SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Re: Mr Heineman's Destroyer looking cool.
Remember, I REALLY like the Buffalo.
Remember, I REALLY like the Buffalo.
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
exactly
I've seen one in the New Orleans D-Day museum. It's shocking how big they are. It looks like a twin engined aircraft, like the size of a bus. Not elegant. But it seemed fairly capable.
Yeah I kinda like that XTB2D "Skypirate" though it is definitely ugly, I think I saw one at the Pennsacola air museum. Another late war torpedo bomber design that was too late for the party (but was also pretty near) is the Martin Mauler
Martin AM Mauler - Wikipedia
Looks pretty good on paper, though the Wiki said it handled poorly, seemingly, just arrived in the jet age.
And yet another slightly more plausible, the Douglas BTD Destroyer
which came out before the XTB2D and seemed a bit more sensible, but again, too late.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Seems I was mixing up Destroyer with Skypirate.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
I don't think the Sea Wolf ever left the United States. Maybe we should start a thread for aircraft that never left the United States.
Summer of 1960 we were driving over the pass between Yosemite and Reno and found ourselves in the path of a fast moving wildfire. They didn't get the roadblock up until we were already past the checkpoint, and Dad was scurrying to get us out of zone when one of CalFire's Avengers flew 100 feet over us, just closing its dump doors after dropping on the other side of the ridge the road was on. He couldn't have cleared the ridge by more than 50 feet. Size of a bus for sure. A very sudden and VERY LOUD bus! Dad almost drove off the road. And borate and cinders raise hell with your car's paint.
Back in the '70s New York DEC had an Avenger that was used for fish stocking, acid rain amelioration experiments, and the occasional fire drop. It could be seen from time to time prowling around the Adirondacks, and one day at SLK with a student, we each got to climb up the wing and sit in the cockpit. Talk about the catbird seat!
Conslaw
Senior Airman
We're getting pretty far afield now, but there was also the Kaiser-Fleetwings_XBTK, which made it to prototype stage but was cancelled in 1946. It looked _a lot_ like the Douglas Skyraider.
Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK - Wikipedia
Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK - Wikipedia
So cool! I didn't know they used them for fires
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Same here. The wiki on it touches on a point brought up earlier. BuAer was looking for replacements for the SB2C in 1942. The pace certainly picked up from that of the TBD to TBF.
You mean like this?
Now, I confess to not knowing much about the Devastator and this discussion has got me intrigued as to where I can get more in-depth information other than standard reference sources, Schweik. What is a good reference source? You speak of the pilots not liking it, and it's been spoken of here as being lightly constructed and other faults that are not common knowledge. Where does this come from, or, where might I find a better insight into the TBD and all its faults?
Someone compared the TBD and the Fairey Battle, which is intriguing and a probable thing to do, but the two are different from the fact that the Battle had room to grow and could have been a far more useful airframe given its size and performance, which was better than the Devastator, but the issue with the Battle was that its role, which defined it, naturally, was flawed. The single-engined day bomber as the RAF saw it, was at fault by the time the war breaks out - said with a HUGE dose of hindsight though, which is what we are doing with the Devastator, I fear. The TBD was designed as a carrier based topedo bomber and did that job as intended, albeit with a few snags along the way and I'm led to believe it was a bad aircraft, whereas the Battle was not. It handled well, flew well, it was modern and, like the TBD was technologically advanced at the time of its debut.
The one thing that surprises me about the Battle is its sheer size. Okay, this is a photo of a Mosquito, but compare the Battle alongside it...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
You might want to check out a video on YouTube about the TBD. It's by Military Aviation History. The video is entitled "In defense of the worst airplane of WW2" (or thereabouts, you might wind up with his piece on the Defiant).
I'm afraid that's where most of my info on the TBD comes from. I'd love to hear some opinions about the video from forum members.
