Thanks for covering the Turkey, I honestly thought it may simply be too boring for you to ever do a video on, but 75yr after it was built, there’s nothing boring about them today lol (especially if you can see one up close!) You mentioned most were 1,700hp and a few were 1,900 - that’s not really the case. The vast majority of Avengers produced had the 1,900hp R2600-20, as you mention they were also the GM TBMs. Regarding the engine, early development issues became so bad that there was talk of sabotage - they just couldn’t figure out the corrosion and pitting issues. By the time of the -20 they were very reliable, ours basically looks like a normal car engine internally during checks, but a LOT of that is due to modern oil and the modern massive dual oil filter setup we (and most warbirds) run these days. The strainers back then would pass anything smaller than about the size of a BB through the engine🤮 . Also (I don’t deal with the TBF much at all) the TBM-3 numbers are very different, showing an extra 100 gal internally (I didn’t realize that changed with later models) and by the time you add the wing guns etc it’s MTOW was over 18,000lbs, so about the additional weight of a compact car for the same size aircraft lol. Anyways we operate around 12,000lb and with any headwind, the plane can be off the ground in around 500’ which is pretty amazing. There are certain engine parameters that have to be met on T/O roll/power, so we can’t really “baby” the plane as much as some people think. I believe in the book “Avenger at War!” it was stated that only something like 20% of Avenger takeoffs used catapults, even though (something most don’t realize) almost all US carrier were so-equipped, even pre-WWII ships. Those 20% were almost exclusively near the end of the war or post-war, I wasn’t really able to find a reason for this. BTW that photo of the Avenger cat launching out of the hangar deck is REALLY cool, something I’ve never come across. As far as the Amplidyne (love the names back then) system, I believe it’s simply a motor-generator, which seems like a contradiction in terms but anyways… I had actually never come across that part of the turret on the TBM, BUT we have an operational B-26 turret that we bring to airshows, and it has a LARGE motor-generator mounted on its rotating frame that I assume serves the same purpose as the one Grumman used. In addition to being an AC/DC converter, it’s high RPM and intertia likely serves as a “mechanical capacitor” of sorts for the rapid movement the turret requires (both the Avenger and B-26 turrets have a “rapid traverse” mode.) That’s funny you mention the turret egress / chute issue, it’s definitely a problem even today. Our radio position will assist the turret position to don chute and bail. It’s actually not hard to get out (just straighten your body and you slip down) but there’s a LOT of stuff to snag on. The radio operator position can also monitor some elements of the hydraulic system (the primary hyd bulkhead is directly in front of you, including the accumulator gauge) plus he can see a lot of the systems in the bomb bay including fuel and hydraulic lines (probably what that window is for, I’ll always check for obvious leaks or problems through that) also (theoretically) he would probably reload the turret gun if required, I believe they carried significant spare ammo for the turret (more than what the charts mention.) He also had random stuff like heater and oxygen controls back there I think? 🤷🏻♂️ They also dropped mines and depth charges, which I think was likely released back there as opposed to the pilot. I’ve heard from many people that the torpedo would be armed through the small door in front of the radio/bombardier, but I’ve never seen anything official to back this up. Something that’s really difficult to visualize is the size of the plane and the radio/bombardier area. I’m 6’ tall and can stand up fully back there if you’re under the turret (even then my head is about even with the foot/leg armor plate) - it’s a BIG plane. Mentioning striking a battleship on the opposite side of list is interesting because that was almost immediately corrected as a BAD thing to do after Musashi, which took something like 19 torpedoes (distributed from various angles) and was counter-flooded continually to correct her list as much as possible. Yamato was later specifically attacked so that hits would be coordinated on the initial listing side only, making any attempt to counter-flood futile. I don’t think any consideration for anti-aircraft range of traverse was really taken, just sink the ship as quickly as possible. Yamato was probably the most decisive blow that Avengers ever dealt in WWII; even though the ship posed almost no realistic risk to the allies at the time, it was the “heaviest and most powerful battleship ever built” as the press would say, and now she was gone. Indeed the entire perceived threat of the Imperial Japanese Navy sunk with that ship.
Hi Alex, thanks for your comment. I pinned it because I think your brought up a ton of good points. In regards to horsepower, I think you're right in that most had 1900hp. I couldn't find a break down of production numbers of 1700hp vs. 1900hp Avengers, but I came across the 1700hp number far more often but considering when they were built each way, I think your point is correct. The sinking of Musashi is a bit different than the attacks on other battleships because the attacks took place over such a large period of time as compared with say the attack on Yamato. Had they got the ship to list, and then came in on the high side with enough torpedoes it would have been over for the ship much more quickly. In other words on Musashi, damage control had a lot more time to deal with the problems. Let's also remember that Musashi sank in late 44', even if the Avengers did change tactics after that, it doesn't represent the majority of anti-battleship Avenger action. In regards to the size of the plane, I'm curious how much room the crewman has when operating the stinger. I couldn't find anything about how he positions himself. Does he kneel, lie down, or what? Since you can get into one of these planes perhaps you have tried various positions.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I came across some of the tactics recently which is why I brought it up, I can’t find the sources unfortunately - it was definitely something they realized towards the end of the war. Hitting from both sides was essentially doing their damage control parties a favor. Then again, the last thing you want to do is fly around the AA longer and make your path even MORE predictable. Such was the job of a torpedo bomber crew unfortunately. Straight and level right at a few hundred gun barrels. Oh that reminds me, apparently the wing 50’s were added early on as more of a way to give the enemy AA gunners a reason to duck on a torpedo run. It’s almost criminal that it didn’t have them initially. As far as the stinger .30, I’ve always wondered that. All i can say is that the radio / bombardier could easily fold up his seat against the side of the fuselage in a few seconds (likely the turret told him someone was back there approaching, pilots likely did clearing turns on longer flights). I think he’d literally lay on the fuselage stringers. Granted they were probably small 115lb navy men. 🤣 Still, zero provisions were made for the usability of that gun by Grumman. The angle would require you to lay down, given the stringer height, couldn’t kneel or sit. I’ve never actually done it because any and every fluid / dirt in the plane ends up on the floor back there for obvious reasons. 🤣 I’ve heard a story of a Zero “sneaking up” below and behind an avenger at distance, thinking it was a group of Wildcats. Apparently the zero was shot down by the stinger gunner. One of these stories was wildly discounted, but I believe there’s another similar story in the “Avengers at War!” book.
Thanks to both of you for your contributions to learning about these machines! I really enjoyed the vid and premiere (at least the part I could watch before life knocked on the door)!
If your talking pure destructive capability of plane v ship, that's a coin toss between the Do 217K-2 carrying the Fritz-X, a single guided bomb that sank a Battleship in one hit (The Roma). Or, the ultra secret Carrier modified De Haviland Mosquito armed with 3 High Ball anti ship bouncing bombs, able to break the back of capital ship in one strike. Sadly, nothing in the US arsenal could match this destructive power especially if carrying Mark14's torpedo's. Sorry, that was a low blow and un called for..
I really have nothing to add here except my sincere gratitude to you, Greg, for making these outstanding videos. As an aviation history buff and current military pilot, it's been difficult to find any channels that really go much beyond a surface level when it comes to the history and performance of warplanes. I haven't found any other channels that go into the pertinent details in such a straightforward, relaxed, and easy to follow manner that yours does. I subscribe to a lot of channels and have been watching youtube for many years, and yours is the first channel I have subscribed to via Patreon. I wish you continued success and hope you continue to get as much out of making these videos as we get out of watching them. Thank you!
@@davidclarke7122 The man laid out his reasoning for not including land based aircraft. He also stated it's his opinion. If you disagree that's fine, but it's infantile to go and call it "heavily biased bullshit." Sorry your feelings got hurt and enjoy your impotent rage. 😀
@@davidclarke7122 Heavily biased huh? Do you know how much of a racist turd your hero Winston Churchill was? Or are not aware of that part of history with your "oh so unbiased" takes? Everybody has their biases, that's life.
The TBF/TBM was such a leap in capability that it took USN commanders some time to learn how to exploit it. Having an aircraft able to search out as far as an Avenger with a relatively high cruising speed plus excellent on board electronics was a revelation. It did take a while for the Mk 13 torpedo to become as good as the Avenger, but they finally had them working reliably and surviving higher speed and altitude drops later in the war...
hi Jim, I posed the question to Greg, but it seems like you might know -- did the avenger's torpedoes have the initial same issues as the Mk 14 & 15? i.e. magnetic detonators malfunctioning, and running too deep? which might explain the early failures? The USN took at least a year to come to grips with the shortcomings of he submarine and surface borne models, some higher commanders simply refusing to believe the weapons could malfunction despite multiple corroborating reports from operational experience!
@@doctorscoot Yep, they all used the same detonator. The running deep problem may have been limited to the Mk 15 (I don't know about the Mk 14) but the early war version of the Mk 13 was limited to being dropped below 100' and 100kts in addition to all the detonator issues.
_Did_ the Mk 13 have the depth-keeping issue? My understanding is that problem arose on the Mks 14 & 15 because they were faster then their predecessor(s), which confused their fathometers due to the Bernoulli Effect. But the Mk 13 was no speedster - there's an account of an IJN CV (I think _Hiryu_ at Midway, or possibly _Shokaku_ at Coral Sea) coming under attack by USN torpedo aircraft, and avoided being hit by turning tail and simply *outrunning* the torp(s). That does point to a *different* problem of the early Mk 13: it was both slow and short-ranged, making it very difficult to score hits on maneuvering warships.
There is one thing that seems to go under the radar, when discussing torpedo bombers. The weapon itself! The Mark 13 torpedo sucked badly all the way up to 1944, where improvements finally made it an excellent torpedo. So until 1944 the TBM AVENGER kinda sucked as a torpedo bomber. You really had to nurse the Mark 13 into the water from very low altitude and with low speed. Only 31% of all dropped torpedos ran satisfactory. Way too many ran too deep, or on the surface. From 1944 a shroud and a wooden box like attachment to the tail and slight changes to the propeller, made it able to be dropped at very high speeds and from great heights still running straight and good.
The Brits and Japanese had some interesting methods at addressing torpedo air/water instability and shallow torpedo running in shallow harbors. They did less nursing of their torpedos than the USA. As a Navy guy, I get organization inertia and blind bureaucracy, but Navy leaders, in reference to torpedos, really dropped the ball in the Pacific. Your comment is a perfect example of context. Great aircraft but poor weapons and blind leadership in regards to USN early torpedo weakness. Sorry to be a parasite to your comment but your comment is very salient here - context is everything and you captured it.
@@billtimmons7071 i read up on early US torpedoes in ww2...it was borderline criminal...men risked their lives and died to deploy a faulty weapon that did not work half the time or worse.
@@hippoace Way over the border into treason country is what any sane military would have called it especialy knowing others had good torpedoes for years...
But, if you were including the land based bombers as well Greg, then the Bristol Beaufighter would have to be right up there. Masses of axis tonnage sunk thanks to the Beaufighter, multiple theatres of operation including the north Atlantic, Mediterranean and the Pacific. Flying from Malta alone they sank an average of 54,000 tonnes of axis shipping per month for a 9 month period. That is pretty impressive.
@@jonsouth1545 I never knew the Welly dropped torpedoes! How I miss that escapes me, but I can see it, now that you mention it! That aeroplane is unsung in history for many and varied roles it played.
The Beaufighter is the reason I just don't think that carrier-based limitation is right. That just reflects a Pacific-centric bias, but even there, the Aussies made good use of Beaufighters.
When I was in Boy Scouts our troop leader told us one time when he was in the Navy he was flown from the carrier he was on to a different carrier. He wasn't air crew. He was either an electrical or electronics rating. They flew him over on a TBF-3R. When it came time to go back they were already headed for port. He asked if he could just stay on board the rest of the way. The landing scared the heck out of him.
