Interview: Captain Eric Brown

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

You could be right that maybe that is what he thought. In my opinion though I dont understand how? Avengers I think would have had more of an impact because I can think of more "heavy" ships that they helped send ot the bottom than the Swordfish and the Avenger was a better aircraft. Hell it was an all metal aircraft as compared to a fabric covered biplane.

For the British it had more of an impact but then it would go to personal bias...

There was one major problem with the Avenger though - its torpedos

During the early war period, a non-aircraft related problem had emerged: the faulty torpedoes used by the U.S. Navy had failed to explode (even on direct hits) on many occasions; Prange mentions a likely problem in the magnetic detonation device (at Midway, one submarine (USS Nautilus (SS-16) actually hit the Sōryū with a faulty torpedo, although after it was already incapacitated).

The Avenger had a large bomb bay, allowing for one Bliss-Leavitt Mark 13 torpedo, a single 2000 lb (900 kg) bomb, or up to four 500 lb (230 kg) bombs. Torpedoes were generally abandoned after Midway and were not carried again regularly until after June of 1944, when improvements mandated their use again.

The Avengers played a very major role in the American victory during World War II, although torpedoes had become largely outdated (replaced by the faster and more effective dive bombers) by then.

So, as a torpedo bomber, it was let down by its torpedos, but was effective with bombs and rockets

TBF Avenger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Smokey

There was one major problem with the Avenger though - its torpedos

We are not discussing torpedos though are we? We are discussing aircraft. The Swordfish was outdated, outclassed and outperformed by all modern torpedo bomber aircraft. It was a fabric skinned bi-plane.

I am not saying the Swordfish did not serve well. It served extremely well but as an aircraft it does not compare to the Avenger or any other "modern" torpedo bombers.

[brickhistory]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

We are not discussing torpedos though are we? We are discussing aircraft.

A little disingenious (sp?) in my opinion. If the torpedo bomber's purpose is to deliver said torpedo and have it go 'boom' at the end of the run, then without a reliable weapon, the torpedo bomber is now a recce bird, or at at most, a strafer.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

True however the Torpedo problems did not last the whole war. Later the US was making better torpedos.

Again as an aircraft the Avenger is better.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

True however the Torpedo problems did not last the whole war. Later the US was making better torpedos.

Again as an aircraft the Avenger is better.

From December 1941 to June 1944 is a long time, and according to this article:

torpedoes had become largely outdated (replaced by the faster and more effective dive bombers) by then.

So this is a massive reduction in its effectiveness as a torpedo bomber. This forced it to use bombs and rockets.

This begs the question - why did the admirals at the US navy not copy the detonation mechanism from another torpedo design (captured IJN or Kriegsmarine torpedos or alllied torpedo designs?)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Smokey

So this is a massive reduction in its effectiveness as a torpedo bomber. This forced it to use bombs and rockets.

Okay if you really want to stress it that much if the Torpedos were outdated and replaced by Divebombers than that makes the Swordfish even more outdated when compared to the Avenger which atleast was a successful bomber and attack aircraft.

[Smokey]

The Avenger was effective with bombs and rockets so was a good attack aircraft. Eric Brown is using the category 'torpedo bomber', and since the Avenger did not have reliable torpedos for a large part of the war, it does not do very well in that category. This is the problem with using categories; some aircraft fit into more than one category The Avenger was more like a carrier borne Il2 than a dedicated torpedo aircraft

[syscom3]

To set the record straight, the US torpedo problems were pretty much fixed by end of summer of 1943.

In 1944 and most of 1945, the Avengers were in on many successfull torpedo attacks against the Japanese merchant marine and warships.

Someone name me one big naval battle that the Swordfish fought in that WAS decisive and had an impact on the course of the war. Were they at Leyte Gulf? Philipine Sea? Truk? Rabaul? Mariana's?

In addition, the Avenger made a fine sub patrol plane. The Swordfish was not noted for its endurance or payload in this regard and the Avenger is a magnitude better.

