Swordfish effectiveness

Don’t think it really matters how good a job it can do.. if its slow its vulnerable. Most aircraft can carry out the job they were intended for, if attacking unopposed, but then how often does that happen?
For instance look at another naval type, the Blackburn Skua. Very good dive bomber, certainly for its time, but once its released its load and is on the deck what then? Top speed of less than 300mph, relatively underpowered, extra weight of second crew member, docile rather than sprightly flying controls.. and then you come face to face with a ‘109’.

Sorry but as much as i like the ‘Stringbag’, for me it was the incredible bravery of the crews rather than the actual aircraft that got the job done.!

SBD’s would make a good comparison they were faster than the swordfish, very tough and manouverable. I suspect in the the torpedo role they were just as vulnerable.

The SBD was the Dauntless dive bomber, are you thinking of the TBD Devastator torpedo bomber?

I think i am right in saying (please correct me if i am wrong!)that there was no fighter cover for the attack on the scharnhorst. Spitfires were supposed to fly escort, which was the only reason that it was thought worth trying in daylight. The spitfires, for reasons i cannot recall, did not make the rendevous. The volunteer crews then carried on with the attack, with enevitable and tragic results. I believe that the bravery of the attack was also commented on by the captain of the scharnhorst.
As for the effectiveness of the Swordfish as a torpedo bomber i think it’s record speaks for itself. The fact that it was slow and vulnerable does not detract from the fact that it was very effective. If you ask me if i would like the idea of a torpedo run in daylight on a heavily defended target i would definately rather not! Clearly a very dangerous proposition in any aircraft however fast and well protected!
SBD’s would make a good comparison they were faster than the swordfish, very tough and manouverable. I suspect in the the torpedo role they were just as vulnerable.

Very interesting everyone thanks for all the good replies. Thanks for the above points alertken, food for thought!

1933/34: RN’s business seen as Italy in the Med. with big guns, no carriers, Japan in the Indian O., guns+carriers. Perceptions, voiced i.a by (to be V/A Sir) Tom Phillips, were that Air could not hit, but could be hit by, ships, and that short endurance sprinters had no role at sea – RN’s “Fleet Fighter”, to be turret Roc, was multi-role; another Spec. was for a 3-seat “Spotter-Fighter”. So, 6 new carriers authorised after the 1936 Naval Treaty with Germany were armoured, not against bombs, but big guns’ plunging fire. TSR (Torpedo/Spotter/Recce) aircraft would detect, deliver torpedos on/mines ahead of, and direct fall of big gun fire on, the opposing Fleet. Picture as the Jutland/2 scenario: RN subs harassing, destroyers/MTBs scurrying, cruisers and air-delivered torps/mines (not bombs) disrupting, for the Big Gun finale.

TSR must be very stable at very slow release speed, because UK airborne torpedos were, ah, sensitive (=lousy). In convoy protection v. subs, low stalling speed would ease operation off Escorts, and delivery of depth charges. Hover would have been even better (first UK interest in rotors was by RN).

Fairey’s 1934 TSR II did all these things very effectively – better than the enclosed cockpit “successor”. RN’s dive-bomber, contradicting the supremacy of the big gun ship, Barracuda, took forever to be deployed: hopes for FAA Types: “were soon belied…shortcomings…the story of the fleet fighter is even more melancholy”. M.M.Postan, Design and Development of Weapons: Studies in Government and Industrial Organisation, HMSO, 1964, P135. (FAA’s history) “is a succession of failures…hopelessly outclassed by everything that flies (We) have made a false god of the business of (carrier) flying” RN memo,May,40, E.B.Morgan/E.Shacklady,Spitfire,Key,87,P.515. It was not that industry failed to produce kit-to-Spec, but that the Spec, the Threat Perception, was wrong. Air would hit heaving decks, as Tom Phillips was to discover.

In the 1980’s I sold a house for an old guy who had flown the Swordfish on Arctic convoys – he said that he was amazed at the conditions that it operated in and how effective it was at keeping down the u-boats. They carried depth charges or rocket projectiles. I think there was zero fighter opposition though…………..

