Swordfish vs Devastator (3 Viewers)

[Ovod]

Ever heard of a place called Taranto?

I don't think ASV radar could be used to locate ships in harbour - why would you need to?

The KM stayed away from RN carriers as much as possible. To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea.

Indeed, I agree, but very few night time radar attacks were carried out. So why are you so confident of the track record of such naval attacks when the track record doesn't really exist.

In fact it was the RN that went up against KB with two fleet carriers when the Kido Butai had 5 fleet carriers at Ceylon, versus 4 at Midway, against 3 USN fleet carriers and a much stronger land based airforce on Midway, than the FAA/RAF had on Ceylon.

I know, and look what happened to HMS Hermes.

 

[RCAFson]

I think many have stipulated, of the two obsolescent, highly flawed early torpedo bombers, the Swordfish was a bit better than the TBD Devastator. The Swordfish had a marginally better (though still quite bad) range of 522 miles with a Torpedo, vs. 472 for the TBD. But the single thing you can say positively about the TBD is that they only made 130 of them and they were retired in 1942. For some reason they made 2,300 Swordfish and were still using them to the end of the war. It don't think the reason was because they were wildly effective.

From mid 1942 the Allied competition of the Swordfish was the Avenger, which the RN themselves adopted in spite of the torpedo problems. I think that should tell you something. And the Avenger did get radar in 1943 so it could operate at night and in bad weather. They were also robust enough to be used by the USMC in the CAS role, with rockets. In the TAFFY 3 / Samarengagement they proved capable of taking on major /advanced Japanese warships more or less on their own.

The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the Albacore. both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The RN adopted the Avenger on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the Barracuda.

I don't recall any IJN CAP opposing Taffy 3 and there's no reason why Albacores (or Barracudas) couldn't have flown the same missions.

 

[RCAFson]

1)I don't think ASV radar could be used to locate ships in harbour - why would you need to?

2) Indeed, I agree, but very few night time radar attacks were carried out. So why are you so confident of the track record of such naval attacks when the track record doesn't really exist.

3) I know, and look what happened to HMS Hermes.

1) ASV was useful for night nav, although not used at Taranto.

2) The IJN used ASV radar to attack and hit USN ships including fleet carriers; it was the lack of opportunity that limited the FAA in doing the same.

3) Yes, the IJN sank an RN light carrier and how many USN carriers?

 

[Schweik]

The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the Albacore. both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The RN adopted the Avenger on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the Barracuda.

Avenger also carried external (and internal) fuel tanks, including two 58 gallon 'slipper' tanks on the wings (which could be used while carrying ordinance) which doubled the range, plus a a jettisonable 275 gal tank in the internal bomb bay which could be used on recon missions, further substantially increasing the range. Again - range being very important in naval / carrier warfare.

The Swordfish and Albacore were definitely good enough in 1937, and though clearly obsolescent were just barely arguably viable by 1942. After that, they were miserably deficient. Which is why they were not known for a lot of major victories after Taranto.

I don't recall any IJN CAP opposing Taffy 3 and there's no reason why Albacores (or Barracudas) couldn't have flown the same missions.

Well I don't know about CAP but there were Japanese aircraft in the area, as there were 30 Kamikaze attacks.

I would say that Albacores could not have survived those missions, at least not as well, due to their limited range and extremely slow operating speed, which would have made them considerably more vulnerable to the improved AAA from the (relatively modern) Japanese fleet at that time. I'm not sure Barracudas could hve operated from those 'Jeep' Carriers, but even if they could, it seems they didn't do well in the Pacific Theater. From the Wiki:

On 21 April 1944 Barracudas of No 827 Squadron aboard Illustrious began operations against Japanese forces.[1][27] The type participated in air raids on Sabang in Sumatra, known as Operation Cockpit.[28] In the Pacific theatre, the Barracuda's performance was considerably reduced by the prevailing high temperatures;[N 1] reportedly, its combat radius in the Pacific was reduced by as much as 30%. This diminished performance was a factor in the decision to re-equip the torpedo bomber squadrons aboard the fleet carriers of the British Pacific Fleet with American-built Grumman Avengers.[30]

Like I said, it seems to have been something of a missed opportunity. Cool name though.

 

[The Basket]

Swordfish v Devastator.

The world's most boring dogfight.

The loser would be the fans.

 

[Schweik]

1) ASV was useful for night nav, although not used at Taranto.

2) The IJN used ASV radar to attack and hit USN ships including fleet carriers; it was the lack of opportunity that limited the FAA in doing the same.

3) Yes, the IJN sank an RN light carrier and how many USN carriers?

Lol, I think you want to count the number of engagements and the losses on both sides, otherwise you might get a slightly skewed perception

 

[RCAFson]

Ho ho ho! Not so fast. I think that bold statements needs a second look lolol



You are forgetting Coral Sea, where the USN had two carriers vs. three for the IJN, and came out a lot better than the RN did at Ceylon.

1) no it doesn't. Whenever the KM learning that an RN carrier TG was at sea they fled for port, except when weather or lighting made carrier ops unlikely, prior to ASV radar.

At Coral Sea the USN had two fleet carriers vs two IJN fleet carriers and a light carrier. At Ceylon the RN had two fleet carriers and a disarmed (of aircraft) due to refitting light carrier while the IJN had 5 fleet carriers, and one light carrier.

 

[Schweik]

1) no it doesn't. Whenever the KM learning that an RN carrier TG was at sea they fled for port, except when weather or lighting made carrier ops unlikely, prior to ASV radar.

I was referring to this very bold claim (in bold): ". To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea. "

 

[Schweik]

I know some of you guys are deeply patriotic, but do you really want to compare the RN record vs. the IJN as compared to the USN record? Seems a bit 'daft'.

 

[buffnut453]

My comments have nothing to do with patriotism...I am, after all, American.

The bottom line is that, in mid-1942, no other navy had the capabilities that the Swordfish brought to the table. Yes, it was long in the tooth and should have been replaced years beforehand....but it wasn't and it offered tactical options that were not available to either the USN or the IJN. Yes, forcing the Swordfish to fly the same daylight profile as the TBDs would be a massacre....but why do that when it could deliver the same punch at night when the IJN defenses wouldn't even know they were coming?

 

[Schweik]

I was replying to someone else.

I think it's been pointed out, airborne radar was a huge innovation in 1940, not so rare any more by 1942. And while night (and bad weather) flying is great, it doesn't trump range which is key in naval war.

 

[RCAFson]

Avenger also carried external (and internal) fuel tanks, including two 58 gallon 'slipper' tanks on the wings (which could be used while carrying ordinance) which doubled the range, plus a a jettisonable 275 gal tank in the internal bomb bay which could be used on recon missions, further substantially increasing the range. Again - range being very important in naval / carrier warfare.

The Swordfish and Albacore were definitely good enough in 1937, and though clearly obsolescent were just barely arguably viable by 1942. After that, they were miserably deficient. Which is why they were not known for a lot of major victories after Taranto.



Well I don't know about CAP but there were Japanese aircraft in the area, as there were 30 Kamikaze attacks.

I would say that Albacores could not have survived those missions, at least not as well, due to their limited range and extremely slow operating speed, which would have made them considerably more vulnerable to the improved AAA from the (relatively modern) Japanese fleet at that time. I'm not sure Barracudas could hve operated from those 'Jeep' Carriers, but even if they could, it seems they didn't do well in the Pacific Theater. From the Wiki:

On 21 April 1944 Barracudas of No 827 Squadron aboard Illustrious began operations against Japanese forces.[1][27] The type participated in air raids on Sabang in Sumatra, known as Operation Cockpit.[28] In the Pacific theatre, the Barracuda's performance was considerably reduced by the prevailing high temperatures;[N 1] reportedly, its combat radius in the Pacific was reduced by as much as 30%. This diminished performance was a factor in the decision to re-equip the torpedo bomber squadrons aboard the fleet carriers of the British Pacific Fleet with American-built Grumman Avengers.[30]

Like I said, it seems to have been something of a missed opportunity. Cool name though.

Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?

Albacore range was operationally similar to the TBF. It's (and the Swordfish) ability to divebomb would have reduced it's vulnerability to flak vs glidebombing, but still probably worse than a TBF. There was no IJN CAP present.

Barracudas could have operated from any of Taffy 3's CVE because they all had catapults.

Barracuda's carried their bombs externally and the higher temps and humidity did cause a loss of range, but not so much whilst carrying a torpedo, due to the reduced drag. However, TBF performance wasn't unaffected either, as all aircraft suffered in high temps and humidity. However the Barracuda could have exchanged bomb load for range via a drop tank, but since the targets were all land based it wasn't worth the trade off. However, RN Light Fleet Carriers were operating Barracudas and these would have been used against Japan had the war lasted even a month longer.

 

[SaparotRob]

This is a great thread. This is a set of topics I'm very interested in. I think you guys are offering brilliant points but not for quite the same argument(?). I'd underline "quite" but I haven't figured that out yet.
As to the the biplanes, from multiple threads, they were built to a specification and operate from "last year's model" aircraft carriers. They fulfilled an early '40's equivalent to ASW helicopters though that wasn't the intent. . Better stuff was on the way. They were brilliant designs to a flawed spec.
The TBD was essentially a prototype of an untested weapon system/concept. The IJN's one was better. The USN had very few torpedoes and unwilling to lose any for training. The USN lacked money for most training. The TBD did do a competent job at the Lae Salamaua strike and of course, at the Coral Sea. Midway was a meat grinder for all torpedo planes involved. At least the USN had a better plane in the pipeline.
As to post #223, 3):
Oh yeah? Well, we had more carriers to lose! Not much of a rebuttal but it's all I got.