Greg, Thank you once again for a thorough and enjoyable presentation on this subject. The Avenger’s ability to operate from escort carriers was a huge contribution to the Allied war effort. 1. In the atlantic, the carrier anti-submarine role was primarily performed by Avengers with good success. In fact, the USN hunter killer groups were actually using sona bouys and homing torpedos late in the war. 2. In the Pacific, escort carriers performed many functions. Close air support during island invasions would not have been nearly as effective without the load carrying capacity of the TBF.
A few additional bits of information: The US Navy's Mark 13 aerial torpedo had just as many problems as the notorious Mark 14 torpedo used by submarines (and the Mark 15 used by destroyers). Some of the problems were the same, some were unique to aerial torpedos, but it took until 1943 to work them out. One problem in particular was malfunctions due to damage when the torpedo hit the water. In order to minimize the possibility of damage, the US Navy instructed pilots to drop at 50 feet altitude and 110 knots. This was in fact the wrong approach, as it resulted in the torpedo entering the water at a very flat angle and as a result the tail section would slap the water resulting in damage. This also meant that the torpedo bomber was very vulnerable to enemy fighters during the approach. Operational research showed that a higher-altitude, higher-speed approach in combination with a breakaway wooden nose drag ring, breakaway wooden tail fins, and an additional tail shroud ring made it so that the Mark 13 could be reliably launched from up to 7000 feet altitude and 300 knots, although the ideal approach was a bit lower and slower at 800 feet and 260 knots. This was a much more survivable and easier to fly approach. While AA gun depression was one reason for making torpedo attacks on the side of the target that was higher in the water, it was not the primary reason. Most naval AA mounts had at least -15 degrees of depression available to compensate for the ship's roll in a seaway. The more important reason for attacking from the high side of the target was to bypass the torpedo defense system and armor belt. A torpedo that strikes a listing ship from the high side may impact on the bottom of the ship's hull rather than the side. This will produce much more damage than a strike that impacts on the torpedo defense system which is designed specifically to absorb and mitigate the explosion of a torpedo. It seems unlikely that the bombardier was not on board for a torpedo attack, as the on-board radar was used to check the range to the target. The use of the Avenger as an ASW plane is mostly understated. It could carry depth charges or the Mark 24 ASW homing torpedo (which was given the nomenclature "Mark 24 Mine" as a deception measure).
I find this interesting because my grampa worked in a torpedo factory in Wisconsin during ww2 but all he would say about it was he sharpened the cutting bits for machineing parts
Two minor things to add: The modifications to the Mark 13 torpedo that allowed a high speed, high altitude drop meant the torpedo travelled as much as 1000 yards in the air before it entered the water, effectively doubling the range of the weapon. And the idea for the breakaway wooden tail fins were actually cribbed from the Japanese, who invented them for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I wonder where that myth with gun depression on the Bismarck comes from, even with 0° gun depression (all guns had negativ gun depression), the AA would not have a problem to aim at torpedo bombers at 50ft a few hundreds meters away.
Avengers were used in a tactical fighter-bomber configuration in backing up Marine and Army units on the "island hopping" program. They would be armed with a large main bomb (500lbs. or More) and smaller wing bombs or rockets. The British also used Avengers in the Mediterranean and Burma-Southwest Pacific theaters in the same capacity as well as being a torpedo bomber.
Minor correction: the time between VT-6 attacking and when the first SBDs started diving was enough for the A6Ms to reach the latter's altitude. The main flaw of the Japanese CAP wasn't their ability to respond to threats at varying altitudes, it was their inability to respond to attacks developing simultaneously from multiple directions. The book "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway" by John Parshall and Anthony Tully covers this myth fairly thoroughly.
I didn't say the Zeros at Midway didn't have time to climb to altitude, I said they were out of position due to the torpedo bombing attacks, which they were.
MUCH bigger correction, the Avengers that attacked at Midway WERE NOT from VT-6 they were from VT-8, that's right, George Gay WAS NOT THE SOLE SURVIVOR OF VT-8, that he was the sole survivor is one of the biggest WW2 myths, right up there with the P51 being the fighter that achieved air superiority over Europe, he was simply the sole survivor of VT-8 that launched from the Hornet. The reason that the Avengers of VT-8 didn't launch from the Hornet with the Devastators of VT-8 is because they weren't on it, when the Hornet left San Francisco the several new Avengers and their crews that were assigned to VT-8 weren't ready yet, so the Hornet left San Francisco without them and a day or two later the Avengers flew from San Francisco directly to Midway Island and were eventually supposed to join the rest of VT-8 on the Hornet, but since the Battle of Midway was organized so quickly they didn't have time to leave Midway Island and join the rest of VT-8 on the Hornet so they just launched their attack directly from Midway Island, VT-6 was an all Devastator squadron, the Avengers were not part of their unit, they were actually VT-8. Some time in the late 50's George Gay gave a speech somewhere that the two other survivors of VT-8 from the Avenger that launched from Midway and made it back were in attendance at in the back of the hall that Gay spoke at, when a reporter ask them who they were the pilot (I can't remember his name) replied "We're the other two sole survivors of Torpedo Squadron 8". When they made it back to Midway Island in that heavily damaged Avenger Admiral Nimitz called it "The greatest feat in the history of naval aviation", the fact that they've never been given the credit they deserve for both surviving the attack and being surviving members of VT-8 is a true injustice, mainly perpetrated by the film maker John Ford since it was his documentary that launched the myth of George Gay being the sole survivor of VT-8.
@@robertdendooven7258 Yep, that's them, now that I've seen their names written down I remember them. I think it's hysterical the one telling that reporter "We're the other two sole survivors of Torpedo Squadron 8". And it truly is a shame history ignoring them after the return flight they made as badly shot up as they were.
42:50 - Amplidyne, is a motor-generator. or electromechanical converter/inverter, used to convert power from lower to higher voltage. The amplidyne had to convert a lot of power to run a turret. Lower powered units, to power smaller devices such as radios, are dynomotors, for transmitters, and vibrators for car radios. These are all from the vacuum tube days, when tube electronics could not deliver a significant amount of power. Modern semiconductor electronics has replaced all of these elecromechanical methods. Your modern house solar grid-tie inverter handles much more power than an amplidyne.
Kermit Weeks has stated that in his opinion the TBF/TBM is the easiest WW2 plane to fly. Which was good for all the inexperienced Ensigns and J.G.'s that took it to war.
That was an incredible revelation of countless factors that contributed to the outcome of the War in the Pacific (PC). As much as I know about airplanes, I always learn more from you, every time you post your excellent content. As you may recall, which if you do not, my resume includes a lot of hours in C-130s, T-38As, T1-As, AC-130 Gunshups and stuff I can't reveal on unclassified media. I thank you for your diligence and devotion to our love of Aircraft.
Let's hear a "what if?" for the Sea Mosquito and (Sea) Hornet (first 60 of the latter delivered between VE and VJ days). However by the time they would have been worked up, there was very little shipping left to torpedo, sigh! . The air launch torpedo was on the way out as a weapon anyway. The advent of radar gun control, proximity fuses etc., would have made a straight and level torpedo run problematic.
Part of the problems early in WWII for the Avenger and all other US torpedo bombers were the defects in the design of the Mark 13 torpedoes. They were almost as bad as the submarine launched Mark XIV and worse than the ship launched Mark XV.
I’ve seen it somewhere that at least 1 and as many as 5 (but more likely 2 or 3 max) USN torpedos were on target at Midway, but failed to detonate for all the reasons that plagued early war US torpedos.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography US torpedoes are a scandal. Doesn't matter if they were launched by air, destroyer or sub. They all had reliability issues. I would go so far as to say the Mark 13 was worse than the Mark 14. It just didn't gain the notoriety the Mark 14 did. The Mark 12 was the best of the three. I think I read there were gyro and deep run issues, just not as bad.
This is a brilliant analysis, I really enjoyed it. Every point made was carefully considered, and very respectful but truthful about the swordfish and the significance of timing when aircraft appear.
It's hard to believe the serendipity, but whilst halfway through this video I heard the unmistakable staccato of a big-inch radial engine in the distance. I took a look outside and it was our local TBM-3 Avenger flying over (operated Paul Bennet Airshows). It's the last flying Avenger in Australia and I'm lucky to live only about 15 minutes from the airfield where it operates. I'm currently learning to fly in a Cessna 150, and to see the big TBM on the same field really highlights how massive it truly is. Thanks for the great video!
My friend Leo Pyatt was a TBM radioman and flew with VC81 from USS Natoma Bay in 1944. They never carried a torpedo after training he said. Rockets, 500 lb bombs and a few 1000 lb bombs. Depth charges once.
Fantastic content, as usual, Greg. I've seen a few still-flying Avengers, flown to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, WI. They really are amazingly big airplanes in person. Several of the pilots who fly them bring along their entire family, along with tents, baggage, etc. - everything you'd need for a family camping vacation, including bunks for the junior aircrew, all inside the cavernous hull. The fact that these warbirds are still flying today, and flying safely enough to be used to fly young families around the country - speaks volumes about the toughness, practicality, and overall airworthiness of the Avenger. The wing folding mechanism is a masterpiece of practical engineering. It seems like it should be too complicated to be practical - but it isn't. It just works, and manages to do its job so much better than anything out there at the time. Good engineering was a true "force multiplier" - by allowing US ships to carry more airplanes and firepower - long before that expression made it into military parlance. Thanks to Greg and the commenters for adding a bit more to my knowledge of a fabulous - but sometimes under appreciated - WWII veteran.
I am really enjoying your content and only wish I had discovered it sooner! As an old aircraft mechanic I very much enjoy your deep dives below the "skin" into engines, systems and so forth. I was a P&W radial engine overhaul inspector for a number of years and it's refreshing to watch that content. 1830-92's were my favourites, from DC3's and Cats.
I think Sky Haven air field in Rochester NH had an Avenger when I was a kid, I used to beg my dad to go slow when we drove by so I could look at the big beast. Grumman sure knew their business when it came to carrier aviation.
Just ran across this excellent video. Gramps was the tail gunner/radioman on a TBF that flew off the Ticonderoga. He was part of CV-14's first crew, embarking in May of '44. He joined at age 17 and actually ENJOYED his time in the Pacific theater (he knew wasn't going to die, according to him). Although the TBF was considered a "glide bomber", his pilot was known to dive it hard when the situation called for it, and pull out at the last second to drop the fish. He told me that based on the noises coming from the plane and the turret gunner, he was happy he couldn't see what the wings were doing during those maneuvers! The Avengers were also extremely survivable, and once his plane was so shot up that the deck crew just pushed it over the side to clear the deck...but that Grumman had made it back and landed cleanly with all hands intact. The only fatality in his plane was a turret gunner who caught a 25mm shell directly from underneath, but again the plane made it back fine. On only one occasion was he worried they may have to ditch. They had parked the Ticonderoga off Ulithi (I believe?) and they launched with zero wind. He said they flew WOT and still couldn't get any altitude and basically followed a shallow glide path to the strip, still touching down a few yards short of the runway!
Thanks for the great video on the Avenger. My father was a radioman/bombardier in one flying on the USS Essex in 1944-45. His duties included not only handling the radio, bombing and stinger machine gun, but also the navigation of the aircraft. When he was being trained in Florida, his plane flew into the Bermuda Triangle and the plane’s compass went bonkers. He said he had to navigate back to Florida by listening to the strength of the signal from a Florida AM radio station!
