Worst Piston engined Bomber of World War Two

[RCAFson]

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.

The RN's standard torpedo bomber, by May 1942, was the Albacore, and it was overdue for replacement with the Barracuda.

RN torpedo bomber tactics called for approaching the target at medium altitude, then executing a very steep dive, with the aircraft leveling off at drop altitude, lining up on the target, releasing the torpedo and then evasive maneuvers to avoid flack. There is a very good probability that even a Swordfish would be traveling faster at release than the lumbering TBD, which, by mid 1942 was extremely overweight, and even the newest aircraft were about 3 years old.

The RN Mk XII torpedo was progressively strengthened to allow drops at up to 270 knots. The Mk XV which was introduced in 42-43 started life with 250-270 knot drop speeds.

 

[renrich]

The USN could and did use the same tactic of approaching at higher altitudes and then diving to the altitude to deliver the torpedo. However one disadvantage of that tactic which the Swordfish seldom encountered was that if the enemy CAP caught the VTs at higher altitudes they were much more vulnerable to VF attack than if they were down next to the water. of course the American torpedoes could not be dropped at high speeds. Amazing that the RN had good torpedoes and not very good ship board AC ( until they got American ones) I believe the RN CVs deployed to the PTO in 1945 ( against the USN's wishes) mostly carried TBMs or Fs as their VTs.

 

[parsifal]

The USN could and did use the same tactic of approaching at higher altitudes and then diving to the altitude to deliver the torpedo. However one disadvantage of that tactic which the Swordfish seldom encountered was that if the enemy CAP caught the VTs at higher altitudes they were much more vulnerable to VF attack than if they were down next to the water. of course the American torpedoes could not be dropped at high speeds. Amazing that the RN had good torpedoes and not very good ship board AC ( until they got American ones) I believe the RN CVs deployed to the PTO in 1945 ( against the USN's wishes) mostly carried TBMs or Fs as their VTs.

The change to US equipment occurred for a number of reasons. Chief among them was the better range of the Us equipment and bett4er spares availability. but also throughout 1942 the RN abandoned its highly specialized night capable training in favour of the mass produced pilot training schemes. These mass produced pilots had a number of critical shortcomings that rendered the Swordfish et al less than optimum. Chief among them was the lost specialist skills to operate effectively at night.

As a daylight aircraft, the Swordfish lacked the performance and the range to be competitive.

However it is also not quite true that the RN preferred US types over British types, is not true. In the ETO, the fleet carriers once they converted to a day strike force, prefrerred the firefly, barracuda and corsair as their main strike aircraft. In the PTO they did use the Avenger, but not as a torpedo bomber. by the time the BPF deployed to the PTO, the Avenger was being used almost exclusively as a level bomber.

After the war, the CW navies tended to abandon US equipment. in Korea, the principal equipment used by the RN and RAN were fireflies, and furies with some seafire 47s thrown in. by Korea they had even abandoned the corsair, due to its poor deck handling characteristics (on the CVLs)

 

[baclightning]

However it is also not quite true that the RN preferred US types over British types, is not true. In the ETO, the fleet carriers once they converted to a day strike force, prefrerred the firefly, barracuda and corsair as their main strike aircraft. In the PTO they did use the Avenger, but not as a torpedo bomber. by the time the BPF deployed to the PTO, the Avenger was being used almost exclusively as a level bomber.

Barracudas were used by the RN Fleet carriers in the Pacific only though October 1944; after that date, they were replaced in the TBR Wings by Avengers, and didn't return until the four Light Fleet Carriers were employed in the last few weeks of the war. After the operation against the Nicobar Islands on October 19, 1944, the Barracudas embarked on Indomitable, the last Barracudas active on carriers in the theater, were put into storage at RNAS Coimbatore, India.

