On Jun 2, 2:15 pm, tomcervo > wrote:
> On May 30, 1:26?pm, wrote:
>
> > Devastators after Midway?
>
> Alvin Kernan's "Other Battle of Midway" details the problem. The plane
> was obsolete but flyable; it was the torpedoes that were the problem.
> He's pretty certain that no USN aerial torpedo dropped by a TBD ever
> exploded against an opponent. The "experts" who built them wouldn't
> test them--if they had, they'd have known the standard drop procedure
> caused them to explode on contact with the water or run screwy. The
> sacrifice of life was bad enough without the knowledge-and many of
> them took off with a strong inkling-that their weapon was useless.

Didn't Devastators do OK at the Battle of the Coral Sea?

> Didn't Devastators do OK at the Battle of the Coral Sea?

When dozens of attack aircraft all strike the same warship within a
few minutes, the TBD's performance wasn't an issue - they did make at
least one strike on Soryu (?), recorded in the famous set of photos
with a towering geyser forward. Practically everyone reported they
hit the tiny carrier. Against modern fleet carriers, a motivated CAP,
and no fighter support, Midway was a scalding reminder of just how
unspectacular an aircraft the "Devastor" really was.

v/r Gordon

PS, Walt - those comments of yours (re: the Hustler) are the reason I
read this newsgroup - thanks for 'keeping it real'.

Gordon wrote:
>
> When dozens of attack aircraft all strike the same warship within a
> few minutes, the TBD's performance wasn't an issue - they did make at
> least one strike on Soryu (?), recorded in the famous set of photos
> with a towering geyser forward. Practically everyone reported they
> hit the tiny carrier.

Soryu wasn't tiny by any stretch of the imagination; she was around the
size of Enterprise or Hornet.
The hit shown is on Shoho, which along with Ryujo, were two of the
smaller early Japanese carriers.

> Against modern fleet carriers, a motivated CAP,
> and no fighter support, Midway was a scalding reminder of just how
> unspectacular an aircraft the "Devastor" really was.
>

You know, the Fairey Swordfish made the Devastator look like superplane,
but at the attack on Taranto and against the Bismarck, they didn't
exactly suck.
We lost the Devastators due to the Japanese having their Zeros up and
flying at low altitude.
If they hadn't been busy attacking the Devastators, those Dauntlesses
coming in from above might have had a very tough time putting their
bombs down as accurately as they did.
Torpedo 6 and 8 didn't lose their lives in vain; by keeping the Zeros
low and the AA gunners firing at them rather than looking up, they
cleared the way for the SBD's to attack almost unopposed from above.
That whole battle was about the flukiest piece of luck that came down on
the U.S. side during the entire war.

Pat

On Jun 5, 10:39 pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>
> > When dozens of attack aircraft all strike the same warship within a
> > few minutes, the TBD's performance wasn't an issue - they did make at
> > least one strike on Soryu (?), recorded in the famous set of photos
> > with a towering geyser forward. Practically everyone reported they
> > hit the tiny carrier.
>
> Soryu wasn't tiny by any stretch of the imagination; she was around the
> size of Enterprise or Hornet.
> The hit shown is on Shoho, which along with Ryujo, were two of the
> smaller early Japanese carriers.

Ahhh, obviously, that is the one I meant. Shoho - sorry. I got my
carriers mixed up - hence the (?) in my reply. I know that the Soryu
went down at Midway, I just momentarily got my "S"-carrier-names mixed
up.

> > Against modern fleet carriers, a motivated CAP,
> > and no fighter support, Midway was a scalding reminder of just how
> > unspectacular an aircraft the "Devastator" really was.
>
> You know, the Fairey Swordfish made the Devastator look like superplane,
> but at the attack on Taranto and against the Bismarck, they didn't
> exactly suck.

They were never once sent in against an enemy fleet with an active
CAP. Different war. They WERE outmoded, by any stretch or WWII
standard. If they were sent in against the IJN carrier fleet under an
umbrella of Zeroes, they would have been, well, devastated.

> We lost the Devastators due to the Japanese having their Zeros up and
> flying at low altitude.

Yes. Going in to attack without any cover in a 100-mph straight and
level torpedo plane was suicide, with predictable results. Would the
attack have gone differently with Stringbags?

> If they hadn't been busy attacking the Devastators, those Dauntlesses
> coming in from above might have had a very tough time putting their
> bombs down as accurately as they did.

Sheer unadulterated luck. And the plan didn't call for the TBDs to
all be sacrificed - it was a busted plan and an obsolete aircraft that
resulted in nearly 100% losses of the attacking force. The SBDs were
not, at that point, even a part of the same attack, so giving them
credit for 'keeping the Zeroes busy', makes it seem like that task was
part of their job. We got incredibly lucky that the SBDs arrived
overhead while the Japanese CAP was still busy hunting down the last
survivors.

> Torpedo 6 and 8 didn't lose their lives in vain; by keeping the Zeros
> low and the AA gunners firing at them rather than looking up, they
> cleared the way for the SBD's to attack almost unopposed from above.
> That whole battle was about the flukiest piece of luck that came down on
> the U.S. side during the entire war.