He also said he was pretty sure that the conditions were responsible for his arthritis in later life – they regularly arrived back covered in ice and were unable to move from the cockpit having to be lifted down by the groundcrews and rubbed down with whale oil.

They fully accepted that a ditching in the arctic meant certain death – if you even got in a dinghy as the patrol ranges were so far outside the convoy area.

He was suprised that anyone of my generation (I was 18 at the time) had heard of the Swordfish !! – only met him once and sadly I never had the chance to question him more closely as my boss was champing at the bit to leave……….

Heroes – every one IMHO

An effective aircraft – well probably better than some, and worse than others I’d guess. It was operational from day 1 to the very end of the war – with little modification from the basic structure, that says a fair bit. But against effective day fighter cover – probably almost suicidal

Arc

I remember hearing that in the attack on the Schornhorst and Gneisenau that, while under attack from FW190s, many of the shells were going straight through the fabric covered wings without exploding.

hmm, it’s not looking particulary promising for the stringbag. Would anyone like to defend its reputation?
Matt

Hi Matt
Basically it was all we had,it could operate from the postage stamp carriers in most weathers and could carry a large variety of stores/equipment.
Its engine was more reliable than its replacement (Applecore),but you have to give great credit to the aircrew for having to sit in the thing for hours over (say) the Atlantic on Anti Sub patrols etc.
Dont get me wrong I love seeing the Swordfish fly !!:D

regards BV

Yes …..

Yes i quite agree,The channel dash-Look what happened
to Esmond and crews,very brave indeed sad yes.

Can you imagine any other allied torpedo bomber doing much better in the circumstances, i.e. attacking a major enemy fleet with your fighter escort struggling for its own survival? I don’t think that Beauforts, Beaufighters, Tarpons, Barracudas, Albacores etc would have fared much better.

Remember this that the Stringbag was never flown much against serious air opposition. If it had been at Midway for example it would have never survived.

Very few of the torpedo bombers at Midway survived. Torpedo bombing was inherently more dangerous than dive or level bombing.

It was said that one of the Swordfishes attributes was its slowness, enemy fighters could not keep behind it and gunners frequently tracked ahead of it.
Was there a British torpedo bomber that sank or damaged more enemy warships?

hmm, it’s not looking particulary promising for the stringbag. Would anyone like to defend its reputation?
Matt

Remember this that the Stringbag was never flown much against serious air opposition. If it had been at Midway for example it would have never survived.

There was also a school of thought that the Stringbag was a Killer !
It was so docile to fly that pilots who may have flown Swordfish for years got so used to its carefree handling that when they had to convert to a more modern and demanding a/c the accident rate may have been higher than anticipated.

In the right circumstances, the Swordfish could be very effective; Taranto has been mentioned, they did a fair bit of harm to the Bismarck and Swordfish based on Malta caused substantial losses to supplies for the Afrika Corps. Thier ability to operate from Escort Carriers and MAC ships in marginal weather conditions, carrying a useful load made them a useful anti-submarine aircraft.

Yes I have often wondered how effective the Swordfish was, I can only think its lack of speed was made up for by its rugged simplicity, handling, endurance and the ability to lift a heavy load. It could operate from a tiny carrier deck in most weathers.
In effect was it very much different to a modern helicopter, such as the Westland Lynx, in what it could do.
The bravery of those who flew the Swordfish on operations was unbelievable.

Richard

Yes I have often wondered how effective the Swordfish was, I can only think its lack of speed was made up for by its rugged simplicity, handling, endurance and the ability to lift a heavy load. It could operate from a tiny carrier deck in most weathers.
In effect was it very much different to a modern helicopter, such as the Westland Lynx, in what it could do.
The bravery of those who flew the Swordfish on operations was unbelievable.

Richard

Sitting duck?

Yes i quite agree,The channel dash-Look what happened
to Esmond and crews,very brave indeed sad yes.