Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?

RCAFson said:

Sorry but I don't blame aircrews for trying to fly the mission in an inadequate and dangerous aircraft. The TBM should have been withdrawn from service and replaced with the SB2C-5 which had the required airframe strength to fly the missions safely.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was that dangerous, or even "inadequate", in WWII ...mMaybe you have loss rates, to support this assertion? While you're at it, maybe present same for the Fairey so we might get a direct comparison?

RCAFson said:

The USN certainly valued divebombing post war and kept the SB2C on their carriers until replaced by the Skyraider, another torpedo-divebomber. The RN introduced a number of attack aircraft post war and the TBM wasn't considered to be one of them.

Click to expand...

Sure, by 1955 everyone was looking to jets. By 1950, both dive- and torpedo-bombing were regarded largely as suicidal, against ships, due to advances in fighters.

RCAFson said:

The FAA got the post war TBM ASW aircraft for free... that kinda puts some thumbs on the scales as to whether they actually would have paid money for it.

Click to expand...

I'd think that if the 'Cudas they already had in service were better at the job, the free Grummans would get a "thanks but no thanks", don't you? "I already have something better, appreciate the offer, but we're good" would be better than having to pay for retraining, and revised logistics chains as well. But no -- the FAA decided it better to take these free planes, and spend money retraining aircrew and establishing new logistics chains as well. That speaks to their opinions on the planes, don't you think? This in a UK working through austerity, where every pound counted? Yet they took the Grumman and retired the Fairey.

I see the Barra similar to the Helldiver - a wartime expedient laden with flaws (though not so many as the Curtiss, which was a pig, to be fair). But by 1950, no dive-bomber or torpedo attack against a target defended by fighters was getting anywhere ... which is why air forces moved on to jets for attack roles.

Thumpalumpacus said:

But by 1950, no dive-bomber or torpedo attack against a target defended by fighters was getting anywhere

Click to expand...

The British looked backwards longer than most, with their Blackburn Firecrest torpedo bomber intended to enter service in/after 1950.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I'd think that if the 'Cudas they already had in service were better at the job, the free Grummans would get a "thanks but no thanks", don't you? "I already have something better, appreciate the offer, but we're good" would be better than having to pay for retraining, and revised logistics chains as well. But no -- the FAA decided it better to take these free planes, and spend money retraining aircrew and establishing new logistics chains as well. That speaks to their opinions on the planes, don't you think? This in a UK working through austerity, where every pound counted? Yet they took the Grumman and retired the Fairey.

I see the Barra similar to the Helldiver - a wartime expedient laden with flaws (though not so many as the Curtiss, which was a pig, to be fair). But by 1950, no dive-bomber or torpedo attack against a target defended by fighters was getting anywhere ... which is why air forces moved on to jets for attack roles.

Click to expand...

By 1953, or whenever it was, the Barracudas in service were getting old. And Barracuda production ended in 1945.

From what others were saying, the Avengers were new built, or newly refurbished. And free.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Sure, by 1955 everyone was looking to jets. By 1950, both dive- and torpedo-bombing were regarded largely as suicidal, against ships, due to advances in fighters.

Click to expand...

the advances in AA firepower were huge.
in the late 40s and early 50s the US was replacing the 40mm with these.


the Auto loader allowed for 40-50 rounds per minute per barrel. The twins replaced quad Bofors but not quite on a one twin 3in for one quad 40mm basis. There was a single mount that was used to replace twin Bofors. These were powered mounts.
Please note the radar antenna on each mount. The tubs on the deck above are the two gun directors if used in local control.
The big advance was that the 3" in shell got proximity fuses right at the end of WW II.

Trying to dive bomb ships that had powered, radar aimed, rapid fire 3in guns with proximity fuses was not a good plan.
One test by the US estimated that a single 3" rapid fire gun was equal to two quad 40mms and could engage at longer range.

The British and the US were working on faster firing, higher velocity 3in guns but they took a while to show up and they were a bit too much of a good thing. Weight had gone up and the barrels needed water cooling and the auto feed systems weren't as reliable. However they were looked on as the future and future attack planes were expected to have to deal with them so the attack methods (future aircraft) were planned accordingly.

In the late 40s Bofors was working on the new 40mm/70 gun with a bit longer barrel but about twice the cycle rate.
Bofors was also working on a 57mm gun that fired at around 120rpm but it would take until the early 60s to get proximity fuses.