Someone mentioned low speed performance. Well the Avenger could take off with a full payload off of the escort carriers, so thats an indication its quite capable in this flight regime. But more importantly, top speed IS important. What good is it if you are so slow, you spend a considerable part of your endurance times getting to and from station and not having much time to patrol? And not keeping up with the dive bombers and fighters means they will either have to slow down to keep the attack group intact or have to go ahead without them and end up with an disjointed uncordinated attack.

If you want to argue that the Swordfish was the best torpedo plane of 1939-1942, I'd compare it to the "Kate". But from 1943 onwards, the Avenger was the superior torpedo bomber of WW2.

[Smokey]

On the contrary, I think the Avenger was a much better torpedo aircraft when the torpedos were working. I was just trying to find a possible explanation for why Eric Brown rated the Swordfish above the Avenger

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Someone name me one big naval battle that the Swordfish fought in that WAS decisive and had an impact on the course of the war. Were they at Leyte Gulf? Philipine Sea? Truk? Rabaul? Mariana's?

I agree the Avenger was superior but now you are just being silly. The war was fought in Europe to my friend. Leyte Gulf, Philippine Sea, Truk, Rabual and Marianas had nothing to do with victory in Europe.

The swordfish was decisive in stopping the Italian Navy at Taranto and the sinking of the Bismarck to name a few. They also played a role in the U-Boot war.

To say the Swordfish had no impact on the war and did nothing at all is just plain stupid, syscom. Dont be foolish...

[bigZ]

The decisive stopping of the Italian Navy at Taranto also helped the Japenese model their plans for Pearl Harbour. Thus dragging the US into the war. So one could argue the the swordfish had the biggest impact on the war.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would not go as far as saying it had the biggest impacft for that type of aircraft but it certainly made its mark.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by bigZ

The decisive stopping of the Italian Navy at Taranto also helped the Japenese model their plans for Pearl Harbour. Thus dragging the US into the war. So one could argue the the swordfish had the biggest impact on the war.

Using your logic, it was the Stuka's that initated the first bombings on Poland in Sept 1939 that had the biggest mark.

Stopping the Italian fleet at Taranto was not a decisive blow in the war. Italy still managed to fight on in the land war, and project its power in the Med through air power.

Being in on the two largest naval battles in history (Mariana's and Philipine Sea) was a decisive battle. Those were the death nails in the ability of the Japanese to project power in the Pacific.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Using your logic, it was the Stuka's that initated the first bombings on Poland in Sept 1939 that had the biggest mark.

Stopping the Italian fleet at Taranto was not a decisive blow in the war. Italy still managed to fight on in the land war, and project its power in the Med through air power.

Being in on the two largest naval battles in history (Mariana's and Philipine Sea) was a decisive battle. Those were the death nails in the ability of the Japanese to project power in the Pacific.

No you are completly wrong now. Taranto stopped the Italian Fleet and allowed the RN to completely control the Med. That is very desisive in my opinion. It had no effect on the PTO but it deffinatly had an effect on the victory in Europe.

The Marianas and Philippine Sea had not effect on the ETO only on the PTO, therefore they had a decisive effect on the outcome of the PTO but not the whole war itself.

Sorry Sys but you can give crecit to feats that other countries did as well...

[bigZ]

Forgive my inept explanation. I was not trying to say the Swordfish was the best at its role or that Operation Slapstick was the most decisive naval battle of WWII but trying to point out the repricussions that the Taronto raid made which not only effected the Med but would directly inspire the attack on the Pearl Harbour.

The Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, was the Naval Attache in Rome at the time and was in Taranto the day after the attack took place. He later stated that the way the British attacked the Italian fleet, using torpedo planes launched from aircraft carriers, gave him the basic idea on which the Pearl Harbour attack was based. He of course used far greater resources, some 300+ aircraft, instead of some 15 to 20 aircraft which attacked Taranto.