The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war. (3 Viewers)

[Schweik]

IIRC, the Albacore:-

1. Could detect surface vessels with radar. Had a good range.
2. Was a lousy torpedo bomber. They missed the Tirpitz.
3. Okay for night attacks on invasion barges in 1940.
4. Used for close support including dive bombing in Operation Torch.
5. Did good work in the Western Desert at night in bombing raids.

So compare that to the combat history of the Stuka, D3A, B5N, SBD, Pe 2, A-20, Wellington, or even the TBF... or even the Swordish. It isn't much.

 

[fliger747]

Cruisers were relatively lightly armored in comparison to modern Battleships and were quite vulnerable to dive bombing. Whether or not a 1000 Lb AP bomb would penetrate to machinery spaces or magazines considerable damage to AA, fire control, can easily result. Magazines and ready ammunition for secondary battery's would still be vulnerable. Dive bombers were certainly important, if not totally responsible for loss of Musashi and Yamato.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

I would argue that if for example the Royal Navy had large numbers of SBD's ... the Bismarck would have been sunk much more quickly

A point worth mentioning is that the cloud base in the North Atlantic is usually very low (500 m / 1500 ft, according to this paper). I'm not sure a dive bomber would be very useful from that height, especially up in the Denmark Strait, where the weather is especially filthy.

 

[fliger747]

The data in the above report was collected in the Trade Wind latitudes and not the sub arctic and Northern Atlantic. In the Denmark Straits fog was more of an issue. Surprisingly though surface visibility can be poor, vertical visibility (down) from an aircraft can be useable. My dad was with the fleet off Okinawa and they made smoke, which might have deterred torpedo planes, was ineffective against the Kamikazi threat as it affected the response of the AA battery but the planes could easily see the ships in the vertical plane, and a forest of masts sticking up.

Dark, low clouds, high seas, fog, all friends of the raider.

 

[Shortround6]

I think this is the source of confusion. There is a big difference between this



and this*



An armor piercing bomb coming down nose first and have an armored shell. They did punch through the armored decks of many ships and by simply detonating immediately destroyed turrets. Quite often just a few AP bomb hits were enough to sink fairly heavy warships. Consider for example the HMS Dorsetshire heavy cruiser sunk by D3A 'Val" dive bombers in the Indian Ocean. It was hit with eight 250 and 550 lb bombs and sank ten minutes later.

Like I said, a 1,000 AP bomb as carried by the SBD while not quite as formidable as a torpedo, can wreak a great deal of havoc. An unlike a torpedo doesn't have to contend with the main armor of a battleship ( the belts). The dive bomber will also hit with far more precision than any level bombs.

*I know that's from a video game it's the most accurate image I could google.

S

It is quite a bit more complicated than that. The bombs that are dropped horizontal, like the first picture will turn/tip until they are nose down if dropped from sufficient height. Even in that photo you can see the bombs starting to tip. A low altitude release does complicate things.
The next question/factor is the the fuse and the delay being used. And how fast the bomb is going at impact. You don't want the bomb to go off instantaneously on impact (before it has penetrated at least one deck) but it takes longer (bomb is moving slower) after going thought 1-2 inches of armor vs 3/8-1/2 of soft steel.

The 1600lb AP bomb that is so famous in American circles was actually not used very much. It was only introduced in May of 1942 and I have no idea how long it took to replace all the existing AP bombs of which there were five. there were the 600lb M62, the 800lb M61, the 900lb M60, the 1000lb M52 and the 1400lb M63. These were all converted naval shells and carried about 5% ammonium picrate busting charges. The 1600lb AP MK I used a 209lb bursting charge of ammonium picrate (13%) but the older planes couldn't lift it.
It was supposed to defeat 7 in of class B armor (release conditions not stated) and go through a 5in deck when dropped from 7500ft or when released from 4500ft in a 300kt, 60 degree dive.
Now we run into the problems of actual use,
#1 when dropped as described above the chances of hitting are reduced compared to hitting with "normal" bombs dropped from lower altitudes.
#2 they are only needed against the mostly heavily armored battleships. Most of the rebuilt WW I battleships didn't have anywhere near that kind of of deck armor. As a result most carriers seldom carried more than 20 such bombs at a time. I tend to doubt that any showed up at Henderson field as it is an incredibly crappy bomb for use against ground targets or unarmored ships.

