TBF Avenger obsolete in light of SBD Dauntless SB2C Helldiver?

If a 1944 aircraft didn't use different aerodynamics than a 1939 - 1940 aircraft, then the designer must have been asleep for 4 or 5 years. Aerodynamics went from 350 mph airplane to 450 mph airplanes in that timeframe.

GregP said:

If a 1944 aircraft didn;t use different aerodynamics than a 1939 - 1940 aircraft, then the designer must have been asleep for 4 or 5 years. Aerodynamics went from 350 mph airplane to 450 mph airplanes in that timeframe.

Click to expand...

There's still some question of how much that would impact aircraft in the <300 MPH flight envelope. British carrier based bomber developments stayed slow up to the end of the war ... very slow compared to American Bomber/Torpedo/Attack aircraft. And even the american bombers/attackers were hardly getting into the mid 300 mph range. (granted, it's the emphasis on fighter-bombers that was the bigger issue there)

Well, the P-47 is certainly classed as a fighter-bomber and was well into the mid to upper 400 mph range. The P-47N at the end of the war made 470 mph at best altitude ... granted without any bombs aboard (or even bomb racks), but it certainly wasn't exactly slow. I don't consider the Typhoon slow either ... and it was a one hell of a fighter-bomber.

I may be mis-using the word aerodynamics in this case but I am using it to cover not just airfoils and different flaps but just about anything concerning airflow. Like better radiators and radiator ducts, better oil coolers/ducts, better radial engine cowlings, even better canopy designs or wing root fairings.
While lower drag shows up in faster speeds for the same power it also means longer range at cruising powers.
And for the R-2800 advocates, the "C" series engines (P-47M/N, F4U-4, Fleetwings, Bearcats, Tigercats, etc) the change in the cooling fins meant less airflow was needed through the cowl for the same power levels. The Better cooling also meant that the "C" engines could be run about 10% leaner at the higher power Settings (high speed cruise). Not a huge change in itself but again it points out trying to compare a 1944/45 aircraft to a 1941/42 aircraft is going to have some problems. The "C" series engines are not just more powerful when pushed to higher limits but more economical when run at lower limits. There may not be a lot to chose when you get down to cruise speeds of 180mph though.

This difference in cooling also meant that they could make more power for the same drag as the older engine which certainly didn't hurt top speed performance.

gjs238 said:

How many of those "other" tasks/missions you listed by performed by the SB2C Helldiver?
(Not arguing for/against either aircraft, just curious)

Click to expand...

The Helldiver could do some of the jobs. Helldiver had some low speed handling issues and a higher stall speed than the Avenger which prevented or restricted it's use on smaller carriers. Avengers could operated (although at restricted weights) off of even the smallest/slowest carriers.
A number of sources claim the Helldiver could carry a torpedo but photos of a torpedo on/in a Helldiver are rare. Photos with torpedoes near a Helldiver are easy to find. Some accounts say ONE plane was tested for several months and that the Torpedo was mounted outside the bomb bay (I have seen a photo of this) and it took several hours to convert the plane.

Shortround6 said:

The Helldiver could do some of the jobs. Helldiver had some low speed handling issues and a higher stall speed than the Avenger which prevented or restricted it's use on smaller carriers. Avengers could operated (although at restricted weights) off of even the smallest/slowest carriers.
A number of sources claim the Helldiver could carry a torpedo but photos of a torpedo on/in a Helldiver are rare. Photos with torpedoes near a Helldiver are easy to find. Some accounts say ONE plane was tested for several months and that the Torpedo was mounted outside the bomb bay (I have seen a photo of this) and it took several hours to convert the plane.

Click to expand...

Apparently the early SB2C variants took a considerable amount to time to convert to torpedo bombers, however late in the war a quick conversion kit was supplied that reduced the time and effort considerably, so much so that there were calls to remove the TBF/TBM from fleet carriers and use the SB2C-4/5 exclusively and if the war had lasted longer the Midway class would have gone to war with only the SB2C and fighter aircraft.

The SB2C carried the Mk13 partially externally in similar fashion to the TBD and this reduced range and performance somewhat. OTOH, the SB2C was stressed for divebombing and thus it could use RN FAA style attack profiles with a very steep dive to release height, which would minimize exposure to flak.

...having to remove the bomb displacement gear forward arms'... from a very inaccessible location', and then having to fit the forward arms of the torpedo mounting assembly. Finally, all the actual loading tests were made with the torpedo fairing completely removed, and then no difficulty was found. The conclusions were that a complete redesign of the torpedo mounting assembly was essential, and methods to achieve this were detailed.