Last edited:
This is from Yorktown's Coral Sea action report:
"Torpedo Planes
From the experience gained by VT-5 in the attacks of May 4th, 7th, and 8th, certain factors became apparent insofar as Material, Personnel, and Tactics are concerned:
Material
As previously stated in the report on the engagement of the 7th, it is essential that a torpedo plane must be fast, have a long range, the ability to dive, and sufficient gun power to defend itself. In connection with this, a torpedo must be developed that can be dropped at high speed and from a height of 200 feet.
Personnel
Torpedo plane pilots must be given every opportunity to make practice drops against a maneuvering target, and to observe the torpedo run. This will bring out clearly to the pilot: (a) the relative slowness of the torpedo after striking the water, (b) the great amount of lead necessary for a beam or close to beam shot, and (c) the large effect of small errors in target course and speed if torpedo is dropped at long range. The practice of carrying and dropping dummy torpedoes is considered useless and a waste of time except for brand new pilots.
Tactics
In the recent engagements the Japanese screen has scattered instead of closing in to support the ship being attacked. This is, however, no indication that their screen will not close in on future attacks. Closing-in tactics would be an excellent counter to our
--25--
system of attack. Due to the slow speed and low altitude of drop required for the Mk. 13 torpedoes, our planes are forced to come in low and slow. In the event that the Japanese change their system and put a heavy cordon of ships around their large vessels, it is doubtful that a successful torpedo attack could be launched by TBD's without the loss of the major part of the squadron.
In order to inflict the maximum damage on a maneuvering ship it is essential that the torpedo and dive bombing attacks be coordinated so that the dive bombing attack starts just before and continues through the torpedo attack. This has the following advantages:
It provides mutual support and forces the enemy to divide his fire.
The spray and smoke from close misses will partially obscure the torpedo planes from the target, and the concussion will reduce the accuracy of the AA fire.
With the present type of torpedo planes it is essential that they be furnished with fighter protection. It is considered that on the attack of May 8th VT-5 would have suffered severe losses from enemy aircraft if the TBD's had been unescorted. While it is understood that TBF's are being provided, and that the present type torpedo is being modified to allow for dropping at higher altitudes and greater speeds, the need for these has been so clearly emphasized by the Battle of the Coral Sea that it is again urgently recommended that immediate steps be taken to replace the TBD's with TBF's.
--26--
Torpedoes
In recent operations against enemy forces, VT-5 has had occasion to drop 41 torpedoes; of these, 32 were Mark 13, and 9 were Mark 13 Mod 1. All of the Mark 13 Mod 1 made erratic runs. The reason for this is unknown. They were inspected carefully before use and apparently were in perfect condition. Photograph No. 9 of enclosure (A) shows what may be two erratic torpedo tracks." U.S.S. Yorktown--Action Report of the Battle of the Coral Sea
The probability of disaster to unescorted TBDs was clearly known and predicted, as were the issues with the MK 13 mod 1 torpedo (used at Midway IIRC). Prior to Midway the TBD simply didn't encounter fighters in any numbers.
"Torpedo Planes
From the experience gained by VT-5 in the attacks of May 4th, 7th, and 8th, certain factors became apparent insofar as Material, Personnel, and Tactics are concerned:
Material
As previously stated in the report on the engagement of the 7th, it is essential that a torpedo plane must be fast, have a long range, the ability to dive, and sufficient gun power to defend itself. In connection with this, a torpedo must be developed that can be dropped at high speed and from a height of 200 feet.
Personnel
Torpedo plane pilots must be given every opportunity to make practice drops against a maneuvering target, and to observe the torpedo run. This will bring out clearly to the pilot: (a) the relative slowness of the torpedo after striking the water, (b) the great amount of lead necessary for a beam or close to beam shot, and (c) the large effect of small errors in target course and speed if torpedo is dropped at long range. The practice of carrying and dropping dummy torpedoes is considered useless and a waste of time except for brand new pilots.
Tactics
In the recent engagements the Japanese screen has scattered instead of closing in to support the ship being attacked. This is, however, no indication that their screen will not close in on future attacks. Closing-in tactics would be an excellent counter to our
--25--
system of attack. Due to the slow speed and low altitude of drop required for the Mk. 13 torpedoes, our planes are forced to come in low and slow. In the event that the Japanese change their system and put a heavy cordon of ships around their large vessels, it is doubtful that a successful torpedo attack could be launched by TBD's without the loss of the major part of the squadron.
