Swordfish vs Devastator

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

buffnut453 said:
Wow...that's one of the bigger stretches I've seen. We're now considering getting decimated as being "operational success"? The primary issue had more to with the IJN's non-existent fighter control, coupled with serendipitous timing that the various USN formations arrived over the Japanese fleet, rather than any performance ability of the Devastators.
Click to expand...
Had been the other way round, and all the Zeros were at HA beating the hell out of the SBDs and thus not noticing the approaching TBDs at LA, the Devastators may have scored crippling hits. The AA on IJN was apparently rubbish.
 
Last edited:
According to Wiki (dangerous) The TBD had a varied weapons load.
"The normal TBD offensive armament consisted of either a 1,935 lb (878 kg) Bliss-Leavitt Mark 13 aerial torpedo or a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb carried semi-recessed in the fuselage undersides. Alternatively, three 500 lb (230 kg) general-purpose bombs (one under each wing root and one inside the bomb bay), or twelve 100 lb (45 kg) fragmentation bombs (six under each wing root), could be carried."


Part of the problem with the Devastator was that there was no MK II or -2 version. So the US was operating planes built in 1937-38 in 1942.
In 1939 the Navy was looking for a replacement and the production line was already closed down.

So no new electronics, no self sealing tanks, no armor, no upgraded armament (like twin guns out the back)

Granted the Swordfish didn't get much in the way of upgrades but the Devastator was out of production before the war in Poland started. With only 129 built there was never going to be an update/upgrade program unless the intended replacements ALL failed miserably.
 
Shortround6 said:
According to Wiki (dangerous) The TBD had a varied weapons load.
"The normal TBD offensive armament consisted of either a 1,935 lb (878 kg) Bliss-Leavitt Mark 13 aerial torpedo or a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb carried semi-recessed in the fuselage undersides. Alternatively, three 500 lb (230 kg) general-purpose bombs (one under each wing root and one inside the bomb bay), or twelve 100 lb (45 kg) fragmentation bombs (six under each wing root), could be carried."


Part of the problem with the Devastator was that there was no MK II or -2 version. So the US was operating planes built in 1937-38 in 1942.
In 1939 the Navy was looking for a replacement and the production line was already closed down.

So no new electronics, no self sealing tanks, no armor, no upgraded armament (like twin guns out the back)

Granted the Swordfish didn't get much in the way of upgrades but the Devastator was out of production before the war in Poland started. With only 129 built there was never going to be an update/upgrade program unless the intended replacements ALL failed miserably.
Click to expand...
I agree.
The picture I'm starting to get is that its almost like the Navy never really completely trusted the Devastator.
You'd think they would've outfitted the SBD's to be able to carry torpedo's (at least as a back up), if they had such little confidence in the Devastator, but by the time it was obvious the Devastator was out of its league, I suppose the Avenger development program was probably already under way, so no need to mod the SBD to a (stop-gap) SBD/T.

Elvis
 
Americans had a problem with their torpedo (aside from not working), it was the heaviest torpedo used by any major navy by around 300lbs.

The Devastator used a 422 sq ft wing. The Dauntless used a 325sq ft wing.

When the specification for the Avenger was put out to the manufacturers it called for a stalling speed of 70mph for landing while still carrying the torpedo (torpedoes are expensive).
Granted and Avenger used bigger engine and had a turret and used an enclosed bomb bay but the Avenger used a 490 sq ft wing.

It wasn't so much a matter of trust but they knew the Devastator was obsolete, being the first of it's kind tends to do that, and the SBD with about the same powered engine was not going to carry the big american torpedo and enough fuel to get very far.
 
The TBD also had some success on the Lae and Salamaua(?) raids. There's a nice vid on the "Military Aviation History" YouTube site. It's entitled "In defense of the worst aircraft of world war 2". I'm sure most of us have seen it before.
It wasn't until the battle of Midway that it was shown just how obsolete it was.
 
Shortround6 said:
Americans had a problem with their torpedo (aside from not working), it was the heaviest torpedo used by any major navy by around 300lbs.

The Devastator used a 422 sq ft wing. The Dauntless used a 325sq ft wing.

When the specification for the Avenger was put out to the manufacturers it called for a stalling speed of 70mph for landing while still carrying the torpedo (torpedoes are expensive).
Granted and Avenger used bigger engine and had a turret and used an enclosed bomb bay but the Avenger used a 490 sq ft wing.

It wasn't so much a matter of trust but they knew the Devastator was obsolete, being the first of it's kind tends to do that, and the SBD with about the same powered engine was not going to carry the big american torpedo and enough fuel to get very far.
Click to expand...
According to wiki, the SBD-5 had enough payload capacity to take on the Mk.13 torpedo.
 
Elvis said:
According to wiki, the SBD-5 had enough payload capacity to take on the Mk.13 torpedo.
Click to expand...
True but the SPD-5 had 20% more power for take off than the SPD-1 through -4, SPD-5 wasn't trying to land on the carrier with that bomb load.
SPD-5 doesn't show up until the middle or end of 1942? or later?

Wiki in some cases (and this is one of them) needs to be taken with a large dose of salt (like a 50lb cattle salt lick block).

see. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SBD-5_PD_-_August_6_1942.pdf
SPD-5 could not carry a 1000lb bomb and full fuel. With 1600lb AP bomb fuel was down to 128 gallons, with the torpedo you would be down to around 78 gallons)
The bomb load in Wiki (and in many other sources including USN performance data sheets) consists of a 1600lb AP bomb (seldom, if ever, carried by an SBD in combat) and a pair of 325lb depth charges. A very unlikely combination but the total sure sounds impressive. Even if you only put a 500lb on the center station the wing stations were still limited to 325lbs.

Perhaps if the land runway was long enough (and the tail wheel was long enough) you could get the SBD into the air with the torpedo and a decent amount of fuel.
 
???...Devastator wasn't taken out of front line service until 1942, so SBD-5 fits in nicely.
...and who cares about landing back on deck with the torpedo still attached.
The point was to deploy it when you reached the target.
...anyway, I only mentioned it as a STOP-GAP measure until the Avenger could be made operational, which was around the same time that year, so maybe the SBD/T wouldn't even need to be considered.
 
By the time the SBD-5 shows up the Avenger is in production. Well into production. The SBD-5 didn't go into production until May of 1943.
Midway was fought with SBD-2s and -3s.

Torpedo storage on carriers was limited. If your strike fails to find the target and returns to the carrier and you have to jettison the torpedoes in order to land you may only have one set of reloads for the torpedo bombers left.

Basically the TBD first flew in April of 1935, the SBD first flew in May 1940. Avenger first flew in August of 1941.
 
Elvis said:
???...Devastator wasn't taken out of front line service until 1942, so SBD-5 fits in nicely.
...and who cares about landing back on deck with the torpedo still attached.
The point was to deploy it when you reached the target.
...anyway, I only mentioned it as a STOP-GAP measure until the Avenger could be made operational, which was around the same time that year, so maybe the SBD/T wouldn't even need to be considered.
Click to expand...

The Avenger replaced the TBD after Midway but it was greatly hampered as a TB by the poor performance of the MK 13 torpedo. It could carry a 2000lb bomb load but was hampered as a bomber against naval targets by it's inability to dive bomb.
 
pinehilljoe said:
The TBD did have its one success at Coral Sea. Lexington's VT-2 scored 5 hits against Shoho and contributed to her sinking. The TBDs and the torpedos worked. Shoho's air group was a mix of 8 A6M2, 4 A5M2
Click to expand...

I think we have to take some of those claimed hits with a grain of salt. Shoho was simultaneously being attacked by SBDs dropping 1000lb GP bombs, and a near miss from a 1000lb GP bomb would be hard to distinguish from a torpedo hit. It also took a very long time for Shoho sink, considering it's size and number of claimed torpedo hits.
 
Admiral Beez said:
That seems wasteful. I imagine many a Swordfish or Albacore returned to its carrier with a torpedo attached after not finding a target.
Click to expand...
I've not read a lot on the subject but I think some or even many missions were patrols or screens looking for a target. Obviously only one or two in a screen will find what is being looked for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
Narvik Swordfish
Replies
3
Views
886
buffnut453
buffnut453
CHen10
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
GrauGeist
GrauGeist
tomo pauk
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
858
Shortround6
S
Domobran42
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Back