I think you mean SBD
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
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.
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'.
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.
Without looking it up, battleships California, Oklahoma, Nevada (beached) and either West Virginia or Tennessee. It's more fun being corrected.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?
If it had existed. The first prototype SBD flew after the sinking of the Konigsberg.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.
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?
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.Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California plus Utah
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 mateand 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.
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.
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.