Swordfish vs Devastator (1 Viewer)

[Schweik]

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?

I think you mean SBD

 

[Schweik]

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.

It's irrelevant because the ranges quoted are the actual ranges the USN used their standard.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey swampyankee,

Taranto
The Illustrious launched a total of 21x Swordfish in two waves (1x aborted after TO) of which 20x made it to Taranto. 2nd wave launched 90 min after the first. The torpedo carrying aircraft carried the 60 Impgal LR fuel tank in the cockpit in order to allow sufficient reserve for the operation. The bomb carrying aircraft carried an external 69 Impgal drop tank on the center-line.
The safe operational ROA of the Swordfish carrying a torpedo or 6x 250 lb bombs was considered to be 175 miles with normal fuel, or 225 miles with the LR tank fitted.
The 1st wave attack was composed of 12x Swordfish.
The 2nd wave attack was composed of 8x Swordfish.

Pearl Harbor
The 1st wave attack was composed of 48x D3A 'Val' and 88x B5N 'Kate', plus 43x A6M 'Zero'.
The 2nd wave attack was composed of 75x D3A 'Val' and 54x B5N 'Kate', plus 34x A6M 'Zero'.

 

[Schweik]

Can we admit that Pearl Harbor was a somewhat more difficult target than Taranto (more flak at least after the first wave plus even a few fighters), and note that many of the IJN planes were attacking airfields and other land targets as well as ships?

Is Wikipedia correct that they sunk 4 Battleships plus 1 "ex-battleship" at Pearl?

 

[ThomasP]

The flak was actually quite heavy at Taranto (quite possibly heavier that at Pearl Harbor), and a few aircraft (Cr.42s?) were launched but none managed to intercept any of the Swordfish.

Having said that, yes the environment was much more dangerous during the daylight attack on Pearl Harbor.

However, if the same type of night time strike by the RN/FAA had occurred at Pearl Harbor, there is no reason that the results would have been any worse than Taranto. (The RM ships were a bit more dispersed than the USN ships, and the attack(s) at Taranto did not last as long, which may have been a contributing factor to the excellent results.)

 

[RCAFson]

Hey swampyankee,

Taranto
The Illustrious launched a total of 21x Swordfish in two waves (1x aborted after TO) of which 20x made it to Taranto. 2nd wave launched 90 min after the first. The torpedo carrying aircraft carried the 60 Impgal LR fuel tank in the cockpit in order to allow sufficient reserve for the operation. The bomb carrying aircraft carried an external 69 Impgal drop tank on the center-line.
The safe operational ROA of the Swordfish carrying a torpedo or 6x 250 lb bombs was considered to be 175 miles with normal fuel, or 225 miles with the LR tank fitted.
The 1st wave attack was composed of 12x Swordfish.
The 2nd wave attack was composed of 8x Swordfish.

Pearl Harbor
The 1st wave attack was composed of 48x D3A 'Val' and 88x B5N 'Kate', plus 43x A6M 'Zero'.
The 2nd wave attack was composed of 75x D3A 'Val' and 54x B5N 'Kate', plus 34x A6M 'Zero'.

Originally the (prewar) plan called for Taranto to be attacked by 3 carriers and ~72 Swordfish, and then two carriers (Eagle and Illustrious) and ~40 Swordfish but carrier losses before Italy entered the war and damage to Eagle scuppered those plans. Had the original plans been possible the RMI would have been dealt a truly staggering blow.

 

[buffnut453]

Taranto was protected by 101 AA guns plus 193 machine guns. These totals don't include the ships' AA defences. It wasnt just flak at Taranto. The harbour was also protected by 30 barrage balloons.

At Pearl Harbor, most of the Army's AA batteries didn't engage because the guns weren't at their firing positions and the ammo was in a separate location under lock and key. The Navy's AA defences did respond to the IJN air attack but only a few of the Army's AA guns got into action, and it took some time for even that limited contribution.

 

[Juha3]

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.

Probably Marine SBD-2s at Midway did not have self-sealing tanks.

 

[yulzari]

In a more analogue illustration of a practical operational range of the Swordfish I would point to the mining sorties on the Dutch coast in 1941. With a 1,500 lb mine and an internal (navigator's position) overload tank they flew from Bircham Newton in Norfolk to the Dutch coast to deliver the mines. The limiting factor was not range but time. In the winter they could perform the task but as summer approached there was simply not enough hours of darkness for the Swordfish to reach the targets and return in the dark and operations had to be suspended.

