Swordfish vs Devastator

[wingnuts]

They called a string bag because was a cloth covered airplane.

The RAF and Fleet Air Arm operated a lot of "cloth covered" aircraft, only the Swordfish was called the Stringbag.

What the Stringbag lacked in speed it made up for in the multiplicity of armament and equipment it could carry, arguably more than any other aircraft: torpedoes, bombs, mines, flares, Air-to-Surface Vessel (ASV) radar, Leigh Lights (20-million-candlepower spotlights powered by a 300-pound battery), rocket-assisted-takeoff units (RATO) and rocket projectiles (on a fabric-covered plane!). Brown described taking off loaded with a Leigh Light, torpedo and eight anti-submarine bombs: "There was really no logical reason why it should ever have flown with this mass of stores, but fly it did."

Fairey Swordfish: The Glorious "Stringbag"

The Fairey Swordfish was a medium-sized biplane torpedo bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. ... In service, it received the nickname Stringbag; this was not due to its biplane struts, spars, and braces, but a reference to the seemingly endless variety of stores and equipment that the type was cleared to carry.

Fairey Swordfish - Wikipedia.

 

[RCAFson]

I don't think Albacores would have held up well to attacks by Zeros lol

The SBDs, at Midway, were not intercepted before before they began their attack. Albacores, carrying bombs or torpedoes, could have flown a very similar attack profile.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Not to put too fine a point on things but while it's true the morning SBD attack wasn't harassed by Zeros, the late afternoon strike on Hiryu was. Zeros intercepted the Dauntlesses and even followed them down on their attack runs, to no avail obviously.

 

[RCAFson]

Not to put too fine a point on things but while it's true the morning SBD attack wasn't harassed by Zeros, the late afternoon strike on Hiryu was. Zeros intercepted the Dauntlesses and even followed them down on their attack runs, to no avail obviously.

The IJN was surprised prior to the SBD strike on Hiryu as well, with only a few minutes warning prior to the SBD attack dive.

 

[Schweik]

The IJN was surprised prior to the SBD strike on Hiryu as well, with only a few minutes warning prior to the SBD attack dive.

It's also the case that those same SBD squadrons had encountered zeros several times prior to Midway, both on scouting and bombing missions, and had mostly managed to survive the encounters. Even as emergency fighters though they were definitely not suited for that (and they lost several planes in that role).

I don't think Swordfish or Albacore equipped units would have survived getting bounced by Zeros or Oscars, or even Japanese floatplane fighters like Misubishi F1M 'Pete's.

 

[Schweik]

It gets back to the whole 'permissive environment' issue. That said, at night it would still be a permissive environment.

As for the versatility, that seemed to be the case with a lot of torpedo bombers and also float planes as well.

 

[RCAFson]

It's also the case that those same SBD squadrons had encountered zeros several times prior to Midway, both on scouting and bombing missions, and had mostly managed to survive the encounters. Even as emergency fighters though they were definitely not suited for that (and they lost several planes in that role).

I don't think Swordfish or Albacore equipped units would have survived getting bounced by Zeros or Oscars, or even Japanese floatplane fighters like Misubishi F1M 'Pete's.

What we're discussing is not the SBD vs Albacore but the TBD vs Albacore. My point is that the Albacore can fly an SBD attack profile which will reduce the probability of interception prior to the strike and during the attack phase the Albacore can use a very steep dive to limit fighter interception and reduce flak accuracy.

 

[Schweik]

What we're discussing is not the SBD vs Albacore but the TBD vs Albacore. My point is that the Albacore can fly an SBD attack profile which will reduce the probability of interception prior to the strike and during the attack phase the Albacore can use a very steep dive to limit fighter interception and reduce flak accuracy.

Maybe once, or twice, but eventually those slow, vulnerable planes will run into fighters. The comparison is similar to the notion of an SBD carrying a torpedo but not being able to land with one - it's not realistically feasible. The Albacore, Swordfish and TBD were all basically sitting ducks to a real fighter, or even a semi-fighter like an F1M. I think this is especially true for the hypermanueverable Japanese aircraft which could easily slow down to biplane speeds and tear them up. SBD not so much - it had the combination of factors which enabled it to survive such encounters, and even score air to air victories over Japanese bombers and recon aircraft. The Pacific Theater was not a 'permissive' environment in the sense of fighter opposition.