Where was he trained in Florida? Jacksonville? My grandfather was a mathematics teacher and school principal when the war broke out, he enlisted after Pearl Harbor and was commissioned an officer in the Navy and posted to the Jacksonville flight center as an instructor training air crews in the mathematics of navigation, if that's where your dad was trained he might very well have been trained in his navigation course by my grandfather.
or Litle malnourished factory boys with cancer balls weighing combined more than the rest of the boy... seems all to plausible knowing '' the ''british'' ''empire'' ''.... you might be onto smthing there...
It must be the Fairey Swordfish when 21 old biplanes took of from carriers and attacked the Italian battle fleet at Taranto out of 21 planes 19 returned to there ships 2 were lost and only two men died , please look up the battle on UA-cam as they did an awful lot more than damage a couple of battleships .Old they may have been, slow yes but they worked and that’s all that mattered
You would think, but then you realize that they were crewed mainly by brits, who aren’t exactly known to possess excessively large man parts like the Americans, Polish, Australian, and perhaps German pilots
12:15 Something I think not usually forgotten about the Swordfish in this regard is that it was completely replaced as a carrier based torpedo bomber late in 1941 by the Albacore. It continued to have other roles like target tug and ASW patrol aircraft, but it was never again used as a torpedo bomber from fleet carriers. By the time the BPF left for Australia, the Swordfish was long gone.
Late to the game for a comment... I worked with an Avenger turret gunner when I was a co-op in industry at Baldwin Lima Hamilton, Eddystone, PA in 1967 (while attending Temple U in Philly). The thing he mentioned that really stuck in my memory, was him telling me how many antennas he had shot off this aircraft... was happy to hear you mention that happening in your video!
With regards to the Grumman wing folding design. the compactness was aided by a fairly narrow track on the landing gear that allowed more of the wings to be folded back. It is a tribute to Grumman's engineers that they achieved excellent deck and rough field handling with this narrow track
The Grumman engineers probably considered the Avenger to have a wide track given how their earlier aircraft designs like the Wildcat folded the landing gear into the fuselage. ua-cam.com/video/06gXYRRGpkc/v-deo.html
That P-38 with a torpedo slung underneath is hilarious. I wonder which genius thought that one up? As for REAL torpedo bombers, I don't see how anyone can seriously question your conclusion that the Avenger was the premier torpedo bomber. That said, I don't see how ANYONE can claim that any torpedo bombers were more beautiful than the B5N Kate or B6N Jill. Absolutely gorgeous birds.
Many years ago, I was visiting a air museum with my Grandfather. We wandered by an Avenger in the collection when stopped and commented that he had been on a few missions as a belly gunner. I thought this was odd, as he was a machine gunner with the New Zealand 3rd Division up in the Pacific Islands and, as far as I knew, New Zealand didn't operate Avengers. He said they didn't but the Americans had a shortage of gunners (!) and because he had been trained on the .50 cal (they were also supplied with US equipment) and he was small, so he volunteered. The deal was that he would get a cut of the booze picked up on the return leg, which he pointed out the bomb bay was most useful in this task. He rarely talked about his experiences (although he just adored the Americans and the stories he did talk about tended to describe how generous they were) so I asked him what happened. He pointed out that the belly gunner couldn't get out unless the bay doors were open [edit: from what you were saying, this may not be true but he wasn't a trained crewman so, it may have just been his perception] and that the last mission he went on, they were lucky to get back. He finished by saying, he realised that if they had been killed, he would have been listed as missing because this wasn't officially sanctioned by the New Zealand military and that, as a new father, that would have been unfair on his family. He is long gone now but, particularly in light of your podcast, I wish I had asked more questions. Edit: This has got me thinking, if he was the belly gunner, the bombardier wouldn't have been needed as he wasn't trained as such. This has been boggling my mind, if you say this crew format without the need for a bombardier might have been for torpedo attacks.
"He pointed out that the belly gunner couldn't get out unless the bay doors were open [edit: from what you were saying, this may not be true but he wasn't a trained crewman so, it may have just been his perception] and that the last mission he went on, they were lucky to get back. " Normally the radioman/bombardier would serve as the ventral gunner and would sit behind the pilot if not needed as a gunner at the moment. There was a side door near the ventral gun but I can't imagine trying to get out of that in hurry and in case of a ditching he would have to make his way to his seat behind the pilot. It's really really tight in there. ua-cam.com/video/5o2XccN85ZY/v-deo.html
My late old friend RE Saunders worked at Interstate Aircraft during WW2. Using early television technology, Interstate developed the world’s first cruise missile for anti-shipping missions. An operator in the bombardier section of a TBM guided the missile with a TV screen and remote control. Classified until the late 1980’s.
The "Stringbag" (Swordfish) punched way above its weight and the crews liked them despite the lack of protection from even light rain never mind incoming rounds. Agree its not the best, but it was pretty much all we had.
The RN had at least two aircraft better than the Stringbag during the war. The Barracuda, which once they figured out how it was killing it's own aircrew, was a better aircraft. And the Avenger, maybe the best WWII carrier torp bomber of the war.
Amplidynes or in the UK rotary converters/dynamotors were used in a number of tank and command transceivers such as the British Army 19 set, to increase voltage from 12 or 24V DC to the 275V and 500V high tension required for the receiver and transmitter respectively. They are both noisy and difficult to shield the electromagnetic and radio frequency interference.
The last airial torpedo attack that I know of was an attack or series of attacks on hydroelectric dams in North Korea by Corsairs or Skyraiders. Probably Skyraiders. See Mark Felton for US or American dambusters. Hard to miss a dam. Maneuvering or not.
@@AdmiralQuality The tactile issue was that the North Koreans had just taken the dam, and there was a concern that if they closed the flood gates, they could lower the down stream river depth enough to allow the enemy to cross without a bridge
Gregg, allow me to say that YOU ARE THE MAN. This is an OUTSTANDING video. Very informative, accurate and narrated in a way that kept me mesmerized for the whole lenght of the presentation. I have you know that I am also a history buff and everything that you said was right on the money. I also have you know that the Avenger is my favorite WW II airplane. Once again, AWESOME job. Keep at it. I’ll keep watching. By the way, I just subscribed to your channel.
Regarding American torpedo bombers I always have in the back of my head the debacle with Mark 13 torpedo. It was an issue at the beginning of the war. Torpedo runs were extremely dangerous and thought that even if the pilot would be successful in dropping the torpedo it itself would be faulty is just agonizing.
Greg, I truly respect and admire you and your channel. You are very effective in communicating your vast knowledge base, and these videos and graphics are generally very well done in my opinion. I like how you base your opinions and conclusions on real info. Thank you for your work here. Fascinating.
It seems Japan could only produce 900 (early) -1200 HP radial engines for their aircraft. What about the Japanese industry precluded them from building at higher horse power? What if a Kate, or Zero for that matter, had a 1500 HP or larger engine? Would she then compete with the Avengers? Did Japan also have fuel (low octane) issues like Germany ? I have some tech info about how the Brits and Japanese modified their torpedos for use in shallow harbors. The History Channel got it wrong when they did an episode about Pearl Harbor torpedo attack. It would seem that the modified torpedo help made the aircraft (Kate and Swordfish) successful early in the war. The Kate was considered by some (Shattered Sword - The Untold Story of Battle of Midway) the best torpedo bomber early in the war, but Grumman was cream of the crop by the end. Does the right torpedo make the aircraft or the other way around? P.S. B - 17 and B -29 used amplidyne turret systems. Amplidynes are basically DC generators that function as high gain amplifiers. Small control inputs (small error signals) creates large outputs. Very fast response but very heavy system. But then again, hydraulic pumps and motors are heavy also !
-From the top of my head Japanese Navy Aviation Fuel was about 93 RON. Japanese Army Airforce Fuel was a little less 87 RON. Yes the Japanese had octane issues as well. When run on American 100/130 fuel the aircraft could be over boosted and performed much better. They had access to Malaysian and Indonesian Oil. They're own coal to oil plants failed to produce much oil despite German help because they had skipped building a pilot plant in a rush to production. They made some octane in Manchuria using acetylene and collected pine tree cones to make pineol which has a high octane number. -Amplidynes were the best of the rotating amplifiers eg Ward-Leonard, Metadyne etc. The Germans had an interesting system called the magnetic amplifier. Was eventually used in the B-47 tail gun. A DC bias saturated a transformer and when saturated it would not transfer power. By adjusting a control current the saturation point was changed and fired the inductor.
I’m always impressed by the variety and quality of your source materials. Graphics in the vintage ads are great. I saw one showing a sinking carrier that looks a lot like Akagi before conversion to a single flight deck. Regarding Midway, in Shattered Sword, Parshall and Tully have shown pretty convincingly that the conventional narrative that the Zeros were unable to climb back up to meet the SBDs is false. Nonetheless, it is obvious that a multi-axis attack from multiple altitudes greatly complicates defense of a carrier group.
Thanks Gizmo, if you listen carefully you will notice I didn't say the Zero's didn't have time to climb back up, that's not at all what I said, but for some reason it's what people are hearing.
Great, Great, Great!!! Much interesting detail told in a flow that promoted listening attention and understanding (helped putting the pieces together)!
Speaking of the escort carriers and Avengers, the Dauntless didn't have folding wings and therefore wasn't carried on the escort carriers. The Helldiver SB2C wasn't operated off the escort carriers as part of a carrier air group because the Avengers did everything required in concert with the F4F and FM Wildcat fighters. One scheme that never became reality was putting the SNJ on the escort carriers as combat aircraft--by the time the escort carriers were in service, sufficient numbers of Wildcats and Avengers were available.
The Dauntless was actually carried on a small number of escort carriers, early in the war, in addition to Wildcats and Avengers. For example, the USS Santee had some SBDs when they were hunting U-Boats in the South Atlantic in 1943. The Santee was a Sangamon class escort carrier built on an oiler hull, a design that was by far the best escort carrier design of the early war - they had a lot more space both on the flight deck and in the hanger than the escort carriers built on freighter hulls, which was probably why they could carry the dive bombers. The ships also had a lower flight deck which made them more stable than other escort carrier designs. There were only four ships in this class, though they did end up becoming the basis for the late war model of escort carrier. The Sangamons could also carry a lot of fuel thanks to their oiler heritage, and thus could both re-fuel their escorts and stay on patrol for much longer than the others. Several of these ships participated in Torch. See Hunter-Killer: U.S. Escort Carriers in the Battle of the Atlantic by William T. Y'Blood for details. It's really unfortunate that the US and Royal navies didn't have the foresight to design and operate one or two escort carriers before the war started, as they might have stumbled across something like the Sangamon design early enough to make these the main model for escort carriers - though they might have had issues finding or building enough oiler hulls. Perhaps if they had been willing to pay for extra oiler hulls in peacetime as part of the military buildup before the war they could have rented them out in peacetime then had them available for conversion once war started, possibly with a detailed assembly line already worked out to speed construction. Too much fixation on big carriers ...
Didn't he end up smacking against the vertical stab when exiting the plane? I thought I remember him mentioning that in an interview for a documentary on the History channel (back when it was good).
@@SlavicCelery Will have to look up the story again in the book "Flyboys" about American Air operations in the Pacific during WW2. The author covered the strike on Chichi Jima and the cannibalism incident there in depth. The future President Bush was very fortunate to be rescued by a submarine. What I recall was Bush saying he kept calling to the crewmen over the intercom until he had to bail out as the TBM Avenger was about to crash. I recall reading Ernie Pyle on his time aboard a CV in the Pacific. He said watching landing operations was so awful that only the crewmen who had to be present were anywhere nearby - lurking on the ship's island and so forth. It was controlled crashing. It took decades of WW2 study before I came to appreciate probably more airmen of every nation died from non battle causes than in combat. I read more Bf-109s were lost in takeoffs and landings than in combat, largely due to its high torque load and narrow landing gear. Those were pretty primitive days in aviation, especially for single engined aircraft.
