Worst Piston engined Bomber of World War Two

[davebender]

British Torpedoes of World War II
IMO the only good thing about the Stringbag was the reliable 18" Mark XII aerial torpedo it carried. Design the USN TBF torpedo bomber to carry the British torpedo and you'd have a war winning weapons system.

 

[baclightning]

Eric Brown's comparison of the Swordfish versus the TBF or Kate is baloney just like much of his writing comparing combat aircraft. If the Swordfish had equipped the American VT squadrons at Midway and Coral Sea with the American torpedoes, they would probably been even less successful than they were. The Swordfish could not even get into the battle compared to the Kate and the Avenger because of its low speed and lack of range. It was a disgrace that the RN, with it's tradition and experience, sent it's CVs to sea with the British designed shipboard AC that they had. And it is a tribute to the RN personnel that they accomplished what they did with such shoddy equipment.

Actually, I respect Eric Brown's opinions about aircraft more than anyone else who has ever written about them. I simply can't ignore the amount of experience he has. I don't know if I'd agree with his opinion in this particular case, but I certainly respect what he has to say.

 

[boeing299]

Vought SB2U Vindicator

 

[RCAFson]

British Torpedoes of World War II
IMO the only good thing about the Stringbag was the reliable 18" Mark XII aerial torpedo it carried. Design the USN TBF torpedo bomber to carry the British torpedo and you'd have a war winning weapons system.

The Swordfish could operate in weather that would ground the TBF, and unlike the TBF, the Swordfish was fully stressed for dive bombing, however the RN realized that the Swordfish was obsolete even in 1939, and by 1940 the plan was to fully replace it with the Albacore, and by 1942 with the Barracuda. However, I don't think that there's any doubt that the Swordfish was far superior to the lamentable TBD. Initially engine problems with the Taurus delayed the Albacore, and then after France fell, RN FAA procurement plans and priorities got shot to hell.

Heck, some USN skippers even called for the Swordfish to replace some of their TBFs:

Interestingly, in his comments on the new
aircraft composition, Captain Short (of USS Bogue) suggested that four
slower type aircraft, such as the Swordfish, be
substituted for three 'TBF-is: "The Swordfish, for
instance, can be operated in weather which precludes
the landing and take-off (except by catapult) of the
TBF. They could be used for night operations and
rough water work when the employment of the heavy
and faster TBF would be unduly hazardous in this class
of vessel. Further, a slow aircraft at night would prove
more effective in spotting submarines than a fast
one''(76) The suggestion was not followed.

From Black May:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=fj0...Bw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q= swordfish&f=false

 

[RCAFson]

Eric Brown's comparison of the Swordfish versus the TBF or Kate is baloney just like much of his writing comparing combat aircraft. If the Swordfish had equipped the American VT squadrons at Midway and Coral Sea with the American torpedoes, they would probably been even less successful than they were. The Swordfish could not even get into the battle compared to the Kate and the Avenger because of its low speed and lack of range. It was a disgrace that the RN, with it's tradition and experience, sent it's CVs to sea with the British designed shipboard AC that they had. And it is a tribute to the RN personnel that they accomplished what they did with such shoddy equipment.

The Swordfish had better range than the TBD, cruised at very similar speeds and was just about as fast at sea level, plus it could dive bomb and release its torpedo after diving in to attack. Take a look at this memo:

"Prior to the production of the of the B-26...the fastest torpedo carrying plane in the US services made about 130 knots..." This tells us that by mid 1942 the TBD was far slower than most people realize. The Swordfish would have been a distinct improvement over the TBD, while the Albacore was much better yet.

 

[davebender]

That's no surprise. I'd rather have a Stringbag with torpedoes that work then a TBF with torpedoes that are likely to malfunction.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Swordfish could operate in weather that would ground the TBF

Can you be specific? Back in WW2 instrument flying was based on an artificial horizon, gyro compass, turn and bank indicator, Vertical speed indicator, a clock with a second hand and possibly an ADF. Later in the war some aircraft were fitted with a localizer that worked off of LF tones, so tell me what makes the Swordfish any better of an IMC aircraft than the TBF if equipped with the same or similar equipment????

 

[RCAFson]

Can you be specific? Back in WW2 instrument flying was based on an artificial horizon, gyro compass, turn and bank indicator, Vertical speed indicator, a clock with a second hand and possibly an ADF. Later in the war some aircraft were fitted with a localizer that worked off of LF tones, so tell me what makes the Swordfish any better of an IMC aircraft than the TBF if equipped with the same or similar equipment????