One thing occurred to me, from what I understand the TBD did not have self-sealing fuel tanks, which was a big problem. Is that true? Did the Swordfish or Albacore have them? The SBD did.

However, Swordfish being able to hit targets at night could have been very useful for example at Guadalcanal when the Japanese night attacks, bombardment sorties and supply runs were coming in. I think that was a real asset, even with the limited range. And I'll grant you, being able to use Albacore's as dive bombers makes them a bit more useful there as well. Ultimately they adapted the PBY for this same mission. I just can't really envision the Swordfish or the Albacore operating effectively during daylight hours anywhere near Japanese fighters, and given the fact that they (Japanese fighter aircraft) had two or three times the range, that put serious limits on the feasibility of their use, at least during the day.


I think in general, a carrier launched torpedo bomber was a very difficult design problem to solve in WW2, and the effective designs really didn't seem to emerge until near the end of the war (too late to play any significant role) and the beginning of the jet age when even promising designs like the B7N, Douglas BTD, Mrtin AM Mauler, or A1 Skyraider were rapidly becoming obsolescent (even if they did still find a role for the AD / A1 ). In the late 30's or even early 40's, it was barely possible to design such an aircraft and nobody fully rose to the challenge.

 

[RCAFson]

Maybe once, or twice, but eventually those slow, vulnerable planes will run into fighters. The comparison is similar to the notion of an SBD carrying a torpedo but not being able to land with one - it's not realistically feasible. The Albacore, Swordfish and TBD were all basically sitting ducks to a real fighter, or even a semi-fighter like an F1M. I think this is especially true for the hypermanueverable Japanese aircraft which could easily slow down to biplane speeds and tear them up. SBD not so much - it had the combination of factors which enabled it to survive such encounters, and even score air to air victories over Japanese bombers and recon aircraft. The Pacific Theater was not a 'permissive' environment in the sense of fighter opposition.

One thing occurred to me, from what I understand the TBD did not have self-sealing fuel tanks, which was a big problem. Is that true? Did the Swordfish or Albacore have them? The SBD did.

However, Swordfish being able to hit targets at night could have been very useful for example at Guadalcanal when the Japanese night attacks, bombardment sorties and supply runs were coming in. I think that was a real asset, even with the limited range. And I'll grant you, being able to use Albacore's as dive bombers makes them a bit more useful there as well. Ultimately they adapted the PBY for this same mission. I just can't really envision the Swordfish or the Albacore operating effectively during daylight hours anywhere near Japanese fighters, and given the fact that they (Japanese fighter aircraft) had two or three times the range, that put serious limits on the feasibility of their use, at least during the day.


I think in general, a carrier launched torpedo bomber was a very difficult design problem to solve in WW2, and the effective designs really didn't seem to emerge until near the end of the war (too late to play any significant role) and the beginning of the jet age when even promising designs like the B7N, Douglas BTD, Mrtin AM Mauler, or A1 Skyraider were rapidly becoming obsolescent (even if they did still find a role for the AD / A1 ). In the late 30's or even early 40's, it was barely possible to design such an aircraft and nobody fully rose to the challenge.

I don't think there's any doubt that the Albacore was very vulnerable to fighters, but again the question is whether it was less so than the TBD. I think it was less vulnerable because it had more freedom to use higher altitude during the approach phase to avoid interception and being fully stressed for dive bombing it could use extreme manoeuvres that the TBD simply wasn't stressed for. The Albacore did have SS tanks and pilot armour. It's probable that the lack of SS tanks was a factor in some of the TBD losses, especially after the Zeros ran out of 20mm ammo.

On 5 April 1942, two recon Albacores were separately intercepted by Zeros, One was shot down but the other escaped by essentially out manoeuvring the intercepting Zero during a lengthy encounter.

The Barracuda was marred by late development and the high wing design (forced upon Fairey by FAA observer visibility requirements), The high wing forced the use of massively heavy and draggy LG and marred the airflow to the tail, causing handling problems. The SB2C-3/4/5 was an excellent combined TB/DB and there were calls to beach the TBF/TBM from USN fleet carriers after the SBC-3/4/5 arrived along with a quick DB to TB conversion kit.