@@amerigo88 Just looked it up, Bush saw two guys bail out, one chute didn't open and it was only a streamer. What happened to the second guy is he ended up on the island.
When Bush was running for office, the New York Times published a story about a submarine crewman who said that Bush abandoned his aircrew by bailing out too soon. The NYT apparently accepted on faith that a squid could tell what was going on in a burning airplane going 300 mph at 20,000 feet but minimal investigation showed the squid wasn't a lookout and would have never seen whatever went on. Turns out he was coached by a opposition misinformation team to tell a false story.
One win for Grumman Iron works. US Navy kept Avengers on their aircraft carriers because Navy doctrine held that torpedo sink ships better than bombs. TBF and TBM avengers were also quite effective in reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare, and even airborne early warning. The primary role of escort carriers was protecting convoys against submarines and hunting down submarines in hunter killer groups.
Thanks Greg. A really enjoyable video/talk. My father was a British Fleet Air Arm pilot and flew the Avenger(I think the Tarpon name had already been dropped) in WW2. He could not praise it highly enough
I gotta say Greg ur content is beyond awesome.u really do ur homework on ur topics .if I had money I would have u do ur own channel on tv called the real history channel that is really about history none of the reality crap.ur unbiased content and as close to historically accurate as can be in 2022 talking about ww2 is a gem and I hope u get compensated as well as ur content is
love the content. If you take requests, I'd love to see something on the Helldiver. I've read anecdotal comments about it's poor handling qualities but as your channel has taught me, many cases of those types of comments and articles are quite inaccurate.
"Dauntless Helldivers" is a good book by Harold Buell, a pilot who flew both SBD's and SB2C's. The Helldiver had many early issues that had to be fixed before it could be used in combat. Buell characterized the SBD as a better airplane, but the SB2C as a more capable weapon. He particularly liked having two wing mounted 20 mm cannon when they met Japanese Kates.
Great video once again Greg, thank you. I was browsing a used book sale at a local library some years ago when I spotted a small black vinyl binder that looked out of place among all the other books. I pulled it from the shelf and found myself holding an original POH for the TBF-1. It cost me a dollar.
Thanks for covering the RNAS Swordfish nicknamed String Bag by its crews. Your absolutely right it was obsolete when it entered WW2 in 1939. However as you said it was combat proven and hit the Bismark's steering gear. Our local museum in the UK has photos of the captured Bismark crew being lead off tenders into captivity. The UK was a world power in 1939 and it was deploring obsolute aircraft which shows we weren't prepared for war. I love some of the rare aircraft that is shown on here - Great video.
@@kudukilla So did the Swordfish. The Scharnhorst and Gniesenau dashed up the English Channel and Swordfish were sent out to attack them. Complete suicide mission with FW190s providing cover from France (I read they had to lower their flaps to reduce speed enough to put enough lead into them before overshooting the slow biplanes). A disaster for brave aircrew who had sunk a lot of Italian shipping.
The Swordfish has the record in tonnage of shipping sunk so it could be argued it was the best. It's ability to operate at night with radar was a key talent. It's ease of takeoff and landing another. The Maximum speed a torpedo bomber could attack was determine mostly by the height and speed limits of the torpedo so the Swordfishes speed disadvantage was not so much as imagined as faster monoplanes were slowed when carrying a torpedo by drag and had to limit speed in any case.
Thanks for another great video Greg. I sometimes use these to listen to on my way to sleep, and then put me back to sleep if I wake up, then listen fully in the morning with my coffee. So you get many‘listens’ from me lol
Thanks Greg for yet another epic video! I appreciate your work in providing such a thoroughly researched and detailed program about what seemed to me to be a rather uninteresting subject which in the end proved facinating. By the way, how are your automotive projects coming?
As an airplane crazy kid, the Avenger was the first WW2 plane I ever saw in person. My first airshow. Pulled into parking lot , got out and walked toward the field which was shielded from view by hangers and other buildings. We came around the corner of the end hangar and there she sat. At the end of the flightline sat the Avenger. I was amazed at how BIG she is. Book pics and documentary films did not prepare me for what I saw when I came around the corner of that hangar. Spellbound might cover it. 50+ years later, that visual still burns bright..Thanks to the CAF
Always look forward to your videos! I probably checked youtube every hour after you announced the video would be posting soon. Thanks for putting these together.
Knowing some of these sea battles, I knew the only answer could have been the mighty Avenger, Thanks a bunch for your indepth analysis, highly interesting.
What a very balanced and thorough video! I was very surprised that you considered the swordfish, most people just look at it and laugh even though it was responsible for 4 battleships and was instrumental in causing the Pearl Harbor strike, at least according to Yamamoto.
Greg, great video as always. You did make me sit up with the comment that torpedo bombers had a very narrow window in time. If we define that as an aircraft that drops torpedos in the water to attack enemy vessels (admittedly a broad definition) most sub hunters could be considered torpedo bombers. Of course, they are mostly either land based or helicopters. Off the top of my head, the last carrier based fixed wing aircraft carrying torpedos must be the Viking, the Gannet or the Alize. Still, not the same as the mighty Avenger.
@yo yo What airplane do they use (I am assuming we are talking about the USN)? I thought they were down to versions of the F/A-18. Does that carry torpedos?
The other benefit of a torpedo attack on the high side of a listing ship is that the torpedo could do much more damage if it detonated under the belt armour or any torpedo protection the ship might have. Thanks, Greg - that was an engaging presentation as ever.
Amplidynes work by using a low power signal to power the field coils of the generator in a motor-generator set. This will then cause the resulting output of the generator to vary proportionally with a higher power level. This enabled a low voltage in the gunners' controller to command a larger voltage from the Amplidyne to move the turret with sufficient authority to track targets.
Like your excellent P-47 series, this video did a great job of explaining why an on-paper (in coffee-table "Planes of WWII" books) unremarkable aircraft did such an excellent job. Regarding level bombing, Lancasters did have success using Tallboy bombs against the Tirpitz. When it was finally sunk, it was practically immobile but the first raid did succeed in heavily damaging a perfectly sea-going ship - albeit in tight fjords rather than open sea.
Thanks General, for those wanting the short story, I think I knocked it out in the first min. when I said it's the Avenger. However it looks like most of you are sticking around for the long story.
Lol. Greg. The pictorial digs on suburu are hillarious. I just watched the dc 7 video and there was one in there and again here. So funny. And the advanced response to trolls is always entertaining as well. Great content. It is always a pleasure to learn about this stuff.
One of the points people miss in talking about early war TBs and why they generally sucked, is the torpedoes they launched. At the outbreak of war, aerial torpedoes could not be launched at high speed nor high altitude. Doing either one would destroy the torpedo upon impact with the water. Therefore, there was no point for an aircraft designer to specify a high-speed design when the plane would have to slow to a crawl and fly very low to safely launch it's weapons. One of the major reasons the Avenger and other TBs like her were so much more effective, was that by mid-war, the Allies had developed torpedoes that could be dropped at high speed AND high altitude. Thus, her performance was not hindered by the robustness of her main weapon.
Although the Swordfish actually practiced a diving torpedo attack; using the high drag of the biplane design to rapidly slow back to launch speed after a (relatively) high speed dive down to launch altitude. However you're right that the vast improvements to the launch profile of the mid war or later Mark 13 torpedo were a game changer. One less obvious effect from a higher and faster torpedo release is that you could also release further from the target because the torpedo would arc forward some considerable distance before hitting the water and beginning its attack run. That let Avengers stay mostly out of range of the light AA guns of their target; whereas the early war low and slow launch profile made them carry the torpedo well into light AA range. And since light AA is going to be the most numerous type of AA (because its small size and weight means you can festoon a ship with it) that's a non-trivial survivability bonus right there.
The aircraft stated to be a Val in a pic in the middle of the presentation is actually a Mitsubishi B5M torpedo bomber. A small number were built but the Nakajima B5N was chosen instead. B5M had fixed undercarriage like the Val, whose wings folded at the tips unlike the plane shown in the pic. The offset torpedo rack can also be seen in the pic.
My dad worked at Grumman in the late 70s and early 80s. He worked in the warehouse and was responsible for sending the random plane parts to the right section of the factory. He was liked by his bosses so much because he was a good employee that they put him on a company poster. He died in 2012 and I kept that poster for many years. Sadly I think I lost it. I've been looking for a replacement poster for it on eBay but so far I haven't had any luck finding one. I found other posters from that same series of posters Grumman made but I haven't found the one with dad on it. Hopefully one day I'll find the one I had or I'll be able to find a new one.
Great, informative video! I've always felt that, had the US carrier strikes at Midway gone as planned, with the various types staying together for a co-ordinated attack, the TBDs would have avoided the massacre and had a much better reputation as it was retired--the TBFs at Midway were actually part of Torpedo 8, so the squadron was trying to transition to the type. The US Navy, after Midway, did consciously move away from torpedo strikes to bombing for shipping strikes. Lastly, the Stringbag was only successful in the absence of enemy fighters. When a squadron went after the German cruisers during their Channel dash, in daylight, they were slaughtered by German fighters.
After the battle of the Coral Sea the US Navy realized their carriers were extremely vulnerable while they had fueled and armed aircraft on board. The feeling going into Midway was to launch as soon as you could once the enemy was sighted or else risk losing it if the enemy attacked first. This meant at Midway the US dive and torpedo attacks from the three US carriers were largely uncoordinated, but ironically resulted in the Japanese CAP (with no radar control) being pulled down low to deal with the torpedo bombers, opening the door for the dive bombers. At the same time the Japanese held up their attack to be able to make a coordinated attack with the correct anti-ship munitions. Three of their four carriers were knocked out before they could launch.
Fletcher dilibertely launched the way he did in hopes of achieving exactly what he did. With Nagumo's carriers coming under constant piecemeal attack, he couldn't spot and launch his planes. It also kept the decks clear so the CAP could rearm, as the Zeros needed to do frequently.
I've always wondered why other manufacturers did not copy Grumman's wing-folding design. From what I can tell, the folding sequence never exceeds the aircraft's basic envelope, so no extra headroom is needed. Also, the whole wing always seems to be within the maintenance crew's reach.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Probably. I know there also was patent feud surrounding the main landing gear of the P-40, which was already used/patented in another airplane.
It's terrible for structural strength from an engineering pov, where the wings join the body is probably the most important structural area and also affects wingtanks etc.
Many many thanks for the exceptionally insightful and in-depth technical expertise. Perhaps already commented on, just one additional note on effectiveness of torpedos, namely that the damage is well below the waterline. Not only will that cause an explosion and likely secondary fires but damage to the hull below the waterline means the ship will start to sink.
Nice, very interesting presentation. Torpedo planes probably had the most difficult mission of all attack aircraft IMO limiting the contenders to carrier born aircraft discounted the Beaufighter and the Sparviero. In the European theater the proximity of large land masses to large bodies of water allowed for better use of land based torpedo bombers, as you noted with the Swordfish flying out of Malta. Sparviero is of similar vintage as the Swordfish. Video is already pretty long but I would have liked to have seen these two in the discussion.
If I included those two, I would have had to add in a ton of US, Japanese and German land based torpedo bombers. The video would have more than doubled in length. Plus I really feel that land based torpedo bombers are another category.
Damn right - it might mean you don't get 57 minutes on just how good the Avenger was though compared to the non US made planes that made the first 13 minutes. If the title of the video met the parameters of discussion that might be helpful.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles " Plus I really feel that land based torpedo bombers are another category." If that means we're getting another video all I can say is shut up Pepper Mill! (and Hudson).