 

[RCAFson]

The USN could and did use the same tactic of approaching at higher altitudes and then diving to the altitude to deliver the torpedo. However one disadvantage of that tactic which the Swordfish seldom encountered was that if the enemy CAP caught the VTs at higher altitudes they were much more vulnerable to VF attack than if they were down next to the water. of course the American torpedoes could not be dropped at high speeds. Amazing that the RN had good torpedoes and not very good ship board AC ( until they got American ones) I believe the RN CVs deployed to the PTO in 1945 ( against the USN's wishes) mostly carried TBMs or Fs as their VTs.

The USN VTs didn't use the same tactics, because they couldn't, as neither the TBD or TBF, was stressed for diving bombing. All RN VTs from the Swordfish onward were fully stressed for divebombing and could make classical, near vertical dives, while carrying a torpedo, a tactic which greatly reduced vulnerability to AA, while even fighters have a hard time staying with a relatively slow moving, but vertically diving aircraft:

"Somewhere in Scotland a British FAA pilot dived me for nearly two miles, at an angle near 75degs and a speed of about 385 mph, as my final observing lesson in torpedo bombing..." http://books.google.ca/books?id=p-2...r_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fleet air arm 385&f=false

The Swordfish and Albacore could approach or exceed, 200 knots while diving to make a torpedo attack. Only the USN SB2C could use these tactics, but apparently,AFAIK, despite calls to replace the TBM with the SB2C entirely, the SB2C was never used for torpedo bomber attacks:

It is therefore recommended that as soon as certain modifications are incorporated in the bomb bay of the SB2C type (probably SB2C-5) which permit carrying of 1-2000lb bomb and improved torpedo bracing that all TBF type planes be replaced with SB2C type. This plane can then do all that the TBF can, safer and faster except for carrying a large number of small bombs or excess personnel....
Enterprise (CV-6) Action Report - 31 October 1944 - Page 40 - WWII Archives

 

[Trilisser]

Quite an interesting comment on the serviceability of the SB2C, so often maligned!

 

[davebender]

During WWII that means being able to take off, navigate and land in the dark with a reasonable chance of success. ASV, H2S, etc. might put you in the ball park but it's not accurate enough to put bombs on a moving ship (or even an anchored ship).

WWII era night maritime attacks were normally conducted using parachute flares. That's standard WWI era technology which any aircraft could employ. Just as the RN did at Taranto and the Luftwaffe did at Bari.

 

[parsifal]

During WWII that means being able to take off, navigate and land in the dark with a reasonable chance of success. ASV, H2S, etc. might put you in the ball park but it's not accurate enough to put bombs on a moving ship (or even an anchored ship).

WWII era night maritime attacks were normally conducted using parachute flares. That's standard WWI era technology which any aircraft could employ. Just as the RN did at Taranto and the Luftwaffe did at Bari.

True for most types, but not the swordfish. Swordfish got 1/3 of their torpedoes launched into the bismarck, in the dead of night and to boot, in conditions that few other aircraft could fly. neither was this an isolated incident. literally tens of thousands of tons of Axis shipping was sunk by swordfish operating at night.

Taranto was undertaken with flares as you say, and there is no denying the effectiveness of bari. however the majority of the damage at bari was caused by exploding ammunition and gas ships, not the LW bombs. And the Luftwaffe hit Bari with more than 90 a/c, and achieved about 10% hits. that is good, but hardly comparable to the 90%+ hits achieved against the italian ships at taranto

This capability was shared with no-one during the war.

 

[renrich]

RCAF, If you don't believe the TBD, much less the TBF did not use the dive in to torpedo altitude, please read Lundstrom. They may not have dived at 75 degrees but a TBF in a shallow dive would be going faster than a Sword fish with a torpedo on board. As Michael has pointed out the TBF by wars end was not being used as a torpedo plane but rather a bomber and they often were glide bombing at rather steep angles. I have personally seen on the Naval Aerial Bombarment Range on Padre Island in 1953 TBFs (TBMs) diving at rather steep angles. By the way, the Avenger was the first FAA aircraft to attack the Japanese mainland in 1945.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The USN VTs didn't use the same tactics, because they couldn't, as neither the TBD or TBF, was stressed for diving bombing. All RN VTs from the Swordfish onward were fully stressed for divebombing

And this is identified where?