 

[Schweik]

The Albacore was more flexible (able to dive bomb) and probably safer to fly than the TBD. Had better range, had the potential for radar and therefore night-ops, was almost certainly more maneuverable (not the most acrobatic biplane apparently but nothing like a 'cathedral' hahahahaha), and was stressed for high G turns albeit at very slow speed. So no argument there. But the vulnerability to fighters is a big problem in the Pacific, a 50% loss rate in one encounter is nothing to brag about, and isn't viable for carrier ops in that environment. And ultimately pilots actually preferred the Swordfish

The Barracuda was another disaster on so many levels, apparrently for the most part killed in the pre-design specs phase. I often wondered if this was the main issue with all the FAA designs, naval battleship officers just couldn't get their head around aviation. The SB2C probably would have been a good aircraft if the length hadn't been limited by aircraft carrier elevators and if Curtiss aircraft wasn't having so much trouble. If you lengthened the fuselage by 3' it would have been a good overall design, maybe they could have also fit some more fuel in it. They still did pretty well with it and compensated for some of the problems, but you can see the design flaw just looking at it in profile.

 

[Schweik]

SB2C was kind of a typical mid-war US design of the school that "If you can't make a proper normal sized aircraft, make one twice as big as normal with a huge radial engine and jam it through ...." and while in the case of the F6F, TBF, F4U and P-47 they more or less pulled it off, in this case they didn't. Probably the internal bay big enough for a torpedo was the "bridge too far"

Trying to jam too many roles in the multi-role design is another chronic problem with American designs, see F-111, F-35...

 

[Elvis]

Not to skew my own thread, but at this point.....anyway....

I think there were a few mentions earlier on, that the Albacore was superior to the Avenger, but was it really that much better?

...apologies if I'm misquoting.

 

[Schweik]

Not to skew my own thread, but at this point.....anyway....

I think there were a few mentions earlier on, that the Albacore was superior to the Avenger, but was it really that much better?

...apologies if I'm misquoting.

I really don't think it was...

Stat-------------------------TBF ------------------------------ Albacore
Level speed----------------278 mph------------------------- 169 mph
Cruise speed---------------215 mph------------------------- 140 mph
Range----------------------905 miles------------------------ 710 mph
Bomb load-----------------2,000 lbs------------------------- 2,000 lbs
Offensive Guns------------ 1 x .50"-------------------------- 1 x .30"
Defensive Guns------------1 x .50, 1 x .30------------------- 1 x .30"
Rockets---------------------Yes------------------------------- No (?)
Mines-----------------------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Radar-----------------------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Operate from CVL---------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Sunk IJN Capitol ships-----Yes------------------------------- No
ASW------------------------Yes------------------------------- (Not really)

The Albacore could dive-bomb, but had a significantly shorter range and half the speed of the Avenger. And the SBD was a much better dive bomber anyway. The Avenger wasn't a great air to air combat aircraft but it had a better survival record in the Pacific. They eventually fitted them with rockets for the 'attack' role. I think the only real advantage the Albacore had was being smaller. Maybe easier maintenance though the Taurus didn't have a good rep.

 

[yulzari]

One thing occurred to me, from what I understand the TBD did not have self-sealing fuel tanks, which was a big problem. Is that true? Did the Swordfish or Albacore have them? The SBD did.

FWIW the Swordfish rear cockpit mounted overload tank came with a bag of corks so that the navigator could plug up any bullet holes.

 

[Schweik]

I remember reading something similar about the Skua, in which the fuel tank was in front of the crewman. yikes.

 

[fastmongrel]

Maybe easier maintenance though the Taurus didn't have a good rep.

By the time of 1942 the Taurus had been sorted and doesnt seem to have had many reliability problems. I think its problem was it was damned by its early reputation in service with the Beaufort when it was justifiably an awful engine.

 

[RCAFson]

I really don't think it was...

