Swordfish vs Devastator (1 Viewer)

[pbehn]

I used to inspect pipes made from explosively bonded plate. The plates were bonded in a cave in Switzerland, every explosion dislodged stones from the cave roof and any stone in the sand bed used for the next explosion produced massive defects. Explosive Bonding | NobelClad

 

[pbehn]

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.

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

Don't forget the scourging that Yamato received.

 

[Milosh]

After the Battle of Jutland from gun fire, SMS Seydlitz
e

 

[wingnuts]

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.

The Swordfish was nicknamed "String Bag" because you could put anything in it.

 

[Elvis]

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[Milosh]

I was always amazed at that photo - she's underway with less than 10 feet between the surface and her freeboard.

Would say much less than 10 ft.

 

[Ascent]

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

I'm afraid that's one for the myths thread, Wingnuts is right, it's because you could put anything in it.

 

[fastmongrel]

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

A very common shopping bag of the time was made of string netting like a fishing net. It was a very useful piece of kit when empty it collapsed down to the size of the palm of your hand but when filled with shopping it could take items like loaves of bread, quarts of milk and bags of fruit. I remember my mother coming home from a trip to the shops once with a giant hand of Bananas in her string bag. We ate bananas till we were sick of them.

The Stringbag was so called because it could carry everything thrown at it. There's a story I read about a Swordfish landing at an airbase at a time when jets ruled the skies. The pilot taxied up to the hangar climbed out unstrapped his bicycle from the centre section rack and pedalled off to the railway station to catch a train.

To modern eyes it looks crazy that it was still in use in 1945 but we should think of it more as filling the role of a Helicopter.

Among carrier aircraft only the Aichi D3 Val sank more vessels in the war.

 

[Koopernic]

Would say much less than 10 ft.
View attachment 608438

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.

 

[yulzari]

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.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

IIRC, at Midway the TBDs were cruising at 105 knots (probably IAS) at ~2000ft, according to Lundstrom. Swordfish cruise would be lower at 85-90 knots (IAS) but at higher altitude.

 

[ThomasP]

128 mph was (I think) the maximum continuous rich cruise for the Swordfish.

 

[Greyman]

Data sheet figures (mph) -- maximum, max rich, max econ, loiter:

Swordfish I (floats): 128, 115, 110, --
Swordfish I (shipplane): 138, 125, 105, --
Swordfish I (recce): 143, 137, 93, 83
Swordfish I (torpedo): 139, 129, 104, 91

EDIT: all speeds at 5,000 ft

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.

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.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm afraid that's one for the myths thread, Wingnuts is right, it's because you could put anything in it.

Better than Applecore, being just a play on words I assume. I can just imagine what the flyboys thought of Tarpon.

 

[Schweik]

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.

OMFG.... this is epic. Hilarious. I love this forum. I literally laughed out loud, hard....

 

[unkated]

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.

In addition to the other comments, I would suggest that the strike against the Kido Butai was anything but a team effort a there was little coordinated about the strike or rather strikes, as American air attack arrived a single squadrons or groups from Midway or the carriers at random. The DB squadrons luckily having missed the KB flying out, and following a DD headed somewhere in a hurry, arrived about the time the 3rd Devastator squadron was being finished off. Luck, not planning.

I seem to remember reading in Shattered Sword that at least one torpedo launched by a Devastator hit a carrier, but failed to explode. I cannot help but wonder how at least one hit on a Japanese carrier at Midway would have aided the opinion of the Devastator.

Uncle Ted

 

[Schweik]

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.

This - I'm enjoying the discussion, one thing I think deserves a much closer look is the set of properties of the different torpedoes. This goes way beyond the issues with the US torpedo in the first half of the war. I remember going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole on this once, and I was struck by the very wide differences in terms of performance of the torpedoes - such as:

Maximum height for drop
Maximum speed for drop
Torpedo speed
Torpedo range
Torpedo warhead size
Other / extra properties of torpedo

Perhaps someone can give us a full breakdown by nation and year, and I hope I will be forgiven for speaking in vague generalities. But there is a huge difference in the tactical capabilities of a torpedo which has to be dropped from 100' going 90 mph vs one that can be dropped from 300' going 200 mph. The former makes the attacking aircraft far more vulnerable to flak etc. My memory of this is again vague since I tend to be more interested in fighters generally speaking, but vaguely I remember that aside from all the other problems, the early USN torpedo (mk 13?) was one of those which had to be dropped reaaaaly low and slow, whereas the Japanese had one that could be dropped from much higher and faster. I think the French had a good one and so did the Germans. I think the British one was good too. The Italians had the 'motobomba' or whatever they called it, which could be dropped either in front of or amidst a fleet of ships and would circle around in spirals until it hit something, which was quite innovative (and was considered very effective, IIRC). I can't remember specifics of the Russian air-launched torpedos but I know they used some to good effect (albeit with many casualties) in the Baltic using A-20s and maybe Il-4s.

There was also a significant difference in range, torpedo speed and payload if I remember right. Didn't the long lance (or it's air-dropped equivalent) have a range of like 10,000 yards? But aside from the issues like running too deep or failing to detonate, launching parameters are perhaps among the most important factors. A good or great torpedo bomber is only as good as the weapon it launches...