TBD Devastator

[BigGorilla]

Rumor is Tighar (The Internation Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery) has taken a little time off from their Amelia Earhart searches and is hot on the trail of a recoverable TBD Devastator.

[GregP]

I wonder why.

The Devestator was only devastating to its crews. I'd rather recover almost anything else other than a Devestator ... but I'm not footing the bills. About its only claim to fame was when they all got shot down in the Coral Sea and George Gay got to watch the rest of the battle floating between the two fleets.

Good luck to them, but, guys, find a better subject!

[R Leonard]

Coral Sea?

I think you mean Midway, don't you?

There's a known TBD off Miami, Florida and another off the reef at Jaluit Island where it was one of two that ditched on 1 February 1942. These have been known for years, at least 8 to 10 years. Are these guys on to something new?

The locals at Jaluit may require some substantial "permit fees" before allowing recovery, if they'll allow it at all. And once you get past the locals you run into the same problem as one would run in to trying to recover the TBD off Miami ... the USN takes a dim view (and general Admiralty Law and a US Court of Appeals decision supports them) of folks salvaging it's airplanes without their permssion. If these guys are a US corporation they could be in for an unpleasant surprise.

[GregP]

Yup, I do. My entire reference collection is currently in storage, and the memory has obviously dropped a bit or two.

[:I]

[Crazy]

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/glennill/images/vcdevast.jpg

*shudder*

Not a very beautiful bird, anyway.

Still, it's an artifact of the era, and therefore is worth having.

[simon]

It is unfortunate that the Devastator is remembered in such a bad light. All things considered it wasn't all that bad, it was atleast as good as it's contemporaries, which were the Fairey Swordfish (Fleet Air Arm), Nakajima B5N2 Kate (IJN) and a Fiesler plane, whose name I forget proposed for the KMS Graf Zeppelin.

Things that tend to get forgotten when people have a go at the Devastator is that at Midway the initial attacks on the Japanese Carrier division went in completely alone and unsupported, but were pressed home with great determination, bravery and sacrifice by their crews. When something similar was tried against German Capital Ships during the Channel Dash by Fairey Swordfish these were similarly slaughtered, however the Devastator has an enduring reputation as a death trap, the Swordfish however is an anachronistic success story.

The Avenger suffered proportionately similar losses at Midway, of the 6 employed 5 were shotdown in action the other crippled and with the gunner dead somehow managed to limp back to crashland on Midway island. 6 losses out of 6 aircraft, not impressive, but again this type is not remembered as a death trap...

The Kate was as bad an aircraft if not worse as it was even more lacking in armoured protection and defensive weaponary than the Devastator.

People also forget that when they were reasonably well supported during Coral Sea the Devastator did not fair badly.

Torpedo Bombing was the most dangerous method of attack available to any airforce, the results could be impressive but the risks were huge to the crews involved, all the more so when they had to be pressed with an absence of fighter escort.

To be sure, the Devastator was at best obsolescent by Midway, however it still compared favourably with its contemporaries in other Naval airforces, and in action was no worse than any of those when properly supported.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Fieseler Fi 167, Simon. As biplane already obsolete before commissioned.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fi167.html

Obsolete? Wasn´t there a Swordfish, which survived its successor Albacore?

Another riddle for me: While Lt.Cdr. Esmonde´s Swordfishes were torn into pieces during "Operation Cerberus", how was ist possible that the similar Polikarpov Po-2 was nearly impossible to get shot down by German AA fire during its role as night attacker?

[GregP]

All of the torpedo bombers could do well against undefended targets or when escorted by fighter protection in the presence of light opposition. Conversley, none of the torpedo bombers could survive unescorted in the face of an aerial threat or against a warship with decent AAA or a warship convoy with AAA.

So ... as a group, they were OK against merchant ships in the absence of air defense and death traps otherwise.

The Kate, Devestator, Avenger, Swordfish, the Feisler Fi 167 and others ... to me they're all the same. OK until the job gets tough. Then they are useless.

Of the list, the Fi 167 seems to have missed its calling. It was an amazing aircraft that could have been adapted as a liaison aircraft and would have been at least as effective as the Lysander. Though it could not have landed as shrt as the Storch, it was better than almost anything else, and it could haul a load.

Another case of the Nazis not utilizing a resource as well as they could have, but that's another story.