The 1000lb MK 33 AP bomb came into use in October 1942 and had a 15% bursting charge and could penetrate the same 5in deck when dropped from 10,000ft or from 6500ft in a 300kt/60 degree dive.

There was a 1000lb MK 59 Semi Armor Piercing bomb with a 30% busting charge. These compare to the more standard US GP bombs with 50-52% TNT bursting charges although the 1000lb MK 44 was just under 60%.

Cruisers varied considerably when it came to armor and while the HMS Dorchester was not quite in the same catagory as some French and Italian cruisers (eggshells armed with hammers) it wasn't particularly well armored either. Being built in the late 20s and of the first generation of treaty cruisers she was early on the learning curve, didn't have as light weight machinery as some later cruisers and devoted a bit more weight to sea keeping (higher free board) than many later cruisers, the British didn't cheat as bad as some later cruisers either. This basically meant the counties had 4-1in box armor around the magazines, 1in armor on the hull sides (small patch over the machinery) and 1in turrets/ring bulkheads/babettes/ammo hoists as built, I don't know if she was up armoured later, one book claims here HA (4in ) magazine exploded after one of the bomb hits.

I would also note that most torpedoes didn't have to contend with the belt armor, they hit under it if they were running properly. The belt armor only extend down about 6 ft (give or take) at normal load on most battleships. See diagram in previous post. What they did have to contend with was a series of void spaces and fuel tanks that separated the outer hull from a water tight (hopefully) bulkhead a number of feet inside the ship, it is the vertical red line next to turbine rooms marked 45 in the diagram. This armoured bulkhead was supposed to stop any high velocity fragments blown inwards by the torpedo explosion. The fuel oil and void spaces were supposed to absorb the explosion and dissipate the energy. You still had a huge hole in the side of the ship but hopefully the flooding was contained and could be dealt with by pumps and counter flooding.

 

[Shortround6]

From another web site.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Bombs

General-purpose or demolition bombs had thin metal walls, a large explosive charge, and a contact fuse that was triggered by a relatively light impact. Such weapons were effective against soft targets, which included unarmored ships, infantry in the open, and most civilian installations.

The Japanese D3A "Val" usually carried the Type 99 Number 25 Model 1 Ordinary general-purpose bomb, which was designed for attacks on unarmored or lightly armored ships. This bomb weighed 250kg (551 lbs) of which about 62 kg (136 lbs) was high explosive. Its fuse was initiated by impact on ordinary steel plating and had a 0.2 second delay. This allowed the bomb to penetrate 20 to 40 feet (6 to 12 meters) before detonating. However, it had a somewhat high dud rate, with perhaps 27% of those used at Pearl Harbor either failing to detonate or giving low-order detonations. Australian troops at Rabaul in January 1942 also reported a high dud rate. Its American counterparts were fused to detonate after just 0.1 seconds in order to tear up carrier flight decks. The Americans estimated that three hits with 500 lb (227 kg) GP bombs would almost certainly sink a 1630-ton destroyer and had a 70% chance of sinking a 2100-ton destroyer. Three hits with 1000 lb (454 kg) GP bombs had a 95% chance of sinking a relatively lightly protected Atlanta-class light cruiser and a 30% chance of sinking a 10,000-ton heavy cruiser. Six hits with the 1000-lb bomb gave a 80% chance of sinking a heavy cruiser"

"
Armor-piercing bombs had thick steel cases, a relatively small explosive charge, and a delayed fuse that did not detonate the explosive until a few tenths of a second or more after the bomb hit a substantial solid surface. This gave time for the bomb to penetrate before detonating. AP bombs were useful against armored ships, bunkers, concrete runways, and other hardened targets.

The Japanese apparently did not develop an armor-piercing bomb until 1941. The Type 99 Number 80 Mark 5, used at Pearl Harbor, was remanufactured from obsolete 16" battleship shells. Out of a total weight of 800 kg (1760 lbs), the bomb had a charge of just 23 kg (50 pounds) of Type 91 explosive. The Type 99 had two base fuzes with 0.2 second delay that were insensitive enough to require impact on armor plate for fuze initiation. One such bomb went clear through Vestal at Pearl Harbor to explode on the harbor floor under the ship. The Type 99 was judged capable of penetrating 5.75" (146mm) of deck armor when dropped from a height of 10,000 feet (3000m). Unfortunately for the Japanese, the Type 99 had a high dud rate, due to weaknesses in the bomb case introduced during the remanufacturing process and poor quality control with the explosive fill. Of those that scored hits at Pearl Harbor, 20% failed to explode and another 40% yielded only low order explosions. The Japanese never developed an armor-piercing bomb light enough to be carried by a dive bomber, probably because they did not believe it was possible to develop a lighter AP bomb capable of penetrating battleship deck armor, and possibly also because of the shortage of the high-quality steel required for such weapons. "

 

[Schweik]

The standard bomb used by the Japanese was a 550 lb bomb and the one most often mentioned as used by the SBD was a 1,000 lb bomb. Neither your 1600 lb bomb nor your 1,760 / 800kg bomb are known to me. It is sometimes referred to as a 'semi-armor piercing' bomb.

Looking at this list of Japanese bombs on Wikipedia it mentions their Type 99 No.25 550 lb bomb (132 lbs of special high explosive) which can penetrate 50mm of armor and their Type 98 No.25 bomb (211 lbs of explosives) which can penetrate 400 inches of reinforced concrete. These were both I assume 'semi-armor piercing'

List of Japanese World War II navy bombs - Wikipedia

However, a bomb did not have to penetrate all the way down to engineering spaces, fuel cells or engine room to cripple or sink a ship. Once ammunition, fuel, or various flammable fluids get burning well enough in a ship, the steel itself will catch fire. If you have read books like Neptune's Inferno you'll know a bit about what that is like. Many large ships were destroyed when their scout / float plane fuel caught fire (the Japanese used to jettison it before battle to prevent this).

Superstructures and the bridge etc. were typically vulnerable to bomb hits as well.

The website you were quoting from has some interesting and helpful estimates as to the effectiveness of bombs:

"The Americans estimated that three hits with 500 lb (227 kg) GP bombs would almost certainly sink a 1630-ton destroyer and had a 70% chance of sinking a 2100-ton destroyer. Three hits with 1000 lb (454 kg) GP bombs had a 95% chance of sinking a relatively lightly protected Atlanta-class light cruiser and a 30% chance of sinking a 10,000-ton heavy cruiser. Six hits with the 1000-lb bomb gave a 80% chance of sinking a heavy cruiser.

Nine Allied cruisers were sunk by general-purpose bombs during the Second World War. A single bomb hit required an average of six to seven weeks in a shipyard to repair, and a particularly damaging hit (such as the 500kg or 1100 lb hit on British cruiser Suffolk that forced her to beach) could take up to eight months to repair."

So by that math, if it took three hits for a 30% chance sink a heavy cruiser of 10,000 tons, and 6 hits for an 80% chance, the 50,000 ton Bismarck was probably going to require about 12-15 bomb hits to sink or be sufficiently crippled so as to no longer fight back. This wouldn't be hard for a large formation of SBD's given that it was a single large target with no escorting ships and no air support.

Anyway that website you linked mentions two types of bombs probably carried by the SBD.

"Much more widely used was the Mark 33, introduced in October 1942, which weighed 1000 lbs (454kg) of which 150 lbs (68 kg) was high explosive. The Mark 33 could penetrate a 5" deck from 10,000' (3050m) or from 6500' (1980m) when dropped from a dive bomber in a 300 knot 60 degree dive. "

Then they give us more helpful estimates:

"The Americans estimated that seven penetrating bomb hits would be enough to sink a battleship, while the Japanese estimated that 12 to 16 penetrating hits were required. American operational analysts later revised their estimates, concluding that the Mark 33 could sink a battleship only if it hit a magazine, which worked out to a 79% chance of sinking a battleship with six penetrating hits.

