I'm not sure how the fixed wing SBD would have made a difference, and in any event it had no advantage over the folding wing Skua, as fighter. We've gone over Fulmar vs Martlet performance before. The Martlet II, according to Boscombe Down testing was good for 293mph at 13.8K and 5.4K ft and 298mph at 14.6k ft and 278 at 4k ft for the Martlet IV. The Martlet II fighter was not available, with folding wings, prior to late 1941 and late 1942 for the Martlet IV, and without folding wings there was little rationale for it's use over the Sea Hurricane, which had substantially better performance.
Swordfish vs Devastator
- Thread starter Elvis
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm not sure how the fixed wing SBD would have made a difference, and in any event it had no advantage over the folding wing Skua, as fighter. We've gone over Fulmar vs Martlet performance before. The Martlet II, according to Boscombe Down testing was good for 293mph at 13.8K and 5.4K ft and 298mph at 14.6k ft and 278 at 4k ft for the Martlet IV. The Martlet II fighter was not available, with folding wings, prior to late 1941 and late 1942 for the Martlet IV, and without folding wings there was little rationale for it's use over the Sea Hurricane, which had substantially better performance.
The R variant was specifically modded to use DTs (and had extra fuel in wing tanks). It was used extensively in Norway as well.
Boscombe down notwithstanding, the Martlet could actually make well over 320 mph, including the folding wing F4F-4, (this British report says 317 for Martlet II), in other words it was at least as fast as a Sea Hurricane and much faster than a Fulmar, and more to the point, by 1942 had a much better combat record than the Sea Hurricane (or land based Hurricane) including in the MTO, and is in another league than the pathetic Fulmar or Skua. The Martlet also had almost twice the range of a Hurricane (460 -500 miles vs. 850 for the Martlet II, according to the British chart). As I keep pointing out, range matters a lot in naval warfare.
SBDs would not be used for fighters - but as strike and ASW aircraft. Those convoys were threatened by surface ships and subs as well as aircraft, in fact the Axis air strikes against Pedestal were so ineffective that most of the damage seems to have been done by subs and torpedo boats.
That data card is wrong. It states it's a folding wing Martlet II but the weights and fuel capacity are for an F4F-3A with fixed wings no armour and no SS tanks. This data card states that it supersedes the link you posted:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-II-ads.jpg
The Sea Hurricane had an excellent combat record and for that matter, so did the Fulmar.
Axis strikes against Malta convoys were met by effective fighter cover which kept losses low during that part of the route where the carriers could provide CAP.
Last edited:
I dunno, Mark, there's a lot of hypothesising the TBD would be at a disadvantage without real evidence. Firstly, the launch point for Judgement was 170 nautical miles from Taranto, so you are telling me that because the 378 nm range of a TBD carrying a torpedo or the 633 nm range carrying bombs would cause a relocation of the carrier?
Secondly, if the TBD was being operated by the Royal Navy, these things wouldn't apply, would they.
Finally, there's no guarantee that this is the case. I'm pretty certain the TBD was capable of manoeuvring, perhaps not as much as a Swordfish, but to write it off because it might hit a cable? If the RN had TBDs instead of Swordfish, I'm pretty certain they'd be used.
"Performance testing took place at A&AEE in April 1942 using AM991 at a take-off weight of 7790 lb. The testing showed a maximum rate of climb of 1940 ft/min at 7600 ft in MS gear and 1570 ft/min at 13,700 ft in FS gear. Compared with most land-based fighters, the climb performance of the Martlet II was relatively sedate, taking 5.3 minutes to reach 10,000 ft and 12.5 minutes to reach 20,000 ft. For its naval role this was considered acceptable, but its climb rate deteriorated rather dramatically above this height, the aircraft taking a full 30.6 minutes to get to 30,000 ft. Its service ceiling (100 ft/min climb rate) was estimated at 31,000 ft. Level speed tests showed a maximum of 293 mph TAS at 5400 ft in MS gear, with an identical speed at 13,800 ft in FS gear."
and:
"Directionally and laterally, the Martlet IV was stable under all conditions of flight.
