Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Captain Dunsel]

1. We didn't have the engines to power the kinds of planes you're talking about at the beginning of the war. You need enough horsepower to lug that torpedo or heavy bomb, and do it fast enough to evade enemy fighters.
2. We didn't have carriers big enough to handle big planes like the P-38, with it's evil ARMY engines.

As I said before, the TBD was a good plane, fitting in with the doctrine of the day. It was near the end of it's service life, and it was slower than its SBD and F4F contemporaries. Amongst other things, that made it hard to provide proper escorts for both SBD and TBD formations at the same time. Early in the war, we thought we had enough F4F's (we didn't) and that the SBD could act as an anti-torpedo plane fighter (it was too slow to catch the Kates).

Don't blame the TBD; it was a good plane for its day. It just wasn't used as well as it could have been, and it was saddled with a lousy torpedo.

CD

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well Said Captain Dunsel! There's a difference berween "bad" and "obsolete." The TBD actually did well in the Coral Sea, but make no doubt it was obsolete by 1942.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Valo, don't forget six TBF Avengers from Midway attacked the IJN carriers, all but one were shot down, the last one having the gunner killed. The TBD was obsolete by the time Midway came, but the TBF would've fared little better.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Also remember that dropping a torpedo from an airplane was no easy task and you had to limit your speed during the drop. Any torpedo bomber was a sitting duck during the run.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

That's true, if I can recall, when the Yorktown was attacked, a lot of Kates were shot down from the American CAP and AA guns.

 

[Valo300]

1. We didn't have the engines to power the kinds of planes you're talking about at the beginning of the war. You need enough horsepower to lug that torpedo or heavy bomb, and do it fast enough to evade enemy fighters.

Incorrect, the early P38s could be torpedo armed.

2. We didn't have carriers big enough to handle big planes like the P-38, with it's evil ARMY engines.

But we had the deck space to handle much larger single role obsolete torpedo bombers?

Hmmm.

As I said before, the TBD was a good plane, fitting in with the doctrine of the day.
CD

It was a piece of junk, really.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Actually Valo, the P-38 wasn't smaller then the TBD. The P-38's wingspan is 52 ft, while the TBD is 50 feet. The lenght of the P-38 is 37 ft, and the TBD is 35 feet. The P-38 was also heavier the TBD, operational at 17,500 pounds to the TBD's 9,444 pounds. If you want the proof to my claims, here are the links.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - USA
USN Aircraft--Douglas TBD-1

That said, the TBD did well at Coral Sea, any torpedo bomber would've gotten chewed up at Midway, the TBF did.

 

[parsifal]

Were p-38s even operational in early 1942? It would have been necessary for them to be ready by about January or February 1942, in order for them to be deployed at Midway. The reason is that as a new type, it would take time to work the type up to operational readiness.

Personally I am extremely doubtful of the P-38s performance and capability as a torpedo bomber. It was done with the beaufighter, but these aircraft were never as accurate as dedicated torpedo bombers and used torpedoes far superior to anything the US developed during the war. Its not quite true to say that torp bombers were limited in their approach speeds, more it was a function of the torpedo design. Later war Japanese torpedo bombers (eg the B7 Grace) had approach speeds at least 50 knots faster than their American counterparts, this wasnt so much because of the superior performance of the japanese aircraft, as the superior design of their torpedoes. the Jap aerial torps could , in a pinch withstand launch speeds of up to 300 knots for their main torpedo type and much higher for their later war types(for example, the type 4 - a further modification of the Type 91 Mod 3 Strong. This version was strengthened to permit a launch speed of 400 knots. By comparison, the Bliss-Levitt Mk XIII torpedo in service at the outbreak of the war was prone to problems and often failed in combat. It had to be released from under 100 feet and less than 120knots airspeed - and even then was as likely to disintegrate or dive to the bottom as it was to go where aimed. Even the later war designs by the Us were nowhere near as capable as the Japanese torpedoes in service. Having a P-38 as the launch vehicle would not alter that restriction…..

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-38 started flying operational sorties in the PTO December 1942. And agree about the American torpedoes, especially early in the war, putting it bluntly, they were junk.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

1. The TBD also had folding wings, so it took up a lot less hangar space.
2. Torpedo-carrying P-38's would have had to really slow down to drop their fish, otherwise the Bliss-Leavitt's would have broken up on hitting the water.
3. Don't underestimate the rivalry between the Army and the Navy. The Navy wanted nothing to do with the Army's liquid-cooled Allisons. Instead, the Navy preferred the lighter, more reliable radials. It was hard, too, to get the Army to accept the R2800 for the P-47, because it was pushing the Allison so much.
4. Could our industry have spooled up quickly enough to build enough Allisons, assuming we could get the Navy to use them?
5. Doctrine called for simultaneous attacks by accurate divebombers at the same time as coordinated hammer-and-anvil attacks from at least two directions by torpedo planes. Dive bombers have to be able to dive slowly, lest the plane be unable to pull out because of excessive speed.

We don't know how well the P-38 would have done with arresting gear, too. It also wouldn't have worked on the smaller and jeep carriers, where even F4U's and F6F's didn't fit.

I'm not claiming the TBD was a great airplane; it was ahead of it's time and modern when built, but by Midway, it was obsolescent. Had the squadrons at Midway had proper air cover, more might have survived to be quietly retired later.