Semi-armor-piercing bombs were a compromise between the penetrating ability of an armor-piercing bomb and the large explosive charge of a general purpose bomb. They were useful against lightly armored ships and reinforced concrete structures."

So my estimate was a bit over-conservative, it sounds like 6 good hits with true AP bombs (Mark 33) would probably sink the Bismarck, maybe 12-15 hits with the more common 'semi-armor piercing" bombs.

As a bonus, I found a diagram of the Mk 33

TL : DR Yes the Dauntless could have sunk the Bismarck. Probably in one strike, maybe 2 or 3.

 

[Conslaw]

There has been a lot of talk about the relative inability of divebombers to destroy battleships. I submit that it was not necessary for divebombers to destroy battleships to turn the tide of the war. It was necessary for dive bombers to destroy - or at least put out of action - aircraft carriers. Both the D3A and the SBD were good at it when flown by experienced aviators. In addition to sinking the 4 aircraft carriers in the Midway battle, SBDs also sunk the Mikuma and put the Mogami out of action for two years. These two heavy cruisers could have been enough to tip the balance at Guadalcanal later in the year.

Success at Midway allowed the Americans to take Guadalcanal in a defensive offensive action. It was defensive because failure to take Guadalcanal would have allowed Japan to control the direct supply lines to Australia if Japan had gotten the airfield operational. The F4F defended the air around Guadalcanal, but it was primarily the SBD that defended the sea approaches to Guadalcanal and made sure the Japanese could not conduct day operations for a couple hundred miles up the slot. The repeated failure of the Japanese to neutralize Henderson Field and the SBDs flying from it doomed the Japanese effort to retake the island. The Wildcats would not have been able to defend the island if the Tokyo Express would have been able to approach the island and bombard the airstrips with impunity. As it was, the Toyko express came close to bombarding the island out of service. Had these ships been able to arrive earlier and stay later, it might have made the crucial difference.

 

[Kevin J]

So compare that to the combat history of the Stuka, D3A, B5N, SBD, Pe 2, A-20, Wellington, or even the TBF... or even the Swordish. It isn't much.

So the Albacore is like a Fairey Battle, but a biplane, which you only use at night or in bad weather that can operate off carriers and doesn't get shot down so often. Slower but better.

 

[Elmas]

Let's consider that the whole Earth is a geoid that can be approximated by an ellissoid that can be approximated by a sphere.
So there'a difference between a lossodromic and an orthodromic navigation and a look on a planisphere will show places in a different way than in a map made with a Mercator's projection.

 

[Shortround6]

The standard bomb used by the Japanese was a 550 lb bomb and the one most often mentioned as used by the SBD was a 1,000 lb bomb. Neither your 1600 lb bomb nor your 1,760 / 800kg bomb are known to me. It is sometimes referred to as a 'semi-armor piercing' bomb.

Not my 1600lb bomb. I rather dislike the thing because it is used to distort the capabilities of many american aircraft. Like a late model P-61 had a 6400lb bomb load turns out it is four 1600lb armour piercing bombs which many never have been dropped from P-61 in action. Using radar equipped night fighters as bombers means you really control the air. The 1600lb bomb was actually smaller than the 1000lb GP (HE) bomb and would fit either the same racks or in some cases (like the B-17) you could stuff in eight where only six of the fatter bombs would fit. Given the low amount of explosive it was no better at attacking soft targets (or moving dirt) than a 500lb GP bomb.

There were at least four US 1000lb bombs, All four were only in service for short period of time. The MK 33 AP bomb replacing the earlier M52.

