Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That said, if you had Martlets and SBDs in those convoys like Pedestal instead of Fulmars and Swordfish or Skuas, I do think they would have done much better. They did have a few Martlets (I think 6) at Pedestal but not enough to make a difference. & I know the SBDs were probably too big because they lacked folding wings.
I thought they didn't typically use drop tanks?
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.
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.
For one thing, the shorter range of the TBD would mean the carrier would have to get closer to enemy territory, increasing risk of detection.
Secondly, if we're taking the US capability in toto as an integrated weapon system, then the torpedo clearly was an achilles heel to achieving operational effects.
Finally, I'm not sure how the Devastator would have fared flying into barrage balloon defences at night. I think the greater manoeuvrability of the Swordfish (once it's torpedo has been dropped) would be a distinct advantage that would increase overall survivability.
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.
I think one was recognized as a loser early on, which is why they only made 130 of them,
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.
The Swordfish was fully stressed for Divebombing and VNE was 206 knots, which is actually higher than the TBD!
Perhaps you can provide some sources that state a "poor" combat record for the Sea Hurricane?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.
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.
They tried, but were defeated by their own embassy's incompetence in decoding and translating.Pearl Harbor backfired mainly because the Japanese didn't declare war first.
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.The only way ANY torpedo bomber could survive against strong fighter defences was if it had an equally strong fighter escort...or it was incredibly lucky. The Avenger was a far better aircraft than the Swordfish and yet the 6 airframes operating from Midway didn't do any better than the Devastators operating off the carriers against the Japanese fleet
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.From the top of my head the Japanese continued to close on Midway, as they were hoping to force a night action with their capital ships, for which they were well trained and (barring radar) equipped.
Yup.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 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.
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.
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.
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.