CD

 

[Waynos]

Compared to the Fairey Swordfish the TBD was bang up to date!

 

[Venganza]

Compared to the Fairey Swordfish the TBD was bang up to date!

Luckily for the Swordfish the Germans (and Italians) didn't have any operational aircraft carriers. Just goes to show how the situation can make the plane. Change the situations, and the TBD cripples the Bismarck and destroys the Italian fleet at Taranto and the Swordfish gets slaughtered at Midway.

Venganza

 

[parsifal]

Luckily for the Swordfish the Germans (and Italians) didn't have any operational aircraft carriers. Just goes to show how the situation can make the plane. Change the situations, and the TBD cripples the Bismarck and destroys the Italian fleet at Taranto and the Swordfish gets slaughtered at Midway.

Venganza

I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.

If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.

It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason

 

[Venganza]

I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.

If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.

It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason

Parsifal, no disrepect meant towards the Stringbag, one of my all time favorite planes. You make some valid points about the good flying characteristics of the Swordfish. I've read about escort carriers in the North Atlantic, not the most hospitable of places, heaving up and down with the waves, and the only plane that could take off was the Swordfish, with that 3-bladed Fairey-Reed biting into the wind and that huge wing area giving the plane enough lift to take off. I still think my point is a valid one in general - change the situation, and a "bad" plane can become a good one and vice-versa. The TBD could have been equipped to fly at night, and could have been given the rockets and radar that the later Swordfish were. It might not have been the success that the Stringbag certainly was, but history might have treated it a little more kindly (which isn't saying much - it might as well have had the nickname "Disaster" instead of "Devastator").

Venganza

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.

If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.

It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason

While there is no argument about the Swordfish's combat record, even comparing it technically to the TBD, it was a half generation behind.

Equipping an aircraft to fly at night is very simple to do and in reality I don't see what the TBD lacked to enable it to operate at night (the minimum needed is a landing light and nav lights and it did have those). As far as flying in rough weather conditions, I would want to see what kind of navigation equipment I had on the aircraft, but even if I was equipped with GPS in the early 1940s, I'd pass on the open cockpit. I don't think the Swordfish had anything on it that special that made it a better adverse weather (IFR) machine than the TBD, except those that were used for ASW work, I know they had radar onboard.

I can't see any condition that would prevent a TDB from flying when compared to the Swordfish.

Jeep carrier ops - the Swordfish would probably have it because of its landing speeds and distance but I think the adverse weather condition operations are a mute point, except if you're the poor sod who has to fly in an open cockpit.

The Swordfish, despite being obsolete was in the right place at the right time. It was the perfect aircraft in the theaters it operated from and one cannot forget that it carried far better quality torpedoes than the US. Had it served in the Pacific IMO it would of suffered as badly as the Vickers Vildebeest did in Malaya, or perhaps the Japanese would of had a harder time shooting at it because it was actually slower!

 

[parsifal]

No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).

It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots per year), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.

With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war. They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).

Again this "rough weather" handling is rather vague - usually the larger and heavier plane will handle "rough weather" better if we're talking flying through turbulence. I think the TBD will have that hands down as it out weighs the Swoardfish by over 2000 pounds when fully loaded. If we're talking IFR operations (flying in the soup) the only advantage I could see is if the Swoardfish aircraft in question had radar.

It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots per year), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.

And agree, it excelled in its ASW role

With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war.

Are we talking operational or aircraft specific - you said the aircraft couldn't fly at night and I beg to differ. Now if the operator chooses not to operate the aircraft in night time sorties, that's a whole other story - bottom line the TBD could be flon at night.

They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.

Again I see nothing there addressing the hardware - remember we operated in the Aleutian Islands through 1943. Although not pretty, the mission went on.

 

[parsifal]

I dont know about the rough weather either, but I have read that the Stringbag could land an take off in a sixty foot swell. A sea state o that magnitude means that the deck is heaving and broaching pretty heavily, with a lot of green coming over the bowws....the launches had to be timed ust right so as to avoid pushing the aircraft into that broaching ocean....if that anecdotal info is correct, its is pretty amazing to me and Ill bet there werent that many aircraft around that could do the same. Id have to think that heavier in those conditions is a disadvantage....wouldnt heavier mean longer to get air under your wings????

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont know about the rough weather either, but I have read that the Stringbag could land an take off in a sixty foot swell. A sea state o that magnitude means that the deck is heaving and broaching pretty heavily, with a lot of green coming over the bowws....the launches had to be timed ust right so as to avoid pushing the aircraft into that broaching ocean....if that anecdotal info is correct, its is pretty amazing to me and Ill bet there werent that many aircraft around that could do the same. Id have to think that heavier in those conditions is a disadvantage....wouldnt heavier mean longer to get air under your wings????

I'd think I'd attribute that more to pilot skill than the aircraft, but as stated earlier, the Stringbag would have better slow speed characteristic than the heavier TBD, no doubt.

 

[Clay_Allison]

No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).

It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots per year), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.

With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war. They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.

I think you are confusing the skills and training of the operators with the qualities of the AC. With the same British operators and all of their training the TBD would have had many advantages over the Swordfish.