Looking at this list of Japanese bombs on Wikipedia it mentions their Type 99 No.25 550 lb bomb (132 lbs of special high explosive) which can penetrate 50mm of armor and their Type 98 No.25 bomb (211 lbs of explosives) which can penetrate 400 inches of reinforced concrete. These were both I assume 'semi-armor piercing'

Sort of semi AP bombs, the Type 99 No.25 certainly was, construction being "One piece of machine forged 3/4 inch steel " while the Type 98 No.25 bomb was "Welded and riveted 1/2 inch steel " seems a bit dubious for getting through armor without the bomb breaking up. I guess it depends on the thickness and quality of the armor.

However, a bomb did not have to penetrate all the way down to engineering spaces, fuel cells or engine room to cripple or sink a ship. Once ammunition, fuel, or various flammable fluids get burning well enough in a ship, the steel itself will catch fire. If you have read books like Neptune's Inferno you'll know a bit about what that is like. Many large ships were destroyed when their scout / float plane fuel caught fire (the Japanese used to jettison it before battle to prevent this).

The chances of setting ship steel on fire is pretty slim. It has to do with the surface area exposed to air, the rate of combustion and the path/s for heat to be conducted away from the area buring. You can get iron (steel) to burn if the particles are small enough, like thermite but getting a steel plate to burn is like trying to set fire to a 12in log with a paper match.

Aluminum will burn but even it is a bitch unless real thin (yes they found that aluminum superstructures will burn in the Falklands and a few other places) . Dried paint on hot steel burns real well though.

Yes the Dauntless could have sunk the Bismarck. Probably in one strike, maybe 2 or 3.

This is a bit dubious, it may depend on how long after the raids stop. The Bismark "survived" dozens of major caliber shell hits, she was essentially non functional but it took several torpedo hits (accounts vary) and scuttling charges? (depending on account) to put her under water in the time the British had available (they didn't want to hang around for hours or a day or two to see if the damage already done would sink her)

 

[Conslaw]

A single 250 kg bomb hit to #1 turret of battleship South Dakota in the Battle of Santa Cruz may have caused undetected electrical system damage that rendered the battleship ineffective in the early stages of the second naval battle of Guadalcanal shortly thereafter.

 

[fliger747]

I haven't heard about the bomb hit on the turret of SODAK causing any subsequent electrical issues, though the Captain, Thomas Gatch was wounded by fragments.

Earlier Bismarck was discussed. Tripitz, which had a very marginally thicker armored deck did absorb a number of dive bombing attacks. The lighter bombs generally did not penetrate the main armored deck but caused great havoc. Several hits were made by 750 KG bombs, one of which did penetrate the main armored deck, but did not explode. Had this bomb exploded it was considered that it would have put the ship out of action for a lengthy period. Many of the bombs were dropped from too low of an altitude so as to ensure hits.

One must remember that all of the ships offensive power is above the armored deck and outside the turrets and conning tower, is if armored at all, plated to a much reduced thickness. The deck armor scheme is probably only marginally resistant to 2000 LB AP bombs.

As a raider, it wouldn't have taken too many hits, even from smaller bombs to effect a mission kill.

 

[Shortround6]

Things changed over the years, Midway was almost 3 years after the war started in Poland. The early (1939//40) aircraft let alone 1930s aircraft could not carry big enough bombs and drop them from high enough altitudes to get the penetration required on modern battleships, which were still the primary target. Only the Japanese and Americans had enough planes on carriers to peck large modern ships to death (you weren't going to get 50-60 dive bombers together from a British carrier group unless you had 3-4 carriers their air groups were too small).
So torpedoes were the only way to seriously threaten large ships with limited amounts of airplanes.
Older battleships and Cruisers (even modern ones) were susceptible to smaller bombs and/or ones dropped from lower altitudes as were carriers.

The US was introducing the Avenger in the summer of 1942 and it's 1700hp engine changed the game. The Helldiver should have been coming into service at that time (it was ordered before the Avenger) but development problems delayed it's combat debut until Nov 1942 and it's widespread use was months after that. What the American, British and Japanese Navies could do (or not do) later in the war in regards to size of bombs or numbers of bombs dropped (number of aircraft in a strike) should be very carefully considered when being used to critique early war policies/practices.

