Swordfish vs Devastator

Ovod · Jan 23, 2021

slaterat said:
Here is a decent video on the early FAA and the attack on Taranto. It has some nice footage of Swordfish operating off carriers.

The range was 175 miles, completed at night, with just 2 losses in combat with the rest all rtb.

It would appear that would be close to the maximum combat radius for torpedo-toting Swordfish - they remained in the air for more than 5 hours to complete the attack on the Italian naval base. Did the Swordfish ever carry out a strike at a greater distance?

Its interesting at the end how it is noted that the Swordfish, attacking at night, were 6 times more efficient than the B5ns attacking in daylight at Pearl Harbor. That night attack was without radar and using flares to illuminate the targets.

how did you work that one out? 3 battleships at Pearl Harbor never sailed again after the raid, and far more warships were seriously damaged. Only one Italian ship never made it back into service again following the Taranto attack.

The RN was quite ready and trained for night action and proved it in the Mediteranean and at, Battle of the Malacca Strait - Wikipedia , against the IJN.

All of those navies whose warships were normally equipped with radar were "ready and trained for night action" - this of course excluded the Regia Marina. The Battle of the Malacca Strait was in May 1945, 3 years after the Battle of Midway.

SaparotRob · Jan 23, 2021

Two battleships. U.S.S. Utah had been decommissioned as a battleship. Great trick question, though.

Schweik · Jan 23, 2021

RCAFson said:
At Philippine Sea the USN sent a large strike force to ~300nm and something like 30% of the strike aircraft despatched, ended up running out of fuel, including, IIRC about 25% of the TBFs.

Do you not understand the difference between range and strike or operational range of a carrier aircraft?

Schweik · Jan 23, 2021

Ovod said:
It would appear that would be close to the maximum combat radius for torpedo toting Swordfish - they remained in the air for more than 5 hours to complete the attack on the Italian naval base. Did the Swordfish ever carry out a strike at a greater distance.

how did you work that one out? 3 battleships at Pearl Harbor never sailed again after the raid, and far more warships were seriously damaged. Only one Italian ship never made it back into service again following the Taranto attack.

All of those navies whose warships were normally equipped with radar were "ready and trained for night action" - this of course excluded the Regia Marina. The Battle of the Malacca Strait was in May 1945, 3 years after the Battle of Midway.

And years after most of the trained sailors and officers of the IJN had already been killed...

pbehn · Jan 23, 2021

RCAFson said:
At Philippine Sea the USN sent a large strike force to ~300nm and something like 30% of the strike aircraft despatched, ended up running out of fuel, including, IIRC about 25% of the TBFs.

A calculated risk and a big risk, but the operation was a success and I believe most downed pilots/crew were recovered?

Ovod · Jan 23, 2021

RCAFson said:
Combat experience in the Solomons demonstrated that under the ex-
acting air operational conditions obtained there the range of the
with a 1,000 pound bomb was 500 miles. Commander Air Group, USS Saratoga
reported that the working search radius of the Group's SBDs was about
230 miles - "That would be the absolute maximum". The results of the
performance test tend to show that the range of the SBD-5 in spite of
its increased weight should not be less than that of the SBD-3 and 4..."

These range figures would still be about 40-50% greater than for the Swordfish?

Similarly

Click to expand...

Skuas sank Konigsberg at ~300nm from their base.

That was with a 500 Ib bomb. No doubt the Douglas SBD could achieve the same.

RCAFson · Jan 23, 2021

pbehn said:
A calculated risk and a big risk, but the operation was a success and I believe most downed pilots/crew were recovered?

Many crews were picked up, but the attack indicated the actual range of the aircraft. Operationally during that strike, the USN used smaller deck load strikes than usual, to minimize TO and form-up time and the aircraft cruised as economically as possible, to and from the targets. The strike indicates that the oft quoted SAC range figures were not achievable in combat and that stated range figures for USN aircraft tend to be rather optimistic.

Schweik · Jan 23, 2021

Those Skuas were also flying from a land base. Land bases don't move, and have a lot more room to land. Flying ops a carrier requires A) finding the carrier and B) flying around in circles in a queue until you get a slot where you can land on the carrier. It requires much more fuel. That's part of the difference between 'range' and 'operational range in carrier ops' and 'strike range in carrier ops'.

At the Philippine sea, due to the time of the strike in the late afternoon, the USN aircraft arrived back from their sorties at night, and had trouble finding their fleet, and then the right carrier to land on. Most of the ones that crashed or ditched did so amidst the fleet. They recovered roughly 60 crews out of the 80 aircraft that ditched or crashed on the flight decks.