Glad you mentioned the swordfish in a good light far to many people say how bad it was compared to more powerful and modern airframes .but the one part you didn't mention was the swordfish was capable of flying when other aircraft were not especially nigth
Yes, as well as Escort Carriers in the heaving North Atlantic hunting U-boats! This was when NOTHING else could fly, including the Avenger. They were in use against the U-boats right till the end of the war, even after "modern" were available. Claimed to be obsolete, how then, at Taranto were they far more effective PER AIRCRAFT than the Japanese air armada that attacked Pearl Harbour on 7 Dec. 1941. Obsolete my ass!
Great video Greg, Well thought out and a great presentation of your thoughts and ideas. I would be extremely interested in your thoughts on the XF8B-1 and the XF5U, Have an excellent and safe 2022!
The town that I went to highschool in was right adjacent to the C-W engine factory. An elder teacher there said the noise was deafening even with the berms against the fencing. They shook the town fiercely as well.
Great video! Haven't watched it all yet but already my assumptions about the Grumman Avenger are challenged in a cool way. . .Based on the shape of the aircraft , I always assumed that it was developed more in chronological parallel with the F6 Hellcat. It just looks like it is from that specific "generation" so it is interesting that it kind of predated the Hellcat and yet was a very cutting edge aircraft. Grumman did some very good work.
Beyond an awesome video. Thanks for the hard work and great information. Two weeks of hot reserve is taking its toll and content like this helps pass the time.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I am in PDX on R3 until Feb 5th. If you get near Atlanta, let me know and I would like to give you a tour of the CAF’s Airbase GA formerly known as the Dixie Wing. The Dauntless is there along with a Corsair, P-51, P-63, and more. Also, rumors of another plane coming. You may be familiar but if you haven’t already visited, I think you’d enjoy.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles tell Michael hi for me and have a plate of Jäger Schnitzel. That is one of my favorites. You will be amazed at the machine shop, hangar, and the Stearman restoration at the CAF. A vote for another restoration project is happening this coming Saturday. If it goes through, and the stars align, a VERY unique airplane may be coming to Airbase GA.
Thanks for covering the Turkey, I honestly thought it may simply be too boring for you to ever do a video on, but 75yr after it was built, there’s nothing boring about them today lol (especially if you can see one up close!)
You mentioned most were 1,700hp and a few were 1,900 - that’s not really the case. The vast majority of Avengers produced had the 1,900hp R2600-20, as you mention they were also the GM TBMs.
Regarding the engine, early development issues became so bad that there was talk of sabotage - they just couldn’t figure out the corrosion and pitting issues. By the time of the -20 they were very reliable, ours basically looks like a normal car engine internally during checks, but a LOT of that is due to modern oil and the modern massive dual oil filter setup we (and most warbirds) run these days. The strainers back then would pass anything smaller than about the size of a BB through the engine🤮 .
Also (I don’t deal with the TBF much at all) the TBM-3 numbers are very different, showing an extra 100 gal internally (I didn’t realize that changed with later models) and by the time you add the wing guns etc it’s MTOW was over 18,000lbs, so about the additional weight of a compact car for the same size aircraft lol.
Anyways we operate around 12,000lb and with any headwind, the plane can be off the ground in around 500’ which is pretty amazing. There are certain engine parameters that have to be met on T/O roll/power, so we can’t really “baby” the plane as much as some people think. I believe in the book “Avenger at War!” it was stated that only something like 20% of Avenger takeoffs used catapults, even though (something most don’t realize) almost all US carrier were so-equipped, even pre-WWII ships. Those 20% were almost exclusively near the end of the war or post-war, I wasn’t really able to find a reason for this.
BTW that photo of the Avenger cat launching out of the hangar deck is REALLY cool, something I’ve never come across.
As far as the Amplidyne (love the names back then) system, I believe it’s simply a motor-generator, which seems like a contradiction in terms but anyways… I had actually never come across that part of the turret on the TBM, BUT we have an operational B-26 turret that we bring to airshows, and it has a LARGE motor-generator mounted on its rotating frame that I assume serves the same purpose as the one Grumman used. In addition to being an AC/DC converter, it’s high RPM and intertia likely serves as a “mechanical capacitor” of sorts for the rapid movement the turret requires (both the Avenger and B-26 turrets have a “rapid traverse” mode.)
That’s funny you mention the turret egress / chute issue, it’s definitely a problem even today. Our radio position will assist the turret position to don chute and bail. It’s actually not hard to get out (just straighten your body and you slip down) but there’s a LOT of stuff to snag on.
The radio operator position can also monitor some elements of the hydraulic system (the primary hyd bulkhead is directly in front of you, including the accumulator gauge) plus he can see a lot of the systems in the bomb bay including fuel and hydraulic lines (probably what that window is for, I’ll always check for obvious leaks or problems through that) also (theoretically) he would probably reload the turret gun if required, I believe they carried significant spare ammo for the turret (more than what the charts mention.) He also had random stuff like heater and oxygen controls back there I think? 🤷🏻♂️ They also dropped mines and depth charges, which I think was likely released back there as opposed to the pilot.
I’ve heard from many people that the torpedo would be armed through the small door in front of the radio/bombardier, but I’ve never seen anything official to back this up.
Something that’s really difficult to visualize is the size of the plane and the radio/bombardier area. I’m 6’ tall and can stand up fully back there if you’re under the turret (even then my head is about even with the foot/leg armor plate) - it’s a BIG plane.
Mentioning striking a battleship on the opposite side of list is interesting because that was almost immediately corrected as a BAD thing to do after Musashi, which took something like 19 torpedoes (distributed from various angles) and was counter-flooded continually to correct her list as much as possible.
Yamato was later specifically attacked so that hits would be coordinated on the initial listing side only, making any attempt to counter-flood futile. I don’t think any consideration for anti-aircraft range of traverse was really taken, just sink the ship as quickly as possible.
Yamato was probably the most decisive blow that Avengers ever dealt in WWII; even though the ship posed almost no realistic risk to the allies at the time, it was the “heaviest and most powerful battleship ever built” as the press would say, and now she was gone. Indeed the entire perceived threat of the Imperial Japanese Navy sunk with that ship.
Hi Alex, thanks for your comment. I pinned it because I think your brought up a ton of good points. In regards to horsepower, I think you're right in that most had 1900hp. I couldn't find a break down of production numbers of 1700hp vs. 1900hp Avengers, but I came across the 1700hp number far more often but considering when they were built each way, I think your point is correct.
The sinking of Musashi is a bit different than the attacks on other battleships because the attacks took place over such a large period of time as compared with say the attack on Yamato. Had they got the ship to list, and then came in on the high side with enough torpedoes it would have been over for the ship much more quickly. In other words on Musashi, damage control had a lot more time to deal with the problems. Let's also remember that Musashi sank in late 44', even if the Avengers did change tactics after that, it doesn't represent the majority of anti-battleship Avenger action.
In regards to the size of the plane, I'm curious how much room the crewman has when operating the stinger. I couldn't find anything about how he positions himself. Does he kneel, lie down, or what? Since you can get into one of these planes perhaps you have tried various positions.
wow this is legit sequel 🙃
so many details and experience - astonishing
big ups and thank you 🙂
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I came across some of the tactics recently which is why I brought it up, I can’t find the sources unfortunately - it was definitely something they realized towards the end of the war. Hitting from both sides was essentially doing their damage control parties a favor. Then again, the last thing you want to do is fly around the AA longer and make your path even MORE predictable. Such was the job of a torpedo bomber crew unfortunately. Straight and level right at a few hundred gun barrels.
Oh that reminds me, apparently the wing 50’s were added early on as more of a way to give the enemy AA gunners a reason to duck on a torpedo run. It’s almost criminal that it didn’t have them initially.
As far as the stinger .30, I’ve always wondered that. All i can say is that the radio / bombardier could easily fold up his seat against the side of the fuselage in a few seconds (likely the turret told him someone was back there approaching, pilots likely did clearing turns on longer flights). I think he’d literally lay on the fuselage stringers. Granted they were probably small 115lb navy men. 🤣 Still, zero provisions were made for the usability of that gun by Grumman. The angle would require you to lay down, given the stringer height, couldn’t kneel or sit. I’ve never actually done it because any and every fluid / dirt in the plane ends up on the floor back there for obvious reasons. 🤣
I’ve heard a story of a Zero “sneaking up” below and behind an avenger at distance, thinking it was a group of Wildcats. Apparently the zero was shot down by the stinger gunner. One of these stories was wildly discounted, but I believe there’s another similar story in the “Avengers at War!” book.
Thanks to both of you for your contributions to learning about these machines! I really enjoyed the vid and premiere (at least the part I could watch before life knocked on the door)!
If your talking pure destructive capability of plane v ship, that's a coin toss between the Do 217K-2 carrying the Fritz-X, a single guided bomb that sank a Battleship in one hit (The Roma). Or, the ultra secret Carrier modified De Haviland Mosquito armed with 3 High Ball anti ship bouncing bombs, able to break the back of capital ship in one strike. Sadly, nothing in the US arsenal could match this destructive power especially if carrying Mark14's torpedo's. Sorry, that was a low blow and un called for..
I really have nothing to add here except my sincere gratitude to you, Greg, for making these outstanding videos. As an aviation history buff and current military pilot, it's been difficult to find any channels that really go much beyond a surface level when it comes to the history and performance of warplanes. I haven't found any other channels that go into the pertinent details in such a straightforward, relaxed, and easy to follow manner that yours does. I subscribe to a lot of channels and have been watching youtube for many years, and yours is the first channel I have subscribed to via Patreon. I wish you continued success and hope you continue to get as much out of making these videos as we get out of watching them. Thank you!
Heavily biased bullshit, not taking account of land based aircraft. Bristol beaufighter was the best.
@@davidclarke7122 The man laid out his reasoning for not including land based aircraft. He also stated it's his opinion. If you disagree that's fine, but it's infantile to go and call it "heavily biased bullshit." Sorry your feelings got hurt and enjoy your impotent rage. 😀
@@davidclarke7122The scrappy Beaufighter is given homage here:: ua-cam.com/video/YFDOGwptxOg/v-deo.html
@@davidclarke7122 Heavily biased huh? Do you know how much of a racist turd your hero Winston Churchill was? Or are not aware of that part of history with your "oh so unbiased" takes? Everybody has their biases, that's life.
Well said, be safe.
The TBF/TBM was such a leap in capability that it took USN commanders some time to learn how to exploit it. Having an aircraft able to search out as far as an Avenger with a relatively high cruising speed plus excellent on board electronics was a revelation. It did take a while for the Mk 13 torpedo to become as good as the Avenger, but they finally had them working reliably and surviving higher speed and altitude drops later in the war...
hi Jim, I posed the question to Greg, but it seems like you might know -- did the avenger's torpedoes have the initial same issues as the Mk 14 & 15? i.e. magnetic detonators malfunctioning, and running too deep? which might explain the early failures? The USN took at least a year to come to grips with the shortcomings of he submarine and surface borne models, some higher commanders simply refusing to believe the weapons could malfunction despite multiple corroborating reports from operational experience!
@@doctorscoot Yep, they all used the same detonator. The running deep problem may have been limited to the Mk 15 (I don't know about the Mk 14) but the early war version of the Mk 13 was limited to being dropped below 100' and 100kts in addition to all the detonator issues.
_Did_ the Mk 13 have the depth-keeping issue? My understanding is that problem arose on the Mks 14 & 15 because they were faster then their predecessor(s), which confused their fathometers due to the Bernoulli Effect. But the Mk 13 was no speedster - there's an account of an IJN CV (I think _Hiryu_ at Midway, or possibly _Shokaku_ at Coral Sea) coming under attack by USN torpedo aircraft, and avoided being hit by turning tail and simply *outrunning* the torp(s).