 

[Schweik]

The South Dakota electrical system was famously shorting out all through the "Second Naval battle of Guadalcanal" of 14-15 November, crippling the ship, but at least in part due to an engineer taping down a breaker, and ended up basically half-crippled, and the Washington did most of the damage to Japanese ships and won all the glory in one of the wars very very rare battleship duels. What was causing the original short was never clear as far as I know.

As for steel burning, I don't know the physics, if it's due to high temperature ammunition burning or aviation fuel or what, but according to Neptune's Inferno survivors from the Atlanta, Juneau, Portland, San Fransisco etc. reported the structure of their ships itself burning in various horrific anecdotes.

 

[Schweik]

I don't think the TBF Avenger was as useful as it probably should have been. It didn't do particularly well (even accounting for bad torpedoes) in the early years of the war (there were 6 at Midway). It did better when the torpedoes were fixed and some of the teething problems ironed out, and it was never the dud that the Helldiver was, but it was really too big for carrier operations, too big of a target, too vulnerable, too slow, took up too much room on the boat, used too much fuel, spent too much time in the hangar and didn't have particularly good range for it's enormous size. If you ever look at one in real life it's like a bus, not an elegant design.

I think the SBD was hands down, vastly more useful as an aircraft than the TBF. It could kill at a long distance, it was a precise attacker with a high damage-to-sortie ratio, it could survive combat (with a low loss ratio), shoot down enemy planes, and it could operate from small carriers.

Part of that is the problem with US torpedoes, if you had put Italian 'motobomba' torpedoes on them in mid 1942 or even Japanese or British torpedoes they might have been a much more lethal package, but that is not what happened historically. Torpedoes weren't any good until nearly the end of 42 and as a bomber, the TBF was ungainly and inaccurate. Putting rockets on them later in the war made them more useful but they were still overly vulnerable to flak due to size and clumsy handling.

To me the TBF is one of those cases of wasting a nice powerful (if very big) engine in an airplane that was probably crippled by committee with too many contradictory requirements.

 

[Shortround6]

D3A1 - range 800 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.7mm and 1 x 1.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 551 lb and 2 x 132 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes

1000hp engine, loaded weight 8,047lbs range 795 Nautical miles, 915 stature miles

B5N2 - range 1,200 miles, speed 235 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 1760 lb torpedo

1000hp engine, max weight 9,039 lbs range 528 nautical miles (608 statute) normal 1075 nautical (1275 statute ) max range.

SBD3 - range 1,115 miles, speed 255 mph, guns 2 x 12.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.62mm (later 2 x) defensive, bombs 2,250 (usually one 1,000 lb AP bomb). Dive bomber = Yes

1000hp engine, max weight 9,031lbs, max range with 1000lb bomb is under nautical miles,book speed at 16,000ft is 190 kts at 65% power and the fuel burn at 65% power is around 52 gallons an hour, at 5,000ft the speed at 65% power is 173 kts and the fuel burn is about 47 gallons an hour.
to compare to the Japanese aircraft the self sealing tanks and armor were over 600lbs so an additional 100 gallons could be put another 2 hours of of flight time ) without going over weight if you wanted to run without protection.

JU-87B - range 311 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.92 (offensive), 1 x 7.92 (defensive), bombs 550 lbs bomb plus 4 x 110 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes

1200hp engine, can easiley carry at least an 1100lb bomb if the wing bombs are not carried, The R model had extra 33 imp gallon tanks added inside the outer wings (a 62% increase internal fuel plus the already mentioned 66imp gallon drop tanks but bomb load with full fuel may have been restricted to 551lbs, People with the manuals may differ on this. but range is substantially increased. the R started going into service in 1940 in time for at least a few to be used in Norway.

TBD Devastator - range 435 miles, speed 206 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 or 12.7mm mg (offensive), 1 x 7.62 mph, bombs 1,000 or 1 x torpedo

looking for more info, 900 hp engine.