Trials to assess the climb rate and maximum level speed were also made using FN111, which although capable of carrying two 100-lb bombs under the wings, did not have racks fitted. Take-off weight was 7740 lb. Its performance proved to be somewhat worse than the Martlet II, with a maximum rate of climb of 1580 ft/min at 6200 ft in MS gear and 1440 ft/min at 14,600 ft in FS gear. The times to height were: 10,000 ft – 6.6 minutes; 20,000 ft – 14.6 minutes; 28,000 ft –29.1 minutes. The estimated service ceiling was 30,100 ft. The maximum speed in MS gear was 278 mph TAS at 3400 ft and 298 mph TAS at 21,000 ft in FS gear." ( Both excepts from Mason, Flying to the Limit)
Someone enlighten me as to what it was about the Devastator that made it a loser before the Midway attack. A low production run doesn't necessarily confer bad design, not only that, but what was considered a low production run in 1934 when it was ordered? The Vindicator had a production run of 260, which also included foreign orders from Britain and France, so, 130 appears about what the US Navy required at any rate. To all intents and purposes, for an aeroplane that was ordered in 1934 it was an entirely modern aircraft. I can see that it had corrosion issues in the wing skins, easily fixed, and a rudder hinge needed modification, again, not beyond the manufacturer and certainly not enough to bring production to a standstill (but enough to ground the fleet). The other issue was the canopy profile, which was altered, but what else? Why, exactly is this aircraft considered bad, other than suffering heavy losses at Midway? Did it handle poorly? Was it a maintenance hog full of defects? Did it suffer structural failure?
To me it appears that by the time of Midway it was under replacement by the TBF at any rate, so it was recognised by the navy it was approaching obsolescence from 1940. Yet, it had, from what I can see, a relatively trouble free service career with the navy, with VT-3 taking part in a Fleet Exercise attack against Pearl Harbor in 1938, which was apparently successful. TBDs were also used without loss to the enemy against Japanese positions on various islands held by them in early 1942. All of a sudden due a squadron being wiped out, even though its replacement didn't fare any better, the aircraft is a pariah?
Last edited:
I'm all for revisionism, at least as a way to double check assumptions, but i think the notion that the Sea Hurricane and the Fulmar had "excellent" combat records or that the TBD was anything other than a dog are ludicrous. You can defend just about any position if you try hard enough but I don't think these stand on firm ground.
Yes, the TBD is a pariah, because yes, it did handle poorly and was noted for it's poor maneuverability, it was in fact disliked by it's crews, and also because it had abysmal range especially for a strike aircraft, was poorly armed (one offensive and one defensive .30 cal), was one of the slowest aircraft in the navy inventory (to speed barely 200 mph with a cruise speed of 128 mph, which is even slower than the Swordfish, and all this bad performance with barely any armor and (I believe) no self-sealing fuel tanks. With modern defensive gear it would have had even worse performance. TBDs were already being pulled out line units before the war and some had already been assigned to fly as Target Tugs, always a bad sign.
Like the Vindicator, it was quickly recognized as a very limited design which helped the Navy get up to speed bridge the gaps between biplanes and monoplanes, but not ready for prime time.
Yes, the TBD is a pariah, because yes, it did handle poorly and was noted for it's poor maneuverability, it was in fact disliked by it's crews, and also because it had abysmal range especially for a strike aircraft, was poorly armed (one offensive and one defensive .30 cal), was one of the slowest aircraft in the navy inventory (to speed barely 200 mph with a cruise speed of 128 mph, which is even slower than the Swordfish, and all this bad performance with barely any armor and (I believe) no self-sealing fuel tanks. With modern defensive gear it would have had even worse performance. TBDs were already being pulled out line units before the war and some had already been assigned to fly as Target Tugs, always a bad sign.
Like the Vindicator, it was quickly recognized as a very limited design which helped the Navy get up to speed bridge the gaps between biplanes and monoplanes, but not ready for prime time.
The TBD was very limited in it's ability to manoeuvre because it was very lightly stressed and badly overweight by mid 1942.
The TBD could not have operated from RN carriers because it's minimum folded width was too much to fit into modern RN carriers (except Indomitable) and it's STOL performance was already marginal on USN carriers and unacceptable for operation from RN carriers.
from the TBD manual:
"SECTION VI
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
A. Restricted Maneuvers
___ 1. Maneuvers Restricted By Design
______ a. Acrobatics
______ b. Inverted flight
______ c. Dives in excess of 45°, 205 knots and 2950 r.p.m.
______ d. Pull-outs in excess of 4 g at a normal gross weight of 9300#
3. Overload Flight Restrictions
_____ a. When overloaded, applied accelerations must be reduced. At 10176# gross, the acceleration loads are restricted to +3.52 g and -1.76 g as compared to +4 g and -2 g at 9300# gross."
By 1942 it was probably around 10400lb TO weight.
The Swordfish was fully stressed for Divebombing and VNE was 206 knots, which is actually higher than the TBD!