I completely agree. None of which makes the TBD anything other than a
meatgrinder for crews.

v/r Gordon

On Jun 5, 9:39?pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>
> > When dozens of attack aircraft all strike the same warship within a
> > few minutes, the TBD's performance wasn't an issue - they did make at
> > least one strike on Soryu (?), recorded in the famous set of photos
> > with a towering geyser forward. Practically everyone reported they
> > hit the tiny carrier.
>
> Soryu wasn't tiny by any stretch of the imagination; she was around the
> size of Enterprise or Hornet.
> The hit shown is on Shoho, which along with Ryujo, were two of the
> smaller early Japanese carriers.
>
> > Against modern fleet carriers, a motivated CAP,
> > and no fighter support, Midway was a scalding reminder of just how
> > unspectacular an aircraft the "Devastor" really was.
>
> You know, the Fairey Swordfish made the Devastator look like superplane,
> but at the attack on Taranto and against the Bismarck, they didn't
> exactly suck.
> We lost the Devastators due to the Japanese having their Zeros up and
> flying at low altitude.
> If they hadn't been busy attacking the Devastators, those Dauntlesses
> coming in from above might have had a very tough time putting their
> bombs down as accurately as they did.
> Torpedo 6 and 8 didn't lose their lives in vain; by keeping the Zeros
> low and the AA gunners firing at them rather than looking up, they
> cleared the way for the SBD's to attack almost unopposed from above.
> That whole battle was about the flukiest piece of luck that came down on
> the U.S. side during the entire war.
>
> Pat

Yes luck was on our side. But it was an opportunity that we didn't
waste and made the most of.

Gordon wrote:
> O
>>
>> You know, the Fairey Swordfish made the Devastator look like superplane,
>> but at the attack on Taranto and against the Bismarck, they didn't
>> exactly suck.
>>
>
> They were never once sent in against an enemy fleet with an active
> CAP. Different war. They WERE outmoded, by any stretch or WWII
> standard. If they were sent in against the IJN carrier fleet under an
> umbrella of Zeroes, they would have been, well, devastated.
>
Now that's a fascinating idea... Bismarck AA guns couldn't even shoot at
them accurately because the were designed to take on aircraft going far
faster that that and lead them.
Think how fast a Zero would have overrun a Devastator when it's actual
airspeed in comparison to the Zero was around 40 mph.
>
>> We lost the Devastators due to the Japanese having their Zeros up and
>> flying at low altitude.
>>
>
> Yes. Going in to attack without any cover in a 100-mph straight and
> level torpedo plane was suicide, with predictable results. Would the
> attack have gone differently with Stringbags?
>

Consider this...on that day, we lost virtually all the Devastators, each
carrying a two-man crew, since they left the the radio operators behind,
and took out three Japanese fleet carriers, and most of their aircrews.
For the number of total aircrew we lost, versus what we gained, that was
one of the most lopsided victories ever.
The Japanese could only dream of such an effect with gain versus
casualties in their Kamikaze attacks.
To get this home in a more direct sense, lets flip it over.
We go up against the Japanese with four carriers.
On day one, we lose Lexington, Saratoga, and Enterprise.
Next day, we get Kaga, but lose the Hornet.
I'd like to see them put a positive spin on that in the papers.
Even FDR couldn't make that look upbeat in a fireside chat. :-)
>
>> If they hadn't been busy attacking the Devastators, those Dauntlesses
>> coming in from above might have had a very tough time putting their
>> bombs down as accurately as they did.
>>
>
> Sheer unadulterated luck.

Extremely strange, loopy luck, that almost looked like divine intervention.
Two carrier groups of SBDs, lost up in the clouds, run into each other
by accident, just as the clouds part below them to reveal the Japanese
fleet, directly under them, with their CAP at low altitude, their AA
crews looking flat to the water, and their crews switching bombs for
torpedoes on their decks.
You couldn't have _asked_ for anything better than that.
I mean seriously...that was _downright_ weird.

> And the plan didn't call for the TBDs to
> all be sacrificed - it was a busted plan and an obsolete aircraft that
> resulted in nearly 100% losses of the attacking force. The SBDs were
> not, at that point, even a part of the same attack, so giving them
> credit for 'keeping the Zeroes busy', makes it seem like that task was
> part of their job.

That wasn't the intention, but that's exactly how it worked out.
I sure hope they do a movie of that someday... with Ensign Gay hiding
under his seat cushion in the water, as he gets to see one-half of the
entire carrier fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor get turned into
fireballs inside of fifteen minutes as they head toward the horizon.
That wouldn't suck at all.
Not at all. :-)

Pat

In message . com>,
Gordon > writes
>On Jun 5, 10:39 pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>> You know, the Fairey Swordfish made the Devastator look like superplane,
>> but at the attack on Taranto and against the Bismarck, they didn't
>> exactly suck.
>
>They were never once sent in against an enemy fleet with an active
>CAP.

Channel Dash, 1942. Six Swordfish went in, all lost, no hits.

>Different war. They WERE outmoded, by any stretch or WWII
>standard.

Apart from the radar, that is...

>If they were sent in against the IJN carrier fleet under an
>umbrella of Zeroes, they would have been, well, devastated.

Only in daylight. Leads to an interesting joust as - for example -
Cunningham tries to get in position for a night strike against the
Japanese carriers, without being found and hit during the day...

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk