TBD

[javelina]

Some TBD love

 

[javelina]

[Chief_Mouser]

Why was it so fat? Tiny little cowling; oversized cockpit canopy; external torpedo. It looks like there must have been a lot of space in there, especially beneath the gunner. Was it caused solely by the bombardier's prone position?

[Trooper117]

Nice pics... but in reality, you certainly wouldn't want to go to war in one. Like the Fairey Battle, by the time it saw war service it was already out of date.

[javelina]

3 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

Why was it so fat? Tiny little cowling; oversized cockpit canopy; external torpedo. It looks like there must have been a lot of space in there, especially beneath the gunner. Was it caused solely by the bombardier's prone position?

gotta admit, it is an odd looking bird.  can only imagine they made some compromises for a 3 man crew. Also, not a very robust engine either.  As Trooper notes, I wouldn't want to go to war in it either. 

Edited July 21 by javelina

[BlitzPig_EL]

When introduced it was by a margin the most advanced torpedo bomber on the planet.  Developments outpaced it quickly though, like many interwar designs.

[Sea Serpent]

11 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

When introduced it was by a margin the most advanced torpedo bomber on the planet.  Developments outpaced it quickly though, like many interwar designs.

The Swordfish was praised, but the Devastator was excoriated, because of historical victories and defeats, but there is no way one could argue that a Swordfish or Albacore would have done “better”, except for their more reliable torpedoes, and I doubt they would have penetrated far enough through the screen to get a drop.  My guess is that Devastators probably did better against the KB than any other Allied torpedo bomber would have.  But the Devastator always tops the worst of WW2 list!

[Chief_Mouser]

Swordfish would have had just as hard a time at Midway. Only got to look at the Channel Dash to see what would have happened. The Devastators at Midway would have benefited from a properly co-ordinated attack and better fighter cover, but there would still have been the problems of the crap torpedoes.

The Swordfish gets praised because of the almost unexpected success it had, not for it's qualities. We British love the underdog that kicks the big guy. Bismarck and Taranto were pretty special for something that old and creaky, but nobody remembers the Vildebeests and Albacores attacking the Japanese landing force at Endau because they were an abject failure.

🍻

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Devastator's good performance at Coral Sea is always overshadowed by their dismal showing at Midway, which really was a failure of mission execution by the escorting fighters.  And almost no one speaks of the fading utility of torpedo bombing over all as the war progressed.  Even the much better TBF/TBM spent most of it's time dropping bombs later in the war.

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

The Swordfish gets praised because of the almost unexpected success it had, not for it's qualities.

Depends what you mean with „qualities“. The rugged, dependable slow flyer with good endurance could fulfill a great variety of tasks in a time where aircraft of any kind were either scarce or simply not at hand.

Hence its nickname „stringbag“, as it would carry any kind of groceries needed.

It hardly ever operated in contested airspace, as neither the Germans or the Italians had carriers, hence it simply didn‘t need to compete with any higher performing aircraft. But it did need to put up with the most appalling flying conditions imaginable and it did so very well.

At least initially, it could even be used in contested airspace, as it contributed greatly to the mining of the Channel befure, during and after Dynamo. The Germans outwardly failed to put an end to these missions.

The Swordfish was indeed the right plane Fleet Air Arm at the time. But making dashing runs at the Kido Butai in broad daylight would have been not the right way to use it. The Brits were fortunate having the Swordfish and not the Devastator. Most missions couldn‘t have been made with the Devastator, and the ones where the Devastator was better at would not benefit from using the Devastator, as that one was still a dog and not projecting more power.

All it would have been was a faster - but still too slow - aircraft that would significantly reduced the options of the FAA. And if all you need is a knife, it doesn‘t help bringing a sword.

[Sea Serpent]

Would you rather be in a Devastator at Midway against Zeroes, or a Swordfish pilot up against Focke-Wulfs during the Channel Dash?  And then, in my mind, I reverse the question, and postulate how the Devastators would have fared in the Channel Dash?  Being a Torpedo pilot would have sucked in any plane, any service.  The Swordfish had radar though, and could operate in any weather, and that’s a big deal.

 

Edited July 23 by Sea Serpent

[ZachariasX]

I think I would feel equally miseable, as I am a very risk averse person on such matters. But for me it would be the Swordfish, easy choice, same as the choice of a Mosquito over a Fairey Battle on doing like… anything.

Part of the Swordfishs uncanny survivability was it being amazingly slow. I take my recollections here from Charles Lambs fantastic book, „War in a Stringbag“, one of the all time best books about WW2 aviation.

Flak had a hard time with it, as any lead shooting by the book would be excessive. While they were mining the Channel, they found that as long as they stayed in formation (and thus not giving away a single target), Flak would not really hit them. Given they flew at wave crest hight, getting the right distance for proper elevation of the guns was not easy, as splashes would make things even harder.

Regarding aircraft, the Swordfish (clean configuration) could almost torque-lift itself and fly the tightest circles basically hanging on its prop. No other aircraft (including other biplanes) would be able to perform such stunts.

Lamb said that in training, he came up with the following defense vs. attackers: Dive vertically to sea level and then torque-circle the crate until the other guy doesn‘t like to play anymore or things do happen. Regarding things that can happen, he tried that off Bermuda with a Skua from his carrier, representing a monumentally more performant aircraft posing as attacker. He dove down to sea level, circled, looked up and saw in horror his mate doom-diving his Skua right into the sea. The poor guy didn‘t get a sense for sea level due to the water being cristal clear. Besides, even on land you just dont dive steeply on an elusive target right at ground level. The pullout from the dive forces a very far shot then.