TBF Avenger - range 1,000 miles, speed 275 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 (offensive), 1 x 12.7 and 1 x 7.62 (defensive), 1 x 2,000 lb torpedo

The plane could carry the torpedo the full 1000 miles (no fuel alloted to starting, take-off, climb or reserve) the bomb bay could also handle a single 2000lb bomb, the 1600lb AP bomb two 1000lbs, four 500 lb bombs or twelve 100lb bombs. amazing what 1700hp and 15-16,000lbs of airplane can do.

more later

 

[Shortround6]

I don't think the TBF Avenger was as useful as it probably should have been. It didn't do particularly well (even accounting for bad torpedoes) in the early years of the war (there were 6 at Midway). It did better when the torpedoes were fixed and some of the teething problems ironed out, and it was never the dud that the Helldiver was, but it was really too big for carrier operations, too big of a target, too vulnerable, too slow, took up too much room on the boat, used too much fuel, spent too much time in the hangar and didn't have particularly good range for it's enormous size. If you ever look at one in real life it's like a bus, not an elegant design.

Just what could out range it in 1942-43 as far as load carrying carrier aircraft?

I think the SBD was hands down, vastly more useful as an aircraft than the TBF. It could kill at a long distance, it was a precise attacker with a high damage-to-sortie ratio, it could survive combat (with a low loss ratio), shoot down enemy planes, and it could operate from small carriers.

They operated Avengers from jeep carriers. The SBD had nowhere near the range, at least until they fitted more powerful engines to the SBD in the -5 and -6 models.
Sure you could put 260 gallons into the tanks of the SPD-3 and fly 1000 miles, you just didn't do it with a bomb under the plane. which puts the Kill at long distance back on the shelf.

To me the TBF is one of those cases of wasting a nice powerful (if very big) engine in an airplane that was probably crippled by committee with too many contradictory requirements.

Since the TBD lasted until well into the 50s as an operational aircraft it must have been of some use. There were a lot of contradictory requirements but at the time it was one of the best carrier borne strike aircraft in the world. the failure of the torpedo should not be blamed on the Avenger. And unfortunately the "fix" was always just a few weeks (or months) away and not the well over one year if finally took.

 

[Schweik]

You seem to judge a bomber with how much ordinance they could carry - I judge them on the basis of how much they damaged the enemy. The SBD sunk a lot of enemy ships and at the critical phase of the war. The TBF / TBM didn't have the same kind of service record in terms of sinking enemy ships, let alone without fighter cover.

Like I said before, the notion of bombers as 'bomb trucks' or measuring bomb tonnage 'delivered' as some kind of indicator of success is oneof the reasons why the US lost the Vietnam War. Bombs do a lot of damage, even small ones, if they hit their target. You can drop 100,000 tons of bombs in the water and it's completely useless against the enemy fleet. See the US B-17 in action in an anti-shipping capacity. And it's basically the same on land it's just harder to tell if you hit your target or not when you unload an avalanche of ordninance on the side of a wooded hill, so we tend to assume we did, give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. To do any less would be unpatriotic, right?

As for range, typically the ranges quoted for bombers and most aircraft are optimal range with light ordinance, or with extra fuel. Actual strike ranges for all the aircraft in the list I posted was usually a lot less, probably 1/3 of the posted range when carrying heavy ordinance. My understanding is that the TBF had a real world strike range of about 300 nautical miles or ~350 statute miles.

As for which aircraft outranged it, how about the B5N and the B6N? Even the SB2C for all it's many faults.

 

[Dimlee]

I generally agreed with Wes' perspectives about parsing major turning points in WWII - but would favor the failure to take Moscow in 1941 as my personal 'fav'' Capturing Moscow was far more than symbolic - it was THE rail network from all points east, north and south and most importantly from major industrial centers to east and oil to south west. USSR logistics to fight, and supply armies fighting Germany would have been an impossible task.

Frankly, I don't consider Battle of Moscow to be major turning point (rather one of major stumbling blocks for Germany) but I fully support the reminder about importance of Moscow as very important rail hub - the most important for USSR rail network at that time.