[GregP]

In my post above, I forgot one really outstanding torpedo bomber ... the Aichi B7A Ryusei. It was fast at 365 mph, well armed, and was the best of the group in my opinion.

It came along after all the carriers had been sunk. If it had been available earlier, the war in the Pacific might have been different.

[R Leonard]

A fighter pilot from the early war years of my acquaintance once remarked that being a torpedo plane pilot was "one of the most self sacrificing thing a Naval Aviator could do."

Rich

Oh damn! I've been promoted ... drinks all around!

[simon]

I was led to believe that Esmonde's Swordfish were shot down mostly be the fighter screen, and also the attack was made in daylight.

As for the Torpedo bomber being useless Greg, I disagree, torpedo bombers contributed to the sinking of many warships in combat, or were major factors in many battles in the Pacific.

Overall, although I seem to be it's only defender I have to admit I do not like the Devastator as an aircraft, and I completely agree with Crazy's sentiments, definitely not beautiful, however it does seem to have got an unfairly bad reputation as a result of one operation where everything went against the Devastators and their crews.

[R Leonard]

Oh, I’m with you, Simon. I think the TBD most definitely has an ill-deserved reputation.

When it went into service, 1937, I believe, it was the top of the line, there was no better carrier based torpedo bomber in the world. It was the USN’s first monoplane carrier based aircraft.

The bad rap stems, not so much from the aircraft, but from the vicissitudes of aerial torpedo deliver in general. One could equally assign the bad rap to the quality of the torpedo that required delivery in an extremely narrow operational envelope, or in poor mission planning on Enterprise and Hornet, especially Hornet.

The bottom line was that in broad daylight without close fighter escort protection the odds of success/survival go way down, real fast. VT-5 attacked the Shokaku at Coral Sea and did not score a single hit (torpedo problem, again). On the other hand, they were closely escorted by a division of VF-42 F4F’s and suffered not a single loss to the Japanese CAP. In their attack on the Shoho, telling hits were scored (different batch of torpedoes ... these were the ones kept in the ready magazine near the hangar deck, and thus subjected to some rather meticulous maintenance, as opposed to those in the main magazine which were brought up for the Shokaku mission) and, without checking, I believe, again, no losses to the Japanese CAP.

The Navy knew the TBD was out of date, that’s why the TBF was developed, but TBD was what they had when they needed torpedo planes RIGHT NOW. The rough handling that the TBF’s of the VT-8 Detachment from Midway received at the hands of the Japanese CAP is also indicative of what happens to unsupported torpedo planes attacking in a piecemeal fashion. Had the Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet VT squadrons been equipped with TBF’s and attacked in the same manner as they did historically with the TBD, the results could well have been the same.

Regards,

Rich

[GregP]

Hi Simon,

I said useless against tough targets with good AAA. I do not displute they stopped the Bismark, sank the Prince of Wales, or sank numerous other carriers and shipping.

Most of what was sunk were undefended merchant shipping. The military targets all came at enormous cost to the attackers. They DID get through at horrendous cost in lives and equipment.

Just goes to show that military ships are tough customers, huh?

Personally, I would NOT have flown a torpedo bomber under any conditions ... and I love airplanes.

They have their counterparts in land weapons. One that comes to mind is the 105 mm Recoiless Rifle. It is a big Bazooka mounted on a Jeep with a 50-caliber spotting rifle. Looks good on paper.

But ... tanks travel in squads of three or more in general. When fired, the Bazooka sets the woods on fire right behind the Jeep, and the other tanks have a flaming datum to mark the position of the Jeep ... so it's pretty foolhardy to actually attack something with it. The other two or more tanks in the squad do NOT like what you just did to their buddy and will let you know that in rapid fashion withg a main battery salute.

Kind of like a torpedo bomber that REALLY gets the attention of the AAA on the ship under attack.

I am not afraid of battle, but attracting the attention of a Battleship in broad daylight is not my idea of a smart thing to do ... unless you happen to be driving another battleship. Even then, it is a risky undertaking.

I can think of better ways to attack something than that!

[Lightning]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi Simon,

I said useless against tough targets with good AAA. I do not displute they stopped the Bismark, sank the Prince of Wales, or sank numerous other carriers and shipping.

Most of what was sunk were undefended merchant shipping. The military targets all came at enormous cost to the attackers. They DID get through at horrendous cost in lives and equipment.

Just goes to show that military ships are tough customers, huh?

Personally, I would NOT have flown a torpedo bomber under any conditions ... and I love airplanes.

They have their counterparts in land weapons. One that comes to mind is the rifle. Looks good on paper.
105 mm Recoiless Rifle. It is a big Bazooka mounted on a Jeep with a 50-caliber spotting
But ... tanks travel in squads of three or more in general. When fired, the Bazooka sets the woods on fire right behind the Jeep, and the other tanks have a flaming datum to mark the position of the Jeep ... so it's pretty foolhardy to actually attack something with it. The other two or more tanks in the squad do NOT like what you just did to their buddy and will let you know that in rapid fashion withg a main battery salute.

Kind of like a torpedo bomber that REALLY gets the attention of the AAA on the ship under attack.

I am not afraid of battle, but attracting the attention of a Battleship in broad daylight is not my idea of a smart thing to do ... unless you happen to be driving another battleship. Even then, it is a risky undertaking.

I can think of better ways to attack something than that!

[Lightning]

quote:Originally posted by BigGorilla

Rumor is Tighar (The Internation Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery) has taken a little time off from their Amelia Earhart searches and is hot on the trail of a recoverable TBD Devastator.

[robert]

Barrett Tillman, in TBD Devastator Units of the US Navy, wrote,

"In combat, the Devastator proved itself a better weapon than conventional wisdom allows. The type suffered no in-flight losses to enemy action until the morning of June 4, 1942, six months after the Pacific war erupted. The US naval establishment committed its TorpRons to war with a marginal weapon - the Mk 13 torpedo - but the failings of that design were in no way the fault of the TBD or Douglas aircraft."

The TBD debacle at Midway was attributable to several causes, chief among them Japanese ships' manuevering that caused the Devastators to make twice as long a run-in as normal; the lack of fighter escort; poor co-ordination with the SBDs; and of course the fact that the superior A6Ms had ample time to manuever for the best shots while the TBDs were in their torpedo run. I doubt very much that any other torpedo aircraft of the time could have done any better under the circumstances.

I'd love to see a TBD recovered and restored. It's certainly one of the most important "extinct" US combat planes of WW2.

[Lightning]

Hi GregP:

Having fired "expert" on the 106mm recoiless rifle (the successor to the 105mm),I can assure you that it was not a big bazooka. The bazooka was a 2.75-inch rocket launcher, later increased to 3.5 inch (on which I also trained). Niether was very effective against any but the lightest armor.

The 105mm/106mm recoiless rifle was not a rocket launcher. It was a direct-fire anti-tank "gun" which directed a portion of its expanding gas to the rear. This resulted in a counter recoil which was equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the rearward recoil of the "gun". Example: Reversing the thrust on a jet engine after landing. The result: recoiless.

The recoiless rifle was very potent and could penetrate the armor of a medium battle tank with ease. It was mounted on the agile little scout jeep. With the 50 cal. spotting rifle, the 1st shot usually hit the target. It was therefor not necessary to fire the main round more than once. The gunner pulled out on the trigger knob to fire the spotting rifle. If he hit the target, he would see a puff of white phosphorous from the 50 cal. round. He would then immediately push in on the trigger knob thereby firing the main round. It was done in a a "push-pull" motion.

Should the target be missed, it was very difficult task for a tank gunner to lay on to a speedy jeep in a "shoot-and-scoot mode.

Just don't stand behind the gun when it is fired!!!

[BigGorilla]

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Devastator/devdescrip.htm

Guess they are going looking.

[GregP]

Lightning,

I didn't shoot "expert" on the 105, but I did shoot it several times using the pull-push motion you mentioned. We used to shoot several rounds with the spotter gun, just for fun, before using the real projectile. Looked and worked like a big bazooka to me, and I shot one of those, too.

The 105 I shot appeared to me to exhaust all its energy out the back end, and there was not an explosion like a gunshot, it was more of a launch ... like a rocket. Of course, I didn't measure and calculate the amount of exhaust, so I am not arguing about it ... just observing. The exact methodology is over thirty years ago in my mind, so perhaps you are correct.

In any case, it was not a weapon I'd want to be associated with in a wooded area. The forrest fire it starts when you shoot it leaves a flaming datum for the other two tanks in the squad to shoot at.