This was eventually done to complete satisfaction. However, the Helldiver was never used as a torpedo dropper in combat despite the fact that Admiral Halsey wanted to take the combining of the dive- and torpedo-bomber functions of his carrier aircraft much further some time later in the war. In November 1944 he proposed the total removal of the Grumman TBM Avenger, a most successful torpedo and glide bomber, from his fast carriers, proposeing instead to rely entirely on Helldivers for torpedo attack. This idea had its advocates and its opponents amongst his carrier captains at this time: Captain C. D. Glover of the Enterprise was all for it, as was Captain W. W. Litch of the Lexington. However, in the short term the chief of naval operations strongly disagreed, and the idea was not taken further:

As long as Avengers made up a part of the fast carrier complement it was only natural that they would make all torpedo attacks, if for no other reason than that the Helldiver was a more effective bomber than the Avenger. The fact that dive-bombers were never used for torpedo attack did not disprove the belief that divebombers could carry torpedoes, but only reflected a peculiar wartime situation.50

Click to expand...

In fact Halsey was ahead of his time, because his suggestion became the US Navy's official post-war policy, as we shall see.

Click to expand...

Smith, Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, p57.

Well, that is great for the "fast" carriers. However you still need Avengers for the Independence class and and dozens of CVE carriers so stopping production of Avenger early in the war would have left more than few holes in aircraft deployment.
Avenger variants filled a large number of roles late in the war and post war that were not even a thought off pre-war or early war. Trying to fill these roles without the Avenger would have lead to a mad scrabble.



This variant was flying in 1944 even though the Production versions didn't see combat in 1945, they were still in training.
It was used for both Airborne Early Warning and for anti-sub work (it needed another plane to carry the weapons.)
They were operated of the small CVEs for a while post war.

We know with hindsight that the US Navy had trouble with their torpedoes during the early part of the war and that the Helldiver sucked big time (not available) for 1942 and most of 1943 so a more effective dive bomber than the 1000-1200hp Dauntless certainly looks attractive as a weapon during those years.
However with hindsight we know how useful the Avenger turned out to be in other roles and the lack of the Avenger airframe would have hurt Naval Aviation. With Hindsight one is also left wondering why it took so long to fix the MK 13 torpedo.
I mean you are ordering a new plane that is 100mph faster than the Devastator and even the Devastator had to slow down to drop the torpedo and it took them 3 years to figure out that it might be better to be able to drop the torpedo faster and higher?

tomo pauk said:

The 'Skyrider minus' comes out short when it is about to use and on-board radar set.

Click to expand...

To me this is a critical consideration in this discussion. I probably don't need to provide a detailed account the TBF's illustrious history to contributors here, so I'll just summarize some high points as possible reminders:

The Venerable TBF soldiered on into the 1950's remaining in US operational use as well as that of other nation's naval and even land-based air arms including those of Britain, Canada, and New Zealand (and others). It's ample payload and roomy crew accommodations facilitated its pioneering application to a variety of roles that required the installation of new and necessarily bulky technologically advanced apparatus such as:

circa Fall 1942 - Radar directed targeting (following in the footsteps of the decidedly more venerable (but no less effective) Swordfish).
Circa Fall 1943 - Naval night, radar directed intercept operations using Bat Teams of paired TBF-1 F6F)
Circa Fall 1943 - TBM-1Ds Night owl teams with Dome mounted ASD-1 RADAR antennas and sets (sometimes including the standard ASB Yagi array antennas and sets) paired with destroyers for aerial ASW detection and surface attack (The TBFs were apparently unarmed)
Circa fall 1944 - XTBF-3W was created mounting an APS 20 RADAR antenna providing the earliest (of which I am aware) Airborne Early Warning (and fighter direction) platform. Interesting considering arguably the most famous a/c carrying APS-20 was the EC-121, a much larger a/c powered by 4 engines!

Circa 1945-46 thru 1948 TBM-3Q was created as a dedicated ECM platform.

Admittedly, the later Douglas AD Skyraider was employed to fulfill most of these same roles, replacing the TBF/M after the Grumman had provided a few years of valuable service. The point being: an early mini-skyraider might have been less able to provide the same early and pioneering advancement of naval aviation that was afforded the development of the TBF.

Almost forgot, the roomy TBF was an effective Carrier On Board Delivery (COD) Aircraft.

Ooops, didn't see SR6's or Conslaws similar earlier posts… (SR6's embellished with a very nice photo)

Hey Shortround,

Those are some great points above about better cooling for the radials.

Even in the Bearcat, it COULD go fast but was generally cruising around at economy cruise speeds when not in combat to extend range and flight time. For most of WWII they didn't know where the other ships and planes were, so it paid dividends to save as much fuel as possible so you had more if combat was joined at some point.

Very late in the war we sometimes DID have the enemy on radar, but the planes still cruised around at economy speeds until acceleration to combat speeds was warranted.

Never any sense in wasting fuel or flight time ... unless you are racing for money.