Those TBFs were mostly carrying loads of four x 500 lb bombs, they managed to sink the Hiyō , with two bomb and one torpedo hit. There were also 51 Helldivers and 26 SBD on that mission, the Dauntlesses were within their range and did not run out of fuel - all 26 made it back to their carriers. So 300 miles was not actually beyond their range, despite the difficult conditions.

RCAFson · Jan 23, 2021

Ovod said:
These range figures would still be about 40-50% greater than for the Swordfish?

That was with a 500 Ib bomb. No doubt the Douglas SBD could achieve the same.

Not really. When carrying a 2 x 500lb bombs, the Swordfish at max TO weight could carry a 60IG internal tank and/or a 69IG external tank. Practical combat range with a 1610lb torpedo and internal aux tank was about 240nm based upon a mission flown against Scharnhorst in June 1940. Range with 2 x 500lb bombs and aux internal fuel would be ~300nm and with the external tank, somewhat more.

I don't doubt that the SBD could do the same, or better than the Skua, but the point is that real world combat range is actually very similar.

Ovod · Jan 23, 2021

SaparotRob said:
Two battleships. U.S.S. Utah had been decommissioned as a battleship. Great trick question, though.

But you still haven't explained how the attack on Taranto was so more "efficient" than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Bear in mind USN ships weren't the only targets - there were many land targets included, airfields, etc.

Shortround6 · Jan 23, 2021

Schweik said:
With no bomb load they could fly out to 400 miles, but usually they carried a bomb even on scouting missions so they could hit targets of opportunity. This is with 310 gallons of fuel.

Trouble is very few, if any, SBDs were in combat with 310 gallons of fuel.

The SBD-3 held fuel in four tanks.
the main tanks held 90 gallons each unprotected
the auxiliary tanks held 65 gallons each unprotected.
total 310 gallons.
The main tanks held 75 gallons when protected
The Auxiliary tanks held 55 gallons when protected.
total 260 gallons.

weight of protection for the main tanks was 232lbs for the pair.
weight of protection for the auxiliary tanks was 212lbs for the pair.
weight of protection for the oil tank was 30lbs.

This is all from the manual for SBD-3.

The gross weight of the SBD may have been increased after the manual was written.

Fuel load with a 1000lb bomb in combat condition (protection fitted) was 100 gallons.
Fuel load with a 500lb bomb in combat condition (protection fitted) was a nominal 140 gallons.
I say nominal because the gross weight was 245lbs less than than the 1000lb and 100 gallon combo so you probably could have put another 40 gallons in the tanks.

This manual makes no mention of wing bombs.
Gross weight with 1000lb bomb and 100 gallons was 9031lbs which was the highest gross weight of any combination of fuel and bombs listed either protected tanks or unprotected.

SaparotRob · Jan 23, 2021

Ovod said:
But you still haven't explained how the attack on Taranto was so more "efficient" than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Bear in mind USN ships weren't the only targets - there were many land targets included, airfields, etc.

I never said it.

slaterat · Jan 23, 2021

Ovod said:
It would appear that would be close to the maximum combat radius for torpedo-toting Swordfish - they remained in the air for more than 5 hours to complete the attack on the Italian naval base. Did the Swordfish ever carry out a strike at a greater distance?

Looks like RCAF answered that.

RCAFson said:
Not really. When carrying a 2 x 500lb bombs, the Swordfish at max TO weight could carry a 60IG internal tank and/or a 69IG external tank. Practical combat range with a 1610lb torpedo and internal aux tank was about 240nm based upon a mission flown against Scharnhorst in June 1940. Range with 2 x 500lb bombs and aux internal fuel would be ~300nm and with the external tank, somewhat more.

Ovod said:
how did you work that one out? 3 battleships at Pearl Harbor never sailed again after the raid, and far more warships were seriously damaged. Only one Italian ship never made it back into service again following the Taranto attack.

That was from the video, which it doesn't appear that you bothered to watch. From the video " 21 swordfish dropped 11 torpedoes , and 52 bombs disabling or, sinking 7 warships, at Pearl Harbor 252 attack aircraft dropped 169 torpedoes and 103 bombs to sink or disable 14 warships". So the Japanese used 12 times the number of attack aircraft to get twice the results, which makes the FAA 6 times more efficient in their night attack.

Ovod said:
All of those navies whose warships were normally equipped with radar were "ready and trained for night action" - this of course excluded the Regia Marina. The Battle of the Malacca Strait was in May 1945, 3 years after the Battle of Midway.

I used the example of Malacca Strait to compare directly RN night ops equipped with radar, to IJN night ops. If you had bothered to watch the video you would of learned that the FAA was practicing night ops in 1939 to 40. The RN practiced and fought many night ops early in the war of which Cape Matapan is probably the most well known. By 1942 the RN has surface and airborne radar, putting the IJN at a very large disadvantage at night.