Shortround6 said:

The thumb on the scales thing goes both ways.

The British were basically broke after WW II, so was most of Europe. The lend lease rules said any items in any of the countries that that still had them had to be paid for.
So the British dumped/destroyed or gave back any existing aircraft, tanks, artillery etc. no matter how good or bad it was and used Commonwealth equipment, no matter how good or bad it was until the early 50s.
Domestic equipment may have been expensive but it kept British Pound Stirling in the UK (or commonwealth) and provided jobs. The British and most of Europe were scrambling for foreign money and were trying to sell just about anything (ex German aircraft engines?) to the rest of the world to pay for things like food.

The British made some good stuff in the late 40s (Centurion tank was way ahead of the M-26/46) but they also made some not so good stuff (so did the US ) but the British had to use what they could make regardless of were it fell on the scale because they couldn't afford to by anything. Meat rationing in England ended in 1954. The last rationed item.

Just about all British or British Commonwealth purchases have to be looked at with that thumb on the scales. This Thumb extends to France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and a number of other countries. It was also necessary to rebuild a number of countries industry.

So there was quite a mix of things going on. National pride, need to keep or expand local industries, need to keep overseas purchases to a minimum (France kept German Panther tanks in service for years, they were free) that had little to do with how good or bad a plane or tank or truck was at it's job.

Click to expand...

That's true and but the Avenger didn't come back to the FAA until they got it for free via post war US military assistance.

Admiral Beez said:

Why didn't the FAA acquire USN-spec torpedoes for their Tarpons? The FAA had 0.50 calibre ammunition for their US-spec Corsairs and Hellcats.

Click to expand...

The USN MK13 was basically not a going proposition until the Fall of 1944 (after a lot of mods) and it would taken some months for production to meet demand.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I don't think it was that dangerous, or even "inadequate", in WWII ...mMaybe you have loss rates, to support this assertion? While you're at it, maybe present same for the Fairey so we might get a direct comparison?



Sure, by 1955 everyone was looking to jets. By 1950, both dive- and torpedo-bombing were regarded largely as suicidal, against ships, due to advances in fighters.



I'd think that if the 'Cudas they already had in service were better at the job, the free Grummans would get a "thanks but no thanks", don't you? "I already have something better, appreciate the offer, but we're good" would be better than having to pay for retraining, and revised logistics chains as well. But no -- the FAA decided it better to take these free planes, and spend money retraining aircrew and establishing new logistics chains as well. That speaks to their opinions on the planes, don't you think? This in a UK working through austerity, where every pound counted? Yet they took the Grumman and retired the Fairey.

I see the Barra similar to the Helldiver - a wartime expedient laden with flaws (though not so many as the Curtiss, which was a pig, to be fair). But by 1950, no dive-bomber or torpedo attack against a target defended by fighters was getting anywhere ... which is why air forces moved on to jets for attack roles.

Click to expand...

It was considered inadequate in WW2 as a strike aircraft, especially after the Mk13 debacle become apparent, but the SB2C-1 series made it impossible to remove the TBF/TBM:

1. The limitations in the use of torpedo planes, which have repeatedly been set forth in reports of previous actions, were again amply demonstrated. Although the attack of the enemy torpedo squadron (probably 18 planes) against the ENTERPRISE was executed with obvious skill and great determination, only about nine planes reached a proper release point, and no hits were made. The harassing effect on the Japanese pilots of the extremely heavy and accurate fire of the combined task force and the maneuvers of the ship in combing the wakes of the torpedoes launched were the prime factors in nullifying the attack. The results of the attacks of our own torpedo planes, while not nil, were disappointing. It has been proven time and again that the probability of success of a torpedo plane attack in good visibility against a formation properly defended by fighters and anti-aircraft fire is small and out of all proportion to the losses in planes and men. The conclusion is obvious - that in the present state of the art, torpedo plane operations should if practicable be limited to attacks delivered under conditions of low visibility or in mopping up operations after the defensive power of the enemy formation has been reduced. Thus limited, the torpedo plane is not as valuable, plane for plane, in day operations as is the dive bomber. Accordingly, it is recommended that for the present, the air groups of our large carriers include not more than twelve torpedo planes. Only when torpedo squadron personnel are fully trained and planes are equipped for all aspects of night operations will torpedo planes reach their full effectiveness. We should not abandon them for carrier use; after all, they were the decisive factor in the HORNET attack. (CV-6 AR Santa Cruz)

Click to expand...

