Swordfish vs Devastator

[Shortround6]

TBF got a lot more fuel added after the first mark - per the Wiki: "After hundreds of the original TBF-1 models were built, the TBF-1C began production. The allotment of space for specialized internal and wing-mounted fuel tanks doubled the Avenger's range.

You do have to be careful with Wiki ;

The huge increase in range was due to the increase in fuel from 335 gallons to 726 gallons, however this increase in fuel was due to two 58 gallon drop tanks (wing mounted tanks) and a 275 gallon auxiliary tank mounted in the bomb bay. (specialized internal tank). Which rather limits the usefulness of the extra range for combat.

Due to the increase of nearly 2750lbs gross weight in the later TBM-1Cs Grumman investigated other engines and settled on the 1900hp R-2600-20 which powered 4657 of the TBM-3 version form April of 19444 on.

Source Grumman Aircraft since 1929 by Rene J Francillon

 

[Shortround6]

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.

I don't know about the foot dragging. They ordered 285 TBF-1s and one XTBF-2 on Dec 30th 1940, 7 months before the XTBF-1 flew and it needed a fair amount of change.
Engine moved forward to correct CG problems, insufficient engine cooling, and vertical surfaces that were too small. The XTBF-1 crashed Nov 28th 1941 with only 25 hours of flying time. First production plane wasn't rolled out the door until Jan 3rd 1942.
The navy might not have had much choice if it wanted torpedo bombers as part of the force mix?

 

[nuuumannn]

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).

Thanks man, I'll do that.

 

[nuuumannn]

IIRC by Midway there were only 100 operational due to attrition

I read that there were 39 left in service after Midway - it was definitely on its way out, but what choice did the units have but to use them? Why would you leave serviceable aircraft on the ground when your territory is being threatened?

 

[RCAFson]

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

I think it was a request for some ability to approach at medium altitude, to overfly screening ships, and then be able to dive steeply to release altitude. The TBF could not use a DB attack profile but it had a high enough VNE that a fairly steep approach could be used, especially when the Mk13's allowable drop speeds increased. OTOH, the RN TBs could all use a true DB attack profile as could the SB2C-4/5 after they acquired the rapid changeover gear to convert to a TB.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't know about the foot dragging. They ordered 285 TBF-1s and one XTBF-2 on Dec 30th 1940, 7 months before the XTBF-1 flew and it needed a fair amount of change.
Engine moved forward to correct CG problems, insufficient engine cooling, and vertical surfaces that were too small. The XTBF-1 crashed Nov 28th 1941 with only 25 hours of flying time. First production plane wasn't rolled out the door until Jan 3rd 1942.
The navy might not have had much choice if it wanted torpedo bombers as part of the force mix?

I would think someone would have been aware of the TBD's shortcomings and saw the need to expedite TBM production. Granted you had training and logistic challenges

I read that there were 39 left in service after Midway - it was definitely on its way out, but what choice did the units have but to use them? Why would you leave serviceable aircraft on the ground when your territory is being threatened?

A good point but RCAF posted the Yorktown's Coral Sea action report. That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different!

 

[nuuumannn]

That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different!

Exactly... Putting that report into context, given that the TBD was already being replaced, that was perhaps not the biggest reveal of the report, the torpedo problems are more significant and far reaching, as they turned out to be. By the Coral Sea action, the TBD's days are numbered anyways and I'm picking the guy who wrote that report knew that, but you'd still throw whatever you've got at the enemy. Fascinating stuff though.

It reminds me of the use of the Boulton Paul Defiant units during the Battle of Britain on frontline squadron rosters - all two of them, Dowding knew that the idea wasn't the best for a fighter and that its performance was too low for frontline use, but the type was put in the firing line, it carried out standing patrols, intruder raids, intercepts against heavy escort fighter opposition, all the things it was not really suited for. Simply because Fighter Command needed fighters.

 

[SaparotRob]

You do have to be careful with Wiki ;

The huge increase in range was due to the increase in fuel from 335 gallons to 726 gallons, however this increase in fuel was due to two 58 gallon drop tanks (wing mounted tanks) and a 275 gallon auxiliary tank mounted in the bomb bay. (specialized internal tank). Which rather limits the usefulness of the extra range for combat.