Yup, I'm not disputing this, none of what you are saying, but none of what you've shown me could be used as a reason why the TBD could not have been used in place of the Swordfish at Taranto, which took place in late 1940 (that is, if the Royal Navy had TBDs instead of Swordfish - highly implausable and unrealistic, but you and I have been here before
). Again however, you say the aircraft was overweight, I'm not doubting it, as in 1940 the decision was made to phase the type out of service over the next few years and replace it with the TBF once it entered service, so it was recognised that it was due for replacement, but that doesn't answer why the TBD could not have done what the Swordfish did at Taranto.Perhaps you can provide some sources that state a "poor" combat record for the Sea Hurricane?
Both aircraft had very positive kill-loss ratios. Sea Hurricane performance was far superior to the Martlet II/IV. The Fulmar II was slower than the Martlet II/IV at all altitudes, but less so under 10K ft. Climb performance to 10K ft was about the same, but deteriorated rapidly above that altitude. The Fulmar II benefitted greatly by using the Combat rating of the engine, while the Martlet had no combat rating and there was only a marginal increase in power by using the Military rating.
Yes, I'll be glad to discuss this in detail, and we can examine the actual victories and losses (as distinct from claims) but lets do it in another thread so as not to further derail this one:
Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat
Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat
Well, thank you, that's what I'm after, but I do think criticising it because it doesn't have self sealing tanks is harsh - when the Devastator entered service, NO US navy aircraft had self-sealing tanks, and the navy did foresee it was approaching obsolescence three years later in 1940 by looking for a replacement well before the US entered the war, so an early design being equipped with modern equipment is a characteristic that reduced the service life of many early 1930s designs still in service when the war began.
As for its range and defensive armament, again, who are you fighting against in 1934/35 when the specification is being drawn up and the type flies for the first time? Remember that the average fighter in service in foreign air forces at the time the TBD first flew were biplanes that didn't have much better cruise speeds and could only just go over 200 mph maximum speed, and were armed with two to four rifle calibre machine guns. The pace of technology caught up with these aircraft pretty darn quick. By 1942, yes, it's overweight, underpowered and due for retirement, but its replacement is already in service and took part in the same battle - it was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yup, I'm not disputing this, none of what you are saying, but none of what you've shown me could be used as a reason why the TBD could not have been used in place of the Swordfish at Taranto, which took place in late 1940 (that is, if the Royal Navy had TBDs instead of Swordfish - highly implausable and unrealistic, but you and I have been here before
The TBD did not have enough range. The TBD only carried 150IG of fuel, compared to 227IG for the Swordfish and a LR internal tank. It's very difficult to determine the actual range of the TBD but it seems pretty certain that it didn't have the range or endurance required unless the carrier moved somewhat closer to Taranto prior to launch.
They tried, but were defeated by their own embassy's incompetence in decoding and translating.
BINGO! Add to this, the TBFs were brand new and their crews were new to them; not exactly a representative sample of the aircraft's potential. In addition, the TBFs didn't have the advantage of fighter support or a coordinated strike, thus facing the full undiluted fury of the CAP and AAA fire.
Well, not exactly. KB was trying to close on TF's 16 & 17, which were withdrawing to the NE, more or less AWAY from Midway to avoid that very night surface engagement Nagumo was seeking. Read Shattered Sword.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Yup.
There were many aircraft designed in the mid thirties which had much more potential for development. Hurricane, Spitfire, P-36, Bf 109, Stuka... Ultimately that was what made any of those early designs good or bad, how much could they be improved? Could you fit a bigger engine, armor, more guns, self-sealing tanks, and more fuel into the thing without it becoming unflyable? With with a torpedo strapped on, the TBD was barely airworthy as it was, it did not have further room for the development. If it's range wasn't so poor it might have been a decent scout or ASW plane but it really easn't qualified for even that humble role. The ginormous TBF was not exactly a graceful design, but it did have room for more and more improvements and could carry things like radar, mines and rockets and lots more fuel than when it first flew.
OK, it's kinda hard to determine that it didn't have the range then saying you don't know its range figures, but I'll concede (mainly because its a moot point and I cannae be a*sed devoting too much more brain power debating this) - perhaps the task force might have to get a little closer.
Like I said above though, the Lusty launched its aircraft 170 nm from Taranto, are you sure the TBD couldn't do that? According to wiki its range with a torpedo was 378 nm, according to McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 (Rene Francillon, Putnam, 1988) the TBD's range with a torpedo is 435 miles or 700km.
Those figures don't indicate a sufficient reserve range for safe mission planning. They are actually less than the Swordfish with no LR tank and 167IG internal fuel which was ~460nm at 5000ft with a 50min reserve. (Sturtivant - data based upon combat missions)
Last edited:
