Worst Piston engined Bomber of World War Two (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Comparing the combat environment against the Italian Navy in the Med at Taranto and the IJN at Midway is ridiculous. To begin with the harbor at Taranto was at a known position. The IJN fleet location was not exactly known and was moving to boot. To launch a night attack with VTs from a carrier against the IJN at that stage of the war, regardless of training would have been idiotic.


There is no comparison between the two operations, I agree, however each had its own set of problems no less daunting for the respective combatants. Whilst taranto was a known location, the location of the italian fleet was not. In fact it was an amazing strole of good luck that the italians remained in the harbour since they knew the strike was coming. They miscalculated the timing of the strike (believing it would not arrive until morning , believed the harbour defences would hold (particulalry the barrage ballons and netting would prevent an effective strike, and underestimated the range of the Swordfish.

And in any event Swordfish crews on repeated occasions demonstrated in spades that they could locate, attack and sink targets whose position was not known, moving. And they did it at night. They never did it against the Japanese carrier forces, mostly because they were given very little opportunity to try, but on the one occasion they (the FAA) did try, they came pretty close to pulling the stunt off.

You have not explained why attempting a night strike would be "idiotic". I would suggest that merely reveals set and predictable thinking. Thinking outside the box, the preconceived ideas on how a war should be fought "properly" is as bad or worse as British officers refusing to use the 3.7 in AA gun as an ATG, because "thats not what an AA gun does" . In my opinion, its not idiotic, because very similar missions could and were undertaken throughout the war....in the finish, by everybody, including the USN. The difference is that the RN perfected the techniques before anybody else and were the best at it. Why is it impossible to think that the USN could not have achieved similar resulta if they had similar training. They certainly seemed pr3etty adept at the role with their "Black Cat" operations. Are you saying there was something preventing the adaptation of USN equipment for night capability. something in the US training regime that prevented them from acquiring the necessary skills. I certainly am not. I believe it was entirely possible, though there was nothing in the US inventory that measured up to quite the standard set by the Swordfish as far as night capability was concerned, their equipment can be considered "good enough" for night operations in clear and still night conditions.

The VTs at Midway were not sacrificed on purpose for the VBs. There was supposed to be a coordinated attack but the USN forces really botched up the strikes and were fortunate to achieve the results they did.

Certainly botching and luck played their part in the outcome at Midway. But i would add that it was also due to the intiative and heroism of the USN pilots, as well as ther skill, the stupidity of the japanese in certain respects, and also the failure of the equipment, specifically the TBD performance, that dictated the outcome


The attack at Taranto was a magnificent display of seamanship and airmanship by the RN and the FAA but battle against the Italian armed forces and battle against the IJN were two different things. The primary reason that Fletcher withdrew at Coral Sea was that his air groups were pretty heavily attrited and his fuel situation was poor. Even if he had had a squadron of night trained pilots armed with the Stringbag and reliable torps he would have made the correct decision and retired.

I agree, except that there is more than one way to skin a cat. For a start with a night capable force, there was absolutely no need to get his TG so banged up as it was. The Japanese had absolutely no defence to night capability at that time. If the Carriers could be located and kept at range in the day(greater than 240 miles for the japanese strike aircraft), during the night Fletcher coul;d have turned his force around , launched at that range (240 miles) and be closing the range with his ships whilst his aircraft were enroute and eturning. His TG would have had about four hours at night to close, whilst the strike hit the japanese and returned. The round trip in that scenario is about 360 miles (240 out, 120 back) ....well within both the TBD and Swordfish capabilities. Provided the strike connects, the Japanese are going to be in no position to retaliate the next morning, and fletcher could have been home in time for tea, with barely a scratch. If the strike fails to connect, the Americans are in a world of hurt, but not really any worse off than they were historically


An aside is that much is being made of the Swordfish's relative ease of operation from CVs and probably rightly so but the "Turkey" (Avenger) although a really big AC was noted for being an easy AC to operate from a carrier. Some were even used in the night fighter role and many were used from CVE decks
.