Due to the increase of nearly 2750lbs gross weight in the later TBM-1Cs Grumman investigated other engines and settled on the 1900hp R-2600-20 which powered 4657 of the TBM-3 version form April of 19444 on.

Source Grumman Aircraft since 1929 by Rene J Francillon

 

[SaparotRob]

Sorry, accidentally clicked "reply".

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Just watched it, very good discussion!

 

[nuuumannn]

Just watched it, very good discussion!

Me too and it is certainly enlightening. The pilots' view is perhaps not what is being painted on this forum though, being described as nice to fly with pleasant handling although all agree its performance was sluggish and that it was outdated by 1942, but it certainly doesn't appear to have been the terrible aeroplane it's being depicted as here. I do suspect that a little Midway-itis is creeping in to perceptions, as I suspected, and I stand by my assertion that it was at the wrong place at the wrong time at Midway - not to mention bad torpedoes.

 

[SaparotRob]

One of the pilots quoted mentions the actual speed of the TBD may have been 200 when it was new but by 1942 he could get it to 150 only by "going downhill". The pilot also said they knew it was obsolete by that time.

 

[nuuumannn]

by 1942 he could get it to 150 only by "going downhill".

To all intents and purposes it did that really well

 

[slaterat]

With THAT said, do I think the Swordfish would have performed any better at Midway if deployed under the same conditions? - NO. I think the results would have been the same or worse. And before someone tries to say that the Swordfish was more maneuverable than the TBD and "could have" evaded better, the Japanese pilots flying CAP that day were the best in the world and I'm sure would have had no problem adjusting firing solutions for a target moving under 100 mph.

I agree with you 100%. The Swordfish and probably the Albacore were /would be death traps in daylight operations in the Pacific, especially if carrying torpedoes.

 

[Koopernic]

One of the pilots quoted mentions the actual speed of the TBD may have been 200 when it was new but by 1942 he could get it to 150 only by "going downhill". The pilot also said they knew it was obsolete by that time.

In Defense of the Worst Aircraft of World War II - TBD-1 Devastator - YouTube

The PW R-1830-64 of the Devastator had only 900hp. The R-1830 soon reached 1100hp, 1200hp and finally 1350hp. I wonder what 1100hp or 1200hp would have done for the aircraft.

 

[glennasher]

A good point but RCAF posted the Yorktown's Coral Sea action report. That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different![/QUOTE]

Indeed, if the TBDs hadn't flown, the Zeros wouldn't have been down low slaughtering them, and might have been available to stop the Dauntlesses up high. That would have altered things immensely.

 

[Koopernic]

Sorry, accidentally clicked "reply".

i purpose that when this happens in the future we post our favourite recipe.

 

[Peter Gunn]

A good point but RCAF posted the Yorktown's Coral Sea action report. That should have raised eyebrows but then again if the TBD would have been held back from Midway, the outcome may have been way different!

Indeed, if the TBDs hadn't flown, the Zeros wouldn't have been down low slaughtering them, and might have been available to stop the Dauntlesses up high. That would have altered things immensely.

Actually no, the TBD's contribution to the victory at Midway was the disruption of counterattack preparations of KdB, VT-8s demise happened a full hour before the SBD reign of terror on KdB started. See page 432 of "Shattered Sword" for debunking of this particular myth.

 

[glennasher]

Actually no, the TBD's contribution to the victory at Midway was the disruption of counterattack preparations of KdB, VT-8s demise happened a full hour before the SBD reign of terror on KdB started. See page 432 of "Shattered Sword" for debunking of this particular myth.

How long would it take the Japanese to recover, rearm, and refuel after taking down the torpedo planes? All of those things would be factors, no?

 

[SaparotRob]

How long would it take the Japanese to recover, rearm, and refuel after taking down the torpedo planes? All of those things would be factors, no?

Yes those factors were. There's a great set of videos that deal exactly with that. They're by Montemayor. It's called "Midway from the Japanese perspective" or close to it. He shows how the uncoordinated attacks kept Admiral Nagumo from being able to re-arm and launch later strikes much better than I could describe it.