That does point to a *different* problem of the early Mk 13: it was both slow and short-ranged, making it very difficult to score hits on maneuvering warships.
Unfortunately, by the time they had a really good system, i.e. both aircraft and torpedo, the era of torpedo plane was coming to an end.
@@doctorscoot The Mark 13 did not use the magnetic influence exploder.
There is one thing that seems to go under the radar, when discussing torpedo bombers. The weapon itself!
The Mark 13 torpedo sucked badly all the way up to 1944, where improvements finally made it an excellent torpedo.
So until 1944 the TBM AVENGER kinda sucked as a torpedo bomber. You really had to nurse the Mark 13 into the water from very low altitude and with low speed. Only 31% of all dropped torpedos ran satisfactory. Way too many ran too deep, or on the surface. From 1944 a shroud and a wooden box like attachment to the tail and slight changes to the propeller, made it able to be dropped at very high speeds and from great heights still running straight and good.
The Mk13 14 and 15 all pretty much shared the same problems. The mk 15 was on destroyers and thr mk 14 was sub launched.
The Brits and Japanese had some interesting methods at addressing torpedo air/water instability and shallow torpedo running in shallow harbors. They did less nursing of their torpedos than the USA. As a Navy guy, I get organization inertia and blind bureaucracy, but Navy leaders, in reference to torpedos, really dropped the ball in the Pacific. Your comment is a perfect example of context. Great aircraft but poor weapons and blind leadership in regards to USN early torpedo weakness. Sorry to be a parasite to your comment but your comment is very salient here - context is everything and you captured it.
I watch a doc were a US sub hit a slow large Japanese whaler 14 times without one of the torpedo exploding.
@@billtimmons7071 i read up on early US torpedoes in ww2...it was borderline criminal...men risked their lives and died to deploy a faulty weapon that did not work half the time or worse.
@@hippoace Way over the border into treason country is what any sane military would have called it especialy knowing others had good torpedoes for years...
But, if you were including the land based bombers as well Greg, then the Bristol Beaufighter would have to be right up there. Masses of axis tonnage sunk thanks to the Beaufighter, multiple theatres of operation including the north Atlantic, Mediterranean and the Pacific. Flying from Malta alone they sank an average of 54,000 tonnes of axis shipping per month for a 9 month period. That is pretty impressive.
Also the Wellington
@@jonsouth1545 I never knew the Welly dropped torpedoes! How I miss that escapes me, but I can see it, now that you mention it! That aeroplane is unsung in history for many and varied roles it played.
The SM 79 Savoia Marchetti also belongs in this list
The Beaufighter is the reason I just don't think that carrier-based limitation is right. That just reflects a Pacific-centric bias, but even there, the Aussies made good use of Beaufighters.
Remember that he specified carrier borne torpedo bombers
When I was in Boy Scouts our troop leader told us one time when he was in the Navy he was flown from the carrier he was on to a different carrier. He wasn't air crew. He was either an electrical or electronics rating. They flew him over on a TBF-3R. When it came time to go back they were already headed for port. He asked if he could just stay on board the rest of the way. The landing scared the heck out of him.
Thanks for this. My dad was the radar/radio operator in an Avenger flying from the Shangri-La and he rarely talked about it.
He must have been brave to do that. I think it's one of the scariest positions on any US plane in the war.
@@rogersmith7396
At least b17 basicly always flew high and gave you time to even try.... as far as i know
Greg,
Thank you once again for a thorough and enjoyable presentation on this subject.
The Avenger’s ability to operate from escort carriers was a huge contribution to the Allied war effort.
1. In the atlantic, the carrier anti-submarine role was primarily performed by Avengers with good success. In fact, the USN hunter killer groups were actually using sona bouys and homing torpedos late in the war.
2. In the Pacific, escort carriers performed many functions. Close air support during island invasions would not have been nearly as effective without the load carrying capacity of the TBF.
A few additional bits of information:
The US Navy's Mark 13 aerial torpedo had just as many problems as the notorious Mark 14 torpedo used by submarines (and the Mark 15 used by destroyers). Some of the problems were the same, some were unique to aerial torpedos, but it took until 1943 to work them out.
One problem in particular was malfunctions due to damage when the torpedo hit the water. In order to minimize the possibility of damage, the US Navy instructed pilots to drop at 50 feet altitude and 110 knots. This was in fact the wrong approach, as it resulted in the torpedo entering the water at a very flat angle and as a result the tail section would slap the water resulting in damage. This also meant that the torpedo bomber was very vulnerable to enemy fighters during the approach. Operational research showed that a higher-altitude, higher-speed approach in combination with a breakaway wooden nose drag ring, breakaway wooden tail fins, and an additional tail shroud ring made it so that the Mark 13 could be reliably launched from up to 7000 feet altitude and 300 knots, although the ideal approach was a bit lower and slower at 800 feet and 260 knots. This was a much more survivable and easier to fly approach.
While AA gun depression was one reason for making torpedo attacks on the side of the target that was higher in the water, it was not the primary reason. Most naval AA mounts had at least -15 degrees of depression available to compensate for the ship's roll in a seaway. The more important reason for attacking from the high side of the target was to bypass the torpedo defense system and armor belt. A torpedo that strikes a listing ship from the high side may impact on the bottom of the ship's hull rather than the side. This will produce much more damage than a strike that impacts on the torpedo defense system which is designed specifically to absorb and mitigate the explosion of a torpedo.
It seems unlikely that the bombardier was not on board for a torpedo attack, as the on-board radar was used to check the range to the target.
The use of the Avenger as an ASW plane is mostly understated. It could carry depth charges or the Mark 24 ASW homing torpedo (which was given the nomenclature "Mark 24 Mine" as a deception measure).
I find this interesting because my grampa worked in a torpedo factory in Wisconsin during ww2 but all he would say about it was he sharpened the cutting bits for machineing parts
Two minor things to add: The modifications to the Mark 13 torpedo that allowed a high speed, high altitude drop meant the torpedo travelled as much as 1000 yards in the air before it entered the water, effectively doubling the range of the weapon. And the idea for the breakaway wooden tail fins were actually cribbed from the Japanese, who invented them for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I wonder where that myth with gun depression on the Bismarck comes from, even with 0° gun depression (all guns had negativ gun depression), the AA would not have a problem to aim at torpedo bombers at 50ft a few hundreds meters away.
Avengers were used in a tactical fighter-bomber configuration in backing up Marine and Army units on the "island hopping" program. They would be armed with a large main bomb (500lbs. or More) and smaller wing bombs or rockets. The British also used Avengers in the Mediterranean and Burma-Southwest Pacific theaters in the same capacity as well as being a torpedo bomber.
Minor correction: the time between VT-6 attacking and when the first SBDs started diving was enough for the A6Ms to reach the latter's altitude. The main flaw of the Japanese CAP wasn't their ability to respond to threats at varying altitudes, it was their inability to respond to attacks developing simultaneously from multiple directions. The book "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway" by John Parshall and Anthony Tully covers this myth fairly thoroughly.
I didn't say the Zeros at Midway didn't have time to climb to altitude, I said they were out of position due to the torpedo bombing attacks, which they were.
MUCH bigger correction, the Avengers that attacked at Midway WERE NOT from VT-6 they were from VT-8, that's right, George Gay WAS NOT THE SOLE SURVIVOR OF VT-8, that he was the sole survivor is one of the biggest WW2 myths, right up there with the P51 being the fighter that achieved air superiority over Europe, he was simply the sole survivor of VT-8 that launched from the Hornet.
The reason that the Avengers of VT-8 didn't launch from the Hornet with the Devastators of VT-8 is because they weren't on it, when the Hornet left San Francisco the several new Avengers and their crews that were assigned to VT-8 weren't ready yet, so the Hornet left San Francisco without them and a day or two later the Avengers flew from San Francisco directly to Midway Island and were eventually supposed to join the rest of VT-8 on the Hornet, but since the Battle of Midway was organized so quickly they didn't have time to leave Midway Island and join the rest of VT-8 on the Hornet so they just launched their attack directly from Midway Island, VT-6 was an all Devastator squadron, the Avengers were not part of their unit, they were actually VT-8.
Some time in the late 50's George Gay gave a speech somewhere that the two other survivors of VT-8 from the Avenger that launched from Midway and made it back were in attendance at in the back of the hall that Gay spoke at, when a reporter ask them who they were the pilot (I can't remember his name) replied "We're the other two sole survivors of Torpedo Squadron 8".
When they made it back to Midway Island in that heavily damaged Avenger Admiral Nimitz called it "The greatest feat in the history of naval aviation", the fact that they've never been given the credit they deserve for both surviving the attack and being surviving members of VT-8 is a true injustice, mainly perpetrated by the film maker John Ford since it was his documentary that launched the myth of George Gay being the sole survivor of VT-8.
@@dukecraig2402 Ensign Albert K. Earnest and Radioman 2nd Class Harry Ferrier
@@robertdendooven7258
Yep, that's them, now that I've seen their names written down I remember them.
I think it's hysterical the one telling that reporter "We're the other two sole survivors of Torpedo Squadron 8".
And it truly is a shame history ignoring them after the return flight they made as badly shot up as they were.
Agree, “Shattered Sword” put that oft told myth to rest. Fantastic video, but no need to resurrect that false story.
This is probably the safest call to make regarding the best aircraft of a certain type. Thanks Greg, entertaining
42:50 - Amplidyne, is a motor-generator. or electromechanical converter/inverter, used to convert power from lower to higher voltage. The amplidyne had to convert a lot of power to run a turret. Lower powered units, to power smaller devices such as radios, are dynomotors, for transmitters, and vibrators for car radios. These are all from the vacuum tube days, when tube electronics could not deliver a significant amount of power. Modern semiconductor electronics has replaced all of these elecromechanical methods. Your modern house solar grid-tie inverter handles much more power than an amplidyne.
Kermit Weeks has stated that in his opinion the TBF/TBM is the easiest WW2 plane to fly. Which was good for all the inexperienced Ensigns and J.G.'s that took it to war.
It was a really good idea to have a discussion about a niche airplane like this. The least you get a conclusion. Very well done!
Another OUTSTANDING presentation! Thank you for all of the time and effort you put into this video.
That was an incredible revelation of countless factors that contributed to the outcome of the War in the Pacific (PC). As much as I know about airplanes, I always learn more from you, every time you post your excellent content.
As you may recall, which if you do not, my resume includes a lot of hours in C-130s, T-38As, T1-As, AC-130 Gunshups and stuff I can't reveal on unclassified media. I thank you for your diligence and devotion to our love of Aircraft.
I had wondered whether the Italian three-motored 'Sparviero' might have rec'd a mention. It was used only in the Med but it was an effective beast.
That and the Ju-88...and, of course, the Beaufighter... but, being land-based ... excluded. :(
Let's hear a "what if?" for the Sea Mosquito and (Sea) Hornet (first 60 of the latter delivered between VE and VJ days). However by the time they would have been worked up, there was very little shipping left to torpedo, sigh! . The air launch torpedo was on the way out as a weapon anyway. The advent of radar gun control, proximity fuses etc., would have made a straight and level torpedo run problematic.
Part of the problems early in WWII for the Avenger and all other US torpedo bombers were the defects in the design of the Mark 13 torpedoes. They were almost as bad as the submarine launched Mark XIV and worse than the ship launched Mark XV.
I think the dear old Swordfish was a great example of " It is not what you've got, it's how you use it'.
I’ve seen it somewhere that at least 1 and as many as 5 (but more likely 2 or 3 max) USN torpedos were on target at Midway, but failed to detonate for all the reasons that plagued early war US torpedos.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography US torpedoes are a scandal. Doesn't matter if they were launched by air, destroyer or sub. They all had reliability issues. I would go so far as to say the Mark 13 was worse than the Mark 14. It just didn't gain the notoriety the Mark 14 did. The Mark 12 was the best of the three. I think I read there were gyro and deep run issues, just not as bad.