In order to inflict the maximum damage on a maneuvering ship it is essential that the torpedo and dive bombing attacks be coordinated so that the dive bombing attack starts just before and continues through the torpedo attack. This has the following advantages:
It provides mutual support and forces the enemy to divide his fire.
The spray and smoke from close misses will partially obscure the torpedo planes from the target, and the concussion will reduce the accuracy of the AA fire.
With the present type of torpedo planes it is essential that they be furnished with fighter protection. It is considered that on the attack of May 8th VT-5 would have suffered severe losses from enemy aircraft if the TBD's had been unescorted. While it is understood that TBF's are being provided, and that the present type torpedo is being modified to allow for dropping at higher altitudes and greater speeds, the need for these has been so clearly emphasized by the Battle of the Coral Sea that it is again urgently recommended that immediate steps be taken to replace the TBD's with TBF's.
--26--
Torpedoes
In recent operations against enemy forces, VT-5 has had occasion to drop 41 torpedoes; of these, 32 were Mark 13, and 9 were Mark 13 Mod 1. All of the Mark 13 Mod 1 made erratic runs. The reason for this is unknown. They were inspected carefully before use and apparently were in perfect condition. Photograph No. 9 of enclosure (A) shows what may be two erratic torpedo tracks." U.S.S. Yorktown--Action Report of the Battle of the Coral Sea
The probability of disaster to unescorted TBDs was clearly known and predicted, as were the issues with the MK 13 mod 1 torpedo (used at Midway IIRC). Prior to Midway the TBD simply didn't encounter fighters in any numbers.
Yup, when we could do foreign travel
Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and of Military History | Flickr
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
RE: post #496
In the second paragraph "Material", the requirement for diving is mentioned. Do you know if the author meant dive bombing ability or a more maneuverable airframe? As I read it, a professional Naval authority is requesting an "all singing-all dancing" airplane. This opinion seems to be counter to some of the posts written on other threads
In the second paragraph "Material", the requirement for diving is mentioned. Do you know if the author meant dive bombing ability or a more maneuverable airframe? As I read it, a professional Naval authority is requesting an "all singing-all dancing" airplane. This opinion seems to be counter to some of the posts written on other threads
Shortround6
Major General
Perhaps, but the SBD-5 used a 1200hp engine while the SBD-3 used a 1000hp engine. Better take-off and climb with the same load.
Lets also remember that the SBD started out as this
First flight 19 August 1935 order placed in 1936 with planes entering service in 1938.
Another US strike aircraft.
first flight 4 January 1936
Much is made of the range of the dive bombers but they were carrying 1/2 the load of the torpedo bomber and wings about 3/4 the size for the monoplanes.
The SBD didn't have any real advantage in range until sometime in late 1941 or early 1942 when it's allowable gross weight went up over 1000lbs.
The Vindicator was not an outstanding success as the planned use of the constant speed prop as dive brake didn't work and they had to resort to lowering the landing gear and diving at a shallower angle. This was going to reduce accuracy.
I would note the Japanese, the only other country in the carrier borne torpedo bomber and dive bomber contest (aside from France) started with monoplanes powered with 9 cylinder radials and went to 14 cylinder radials by the time Japan was fighting anywhere but China.
The TBD was never upgraded, wither it couldn't be or the Navy didn't bother once they new they could get planes powered by the R-2600 engine I don't know. There is only so much money to go around and upgrading old planes or trying to reinstate production (Build TBDs instead of SBDs ? or some of each?)
For a crappy, poor handling airplane there were certainly a fair number of the 130 built still flying in 1942, three years after the last one left the production line.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
IIRC by Midway there were only 100 operational due to attrition and I think the writing was on the wall when the TBF was starting to be delivered. It seems the Navy just drug it's feet for one reason or another getting the TBD removed from the fleet, and as we all know with disasterous results.