Off the Albanian coast, Lamb got ambushed by a Fiat biplane. Also a much higher performing aircraft. He pulled the same trick and while the Fiat had a go at the Swordfish until it was down at sea level, it eventually ran into the sea in the same way as the Skua did back then. Returning to base, Lamb found an Italian bullet in his parachute pack less than a fighers with below his privates. Also, even though he clearly got a maneuver kill, it was not counted as a kill for him, as he didn‘t fire a single bullet. Had he just fired one bullet at any time during the sortie, he would have been awarded the kill.

The Swordfish with radar and a good torpedo was probably one the most effective combat aircraft of the war. At night, it acted with impunity and enabled the British force projection over most of the Mediterranean and probably it was probably the biggest single reason of Rommels demise in Africa. No other aircraft could have done it until radar became commonplace on Barracudas and American hardware. Until having such in number, I wouldn‘t bother for anything else (I think if the Albacore as an increase in crew comfort, as a weapon system progress is probably questionable), as none could do the job.

The only scenario where I would prefer the Devastator, is daylight strikes with Fiat/Japanese biplanes guarding the target. In essence, a really silly way to attack for a very specific case, if you had the option to choose time of engagement. In the Pacific, it is the way it was done, even though torpedos wouldn‘t really torpedo and airspace war more than just contested. But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The Swordfish was one of the best and most useful tools for force projection, right up there with the Mosquito, just without the looks. The Devastator was a failure, as it is not just the plane, it is also the weapon itself as well as doctrine that makes for a useful weapon system. (If you bring torpedoes that don‘t torpedo, that kind of ruins everything.)

If I had to choose between either plane at Midway? Given I know Iˋd die using the Devastator, the alternative is not worse. But I wouldn‘t have done any torpedo attack during daylight, the Japanese doing what they do. I would have waited until night and used the rest for daylight action. If the Japanese would have withdrawn their carriers at night just because a flight of Swordfishes is essentially a fleet in being, then I would have won as well. Ceding air cover is a great way to screw up any attempted invasion. It would then also be clear that a handful of Swordfishes is mightier than Kido Butai, at least in the eyes of the enemy. And if they didn‘t draw back, down the carries go. With pilots coming back, talking about it.

And before I forget: 11 years service life. For good reason.

[JFM]

On 7/22/2024 at 10:59 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Devastator's good performance at Coral Sea is always overshadowed by their dismal showing at Midway, which really was a failure of mission execution by the escorting fighters.  And almost no one speaks of the fading utility of torpedo bombing over all as the war progressed.  Even the much better TBF/TBM spent most of it's time dropping bombs later in the war.

Agreed. Although the Devastator gets blasted for being "obsolete," its failure at Midway was not entirely the Devastator's fault--it was the torpedoes. George Gay wrote about his experience at Midway, "I aimed about one quarter of the ship's length ahead of her bow, and reached out with my left hand to pull back the throttle. It had been calculated that we should be at about 80 knots when we dropped these things [torpedoes], so I had to slow down." He also wrote, "...the ideal drop was 1,000 yards range, 80 knots speed, and 80 feet or so of altitude." They approached at a higher airspeed--Waldron's "Attack Plans" of 6 April 1942 specified "100 knots true airspeed"--but for the drops they had to slow to 80 (at least according to Gay). Even at 100 knots, and not even considering winds and groundspeed, that's Cessna 172 territory. But they had to use those parameters to avoid the torpedoes from being damaged upon entering the water. So, yeah, the Devastators were slaughtered, but so were the more modern Avengers tasked with dropping the same weapons. They all could have been flying Corsairs that day but at 80 feet and 80 knots and unescorted, they still would have been lambs to the slaughter. Later in the war, the torpedoes improved to the point that they dropped from 800 feet at 260 knots. 

In any event, I don't care. Devastator is one of my favorite planes, I love torpedo attacks, and I'll be flying the hell out of them in the sim! "If all planes are shot down except one during the approach, that plane will go on in and make a HIT."  I'll do my damnedest, Commander Waldron!  

[JFM]

BTW, killer footage, with lots of TBDs:

 

[Jason_Williams]

5 minutes ago, JFM said:

BTW, killer footage, with lots of TBDs:

 

Great video! All those Vindicators and Buffalos! Love it.

Jason

[JFM]

Yeah, it's a gold mine! 😀

[Trooper117]

Looks great when they did that wing over and dived down... but then again they didn't have a flock of A6M's hot on their tails!

[Chief_Mouser]

Tremendous stuff 👍. Plus it seems to be real colour film instead of retro-coloured. Superb.

[Major Lee]

On 7/20/2024 at 9:32 PM, javelina said:

Some TBD love

 

Ummm, not the prettiest girls at the dance.... 

[Sea Serpent]

 

29 minutes ago, Major Lee said:

Ummm, not the prettiest girls at the dance.... 

I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.  I think they look great.  They sucked, for the task at hand, but I think they’re pretty cool looking.  They look like they should have been better than they actually were in reality, to me.

[Trooper117]

12 hours ago, Sea Serpent said:

I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.

I always did like the look of them too...

[Calos_01]

On 7/24/2024 at 12:46 AM, Major Lee said:

Ummm, not the prettiest girls at the dance.... 

Well, try to look again 😀

[Trooper117]

Corrugated cardboard wings will never catch on!

[Calos_01]

[BlitzPig_EL]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

Corrugated cardboard wings will never catch on!

Don't tell Junkers that.