There is an apocryphal tale of a Boeing engineer who came over with the first RAF Flying Fortresses. He proudly spoke of them going over to bomb Dutch targets with their mighty 4 engined wonder bomber with it's 8 crew and 6,000 lb of bombs, then a FAA officer quietly mentioned that they also could do a Dutch bombing sortie with 4 engines and 8 crew. It was just that they used eight wings instead of two for the task.......

 

[SaparotRob]

Can we admit that Pearl Harbor was a somewhat more difficult target than Taranto (more flak at least after the first wave plus even a few fighters), and note that many of the IJN planes were attacking airfields and other land targets as well as ships?

Is Wikipedia correct that they sunk 4 Battleships plus 1 "ex-battleship" at Pearl?

Without looking it up, battleships California, Oklahoma, Nevada (beached) and either West Virginia or Tennessee. It's more fun being corrected.

 

[SaparotRob]

.. and of course, U.S.S. Utah, a target ship and/or anti-aircraft gunnery training ship.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

If it had existed. The first prototype SBD flew after the sinking of the Konigsberg.

 

[Juha3]

Can we admit that Pearl Harbor was a somewhat more difficult target than Taranto (more flak at least after the first wave plus even a few fighters), and note that many of the IJN planes were attacking airfields and other land targets as well as ships?

Is Wikipedia correct that they sunk 4 Battleships plus 1 "ex-battleship" at Pearl?

Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California plus Utah

 

[SaparotRob]

Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California plus Utah

How did I miss typing U.S.S. Arizona? I must've been thinking too hard about whether or not Nevada counted as being sunk. BB-39 was the first one I thought of so I guess I was trying to remember West Virginia or Tennessee.
In other words, "am I ever embarrassed."

 

[Schweik]

Taranto was protected by 101 AA guns plus 193 machine guns. These totals don't include the ships' AA defences. It wasnt just flak at Taranto. The harbour was also protected by 30 barrage balloons.

At Pearl Harbor, most of the Army's AA batteries didn't engage because the guns weren't at their firing positions and the ammo was in a separate location under lock and key. The Navy's AA defences did respond to the IJN air attack but only a few of the Army's AA guns got into action, and it took some time for even that limited contribution.

But it's a lot easier to aim during the day mate and there were 5 or 6 fighters attacking the enemy forces at Pearl Harbor, which actually shot a few planes down. I'd hate to see what would happen to a couple of squadrons of Swordfish if they were jumped by P-40 and P-36s. I'll be posting some of their combat records from around the time of Pedastal though for comparison to Japanese, Italian, German and US raids.

 

[buffnut453]

But it's a lot easier to aim during the day mate and there were 5 or 6 fighters attacking the enemy forces at Pearl Harbor, which actually shot a few planes down. I'd hate to see what would happen to a couple of squadrons of Swordfish if they were jumped by P-40 and P-36s. I'll be posting some of their combat records from around the time of Pedastal though for comparison to Japanese, Italian, German and US raids.

Which is exactly why the Swordfish attacked at night. Yes, everyone accepts the Swordfish would have been on a suicide mission in daylight against any target that had fighter defences. However, it could (and did) hit targets at night, with both bombs and torpedoes.

I can't understand why pretty much every post you make seeks to diminish the record of the Swordfish, from guesses about its operational radius to your suggestion that the flak at Pearl Harbor was worse than that at Taranto (another statement made without evidence).

Why is it so hard to accept that the Swordfish actually was capable of hitting targets at night and that it could survive? For someone who doesn't have much info on the Swordfish, you seem pretty intent on denigrating it.

 

[Schweik]

Which is exactly why the Swordfish attacked at night. Yes, everyone accepts the Swordfish would have been on a suicide mission in daylight against any target that had fighter defences. However, it could (and did) hit targets at night, with both bombs and torpedoes.

I can't understand why pretty much every post you make seeks to diminish the record of the Swordfish, from guesses about its operational radius to your suggestion that the flak at Pearl Harbor was worse than that at Taranto (another statement made without evidence).

Why is it so hard to accept that the Swordfish actually was capable of hitting targets at night and that it could survive? For someone who doesn't have much info on the Swordfish, you seem pretty intent on denigrating it.

I think it's more the opposite, I am just not schooled in all the charming anecdotes about how great it supposedly was in spite of being so clearly obsolete.

This is common trope of aviation writing in the second half of the 20th Century, and something many of us grew up with. It leans toward the patriotic and emphasizes the positive. Stuff like claiming various USN fighters, even the Wildcat, had 7-1 or 10-1 or whatever kill ratios, when we know upon closer scrutiny this wasn't the case (claim to loss ratios aren't "kill" ratios).