OTOH, a torpedo dive-bomber could use a DB attack profile to limit exposure to AA fire or simply attack as a DB. If the SB2C-3/4 had been available sooner the TBF almost certainly would have been relegated to 2nd line duties. An aircraft with such a weak airframe really had no business being used as a frontline strike aircraft. If it had low losses it was because it faced a heavily outmatched opponent.

The 'free Grummans' came with a complete, up to date, ASW outfit and the USN had enough on hand that they were nearly new. It would have cost the UK a very large sum to bring the Barracuda II/III to the same spec. If the Barracuda V had continued development and production, then they might have continued on.

The Barracuda was flawed, but the concept of a torpedo-divebomber was correct.

Admiral Beez said:

The British looked backwards longer than most, with their Blackburn Firecrest torpedo bomber intended to enter service in/after 1950.

View attachment 730117

Click to expand...

Photo of the first prototype RT651 which first flew on 1 April 1947. Looks like it was taken outside the Handley Page factory at Radlett in Sept 1947 during the SBAC display.

As for Britain "looked backwards", some of the other things that flew in that same display are in this video (the prototype Wyvern appears early on - see below)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORQfx4Bmfaw
As for the Firecrest itself where did you get the expected service entry date of "in/after 1950" from?

The Firecrest was intended as an improved Firebrand. Blackburn began work on a new laminar flow wing in Sept 1943 intended to increase the speed of the Firebrand by 10-12 knots and received a contract for 2 prototypes in Nov 1943 (a third was added later). Due to various delays, it didn't fly until 1 April 1947 by which time it was already clear that it would not enter production (see below). By the end of 1947 the MoS had reduced the scope of the work to be continued on the type to an assessment of the powered aileron system fitted to the third prototype VT172 as that was seen as having some benefit to Blackburn in future aircraft designs. That work continued into 1949. RT561 & VT172 were sold to Blackburn in April 1950 and were broken up later that year.

A proposed version fitted with a more powerful Napier Sabre, the E.122 (NS.79.SM), giving improved performance was cancelled in Oct 1945.

By the time the Firecrest flew the Westland Wyvern TF.1, fitted with the RR Eagle engine had flown (16 Dec 1946) and had much better performance than that demonstrated by the Firecrest (max speed 456mph @23,000ft v 380mph @19,000ft). This had been designed to Spec N.11/44 issued on 1 Jan 1945.

But a further spec was issued on 31 Jan 1946 for a version of the Wyvern fitted with the RR Clyde turboprop and it flew on 18 Jan 1949 as the Wyvern TF.2. The Clyde was the first purpose designed turboprop (other jet engines had been converted to turboprops before that) that had first run in Aug 1945. Development of the Clyde was terminated by RR so they could concentrate on pure jets. So the Wyvern had to be re-engined yet again. Powered by the Armstrong Siddeley Python turboprop the Wyvern S.4 first flew in May 1951. These aircraft entered service in 1953, first replacing the Firebrands TF.5 in 813 squadron between May and Aug that year.

Admiral Beez said:

Why didn't the FAA acquire USN-spec torpedoes for their Tarpons? The FAA had 0.50 calibre ammunition for their US-spec Corsairs and Hellcats.

Click to expand...

Switching to .50 is easy. Open the box load the belt and you're ready to go. There is a whole raft of issues with a complex weapon. New training of maintenance staff and aircrew. Rebuilding the torpedo storage and handing arrangements including new lifts to handle the odd shape. But most of all the British torpedo was an excellent weapon with many successes in combat which definitely not the case with the USN torpedo. Why reequip with a weapon that has proven not to work.

Admiral Beez said:

The British looked backwards longer than most, with their Blackburn Firecrest torpedo bomber intended to enter service in/after 1950.

View attachment 730117

Click to expand...

Hi
Blackburn were working on various projects in the 1950s, eg. B-5 (Y.A.5) ASW aircraft (that lost out to the Gannet), first flight 20 Sept. 1949 (with Griffon, later flew with Double-Mamba):

And ordered in 1955 with first flight on 30 April 1958, there was the NA.39 (later Buccaneer):

According to A J Jackson in 'Blackburn Aircraft since 1909' page 480, "It is estimated that the Blackburn N.A.39 put Britain three years ahead of the rest of the world in the field of high-speed, low-level, strike aircraft, ..."