I agree,but the Swordfish was the dedicated ASW and patrol aircraft in the arctic. There was a reason for that, and the main reason it outlived its successor. there simply was no other aircraft of its time that could match it in poor conditions. Why? It certainaly wasnt designed with that in mind. Just that its low speeds and pleasant handling made it a lower risk in heavy conditions
 
I posted a quote earlier showing that TBD crews felt their maximum radius was 150-160nm.
You quote TBD Units

"...Torpedo crews advised against launching TBD more than 160 miles from the target and favour 150 miles..." p65

No indication that fuel consumption was higher in 1942 for face value. You're going to have to do better than that.

I could tell you however that if you calculate out the TBD's advertised range of 435 miles and subtract 320 miles, you had 115 miles. Turn that into "reserves" that gave you an hour if you cruised that 115 mph. Do the same with 300 miles and that gave you 135 miles, about an hour and a half. To me that sounds more like aviators who wanted a little more fuel reserves than being worried about operating at their operational radius. Also consider weather, headwinds, finding the enemy ect...
 
Last edited:
Torpedo Squadron Eight actually made several hits on four of the carriers. They were shot down to the last plane because of their necessarily low and flat approaches required to effectively release their torpedoes. That made them easy targets for the carriers' guns. The SBDs, zeroing-in on their open brake flaps, were able to then utilize that momentum to swing back upward and get out of there. I forget the citation for this, but it might be one of Vice-Admiral Fletcher's accounts. I remember it from long ago, folks, sorry. At any rate, it makes sense.

Not true about the hits...

"Every plane from VT-8 was quickly shot down and only one crewman survived – Ensign George Gay. Moreover, not one torpedo hit its mark and our initial attack had tragically failed."

U.S. Fleet Forces Command Blog: The Battle of Midway – 70 Years
 
Maybe the TBDs were refitted with armor and self sealing tanks, do you have a reference for this?

What extra avionics? didn't they come with radios to begin with?

What extra guns? did some get twin .30s in the rear gunner station instead of a single?

The TBD was introduced in 1937 and I assume that USN avionics would have changed over time, and with increased weight and increased capability.

The TBD is a poorly documented aircraft but I found this post:
In addition, the NACA airfoil used for the TBD-1 main plane (the characteristic thick wing) were specifically used by Douglas engineers to meet the Navy's 1934 specifications dealing with lifting and carrying requirement (Mk. XIII torpedo or 2,000 lb. of bombs), and was not a wing that permitted high speed flight. This is illustrated by the aircraft's very low Vne (or never exceed speed) of merely 208. Relevant is the fact that performance and operational data shows that when fully loaded with a Mk. XIII torpedo, 2 men, pilot and radioman/gunner armor, 180 gallons of fuel and other miscellaneous equipment [the conditions used by Torpedo 8 at Midway and 900 lb. over the maximum gross weight]), and at high cruise power settings of +/- 80-85% power, the aircraft could barely maintain 110-115 knots at 2,000 feet. Therefore, putting the vibration issue aside, if a new airfoil was not used, the power requirements to improve performance, even slightly, would have been enormous and to some extend, counterproductive.

Miguel Vasconcelos

03/23/2004 @ 10:53 [ref: 7035]
Aircraft: Douglas TBD-1A Devastator

I know that this is a pretty poor reference but it all makes sense when the earlier references to a TBD loaded speed of 130 knots at SL is considered. Something had to have happened to decrease the aircraft's performance.

TBD Devastator Units of the US Navy makes several references to several squadrons having twin .30 Mgs added in lieu of the the original single.
 
You quote TBD Units

"...Torpedo crews advised against launching TBD more than 160 miles from the target and favour 150 miles..." p65

No indication that fuel consumption was higher in 1942 for face value. You're going to have to do better than that.

Max speed with a torpedo = 130 knots in 1942 yet the fuel consumption chart indicates a max IAS of ~167 knots with a torpedo. Something very drastic happened to slow the TBD by over 30 knots at full throttle and we can be fairly certain that it would have a similar effect on lower speed cruises, and would increase the amount of power and fuel that the aircraft needed to use to cruise, even at 100 knots.
 
Max speed with a torpedo = 130 knots in 1942 yet the fuel consumption chart indicates a max IAS of ~167 knots with a torpedo. Something very drastic happened to slow the TBD by over 30 knots at full throttle and we can be fairly certain that it would have a similar effect on lower speed cruises, and would increase the amount of power and fuel that the aircraft needed to use to cruise, even at 100 knots.