This is a brilliant analysis, I really enjoyed it. Every point made was carefully considered, and very respectful but truthful about the swordfish and the significance of timing when aircraft appear.
It's hard to believe the serendipity, but whilst halfway through this video I heard the unmistakable staccato of a big-inch radial engine in the distance. I took a look outside and it was our local TBM-3 Avenger flying over (operated Paul Bennet Airshows). It's the last flying Avenger in Australia and I'm lucky to live only about 15 minutes from the airfield where it operates. I'm currently learning to fly in a Cessna 150, and to see the big TBM on the same field really highlights how massive it truly is.
Thanks for the great video!
That's awesome.
It really is. Next time I'm at the field I'm going to get a good look at the wing folding mechanisms - the engineering behind them is fantastic.
My friend Leo Pyatt was a TBM radioman and flew with VC81 from USS Natoma Bay in 1944. They never carried a torpedo after training he said. Rockets, 500 lb bombs and a few 1000 lb bombs. Depth charges once.
If they were dropping torpedoes in training I wonder if they recovered them and how.
@@mpetersen6 excellent question! Leo passed away years ago now, but there's still one surviving aviator from VC 81 and this is worth asking
@@mpetersen6 iirc the training torpedoes would float to the surface at the end of their runs....boats would then pick them up afterwards
i googled the carrier, seems like USS Natoma Bay main taskings are ASW, CAP, ground support....hence no torps...
Fantastic content, as usual, Greg.
I've seen a few still-flying Avengers, flown to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, WI. They really are amazingly big airplanes in person. Several of the pilots who fly them bring along their entire family, along with tents, baggage, etc. - everything you'd need for a family camping vacation, including bunks for the junior aircrew, all inside the cavernous hull. The fact that these warbirds are still flying today, and flying safely enough to be used to fly young families around the country - speaks volumes about the toughness, practicality, and overall airworthiness of the Avenger.
The wing folding mechanism is a masterpiece of practical engineering. It seems like it should be too complicated to be practical - but it isn't. It just works, and manages to do its job so much better than anything out there at the time. Good engineering was a true "force multiplier" - by allowing US ships to carry more airplanes and firepower - long before that expression made it into military parlance.
Thanks to Greg and the commenters for adding a bit more to my knowledge of a fabulous - but sometimes under appreciated - WWII veteran.
Quality Subaru dig, Greg. 😂
Really excellent as always with only the slight omission of the Sterling Atlantic service of this aircraft...
keep up the good work!!
Fantastic research and presentation Greg. I'd never asked myself the titular question but your case for the Avenger is very compelling.
I am really enjoying your content and only wish I had discovered it sooner! As an old aircraft mechanic I very much enjoy your deep dives below the "skin" into engines, systems and so forth. I was a P&W radial engine overhaul inspector for a number of years and it's refreshing to watch that content. 1830-92's were my favourites, from DC3's and Cats.
I finally saw one of these at an airshow a few years ago. Quite amazing how large it actually is in real life for a single engine aircraft!
In it what. Huge.
Bigger is always better...it's the American way!
I think Sky Haven air field in Rochester NH had an Avenger when I was a kid, I used to beg my dad to go slow when we drove by so I could look at the big beast. Grumman sure knew their business when it came to carrier aviation.
The Uss Midway in San Diego has one on board.
@@bennettrogers7921 yep! But its always fun seeing a "Turkey" out in the wild instead of just at the "Bird Farm."
Just ran across this excellent video. Gramps was the tail gunner/radioman on a TBF that flew off the Ticonderoga. He was part of CV-14's first crew, embarking in May of '44. He joined at age 17 and actually ENJOYED his time in the Pacific theater (he knew wasn't going to die, according to him). Although the TBF was considered a "glide bomber", his pilot was known to dive it hard when the situation called for it, and pull out at the last second to drop the fish. He told me that based on the noises coming from the plane and the turret gunner, he was happy he couldn't see what the wings were doing during those maneuvers! The Avengers were also extremely survivable, and once his plane was so shot up that the deck crew just pushed it over the side to clear the deck...but that Grumman had made it back and landed cleanly with all hands intact. The only fatality in his plane was a turret gunner who caught a 25mm shell directly from underneath, but again the plane made it back fine. On only one occasion was he worried they may have to ditch. They had parked the Ticonderoga off Ulithi (I believe?) and they launched with zero wind. He said they flew WOT and still couldn't get any altitude and basically followed a shallow glide path to the strip, still touching down a few yards short of the runway!
Well done Greg ….I can tell you did your Homework on this one as always … I never knew the A-26 could carry a torpedo… Thanks 😊
Thanks for the great video on the Avenger. My father was a radioman/bombardier in one flying on the USS Essex in 1944-45. His duties included not only handling the radio, bombing and stinger machine gun, but also the navigation of the aircraft. When he was being trained in Florida, his plane flew into the Bermuda Triangle and the plane’s compass went bonkers. He said he had to navigate back to Florida by listening to the strength of the signal from a Florida AM radio station!
Where was he trained in Florida? Jacksonville? My grandfather was a mathematics teacher and school principal when the war broke out, he enlisted after Pearl Harbor and was commissioned an officer in the Navy and posted to the Jacksonville flight center as an instructor training air crews in the mathematics of navigation, if that's where your dad was trained he might very well have been trained in his navigation course by my grandfather.
The Swordfish must have been a roomy aircraft, as they were crewed by real men with balls the size of cantaloupes. Kudos and respect, Gentlemen!
or Litle malnourished factory boys with cancer balls weighing combined more than the rest of the boy...
seems all to plausible knowing '' the ''british'' ''empire'' ''.... you might be onto smthing there...
Well the small size of the brains of its pilots sort of balanced it out.
It must be the Fairey Swordfish when 21 old biplanes took of from carriers and attacked the Italian battle fleet at Taranto out of 21 planes 19 returned to there ships 2 were lost and only two men died , please look up the battle on UA-cam as they did an awful lot more than damage a couple of battleships .Old they may have been, slow yes but they worked and that’s all that mattered
You would think, but then you realize that they were crewed mainly by brits, who aren’t exactly known to possess excessively large man parts like the Americans, Polish, Australian, and perhaps German pilots
They were flown by young guys who were well scared. I hate this macho nonsense which comes from fascho Americans.
As always, kudos to Greg for his diligent research and presentation of the facts.
Thanks for the video but it's the manuals I am more excited about this time. Either way, I have never regretted being a Patreon.
The manuals are up.
12:15 Something I think not usually forgotten about the Swordfish in this regard is that it was completely replaced as a carrier based torpedo bomber late in 1941 by the Albacore. It continued to have other roles like target tug and ASW patrol aircraft, but it was never again used as a torpedo bomber from fleet carriers. By the time the BPF left for Australia, the Swordfish was long gone.
A true unsung hero workhorse of ww2 and beyond, great video Greg.
Late to the game for a comment... I worked with an Avenger turret gunner when I was a co-op in industry at Baldwin Lima Hamilton, Eddystone, PA in 1967 (while attending Temple U in Philly). The thing he mentioned that really stuck in my memory, was him telling me how many antennas he had shot off this aircraft... was happy to hear you mention that happening in your video!
With regards to the Grumman wing folding design. the compactness was aided by a fairly narrow track on the landing gear that allowed more of the wings to be folded back. It is a tribute to Grumman's engineers that they achieved excellent deck and rough field handling with this narrow track
The Avengers wingfold lives on today in the E2 Hawkeyes wingfold system. The lineage is obvious.
The Grumman engineers probably considered the Avenger to have a wide track given how their earlier aircraft designs like the Wildcat folded the landing gear into the fuselage. ua-cam.com/video/06gXYRRGpkc/v-deo.html
@@bradthomas9629 Yes, the track was definitely wider than the Wildcat or the Grumman biplanes.
That P-38 with a torpedo slung underneath is hilarious. I wonder which genius thought that one up?
As for REAL torpedo bombers, I don't see how anyone can seriously question your conclusion that the Avenger was the premier torpedo bomber.
That said, I don't see how ANYONE can claim that any torpedo bombers were more beautiful than the B5N Kate or B6N Jill. Absolutely gorgeous birds.
Wouldn't P-38s be awesome torpedo bombers, at least land based?
Agreed about the Kate and Jill.
Many years ago, I was visiting a air museum with my Grandfather. We wandered by an Avenger in the collection when stopped and commented that he had been on a few missions as a belly gunner. I thought this was odd, as he was a machine gunner with the New Zealand 3rd Division up in the Pacific Islands and, as far as I knew, New Zealand didn't operate Avengers. He said they didn't but the Americans had a shortage of gunners (!) and because he had been trained on the .50 cal (they were also supplied with US equipment) and he was small, so he volunteered. The deal was that he would get a cut of the booze picked up on the return leg, which he pointed out the bomb bay was most useful in this task.
He rarely talked about his experiences (although he just adored the Americans and the stories he did talk about tended to describe how generous they were) so I asked him what happened. He pointed out that the belly gunner couldn't get out unless the bay doors were open [edit: from what you were saying, this may not be true but he wasn't a trained crewman so, it may have just been his perception] and that the last mission he went on, they were lucky to get back.
He finished by saying, he realised that if they had been killed, he would have been listed as missing because this wasn't officially sanctioned by the New Zealand military and that, as a new father, that would have been unfair on his family.
He is long gone now but, particularly in light of your podcast, I wish I had asked more questions.
Edit: This has got me thinking, if he was the belly gunner, the bombardier wouldn't have been needed as he wasn't trained as such. This has been boggling my mind, if you say this crew format without the need for a bombardier might have been for torpedo attacks.
"He pointed out that the belly gunner couldn't get out unless the bay doors were open [edit: from what you were saying, this may not be true but he wasn't a trained crewman so, it may have just been his perception] and that the last mission he went on, they were lucky to get back. "
Normally the radioman/bombardier would serve as the ventral gunner and would sit behind the pilot if not needed as a gunner at the moment. There was a side door near the ventral gun but I can't imagine trying to get out of that in hurry and in case of a ditching he would have to make his way to his seat behind the pilot. It's really really tight in there. ua-cam.com/video/5o2XccN85ZY/v-deo.html
My late old friend RE Saunders worked at Interstate Aircraft during WW2. Using early television technology, Interstate developed the world’s first cruise missile for anti-shipping missions. An operator in the bombardier section of a TBM guided the missile with a TV screen and remote control. Classified until the late 1980’s.
Ive always had a soft spot for the Swordfish. Thanks for giving her an honorable mention. 😎
The history and continuing story of these beautiful warbirds is a pleasure as well as an education. Well done.
The "Stringbag" (Swordfish) punched way above its weight and the crews liked them despite the lack of protection from even light rain never mind incoming rounds. Agree its not the best, but it was pretty much all we had.
The RN had at least two aircraft better than the Stringbag during the war. The Barracuda, which once they figured out how it was killing it's own aircrew, was a better aircraft. And the Avenger, maybe the best WWII carrier torp bomber of the war.
It sank more tonnage than all other allied planes. Allegedly. Low (difficult to hit), robust, reliable, easy to fly, high load, etc.
Heh heh tea bag drop metal fish best
@@johnhanson5943 Yes Gunston said it was one of the Great combat aircraft in History
The Swordfish succeeded because of the way it was used, but that wouldn't be an option against determined fighter opposition.
Thanks for covering this very important aircraft for the
USN and Royal Navy and the Commonwealth. Great work as always.
