Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As with aircraft which can be shot down with a single rifle bullet but can also limp home with many pieces of the structure missing, some lucky hits could render a battleship useless but it could take a huge amount of hits to actually sink them. With the water tight doors and compartmentalised construction it needed a lot of holes to let enough water in to get them to sink and you could blast the superstructure to pieces. Bismarck took 4 or 5 torpedo hits and about 400 shells to its structure before it was scuttled. Tirpitz was hit by a tallboy and didn't sink.You can damage or cripple an aircraft carrier or battleship with dive bombers, but to sink them you need to let the water in, and that needs torpedoes. IIRC, no carrier was ever sunk by dive bombers.
Don't forget the scourging that Yamato received.As with aircraft which can be shot down with a single rifle bullet but can also limp home with many pieces of the structure missing, some lucky hits could render a battleship useless but it could take a huge amount of hits to actually sink them. With the water tight doors and compartmentalised construction it needed a lot of holes to let enough water in to get them to sink and you could blast the superstructure to pieces. Bismarck took 4 or 5 torpedo hits and about 400 shells to its structure before it was scuttled. Tirpitz was hit by a tallboy and didn't sink.
The Swordfish was due to be replaced as a frontline carrier strike aircraft in 1939/40 by the Albacore, and was largely replaced by the Albacore by late 1941, and the Albacore, in turn, was due to be replaced by the Barracuda by 1941/42. Consequently it's a bit incorrect to compare the TBD to the Swordfish, however, the big advantage the Swordfish had over the TBD was it's versatility and it's ability to carry a wide variety of sensors, ordnance loads and auxiliary fuel tanks. Finally it was fully capable of dive bombing and could even release a torpedo after a dive bomb attack profile, where the TBD was structurally incapable of a DB attack profile.
Hypothetically, if the Swordfish replaced the TBD at Midway, they would have been launched well before dawn and been out scouting for the IJN via their ASV radar in total darkness, to hopefully make a night attack to avoid IJN CAP. If they had to be launched for a daylight attack, they could be outfitted with bombs (2 x 500lb and 2 x 250lb would be typical) to augment the SBD DB attacks, or they could retain torpedoes but approach at medium altitude and use a DB attack profile, to help evade flak and increase the probability of surprise.
On paper the Swordfish is much slower than the TBD, but in service the TBD was much slower than it's oft reported speeds and so it really wasn't that much faster than the Swordfish.
I was always amazed at that photo - she's underway with less than 10 feet between the surface and her freeboard.After the Battle of Jutland from gun fire, SMS Seydlitz
eView attachment 608434
I was always amazed at that photo - she's underway with less than 10 feet between the surface and her freeboard.
I'm afraid that's one for the myths thread, Wingnuts is right, it's because you could put anything in it.They called a string bag because was a cloth covered airplane.
They called a string bag because was a cloth covered airplane.
One thing is clear from the German language captions on those pictures, the Germans referred to the Battle of Jutland as the Battle Of Skagerraeck. (Skagerraek Schlacht). German Battleships had a lot of compartmentalisation. It's worth considering how important her mobility (steering & engines) was to her being able to return.Would say much less than 10 ft.
View attachment 608438
I was looking up the cruising speed of the Devastator and Swordfish and both have been quoted at 128mph. Does anyone have a definitive figure for them? Given that an attack at probable ranges involves flying the approach at cruising speed and the final attack at torpedo release speed it appears that the Devastator is little faster in actual use than a Swordfish. Both are of the same era with similar operational performances.
I would argue four of them at Midway. Yes they were given the coup de grace by IJN torpedo but that was just to expedite their demise so the remaining units could clear the area.You can damage or cripple an aircraft carrier or battleship with dive bombers, but to sink them you need to let the water in, and that needs torpedoes. IIRC, no carrier was ever sunk by dive bombers.
Better than Applecore, being just a play on words I assume. I can just imagine what the flyboys thought of Tarpon.I'm afraid that's one for the myths thread, Wingnuts is right, it's because you could put anything in it.
The lack of success of the Devastator is down to the circumstances. Swap in a Swordfish attacking the Japanese fleet and the results would be exactly the same. Look up Channel Dash as to how successful the Swordfish was in similar circumstances.
Plus there's the fact that the Devastator was a 1st generation monoplane and was a primitive underpowered death trap that had the manoeuvrability of a cathedral. The Swordfish was for a Biplane pretty sophisticated but was still an underpowered death trap.
Most if not all the Swordfish successes occurred in foul weather or night time when it didn't matter how slow you were if nobody could see you.
I'd also argue the TBD had success at Midway. Were it not for the Devastators drawing the Zeros down to LA it's not assured that the Dauntless strike from HA would have got into position unmolested over the KB to strike the killer blows. It's a team effort, each USN aircraft played a part.
The real comparison is between cruising speeds. The sortie is usually at some range and the target approached at cruising speed. For bombing maximum speed can be used but for a torpedo run the speed is limited to that at which the torpedo can be launched.