The Swordfish and Albacore could approach or exceed, 200 knots while diving to make a torpedo attack.

And the VNE of these aircraft with a bombload are?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

True for most types, but not the swordfish. Swordfish got 1/3 of their torpedoes launched into the bismarck, in the dead of night and to boot, in conditions that few other aircraft could fly. neither was this an isolated incident. literally tens of thousands of tons of Axis shipping was sunk by swordfish operating at night.

This had nothing to do with the aircraft. The Swordfish had no special ability that would enable it to fly at night any better than any other naval aircraft of the period. This was an OPERATOR choice (kudos to the airmen who flew them) and excluding the use of radar.

 

[nuuumannn]

they often were glide bombing at rather steep angles.

The RNZAF used the Avenger as a dive bomber in WW2. One of its many uses was dropping fuel oil on Japanese crops.

 

[Oreo]

Easy to single out the Battle as a bad bomber, but I have to wonder if the He 177 might qualify as a worse bomber yet. Also, the B-18 was pretty bad, so bad it almost never made it into aerial combat. But the He 177, from every account I read was more dangerous to its own crew as it was to the enemy. Even after they got a lot of the bugs worked out. Only Hans Lerche seemed to like it and believe in it, but he was a highly qualified test pilot.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The RN's standard torpedo bomber, by May 1942, was the Albacore, and it was overdue for replacement with the Barracuda.

RN torpedo bomber tactics called for approaching the target at medium altitude, then executing a very steep dive, with the aircraft leveling off at drop altitude, lining up on the target, releasing the torpedo and then evasive maneuvers to avoid flack. There is a very good probability that even a Swordfish would be traveling faster at release than the lumbering TBD, which, by mid 1942 was extremely overweight, and even the newest aircraft were about 3 years old.

The RN Mk XII torpedo was progressively strengthened to allow drops at up to 270 knots. The Mk XV which was introduced in 42-43 started life with 250-270 knot drop speeds.

I guess your opinion?

The TBD was limited to a torpedo run of 110 mph because of the crappy torpedo being used at the time. I'd like to see documented evidence that the Swordfish used a diving attack during Taranto or the Bismark raid. The aircraft had a top speed of 140 mph. With a torpedo, I doubt you'll see more than 100 mph.

Bottom line - the Stringbag helped take out the Bismark and wrecked the Italian fleet and she did it at speeds were we have driven our cars almost as fast.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

B-18 was pretty bad, so bad it almost never made it into aerial combat.

The B-18 was used as an AWS plaform and it served well sinking several submarines. Operationally there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, by WW2 it was just obsolete.

 

[davebender]

During my younger days I've driven faster then a Stringbag on a torpedo run. Learn something new every day. 8)

 

[Shortround6]

The B-18 was used as an AWS plaform and it served well sinking several submarines. Operationally there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, by WW2 it was just obsolete.

The B-18 was based off the DC-2 airliner. The US had the luxury of entering the war late so that some of it's 1934-37 designs were on the way out in Dec of 1941 and new designs were already being issued to units. Aside from a few units that were caught in the Philippines and Hawaii there was no need to deploy older aircraft to overseas combat zones. The B-18 was inferior to the B-17 but then a plane with two Wright Cyclone 9s is going to be deficient in range and payload to a plane that uses FOUR Wright Cyclone 9s.

British chose Lockheed Hudsons over the B-18 because they were faster and had a better power to weight ratio. The British were interested in field performance also. The Hudson was a smaller airplane with a smaller bomb load that could use the same Wright Cyclone 9s or P&W Twin Wasps.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

agree...