Mike

MikeMeech said:

Hi
Blackburn were working on various projects in the 1950s, eg. B-5 (Y.A.5) ASW aircraft (that lost out to the Gannet), first flight 20 Sept. 1949 (with Griffon, later flew with Double-Mamba):

View attachment 730184
According to A J Jackson in 'Blackburn Aircraft since 1909' page 480, "It is estimated that the Blackburn N.A.39 put Britain three years ahead of the rest of the world in the field of high-speed, low-level, strike aircraft, ..."

Click to expand...

You've got to like the Buccaneer. Still fighting strong into the 1990s with GW1. The British firms are strange that way, in that a firm can make a series of mediocre, average or dud aircraft, and then hit it out of the park with something superlative. Vickers Supermarine was one, with the firm making no other outstanding fighter before or after the Spitfire - with the Vickers Venom and Supermarine Scimitar hardly reaching the same bar as Mitchell's masterpiece. And while I always have a fondness for the Skua; if it wasn't for the amazing Buccaneer, Blackburn would be mostly remembered for the likes of the Botha, Roc and Firebrand. And back to Fairey and their Barracuda, well let's agree that their reputation was redeemed by the excellent Gannet.

Admiral Beez said:

You've got to like the Buccaneer. Still fighting strong into the 1990s with GW1. The British firms are strange that way, in that a firm can make a series of mediocre, average or dud aircraft, and then hit it out of the park with something superlative. Vickers Supermarine was one, with the firm making no other outstanding fighter before or after the Spitfire - with the Vickers Venom and Supermarine Scimitar hardly reaching the same bar as Mitchell's masterpiece. And while I always have a fondness for the Skua; if it wasn't for the amazing Buccaneer, Blackburn would be mostly remembered for the likes of the Botha, Roc and Firebrand. And back to Fairey and their Barracuda, well let's agree that their reputation was redeemed by the excellent Gannet.

Click to expand...

And the Buccaneer is beautiful.

SaparotRob said:

And the Buccaneer is beautiful.

Click to expand...

Not to my eye. It's formidable and deadly looking, but with these seemingly random lines and bulges and fixed aftermarket fueling probe, beautiful? No.

Freakin' gorgeous. That plane inspired many hours of classroom doodling. Most of my creations had those swirvy lumps and bumps of the Buccaneer. I love its Gerry Andersen (when the future was FAB) aesthetic.
The Me-109G inspired many of my in-line designs.

Admiral Beez said:

Not to my eye. It's formidable and deadly looking, but with these seemingly random lines and bulges and fixed aftermarket fueling probe, beautiful? No.

View attachment 730185

Click to expand...

By Blackburn standards it's gorgeous.

Reluctant Poster said:

By Blackburn standards it's gorgeous.

Click to expand...

Well yes, compared to the Blackburn Blackburn.

Admiral Beez said:

Well yes, compared to the Blackburn Blackburn.

View attachment 730198

Click to expand...

That thing's so ugly it could make a freight train take a dirt road.

The Barracuda was replaced in the Fleet torpedo role by the Firebrand which was the aeroplane that would take on the Soviet navy in the Arctic Ocean right through to the end of the Korean War. Hence being kept in home service.

The Barracuda had to go when it did as Fairey had long moved on and there were no spare to keep the well used Barracudas reliably in the air.

I wonder what Fairey (or any of the British firms) would have come up with before the war for a fleet fighter if specified as follows:

1) Single seat
2) Single engine
3) Monoplane
4) Retractable undercarriage
5) Fitted with 8 mg with possible upgrade to four 20mm or combo
6) 330 mph or faster with competitive rate of climb
7) 900 mile combat endurance
8) Foldable to less than 20ft wide and 12ft high
9) Wide robust undercarriage with good forward view
10) Good low speed handling

This of course assumes that the priorities of war, the need to get the Spitfire, Hurricane, etc. into immediate service can be addressed.

I am not sure you want to bring the Firebrand into the discussion. Yes it take on the Soviets during the Cold war up to the end of the Korean war.
However the RAF was using Gladiators and Ansons for some of 1940, not because they wanted to but because they had nothing else or more correctly, not enough of what they really wanted. The Firebrand falls into a similar situation. It was not what was wanted, it was what they had.