 

[buffnut453]

I think it's been pointed out, airborne radar was a huge innovation in 1940, not so rare any more by 1942. And while night (and bad weather) flying is great, it doesn't trump range which is key in naval war.

It absolutely WAS an innovation in 1942 given that neither the USN nor the IJN had airborne radar in mid-1942. Again, the Swordfish had a greater range than the Devastator even without the internal long-range fuel tank....so, again, the Swordfish gives more tactical options in mid-1942 compared to the Devastator.

Frankly, whether a weapon is innovative or not isn't the question. The real question is whether the weapon system can be countered. If it can't, then the weapon still offers advantages. The rifle, as a technology, is very old hat...but if it's being used against an adversary that only has spears, then it's a pretty advanced weapon.

 

[RCAFson]

I was referring to this very bold claim (in bold): ". To engage the RMI meant also engaging the land based axis aircraft based in Italy, Crete and North Africa, and enduring far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea. "

The Malta Convoys are good examples of this. During Pedestal (Aug 1942) the Axis had ~600 combat aircraft on the bases designated to participate.

 

[yulzari]

The Meteor was a V12. The V8 was a post war developmen.

Silly me. My brain said Meteorite but my fingers typed Meteor.

 

[Schweik]

Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?

I'm not sure what you mean, at some point upthread someone brought up the Albacore, which became part of the discussion, and then later someone asked about why the TBF was considered inferior to the Albacore, and I responded by pointing out that was not the case - TBF is actually significantly better. Better than the Barracuda too according to the Royal Navy. Several other people have chimed in about TBF and Albacore since then (maybe you missed it, re-read the thread?) as well as the original discussion of TBD and Swordfish. As they were all stablemates used by the Western Allies against the same enemies, it is probably relevant as far as context. At any rate, I don't think there is any rule against thread drift, it seems pretty routine in every lengthy discussion I've seen here.

For the record though, as I have already stipulated I think six times, in my opinion the TBD was disaster of a design, obsolescent at the start of the war and barely capable of performing it's mission, and the (also obsolescent) Swordfish was marginally better. Which I think says more about the TBD than it does about the Swordfish. But having airborne AS radar that early is still cool.

Albacore range was operationally similar to the TBF. It's (and the Swordfish) ability to divebomb would have reduced it's vulnerability to flak vs glidebombing, but still probably worse than a TBF. There was no IJN CAP present.

Yes, definitely worse than a TBF, which could fly at level speed faster than Swordfish or Albacore could in a dive. I also do not believe Albacore had 'similar' range as a (mid-war) TBF, operationally or otherwise. We'd have to take a deeper dive into those numbers.

Barracudas could have operated from any of Taffy 3's CVE because they all had catapults.

Yes, but as noted in the Wiki, they were considered so badly performing in the Pacific Theater that the RN decided to withdraw them... in favor of the Avenger / Tarpon. Which I think puts paid to your theory.

Barracuda's carried their bombs externally and the higher temps and humidity did cause a loss of range, but not so much whilst carrying a torpedo, due to the reduced drag. However, TBF performance wasn't unaffected either, as all aircraft suffered in high temps and humidity. However the Barracuda could have exchanged bomb load for range via a drop tank, but since the targets were all land based it wasn't worth the trade off. However, RN Light Fleet Carriers were operating Barracudas and these would have been used against Japan had the war lasted even a month longer.

I believe the quote on the bad performance was derived from RN sources. I suspect they would have been much better off using Corsairs Or even Fireflies.

 

[Schweik]

The Malta Convoys are good examples of this. During Pedestal (Aug 1942) the Axis had ~600 combat aircraft on the bases designated to participate.

Yeah, I don't buy that, for one because quantity is only one factor, there is a big difference in quality especially between Italian and Japanese aircraft vis a vis naval warfare. MC.200, CR 32 and CR 42, SM.79, CANT Z506 and so on don't compare very well to A6M, Ki-43, D3A, G4M in air to air or air to surface combat. The IJN was the strongest navy in the world by far in 1942-43.

Range is another major factor, because the extremely limited range of almost all the Axis aircraft in the MTO (including their best fighter, the Bf 109, and their best bomber, the Ju 87) meant that most of those 600 aircraft could not engage at the same time, but in fact the British convoys were typically only engaging a few dozen aircraft at a time.

So sorry mate, I don't even come close to buying that. Maybe we should start another thread to debate it?

 

[Schweik]

Why the sudden switch from TBD to TBF when the comparison from your prior post was the TBD and Swordfish?
.

I was responding to this post by the way: "The Swordfish could carry internal and external aux fuel tanks, ditto for the Albacore. both aircraft had ~twice the effective range of the TBD as a result. The RN adopted the Avenger on their fleet carriers only in late 1944, and only for striking land based targets with bombs to take advantage of it's longer range than the Barracuda. "

 

[slaterat]

What about the MC202, RE 2001 and the JU 88? I would rate these three as better than what the IJN could bring to fight. The Italian tri motors were also pretty good.