Sorry. I added a quote to my original post to illustrate my point, so I'll post it again here:

Interestingly, in his comments on the new
aircraft composition, Captain Short (of USS Bogue) suggested that four
slower type aircraft, such as the Swordfish, be
substituted for three 'TBF-is: "The Swordfish, for
instance, can be operated in weather which precludes
the landing and take-off (except by catapult) of the
TBF. They could be used for night operations and
rough water work when the employment of the heavy
and faster TBF would be unduly hazardous in this class
of vessel. Further, a slow aircraft at night would prove
more effective in spotting submarines than a fast
one''(76) The suggestion was not followed.

From Black May:
Black May: The Epic Story of the Allies' Defeat of the German U-Boats in May ... - Michael Gannon - Google Books

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Now I can agree with that.

 

[parsifal]

Eric Brown's comparison of the Swordfish versus the TBF or Kate is baloney just like much of his writing comparing combat aircraft. If the Swordfish had equipped the American VT squadrons at Midway and Coral Sea with the American torpedoes, they would probably been even less successful than they were. The Swordfish could not even get into the battle compared to the Kate and the Avenger because of its low speed and lack of range. It was a disgrace that the RN, with it's tradition and experience, sent it's CVs to sea with the British designed shipboard AC that they had. And it is a tribute to the RN personnel that they accomplished what they did with such shoddy equipment.

The Stringbag did not suit US operational techniques or training, so from a USN perspective you are absolutely right. But from the RN operational techniques and training pov they were exactly what was needed.

If the USN had gone down the pathway of the RN they would have had several years to prepre their crews and equip their aircraft with the Swordfish. They would have gone into battle, with the most accurate torpedo squadrons in the worls, equipped with ASV radar and fully night capable. At Midway they would not have attacked by day, they would have been looking to launch their torpedo strikes by night, leaving the day strikes to the F4Fs and SBDs. They would not be using the slow and innaccurate Bliss Levitt torpedoes that they did, but the much faster and more accurate whitehead torpedoes.

To give you some idea of the potency of that combination, at taranto 13 totpedoes were launched......11 hit their target. Against the Bismarck 9 torpedoes were launched, either 2 or three hit their target, in pitch black conditions, flying in a heavy gale.

The problem with the swordfish solution is that to get the best out of it, you need elite crews....guys who can hit things with their ordinance. Its very difficult to mass produce this sort of experience. Against the japanese, the kind of small elite forces available to the RN might not suit the sort of war the USN was envisaging. Still having a niche capability such as could be offered by the Swordfish may have given the USN the ability to reduce their losses whilst maintaining the same loss rates or better against the Japanese....in other words improving the exhange rates As an example, at Coral Sea, instead of retreating each day after night fall, the Americans might have been able to follow up their day strikes with deadly night torpedo attacks. Its an idea at least worth lookig at.

And the Stringbags capabilities in 1941-2 were unique in carrier borne aviation. The USN in 1942 did not possess functional ASV radar issued on a more or less standard basis. The Swordfish at that time came more or less standard wit ASV radar (I sound like a used car salesman....all I need to say it is fited standard with a cigarette lighter and CD player, and we are set....),

 

[parsifal]

IMO that hardly qualifies as a mass production aircraft. If not for Devastator participation in the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway it would be no more then a footnote in aviation history. Like the Me-109T which was produced in even smaller numbers and never fought a battle from an aircraft carrier flight deck.

For the USN at that time, this was a large production run. The TBD was always going to be frontline material given that position in the US production system.

 

[renrich]

The suggestion was not followed because it made no sense. Saying the Stringbag was superior to the Avenger because it was slower is tantamount to saying the US Model 1808 Musket was superior to the US Model 1961 Springfield Rifle Musket during The War of Northern Aggression because it was a smoothbore and faster to load. The TBD was around 68 MPH faster than the Swordfish and the crew did not get wet when it rained. I call those significant advantages.

 

[parsifal]

British Torpedoes of World War II
IMO the only good thing about the Stringbag was the reliable 18" Mark XII aerial torpedo it carried. Design the USN TBF torpedo bomber to carry the British torpedo and you'd have a war winning weapons system.

Possibly, though doubtful that they would be as accurate as the Swordfish. The Swordfish's apparent weakness (its slow speed) was also one of its greatest strengths. It was so slow, it could hardly miss. Almost as many Battleships were sunk or disabled at Taranto, with just 13 attack aircraft, as were sunk or disabled at pearl, where there were almost 5 times the number of torpoedoes fired. The Japanese had no problems with their torpedoes, and they were attacking in daylight, in a very low flak environment....yet could only manage a fraction of the accuracy the FAA crews achieved at Taranto. Your explanation of the Swordfish's success (being solely its torpedo) does not stack up when you look at all the facts.