It's true there are also the opposite trends, where the 'official' and unofficial rep of a WW2 aircraft is a lot worse than it actually was, due to wartime propaganda or spin. The Finnish experience with the F2A is a good example of that. But that is a bit more rare and I don't think it's really the case with the Swordfish.

I've read the records of the Mediterranean air war, and while the did some amazing things with it in 1940 or 41, by the time of Pedastal the Swordfish was really bad. It seemed like a proverbial anchor around the neck of the RN. I feel sorry for the pilots stuck flying a biplane against Bf 109s or even Bf110s, Ju 88Cs or MC 200s.

When you debunk these legends like "but it was great! Yeah the cloth covering was splendid because the bullets went right through harmlessly! And they could just put a cork in the fuel tank!" people can sometimes bristle and take it as a patriotic attack. I get this kind of reaction almost every time I say anything disparaging about a British aircraft, but somehow nobody notices when I praise one, or when I disparage US aircraft, (like in this thread TBD or the US heavy bombers). It's almost like there is a sacred third rail around here that you can't say anything bad about anything Commonwealth. I don't follow that particular religion mate.

Maybe you should ask yourself why it's so important to praise a biplane still being produced and used to the end of the war as being a great idea, in spite of all the crews that lost their lives in it. Yes Taranto was a brilliant victory, nobody is taking that away. Was it on par with Pearl Harbor or Midway? Personally I don't think so. But the Swordfish was still innovative up to 1942. After that it was rapidly becoming a liability. Same for the Albacore, Skua, Fulmar etc., and on the American side, P-39, F2A, of course the TBD and so on.

One of the benefits of accurately figuring out military history is contributing even in a very small way to people being a tiny bit less likely to make the same mistakes over and over. Every country did make such mistakes, insisting the one you identify with never made any doesn't actually help and int't actually patriotic, IMO.To the contrary. It's also not a great idea to be extremely brittle in your response to information, even if you find it challenging to your beliefs. This isn't a great way to actually learn. I've learned a lot on this board from people I disagreed with at least initially. My views have become far more nuanced. Which actually makes it all that much more interesting and fun.

 

[buffnut453]

When you debunk these legends like "but it was great! Yeah the cloth covering was splendid because the bullets went right through harmlessly! And they could just put a cork in the fuel tank!" people can sometimes bristle and take it as a patriotic attack. I get this kind of reaction almost every time I say anything disparaging about a British aircraft, but somehow nobody notices when I praise one, or when I disparage US aircraft, (like in this thread TBD or the US heavy bombers). It's almost like there is a sacred third rail around here that you can't say anything bad about anything Commonwealth. I don't follow that particular religion mate.

Please show me a single post where I've made overstated claims about the capabilities of the Swordfish. The only point I've ever tried to make is that, in the summer of 1942, the Swordfish offered more tactical options that the TBD (longer range, able to operate at night, operate with radar) and that it could have provided good service at the Battle of Midway.

Maybe you should ask yourself why it's so important to praise a biplane still being produced and used to the end of the war as being a great idea, in spite of all the crews that lost their lives in it.

Again, show me where I said it was a great idea to keep producing the Swordfish to the end of WW2? This thread is about the situation in the summer of 1942. I've constrained my comments to that timeframe and to the tactical situation as it pertained to the TBD's operational implementation at Midway.

It's also not a great idea to be extremely brittle in your response to information, even if you find it challenging to your beliefs. This isn't a great way to actually learn. I've learned a lot on this board from people I disagreed with at least initially. My views have become far more nuanced. Which actually makes it all that much more interesting and fun.

If I'm brittle it's because you're putting words in my mouth, diverting the topic (like comparing the Swordfish to the SBD), and ignoring facts that don't agree with your perceptions (e.g. the fact that self-sealing fuel tanks in SBDs would have reduced the operational radius). I agree that we can all learn a lot on this forum...but we all learn a lot faster if we pause to read what other people are actually writing rather than assuming we know what they're thinking.

 

[Schweik]

So now thanks to ThomasP we have at least some real operational numbers for Swordfish. 175 miles strike range with a torpedo, vs. 225 with (presumably unprotected?) LR tanks instead of one crew.

I made a provisional chart with all the basic stats, for comparison, of the main WW2 carrier aircraft and single engined dive bombers involved in naval operations. Not complete, but I'll add to it / correct it per feedback. I'm manly missing data on Japanese aircraft, if someone who knows those numbers could help out that would be grand.
I also assume some of the Stuka stats are wrong, but I'm ready to correct them.