Schweik said:
And years after most of the trained sailors and officers of the IJN had already been killed...

Are you sure that applies to the Haguro, a veteran cruiser with veteran commanders on it?

Schweik · Jan 23, 2021

In 1945? Yes. The most deadly ships in the IJN, aside from their battleships, were the destroyers, But in 1945 the navy had been all but wiped out.

Schweik · Jan 23, 2021

Shortround6 said:
Trouble is very few, if any, SBDs were in combat with 310 gallons of fuel.

The SBD-3 held fuel in four tanks.
the main tanks held 90 gallons each unprotected
the auxiliary tanks held 65 gallons each unprotected.
total 310 gallons.
The main tanks held 75 gallons when protected
The Auxiliary tanks held 55 gallons when protected.
total 260 gallons.

weight of protection for the main tanks was 232lbs for the pair.
weight of protection for the auxiliary tanks was 212lbs for the pair.
weight of protection for the oil tank was 30lbs.

This is all from the manual for SBD-3.

The gross weight of the SBD may have been increased after the manual was written.

Fuel load with a 1000lb bomb in combat condition (protection fitted) was 100 gallons.
Fuel load with a 500lb bomb in combat condition (protection fitted) was a nominal 140 gallons.
I say nominal because the gross weight was 245lbs less than than the 1000lb and 100 gallon combo so you probably could have put another 40 gallons in the tanks.

This manual makes no mention of wing bombs.
Gross weight with 1000lb bomb and 100 gallons was 9031lbs which was the highest gross weight of any combination of fuel and bombs listed either protected tanks or unprotected.

So what?

Shortround6 · Jan 23, 2021

Schweik said:
So what?

So did the US operate any SBDs in combat areas without protected tanks?

If not then the SBDs fuel capacity was 260 gallons max regardless of bomb load.

RCAFson · Jan 23, 2021

Shortround6 said:
So did the US operate any SBDs in combat areas without protected tanks?

If not then the SBDs fuel capacity was 260 gallons max regardless of bomb load.

AFAIK, they only used the unprotected tanks for ferry missions.

In the SBD-5 range test = 600nm that I mentioned earlier the following conditions applied:

Full internal fuel in protected tanks (10400lb and 254usg according to SBD-5 SAC data; SBD-3 SAC data indicated 10400lb and 249usg for 1000lb bomb missions but typically 260usg carried)
15 minutes form-up from land base
cruise to target at an average 137 knots
cruise climb to 13000ft
10 min at 200 knots prior to attack dive whilst reducing altitude to 10500ft
attack dive from 10500ft
return cruise at 1000ft and 135 knots

Aircraft averaged 15% remaining fuel upon landing, which was judged to be the minimum safe requirement.

swampyankee · Jan 23, 2021

Ovod said:
But you still haven't explained how the attack on Taranto was so more "efficient" than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Bear in mind USN ships weren't the only targets - there were many land targets included, airfields, etc.

How many sorties did the IJN fly during the attack on Pearl Harbor? How many for the RN/FAA at Taranto?

Shortround6 · Jan 23, 2021

I have my doubts about some of the SAC data.

However operational considerations may also have affected range/radius.

And using data from different models of the SPD can really confuse things.

The SPD-5 with it's 1200hp engine could take-off into a 25kt wind at 10,400lbs in 466ft but the older planes with the 1000hp engines needed 580ft under the same weight and wind conditions.

Increasing the gross weight from 9030lbs to 10,400lbs certainly affects the range with large bombs but when was it done? In time for Midway?

RCAFson · Jan 23, 2021

Shortround6 said:
I have my doubts about some of the SAC data.

However operational considerations may also have affected range/radius.

And using data from different models of the SPD can really confuse things.

The SPD-5 with it's 1200hp engine could take-off into a 25kt wind at 10,400lbs in 466ft but the older planes with the 1000hp engines needed 580ft under the same weight and wind conditions.

Increasing the gross weight from 9030lbs to 10,400lbs certainly affects the range with large bombs but when was it done? In time for Midway?

AFAIK, the SBD-3 at Midway, with SS tanks and armour would have weighed 10400lb and at Midway the first SBDs in the range would carry 500lb bombs, then 500lb plus 2 x 100lb and then finally (about 1/2 of a ~30 plane range) a 1000lb bomb.

Swordfish vs Devastator

Airman 1st Class

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Banned

Banned

Colonel

Airman 1st Class

Master Sergeant

Banned

Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Senior Airman

Banned

Banned

Major General

Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads