scope is from the target and indicates it's range. The overall width of the target spike is an indication of its size, while the greater amplitude of the spike on the left of the centerline indicates that the target is slightly to the left of the line of flight of the aircraft. An experienced operator might be able to estimate the target size from the ratio of range vs the width of the target spike. But the spike width would change considerably depending on the target (ie a ship in this case) aspect, ie whether the ship was heading toward/away from the radar, or moving cross-heading (ie the target is broadside to the radar).

View attachment 609435

ASV radar was used to find the target but attacks were made visually, and if ambient lighting was insufficient the FAA would use air dropped flares.

 

[slaterat]

The drastically limited range of all the single-engined Luftwaffe aircraft severely curtailed their capability for naval operations. Some of the convoys passed very near the shoreline, and frankly they were so pathetically protected (with Sea Gladiators, Skuas and Fulmars for protection in the early days) that even just a few dozen aircraft at a time were able to decimate them. But your claim that the Royal Navy was up against ~600 German and Italian aircraft - in your words a "greater force than the Japanese ever mustered until the Philippine Sea", is ludicrous. The IJN would have annihilated those convoys. They devastated the Royal Navy Far East fleet with far less than they had available for most of the major Sea Battles in 1942-44.

Lol right back a you! Everything I said was a fact. The actual historical record of the Bf110 in the MTO was that it was considered so hopeless in combat it was basically grounded except for occasional fighter bomber strikes. I am very familiar with the actual historical record of combat in the MTO - I have a whole bookshelf on that including all of the 'Mediterranean Air War' series which go through each engagement day by day. Your claims do not jibe with the data.

 

[slaterat]

The only devastation the IJN ever caused the RN was the destruction of Force Z, but lets be clear force Z was an unbalanced force completely devoid of air cover. Even with their massive advantage in numbers in the Indian Ocean, they didn't seem too interested in forcing the issue against Somerville's two fleet carriers. The radar equipped Swordfish and Albacores were capable of detecting and sinking surfaced u boats at night.

 

[Schweik]

Let me be sure I have the context strait before I respond, this is operation Pedestal?

 

[Koopernic]

Are you kidding regarding the Me 110? How many British convoys in the MTO dealt with attacks from Fw 190? All fighters carried drop tanks, the problem was the A6M had 3 times the range, the most effective fighter the Axis had in the MTO, the 109, could barely get into the fray in the convoy fights due to it's short range. We can over it day by day if you want to. The Bf 110s were sitting ducks to Allied land based fighters, and they even had trouble with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes. Neither of which could cope with a Zero, I might add.
The D3A was a far more effective naval dive bomber than the Ju 87 - which had a range of 370 miles!
.

The Ju 87B series had a 500 Litre fuel tank. The Ju 87R series increased fuel capacity by adding plumbing for 2 x 300Litre drop tanks (600 Litre total) which added about 220 miles to the 372 it already had while carrying bombs. IE 592 miles.

The Ju 87D increased internal fuel volume from 500L to 800L via the use of wing tanks. The ability to carry the 600L of fuel in drop tanks was retained. I'm not sure of the additional range but I would assume a 60% increase in internal fuel would add about 50% range on internal fuel i.e. about 180 miles when the additional weight and fuel burn of the more powerful Jumo 211F/J engine is considered and this works out at about 500 miles on internal fuel.

The range of the Ju 87D-5 (which had a greater wing span) was recorded as 715 km (443 mi) at ground level and 835 km (517 mi) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft).
With drop tanks we might get another 200 miles (700 miles total)

Wing tanks were not popular with Luftwaffe and RLM planners due to their vulnerability and they avoided them on fighters and ground attack aircraft however its not as paramount with a naval strike variant.

The Ju 87 could carry a torpedo, it was done so for the folding wing carrier based Ju 87C variant, but never implemented in practice.

 

[Schweik]

Of the 115 aircraft on Sardinia, I see:

27 x CR 42 (biplane fighter),

14 x G.50bis,

8 x Z1007bis (lumbering trimotor),

20 x Z506B (flying boat / bomber),

10 x Z501 (early flying boat),

11 x Ro 37 (recon biplane),

2 x S.66 (very early flying boat airliner / search and rescue),

18 x S.84 (trimotor bomber, similar to SM. 79) and

26 x SM 79.

Does this in any way resemble what I suggested upthread? yes or no?

This would have been a state of the art air armada - during the Spanish Civil War. By the time of Operation Pedestal, this collection of early war innovations was pretty long in the teeth. Nowhere near comparable to what the Japanese had available at Coral Sea or Midway or Guadalcanal ...

The next page is basically more of the same, with just as I pointed out upthread, modern fighters and strike aircraft forming a distinct minority. Really neat list of antiques and oddballs there, and truthfully some of my favorite planes of the war, (it's quite interesting to note that those two S.66 were actually used in a combat zone, I thought they were just pre-war experimental planes) but none of these are even close to being on par with the Japanese Naval or Army air forces. Should we do a side by side comparison of the CR 42 and G.50 vs. the Ki-43 and A6M? Or of the Z 506B vs. the G4M? The CR 42 "Dive bomber" version with the D3A?

Of the 659 planes, it looks like less than half were what you could call modern fighting planes, and more than half of those were limited to very short range. The best asset they had were a large number (124) of Ju 88s. But given the short range of the relatively limited number of modern fighters (39 x Bf 109 and 27 x MC 202) many of their strikes had to be unescorted. And lets not forget, in addition to what the Royal Navy had on their four aircraft carriers, there was also the aircraft on Malta, and the Desert Air Force in North Africa, which also had ~600 aircraft. So whenever the fleet was close to the North African airbases, they wouldn't have to worry to much about those Ju 88s.

 

[Schweik]

The range of the Ju 87D-5 (which had a greater wing span) was recorded as 715 km (443 mi) at ground level and 835 km (517 mi) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft).
With drop tanks we might get another 200 miles (700 miles total)

Thanks, good post. 443 miles range is less than half the range of a D3A. By coincidence it's exactly 1/4 the range of a G4M.

Ju 87 was designed as a frontal aviation bomber, and it was good in that role. As a naval aircraft (or land based aircraft use against maritime targets) it was extremely limited. Fine for attacking ships in the English channel, but limited in as large an arena as the Mediterranean, let alone the Pacific.

 

[Schweik]

By the way, Pedestal was a late convoy in the siege of Malta, one of the last to come under determined attack. Most of the earlier ones like Operation Collar (1940), Operation Excess (1941), Tarigo convoy (1941), operation Substance / GM1 (1941) - if they did encounter aircraft, were against even older German and Italian aircraft types - the older, shorter ranged Ju 87B, CR 32, He 111, older model SM.79, Bf 110C and etc. BF 109s came into the Theater later.

 

[Koopernic]

Thanks, good post. 443 miles range is less than half the range of a D3A. By coincidence it's exactly 1/4 the range of a G4M.

Ju 87 was designed as a frontal aviation bomber, and it was good in that role. As a naval aircraft (or land based aircraft use against maritime targets) it was extremely limited. Fine for attacking ships in the English channel, but limited in as large an arena as the Mediterranean, let alone the Pacific.

443 miles is the low altitude range and dive bombers tend to fly high, so even do torpedo bombers on their way to target.

There was probably more room in those wings for even more fuel and with the drop tanks the range was probably around 650 miles at low altitude (more, abut 700, if high and dive bombers fly high when dive bombing). If there was a practical application for it a longer range Ju 87 it would probably have been built.

The range of the Ju 87 can be considered as the range of its escort which if it was a Fw 190 with one drop tank was about 700 miles. IE a radius of about 200 miles more if two drop tanks were carried as in the Fw 190G.

In an European environment with allied air power, escort carriers and fleet carriers it was pointless.

If we look at the D3A what capability does it to press home an attack compared to the Ju 87? The Ju 87 was heavily armoured and had protected fuel tanks. It's likely to survive some 20mm AAA hits that would cause a D3A to burn,