Stat-------------------------TBF ------------------------------ Albacore
Level speed----------------278 mph------------------------- 169 mph
Cruise speed---------------215 mph------------------------- 140 mph
Range----------------------905 miles------------------------ 710 mph
Bomb load-----------------2,000 lbs------------------------- 2,000 lbs
Offensive Guns------------ 1 x .50"-------------------------- 1 x .30"
Defensive Guns------------1 x .50, 1 x .30------------------- 1 x .30"
Rockets---------------------Yes------------------------------- No (?)
Mines-----------------------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Radar-----------------------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Operate from CVL---------Yes------------------------------- Yes
Sunk IJN Capitol ships-----Yes------------------------------- No
ASW------------------------Yes------------------------------- (Not really)

The Albacore could dive-bomb, but had a significantly shorter range and half the speed of the Avenger. And the SBD was a much better dive bomber anyway. The Avenger wasn't a great air to air combat aircraft but it had a better survival record in the Pacific. They eventually fitted them with rockets for the 'attack' role. I think the only real advantage the Albacore had was being smaller. Maybe easier maintenance though the Taurus didn't have a good rep.

I don't think there were any prior comparisons of the TBF and Albacore, in this thread anyways. I think someone misread TBD as TBF.

In any event USN SAC TBF-1 performance data states a Vmax of 257mph at 12k ft (military power) with a MK13 torpedo and ~262mph clean (military power, full fuel, no bombs or torpedo). Boscombe Down testing showed 252mph at 4200 ft (with ~2000lb internal ordnance).

FAA stats* for the Albacore (Taurus XII) was Vmax of 140 knots (161mph) at 4500ft with a torpedo and 280IG of internal fuel. Range (with allowance for climb) was 809nm at 101knots.

Boscombe Down testing showed (Taurus II) with four 500lb DC as 160mph at 4800ft and 172mph clean.

* Friedman, British Carrier Aviation.

 

[Schweik]

Even if you nudge the TBF speed down to 250 and nudge Albacore up to 160, (and if I wanted to spend the effort I think we could find many other data points to further complicate this) it still looks pretty bad in comparison, at least to me. Not only is that top speed and cruise speed very low, but I don't think it could go very fast even in a dive. It was obsolete before they even made it. As was the Swordfish and the TBD to be honest. Yes they were 1930's designs but so was the Spiftire, Me 109, Curtiss Hawk, SBD etc.

We can read about the many endearingly ingenious and clever ways they worked around the problems, and the courage of the flight crews who accomplished some successes in spite of the crippling flaws is quite admirable, but the truth is these were seriously flawed designs from the minute they were drafted in blueprint, and in many cases even before that, at the spec level. That was a big problem for those brave crews.

Also I suspect 'Stringbag' had a double meaning. It was versatile but the fact that it was basically made of canvas and wires stood out more and more as the war progressed.

 

[Schweik]

I don't mean to put a damper on all the clever things they came up with to make them more effective though, it's really fun reading about them.

 

[RCAFson]

Even if you nudge the TBF speed down to 250 and nudge Albacore up to 160, (and if I wanted to spend the effort I think we could find many other data points to further complicate this) it still looks pretty bad in comparison, at least to me. Not only is that top speed and cruise speed very low, but I don't think it could go very fast even in a dive. It was obsolete before they even made it. As was the Swordfish and the TBD to be honest. Yes they were 1930's designs but so was the Spiftire, Me 109, Curtiss Hawk, SBD etc.

We can read about the many endearingly ingenious and clever ways they worked around the problems, and the courage of the flight crews who accomplished some successes in spite of the crippling flaws is quite admirable, but the truth is these were seriously flawed designs from the minute they were drafted in blueprint, and in many cases even before that, at the spec level. That was a big problem for those brave crews.

Also I suspect 'Stringbag' had a double meaning. It was versatile but the fact that it was basically made of canvas and wires stood out more and more as the war progressed.

VNE on an Albacore was 215 knots IAS and it seems that exceeding 200 knots was likely in a steep dive.

I provided the Boscombe Down measured speeds for both aircraft, but as I stated, AFAIK (and I searched the thread) there were no prior comparisons between the Albacore and TBF. As had been discussed in prior threads The FAA needed aircraft that had good STOL characteristics to operate off the RN's older, slower, carriers with their shorter flight decks. The TBD and even the B5N2 would not have met FAA requirements due to their poor STOL characteristics and probably not the SBD-2/3 either.