I edited my last post. Have you ever flown over the middle of an ocean? Ever hear of "headwinds? 30 knots are very common....
 
I posted a memo from the Chief of the Bureau of ordnance:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...ston-engined-bomber-world-war-two-torp228.jpg

which gives us a pretty good idea that headwinds are not a factor in the TBDs lowered performance.

Of course it's not going to say anything - that is something calculated at the time you fly. You brought up the fact that crews wanted to launch 10 miles closer to target. Based on the flight manuals original numbers, that would have given crews an extra 30 minutes in the air (as I earlier pointed out). Also be aware that if the use of this torpedo affected aircraft performance that greatly, there would have been a change to the flight manual.

I'm looking for a FM manual reference right now...
 
Not true about the hits...

"Every plane from VT-8 was quickly shot down and only one crewman survived – Ensign George Gay. Moreover, not one torpedo hit its mark and our initial attack had tragically failed."

U.S. Fleet Forces Command Blog: The Battle of Midway – 70 Years
Give me time, I have several sources in mind I want to check on this. It's not everyday I find myself having to contradict an Admiral. Just getting off work. I shall return...
 
Of course it's not going to say anything - that is something calculated at the time you fly. You brought up the fact that crews wanted to launch 10 miles closer to target. Based on the flight manuals original numbers, that would have given crews an extra 30 minutes in the air (as I earlier pointed out). Also be aware that if the use of this torpedo affected aircraft performance that greatly, there would have been a change to the flight manual.

I'm looking for a FM manual reference right now...

Here's some more info showing a ~130 knots speed:
USN_tbd.jpg

Tillman, U. S. Navy Dive and Torpedo Bombers of World War II, p58.
 
Give me time, I have several sources in mind I want to check on this. It's not everyday I find myself having to contradict an Admiral. Just getting off work. I shall return...
Well unless Ensign Gay made admiral, there are dozen of reports, books articles ect., stating 100% that VT-8 did not hit anything during Midway.
 
I'm with Joe on this one. A Dawn Like Thunder - The True Story of Torpedo Squadron Eight by Robert Mrazek which is probably the definitive book on the squadron states there were no hits made as well. Most of the data in the book was pulled from the official log of the unit.
 
Well unless Ensign Gay made admiral [...]
I was referring to the Admiral who authored the post in the blog referencing Ensign Gay's account. I can understand why you may have thought I was referring to Ensign Gay, though.

OK, Fletcher was there, 3-6 June 1942, as was Ensign Gay, and this is his account. I'll even say why it makes sense to me. That torpedo squadron was the first wave on that task force and these fleet-class carriers are hard to miss with a torpedo coming off the belly of a plane flying that low to the water. This account could be wrong, and I'll acknowledge it's not the popular account. At any rate, here it is...
 

Attachments

  • IMG-MIDWAYCROP1.jpg
    IMG-MIDWAYCROP1.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 122
Nope - Ole Fletch was dead wrong! All torps from Torpedo 8 missed their mark, this confirmed many times over after the war, but I'll look into this a bit more
 
Last edited:
It's hard for me to shake this as I've always thought it. You know how that is. But I'm here to learn from you folks. Oh, heck, so I'll try real hard this time!
 
"Without a fighter escort, all 15 TBD Devastators of VT-8 were shot down by hordes of Zeros before they could inflict a hit. The suicidal mission was described by one writer as "equivalent to a stone thrown into a group of pigeons." VT-6 followed Waldron's lead but met a similar fate, without a single torpedo finding its mark. Most of their Mark 13 aircraft torpedoes traveled beneath the targets, and their detonators failed to explode or simply fell apart in the water. (It would take U.S. Navy experts several months to correct the defects in the Mark 13, during which time scores of airmen would lose their lives in vain.)"

Ten Minutes at Midway

From wiki

"The squadron did not destroy any enemy aircraft with their defensive rear .30-caliber machine guns, nor did they damage any of the Japanese carriers."

VT-8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
FLYBOYJ, look out your window. Do you see that young boy going by on his bicycle with that cellphone stuck in his ear? Fifteen minutes ago he posted the start-up instructions for a Boeing 747 on Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

OK, OK, you talked me into it! :oops:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back