Swordfish vs Devastator

[Schweik]

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.

"Could have provided good service at Midway" is just such an overstated claim, IMO. I think that is extremely unlikely. But to be fair it's just an educated guess and I've been making plenty of those too. I think it's Ok to have opinions.

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.

The Swordfish was better than the TBD, all around. I think that part of the discussion was settled many pages ago. For obvious reasons, the discussion moved past that point, I'm not the only one to blame lol.

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).

You missed the point, e.g. that the operational radius i quoted was with the self-sealing fuel tanks, obviously. Shortround was quibbling about how much fuel they could carry with different tank configurations, but as far as I know they never operated without self-sealing tanks on combat missions in the Pacific from the time of Coral Sea or later. The ranges I listed were operational ranges from the time of Midway and Guadalcanal. Also, should you really be talking about SBDs I thought this was a "TBD vs., Sworfish only" discussion? (just kidding)

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.

I will continue to try to do so, though I admit I don't always catch everything on the first reading, my eyes aren't so good and my glasses need replacing, which is delayed due to the plague. So I do sometimes need to read a post two or three times to catch it all.

 

[Juha3]

Another US naval a/c participating combat probably with unprotected fuel tanks, Marine Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators, also at Midway

 

[Juha3]

Hello Schweick
Albacore or Swordfish hit the Italian heavy cruiser Pola with a torpedo crippling it, because of that British BBs Warspite, Barham and Valiant were able to obliterated from point blank range its sisters Zara and Fiume plus two Italian DDs, which were there to help Pola. Pola was sunk by British DDs. This on 28 - 29 March 1941 during the Battle of Cape Matapan

 

[RCAFson]

Aircraft -- Strike rng (hvy) - Strike rng (lt) - Scout rng - Direct fly rng - bomb load - air combat - radar - Spd - Crus- DiveB -Torp

SBD-3---------- 250 ------------ 325 -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No


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

.

I made a detailed post regarding SBD range, as tested in the field which equals 600nm with a 15% reserve, with a 1000lb bomb and there's no way to stretch it to 1300 statute miles.

 

[Schweik]

I made a detailed post regarding SBD range, as tested in the field which equals 600nm with a 15% reserve, with a 1000lb bomb and there's no way to stretch it to 1300 statute miles.

This is the "official" range, which is very different than the strike range or operational range (which I also posted). It is probably quoted for a 500 lb bomb and a not a 1,000 lb bomb as well land takeoff (which I think you said the test you mentioned had), flown out to a target, and fly back to the land base. This is the type of test that aviation companies do to prove they met the contract requirements. This is very similar for just about every country in the war. Quite often it is the only range figure quoted in available data sources (especially online) whereas true operational radius is rarely included.

There are many factors which effect range. Quite often aircraft could carry more fuel in overload tanks or external tanks, but may not typically do so because of effects on performance or vulnerability, or things like bomb load. Also, often, aircraft did fly scouting missions without ordinance which is a longer range. Ferry range is usually double the "official" range, but it generally is only relevant when the aircraft is being ferried from one location to another. Atmospheric conditions also made a big difference, that is why the Barracuda had a 30% less range in the Pacific than in the North Atlantic, apparently.

The test you mentioned was with an SBD-5 which had a bigger engine than the SBD-3 I listed stats for, and was also flown at a 5,000' lower cruising altitude than was apparently typical in combat for the SBD. But the strike range I quoted with a 1,000 lb bomb was considerably less than

I use the "official" range because that is what is available for almost every combat aircraft, and it allows us to compare like with like even when we don't have other / better information.

 

[RCAFson]

"Could have provided good service at Midway" is just such an overstated claim, IMO. I think that is extremely unlikely. But to be fair it's just an educated guess and I've been making plenty of those too. I think it's Ok to have opinions.



The Swordfish was better than the TBD, all around. I think that part of the discussion was settled many pages ago. For obvious reasons, the discussion moved past that point, I'm not the only one to blame lol.



You missed the point, e.g. that the operational radius i quoted was with the self-sealing fuel tanks, obviously. Shortround was quibbling about how much fuel they could carry with different tank configurations, but as far as I know they never operated without self-sealing tanks on combat missions in the Pacific from the time of Coral Sea or later. The ranges I listed were operational ranges from the time of Midway and Guadalcanal. Also, should you really be talking about SBDs I thought this was a "TBD vs., Sworfish only" discussion? (just kidding)



I will continue to try to do so, though I admit I don't always catch everything on the first reading, my eyes aren't so good and my glasses need replacing, which is delayed due to the plague. So I do sometimes need to read a post two or three times to catch it all.

The USN used PBYs at night with ASV radar to find and attack IJN ships at Midway. Obviously the Swordfish could have done the same. On the evening of 4 June 6 x SBDs (and 5 x SBU-3s) took off from Midway to make a night strike against the IJN and Swordfish could have done this as well, and with far greater chance of success, and by replacing the TBDs Swordfish could have launched predawn from the USN carriers to hit the IJN at night, and would certainly have suffered fewer losses than the TBDs.

 

[RCAFson]

This is the "official" range, which is very different than the strike range or operational range (which I also posted). It is probably quoted for a 500 lb bomb and a not a 1,000 lb bomb as well land takeoff (which I think you said the test you mentioned had), flown out to a target, and fly back to the land base. This is the type of test that aviation companies do to prove they met the contract requirements. This is very similar for just about every country in the war. Quite often it is the only range figure quoted in available data sources (especially online) whereas true operational radius is rarely included.

There are many factors which effect range. Quite often aircraft could carry more fuel in overload tanks or external tanks, but may not typically do so because of effects on performance or vulnerability, or things like bomb load. Also, often, aircraft did fly scouting missions without ordinance which is a longer range. Ferry range is usually double the "official" range, but it generally is only relevant when the aircraft is being ferried from one location to another. Atmospheric conditions also made a big difference, that is why the Barracuda had a 30% less range in the Pacific than in the North Atlantic, apparently.

The test you mentioned was with an SBD-5 which had a bigger engine than the SBD-3 I listed stats for, and was also flown at a 5,000' lower cruising altitude than was apparently typical in combat for the SBD. But the strike range I quoted with a 1,000 lb bomb was considerably less than

I use the "official" range because that is what is available for almost every combat aircraft, and it allows us to compare like with like even when we don't have other / better information.

The SBD-3 and -5 both used an R1820 engine, but the -5 variant produced more power at high throttle, however fuel consumption at cruise power was almost identical.

C'mon, there have been lots of post here showing actual mission ranges for various aircraft. UK range testing and reports seem to have been far more accurate than the 'fictional' ranges shown for some USN aircraft via their SAC data sheets.

 

[Schweik]

The USN used PBYs at night with ASV radar to find and attack IJN ships at Midway. Obviously the Swordfish could have done the same. On the evening of 4 June 6 x SBDs took off from Midway to make a night strike against the IJN and Swordfish could have done this as well, and with far greater chance of success, and by replacing the TBDs Swordfish could have launched predawn from the USN carriers to hit the IJN at night, and would certainly have suffered fewer losses than the TBDs.

The PBY had a range of almost 3,000 miles. I am not sure what that translates to in actual combat radius but it's a hell of a lot more than the Swordfish. This is exactly where the whole debate about range started.

Swordfish range with a torpedo was apparently 175 miles or 225 miles, apparently.

My understanding is that the Japanese fleet was 230 miles from Pearl Harbor and a PBY detected the Japanese fleet when they were 500 miles west of Midway.

I'm not sure how far the Japanese fleet was from Midway during the day of the battle, they probably got pretty close, but I don't think they had any reason to remain within strike range of Midway during the night, since their strike aircraft didn't operate at night. And you wouldn't want to send Swordfsh against the Japanese fleet during the day any more than TBDs.

Range matters a lot in naval warfare.

 

[Schweik]

The SBD-3 and -5 both used an R1820 engine, but the -5 variant produced more power at high throttle, however fuel consumption at cruise power was almost identical.

C'mon, there have been lots of post here showing actual mission ranges for various aircraft. UK range testing and reports seem to have been far more accurate than the 'fictional' ranges shown for some USN aircraft via their SAC data sheets.

Lol, I think they were done under different conditions and for different reasons. Commercial tests in the UK by UK aircraft (done by the manufacturer) were also different in outcome than the ones done at Boscombe Down.

You can find tests which say many different things about different aircraft, done in different circumstances. I've pointed out a few of the factors. By trying to streeeetch the data to fit a particular worldview or preconceived notion, you can try to make it look different than the reality, but all this does is dig in the more intractable debates you find on here.

As I said, I'm trying to compare like with like. With regard to the SBD (and TBF), I think the actual strike ranges which have been quoted and sourced a few times in this thread, are what the Navy actually used as a guideline, and seemed to be real. For example, as I already mentioned, they didn't lose any of the SBDs launched in the battle of the Philippine Sea, at targets 300 miles away. You can compare this to the no doubt optimistic range of 1,300 miles reported by the manufacturer, and make certain correlations as I have also done.

The test you quoted was with a 1,000 lb bomb. You do get that right? And you know that makes a difference right? I think you've got your thumb on the scale here, I really don't know why.

But I think it's also increasingly obvious what the limitation of the Swordfish was doing night attacks in naval warfare. They were really better off using PBYs for that purpose, as they did (though on too small a scale) at Midway and later around Guadalcanal with the "Black Cats".

 

[Schweik]

I do concede though it would have been better to have some Swordish available than the TBDs.

 

[RCAFson]

The PBY had a range of almost 3,000 miles. I am not sure what that translates to in actual combat radius but it's a hell of a lot more than the Swordfish. This is exactly where the whole debate about range started.

Swordfish range with a torpedo was apparently 175 miles or 225 miles, apparently.

My understanding is that the Japanese fleet was 230 miles from Pearl Harbor and a PBY detected the Japanese fleet when they were 500 miles west of Midway.

I'm not sure how far the Japanese fleet was from Midway during the day of the battle, they probably got pretty close, but I don't think they had any reason to remain within strike range of Midway during the night, since their strike aircraft didn't operate at night. And you wouldn't want to send Swordfsh against the Japanese fleet during the day any more than TBDs.

Range matters a lot in naval warfare.

We're not talking about replacing the PBYs with Swordfish but augmenting them.

A Swordfish with ASV radar and carrying a 69IG external tank had a range of about 700nm with a one hour reserve. Adding two x 500lb bombs reduced range to about 600nm.

Crippled ships either can't move or move slowly, and the night SBD strike was sent out to search for crippled IJN carriers.

 

[Schweik]

I think you need a torpedo for a Swordfish to hurt a warship at night, though I'm willing to be proven otherwise. Did the Swordfish sink ships in night dive or level bombing attacks?

 

[RCAFson]

Lol, I think they were done under different conditions and for different reasons. Commercial tests in the UK by UK aircraft (done by the manufacturer) were also different in outcome than the ones done at Boscombe Down.

You can find tests which say many different things about different aircraft, done in different circumstances. I've pointed out a few of the factors. By trying to streeeetch the data to fit a particular worldview or preconceived notion, you can try to make it look different than the reality, but all this does is dig in the more intractable debates you find on here.

As I said, I'm trying to compare like with like. With regard to the SBD (and TBF), I think the actual strike ranges which have been quoted and sourced a few times in this thread, are what the Navy actually used as a guideline, and seemed to be real. For example, as I already mentioned, they didn't lose any of the SBDs launched in the battle of the Philippine Sea, at targets 300 miles away. You can compare this to the no doubt optimistic range of 1,300 miles reported by the manufacturer, and make certain correlations as I have also done.

The test you quoted was with a 1,000 lb bomb. You do get that right? And you know that makes a difference right? I think you've got your thumb on the scale here, I really don't know why.
".

The SAC range at 5000ft for an SBD-3 with a 1000lb bomb was 1205 statute miles (~1050nm) and for the -5, 1115 statute miles (970nm). These are figures that the USN presented to combat pilots. The field test I summarized was a response to these numbers.

I am not trying to stretch any data, and that's why I have used real world data from actual combat missions. The results from Philippine Sea are consistent with the SBD-5 range test that I summarized.

 

[buffnut453]

I think you need a torpedo for a Swordfish to hurt a warship at night, though I'm willing to be proven otherwise. Did the Swordfish sink ships in night dive or level bombing attacks?

Swordfish accounted for 22.5 U-boats, with most operations performed at night with ASV. While attacking a U-boat clearly isn't the same as a larger surface vessel, it does indicate the ability of the aircraft and its crews to locate and engage small targets at night.

 

[Schweik]

Swordfish accounted for 22.5 U-boats, with most operations performed at night with ASV. While attacking a U-boat clearly isn't the same as a larger surface vessel, it does indicate the ability of the aircraft and its crews to locate and engage small targets at night.

Fair enough, I've added that to the chart.

 

[RCAFson]

I think you need a torpedo for a Swordfish to hurt a warship at night, though I'm willing to be proven otherwise. Did the Swordfish sink ships in night dive or level bombing attacks?

???

Do you think the SBDs were sent off at night with torpedoes?

 

[Schweik]

Did they sink any ships on that night mission?

 

[RCAFson]

Did they sink any ships on that night mission?

No, they found no targets and lost an SBU (5 accompanied the SBDs) on the way back. Without ASV radar, acquiring a target would have been problematic, at best, although the IJN had probably scuttled their carriers by then.

 

[Schweik]

How many successful night time dive- or level-bombing attacks by Swordfish or Albacores were there during the war?

 

[RCAFson]

How many successful night time dive- or level-bombing attacks by Swordfish or Albacores were there during the war?

Excluding submarines? We're already established that night bombing was possible and was successful. I don't have ready access to every night attack made by Swordfish and Albacores.