 

[parsifal]

This had nothing to do with the aircraft. The Swordfish had no special ability that would enable it to fly at night any better than any other naval aircraft of the period. This was an OPERATOR choice (kudos to the airmen who flew them) and excluding the use of radar

.


All this talk about the Swordfish being able to operate at 100 knots, or 138 knots, fails to understand the secret of the Sworfish's success. The Swordfish was not succesful because of its speed. it was successful because of its lack of speed. and nowhere is that more impoprtant than understanding why it could operate in conditions at sea that would ground mist other aircraft.

Your right that it was not especially designed for rough weather flying, yet the design was such that it was well suited to such conditions.

The Swordfish was a large biplane, which for various reasons worked to its advantage in rough weather. Because it is single-engined it tends to look deceptively small from a distance and on photographs. By all accounts, Its fabric-covered metal construction was exceptionally sturdy, which is borne out by its low loss rates to non-operational causes. It was also given a good reputation viz reliability, but lacked refinement. The biplane wing had ailerons on both lower and upper planes, and leading edge slats on the upper wing, which gave it exceptional levels of control in high winds. For the take-off, the ailerons could be dropped 8 degrees to increase lift which again assisted it in rough weather when the fligt deckk might be wildly heaving and twisting. This coupled with the fact that approach speeds could be as low as 30 knots, made it the ideal rough weather aircraft. For storage on carriers, the wing folded backwards. In cold weather the open cockpit was uncomfortable, especially for the rear gunner. The wing struts, the robust fixed landing gear, and the generous size of wings and tail produced high drag, and the single 690hp Pegasus IIIM3 engine gave the aircraft a very modest performance. But it was reliable, which was especially important for the lonely night patrols over the arctic seas that were to be the task of the Swordfish. And its low performance and very low operating speeds coupled with its great strength and low loadings made it ideal for arctic condition. not by designm, as you rightly point out, but evident nevertheless.

The other aspect about the Swordfish that made it the ideal night strike and roiugh weather aircraft of its time is less measurable, but evident from all that i have read about the aircraft. By all accounts, the Swordfish was extremely easy to fly and easy to land on a carrier deck, a quality that would become very important for night operations on the small decks of escort carriers, and in the generally rough Atlantic and Arctic conditions. Although the Swordfish was stable around all axes, it could make remarkably short turns. It could also be dived vertically to very close to the sea surface, and then make an abrupt pull-out. Very little speed built up in the dive, and very liitle sppeed was needed to achieve lift. Therefore the Swordfish was not necessarily an easy prey for a fighter, but it was during the long, slow and straight run that was required to launch a torpedo, and operate in poor conditions and/or conditions of low visibility. These abailities stood it in god stead when operating in the ASW role....the Swordfish was the first aircraft to sink a U-Boat at sea, on the 24 November 1941, sinking U-454 off Tangiers ( based on the survivor statements, the U-Boat was surpised at being stalked by an aircraft that approached it from astern, as a closure rate of less than 50 knots)


The swordfish was the preferred kit in rough conditions. if you look at the operations north of the arctic circle (specifically the Murmansk runs), it was only ever undertaken by RN carriers, and the preferred strike aircraft was always the Swordfish even over other British types, for reasons relating substantially to the avove. The RN used all manner of aircraft types in the far north, both American and of British origin, but the real rough stuff that required constant flying in all conditions was almost exclusively done by Swordfish.

 

[parsifal]

During my younger days I've driven faster then a Stringbag on a torpedo run. Learn something new every day. 8)

That would a maximum approach speed. During the attack on the Bism,arck, the approach speed was under 80 MPH. Approach speeds could be as low as 50mph. That was both its weakness and its great strength. Slow Sppeed equals great accuracy. it also can mean great vulnerability. Thats provided the enemy6 can get the aircrafts six with either AA and/or fighters....something not as easy as one would imagine. a high speed pass on a Swordfish is neither required, nor is it desirable.