I'm also not sure on the combat history of the RN ships so help there would be appreciated. How many warships did they sink.

Aircraft -- Strike rng (hvy) - Strike rng (lt) - Scout rng - Direct fly rng - bomb load - air combat - radar - Spd - Crus- DiveB -Torp
TBD ------------ 150 ------------ 175 -------------- ??? --------- 435 ------ 1000/1600 --- Poor ------ No --- 206 - 128 - No -- Yes
TBF ------------ 259 ------------ 300 -------------- ??? --------- 1215 ----- 1600/2000 --- Marginal - 1942? - 275 - 153 - No - Yes
SBD-3---------- 250 ------------ 325 -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No
SB2C ----------- ??? ------------ 276 -------------- ??? --------- 1100 ----- 1000/1600 --- Fair -------1944? - 281 - 158 - Yes - No
D3A ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 915 ------ 550 / 870 ---- Fair ------- No --- 240 - 184 - Yes -- No
D4Y ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 910 ------ 550 /1100 ---- Fair ------- No --- 340 - ??? - Yes -- No
B5N ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 978 ------ 1100/1760 --- Bad ------ No --- 235 - 161 - No -- Yes
B6N ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? --------- 1085 ----- 1100/1760 --- Poor ------1943 -- 300 - 207 - No -- Yes
Swordfish ------ 175 ------------ 225 -------------- ??? --------- 522 ------ 1500/1670 --- Bad ------1940 -- 143 - 131 - Yes-- Yes
Albacore ------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 710 ------ 1670/2000 --- Bad ------1940 -- 161 - 140 - Yes-- Yes
Barracuda ------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? --------- 1150------ 1500/1650 --- Poor -----1943 -- 240 - 195 - No -- Yes
Skua ----------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ----------- 760 ------ 500/???? ----- Fair ------ No? -- 225 - 187 - Yes-- No
Ju87B ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 370 ------ 1100/1540 --- Poor ----- No --- 236 - 209 - Yes-- No
Ju87R ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 492 ------ 1100/1540 --- Poor ---- No --- 236?- 209?- Yes-- No
Ju87D ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 683?------ 1100/2204 --- Fair -----No --- 210?- 160?- Yes-- No

Direct fly range means test range with a normal bomb load but not an actual strike.

Barracudas range was reportedly reduced 30% in the Pacific.

Combat history: Warships Sunk (not counting Pearl Harbor) (this is what I could find with quick googling)
D3A ----------- 1 x Aircraft Carrier, 2 x Heavy Cruiser, 11 x Destroyers, 1 x Merchant cruiser, 1 x Oiler
D4Y ----------- At least one Carrier (Princeton) and Franklin crippled.
B5N ----------- At least two Carriers
B6N ----------- None I could find?
SBD ----------- 6 x Carriers, 14 x Cruisers, 6 x Destroyers, 15 x military transports
TBD ----------- None?
TBF ------------ 2 x Super-battleships (shared), 3 carriers (shared, Philippine sea), 1 heavy Cruiser (Taffy 3 / Samar) - also destroyed 2 enemy torpedos at Samar
SB2C ---------- 2 x Super-battleships (shared), 3 carriers (shared, Philippine sea)
Swordfish ----- ? 2-3 Battleships at Taranto and a lot of merchant ships, Bismark damaged. At least 22 U-boats.
Albacore ------ ?
Skua----------- ?
Barracuda----- ?
Ju 87----------- ?

A few points:
We must keep in mind there is a big difference between range from a land base vs. range in carrier ops. Stukas only operated from land, most of the others did both land based and carrier based strikes and scout missions. Range is considerably longer for land based operations because it's much easier to find your way 'home' and takes less time to land, and less time between landings. On the other hand planes on a land base are out of the fight once their target moves out of range, unless there is another closer base they can fly to, while carriers can go anywhere (so long as they survive)

In addition to the above, the D3A and B5N of course also contributed to the 4 Battleships lost at Pearl Harbor. It's hard to say which one got which ships though, most I think got hit with both bombs and torpedoes.

Ceylon battle had far more losses for the British in three days (8 warships + 23 merchant) than they suffered in 12 days during Pedastal (4 warships + 9 merchant). Half of the Axis air attacks in Pedastal also resulted in either no sunk or (3 of the 7) 'no damage'.

Combat aircraft used by the Allies in the Pacific were equivalent to the combat aircraft used in the Desert War at the same time, but the aircraft fighting in the Med were at least a generation older and more obsolescent, objectively.

 

[Schweik]

Next I'm going to post some of the daily combat record for Swordfish, Albacore etc. from MAW if I can find it.