 

[parsifal]

The suggestion was not followed because it made no sense. Saying the Stringbag was superior to the Avenger because it was slower is tantamount to saying the US Model 1808 Musket was superior to the US Model 1961 Springfield Rifle Musket during The War of Northern Aggression because it was a smoothbore and faster to load. The TBD was around 68 MPH faster than the Swordfish and the crew did not get wet when it rained. I call those significant advantages.

They are advantages, in certain situations, however the Swordfish was able to operate in conditions and to a level of accuracy not available to the TBD crews. To work on your analogy, rifle muskets arent much use, if they were less accurate or couldnt be used in the conditions presented. If an aircraft cannot fly, or lacks the accuracy of its rival, it is less capable

As for getting wet, well, I dont think that mattered all that much. It would have been nice to give some creature comforts to the crews, but they got by, just the same.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In some cases the Swordfish was like a baseball pitcher throwing a knuckleball or a change up...

 

[baclightning]

In some cases the Swordfish was like a baseball pitcher throwing a knuckleball or a change up...

As I commented, post #36, "It was the Jamie Moyer of WW2 aircraft..."

 

[renrich]

How can anyone think that a slow torpedo plane was more effective than a fast torpedo plane? The TBD had to go in slow because the US torpedos could not be dropped if the plane was going fast. They also could not be dropped from very high off the water. The Japanese torpedo could be dropped both from higher off the water and at higher speeds. The TBDs were slow while carrying a torpedo because of drag but so was the Stringbag. The Kate and later the Avenger were much faster which helped them get into position to launch when the targets were maneuvering to avoid them. The longer it took for the VT to get into position to drop the torpedo, the longer the VT was exposed to AA and fighter interference. The String bag might be doing 90-100 mph when delivering the torpedo since clean it could only do 138 mph. The TBD could do around 206 mph clean at best altitude but cruised with a torpedo at around 115 knots and it had to driop the torpedo at around 105 mph. Most of the TBDs at Midway never dropped their torpedos because the Zekes or AA got them first. Going in slow does not help accuracy if your torpedo is designed to be dropped at high speeds and from high altitude (relatively.)

The Japanese aerial torpedoes used at PH, Coral Sea and Midway could be launched at speeds up to 260 knots. The String bag or TBD couldn't go that fast with a torpedo aboard with a tailwind and in a dive.

 

[renrich]

The rifled musket was absolutely much more accurate than the smoothbore and also much more effective at longer ranges. The Japanese reported that the flak at PH was surprisingly heavy and started up very fast. The Taranto raid does not compare to the Japanese torpedo attacks in the Pacific.

 

[parsifal]

How can anyone think that a slow torpedo plane was more effective than a fast torpedo plane?

Because the aircraft speed is not the only issue. Its also how accurate the torpedo can be delivered, and for whatever reason, the Swordfish was THE most accurate torpedo delivery system available to any of the combatants. The only thing I can think of that makes it different are the speed of the aircraft, and the quality of the crews

The TBD had to go in slow because the US torpedos could not be dropped if the plane was going fast

.

And the Swordfish had to go slow because thats as fast as they could go. In the right situations this did not hinder their survivability, and also seems to have helped in their rough weather abilities.

They also could not be dropped from very high off the water. The Japanese torpedo could be dropped both from higher off the water and at higher speeds.

Yes, i agree. I would concede that in every repect, Japanese torpedoes were the best in the world. Their crews were also reportedly second to none. yet, they did not achieve results as good as those achieved by the Swordfish.

The TBDs were slow while carrying a torpedo because of drag but so was the Stringbag. The Kate and later the Avenger were much faster which helped them get into position to launch when the targets were maneuvering to avoid them. The longer it took for the VT to get into position to drop the torpedo, the longer the VT was exposed to AA and fighter interference.

Being slow does not seem to have affected the Stringbags accuracy or survivability provided they operated at night, which no-one else could do accurately at that time. Both the kate and the Avenger should have been more survivable by day (but statistically were not, neither were they as good in rough weather, reportedly) and certainly never achieved the same level of accuracy as the stringbag. Maddening as that might be, it IS the case

 

[parsifal]

The Japanese reported that the flak at PH was surprisingly heavy and started up very fast. The Taranto raid does not compare to the Japanese torpedo attacks in the Pacific.

Why not. The Swordfish crews reported that flak at Taranto was also very heavy. And flak was non existent at pearl for the opening minutes of the raid, when most of the hits were achieved. How do you explain the Swordfish achieving accuracy rates of over 90% compared to the Kates at Pearl being about 20%. Sure, y9ou might argue that the flak was heavier (which I dont agree with) but that still cannot explain an accuracy level more than 4 times as great by the Stringbag.

And Taranto was not an isolated case, its just the best documented and most well known. There was a reason why the stringbag was the weapon of choice in ASW warfare.....they were the most accurate delivery system against targets (subs) that were the hardest to hit of any naval target