Amplidynes or in the UK rotary converters/dynamotors were used in a number of tank and command transceivers such as the British Army 19 set, to increase voltage from 12 or 24V DC to the 275V and 500V high tension required for the receiver and transmitter respectively. They are both noisy and difficult to shield the electromagnetic and radio frequency interference.
Beautiful high-depth pictures here that I've never seen before. Thank you!
The last airial torpedo attack that I know of was an attack or series of attacks on hydroelectric dams in North Korea by Corsairs or Skyraiders. Probably Skyraiders. See Mark Felton for US or American dambusters.
Hard to miss a dam. Maneuvering or not.
Unless the torpedo nets get it. (Hence the whole reason for the bouncing bomb.) Were the NKs not using them?
@@AdmiralQuality The tactile issue was that the North Koreans had just taken the dam, and there was a concern that if they closed the flood gates, they could lower the down stream river depth enough to allow the enemy to cross without a bridge
@@leonardmiyata482 I think you misunderstood the question
@@jackd1582he answered it, nk had just taken it
Gregg, allow me to say that YOU ARE THE MAN. This is an OUTSTANDING video. Very informative, accurate and narrated in a way that kept me mesmerized for the whole lenght of the presentation. I have you know that I am also a history buff and everything that you said was right on the money. I also have you know that the Avenger is my favorite WW II airplane. Once again, AWESOME job. Keep at it. I’ll keep watching. By the way, I just subscribed to your channel.
Regarding American torpedo bombers I always have in the back of my head the debacle with Mark 13 torpedo. It was an issue at the beginning of the war. Torpedo runs were extremely dangerous and thought that even if the pilot would be successful in dropping the torpedo it itself would be faulty is just agonizing.
I don't think it's the "mark 13" you're intending to reference, that would be an ironic designation though!
Greg, I truly respect and admire you and your channel. You are very effective in communicating your vast knowledge base, and these videos and graphics are generally very well done in my opinion. I like how you base your opinions and conclusions on real info. Thank you for your work here. Fascinating.
It seems Japan could only produce 900 (early) -1200 HP radial engines for their aircraft. What about the Japanese industry precluded them from building at higher horse power? What if a Kate, or Zero for that matter, had a 1500 HP or larger engine? Would she then compete with the Avengers? Did Japan also have fuel (low octane) issues like Germany ? I have some tech info about how the Brits and Japanese modified their torpedos for use in shallow harbors. The History Channel got it wrong when they did an episode about Pearl Harbor torpedo attack. It would seem that the modified torpedo help made the aircraft (Kate and Swordfish) successful early in the war. The Kate was considered by some (Shattered Sword - The Untold Story of Battle of Midway) the best torpedo bomber early in the war, but Grumman was cream of the crop by the end. Does the right torpedo make the aircraft or the other way around?
P.S.
B - 17 and B -29 used amplidyne turret systems. Amplidynes are basically DC generators that function as high gain amplifiers. Small control inputs (small error signals) creates large outputs. Very fast response but very heavy system. But then again, hydraulic pumps and motors are heavy also !
-From the top of my head Japanese Navy Aviation Fuel was about 93 RON. Japanese Army Airforce Fuel was a little less 87 RON. Yes the Japanese had octane issues as well. When run on American 100/130 fuel the aircraft could be over boosted and performed much better. They had access to Malaysian and Indonesian Oil. They're own coal to oil plants failed to produce much oil despite German help because they had skipped building a pilot plant in a rush to production. They made some octane in Manchuria using acetylene and collected pine tree cones to make pineol which has a high octane number.
-Amplidynes were the best of the rotating amplifiers eg Ward-Leonard, Metadyne etc. The Germans had an interesting system called the magnetic amplifier. Was eventually used in the B-47 tail gun. A DC bias saturated a transformer and when saturated it would not transfer power. By adjusting a control current the saturation point was changed and fired the inductor.
Hard to imagine a more detailed Video about the Avengers role as a Torpedo Bomber. Thanks Greg, your contribution is outstanding.
I’m always impressed by the variety and quality of your source materials. Graphics in the vintage ads are great. I saw one showing a sinking carrier that looks a lot like Akagi before conversion to a single flight deck.
Regarding Midway, in Shattered Sword, Parshall and Tully have shown pretty convincingly that the conventional narrative that the Zeros were unable to climb back up to meet the SBDs is false. Nonetheless, it is obvious that a multi-axis attack from multiple altitudes greatly complicates defense of a carrier group.
Thanks Gizmo, if you listen carefully you will notice I didn't say the Zero's didn't have time to climb back up, that's not at all what I said, but for some reason it's what people are hearing.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the clarification. I imagine you can tell it's a somewhat contentious topic!
Great, Great, Great!!! Much interesting detail told in a flow that promoted listening attention and understanding (helped putting the pieces together)!
Speaking of the escort carriers and Avengers, the Dauntless didn't have folding wings and therefore wasn't carried on the escort carriers. The Helldiver SB2C wasn't operated off the escort carriers as part of a carrier air group because the Avengers did everything required in concert with the F4F and FM Wildcat fighters. One scheme that never became reality was putting the SNJ on the escort carriers as combat aircraft--by the time the escort carriers were in service, sufficient numbers of Wildcats and Avengers were available.
The Dauntless was actually carried on a small number of escort carriers, early in the war, in addition to Wildcats and Avengers. For example, the USS Santee had some SBDs when they were hunting U-Boats in the South Atlantic in 1943. The Santee was a Sangamon class escort carrier built on an oiler hull, a design that was by far the best escort carrier design of the early war - they had a lot more space both on the flight deck and in the hanger than the escort carriers built on freighter hulls, which was probably why they could carry the dive bombers. The ships also had a lower flight deck which made them more stable than other escort carrier designs. There were only four ships in this class, though they did end up becoming the basis for the late war model of escort carrier. The Sangamons could also carry a lot of fuel thanks to their oiler heritage, and thus could both re-fuel their escorts and stay on patrol for much longer than the others. Several of these ships participated in Torch. See Hunter-Killer: U.S. Escort Carriers in the Battle of the Atlantic by William T. Y'Blood for details.
It's really unfortunate that the US and Royal navies didn't have the foresight to design and operate one or two escort carriers before the war started, as they might have stumbled across something like the Sangamon design early enough to make these the main model for escort carriers - though they might have had issues finding or building enough oiler hulls. Perhaps if they had been willing to pay for extra oiler hulls in peacetime as part of the military buildup before the war they could have rented them out in peacetime then had them available for conversion once war started, possibly with a detailed assembly line already worked out to speed construction. Too much fixation on big carriers ...
What Greg said about relative ease of egress explained a lot of why George H. W. Bush got out of his Avenger, but his two crewmen did not.
Didn't he end up smacking against the vertical stab when exiting the plane? I thought I remember him mentioning that in an interview for a documentary on the History channel (back when it was good).
Also, I am fairly certain they were both dead before he left the plane. But, this is remembering an interview that I watched probably 24 years ago.
@@SlavicCelery Will have to look up the story again in the book "Flyboys" about American Air operations in the Pacific during WW2. The author covered the strike on Chichi Jima and the cannibalism incident there in depth. The future President Bush was very fortunate to be rescued by a submarine.
What I recall was Bush saying he kept calling to the crewmen over the intercom until he had to bail out as the TBM Avenger was about to crash.
I recall reading Ernie Pyle on his time aboard a CV in the Pacific. He said watching landing operations was so awful that only the crewmen who had to be present were anywhere nearby - lurking on the ship's island and so forth. It was controlled crashing. It took decades of WW2 study before I came to appreciate probably more airmen of every nation died from non battle causes than in combat. I read more Bf-109s were lost in takeoffs and landings than in combat, largely due to its high torque load and narrow landing gear. Those were pretty primitive days in aviation, especially for single engined aircraft.
@@amerigo88 Just looked it up, Bush saw two guys bail out, one chute didn't open and it was only a streamer. What happened to the second guy is he ended up on the island.
When Bush was running for office, the New York Times published a story about a submarine crewman who said that Bush abandoned his aircrew by bailing out too soon. The NYT apparently accepted on faith that a squid could tell what was going on in a burning airplane going 300 mph at 20,000 feet but minimal investigation showed the squid wasn't a lookout and would have never seen whatever went on. Turns out he was coached by a opposition misinformation team to tell a false story.
One win for Grumman Iron works. US Navy kept Avengers on their aircraft carriers because Navy doctrine held that torpedo sink ships better than bombs. TBF and TBM avengers were also quite effective in reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare, and even airborne early warning. The primary role of escort carriers was protecting convoys against submarines and hunting down submarines in hunter killer groups.
The Avenger could also lay down a smoke screen and make ships disappear. ua-cam.com/video/06gXYRRGpkc/v-deo.html
Thanks Greg. A really enjoyable video/talk. My father was a British Fleet Air Arm pilot and flew the Avenger(I think the Tarpon name had already been dropped) in WW2. He could not praise it highly enough
Excellent discussion on torpedo bombers of World War Two.
I gotta say Greg ur content is beyond awesome.u really do ur homework on ur topics .if I had money I would have u do ur own channel on tv called the real history channel that is really about history none of the reality crap.ur unbiased content and as close to historically accurate as can be in 2022 talking about ww2 is a gem and I hope u get compensated as well as ur content is
love the content. If you take requests, I'd love to see something on the Helldiver. I've read anecdotal comments about it's poor handling qualities but as your channel has taught me, many cases of those types of comments and articles are quite inaccurate.
"Dauntless Helldivers" is a good book by Harold Buell, a pilot who flew both SBD's and SB2C's. The Helldiver had many early issues that had to be fixed before it could be used in combat. Buell characterized the SBD as a better airplane, but the SB2C as a more capable weapon. He particularly liked having two wing mounted 20 mm cannon when they met Japanese Kates.
son of a b*tch 2nd class was hated by the crews and carrier brass, so much they begged to get the Dauntless back.
Great video once again Greg, thank you. I was browsing a used book sale at a local library some years ago when I spotted a small black vinyl binder that looked out of place among all the other books. I pulled it from the shelf and found myself holding an original POH for the TBF-1. It cost me a dollar.
Dang, that's a good deal. It's pretty special.
Thanks for covering the RNAS Swordfish nicknamed String Bag by its crews. Your absolutely right it was obsolete when it entered WW2 in 1939. However as you said it was combat proven and hit the Bismark's steering gear. Our local museum in the UK has photos of the captured Bismark crew being lead off tenders into captivity. The UK was a world power in 1939 and it was deploring obsolute aircraft which shows we weren't prepared for war. I love some of the rare aircraft that is shown on here - Great video.
The US TBD Devastator was obsolete as well, it had the bad luck to be used where there were fighters around.
@@kudukilla So did the Swordfish. The Scharnhorst and Gniesenau dashed up the English Channel and Swordfish were sent out to attack them. Complete suicide mission with FW190s providing cover from France (I read they had to lower their flaps to reduce speed enough to put enough lead into them before overshooting the slow biplanes). A disaster for brave aircrew who had sunk a lot of Italian shipping.
The Swordfish has the record in tonnage of shipping sunk so it could be argued it was the best. It's ability to operate at night with radar was a key talent. It's ease of takeoff and landing another. The Maximum speed a torpedo bomber could attack was determine mostly by the height and speed limits of the torpedo so the Swordfishes speed disadvantage was not so much as imagined as faster monoplanes were slowed when carrying a torpedo by drag and had to limit speed in any case.
@@williamzk9083 lol
@@williamzk9083By that logic, the P51, F6F Hellcat, BF-190, and FW109 all were better than the Spitfire. I seriously doubt you would agree with that.
Thanks for another great video Greg. I sometimes use these to listen to on my way to sleep, and then put me back to sleep if I wake up, then listen fully in the morning with my coffee. So you get many‘listens’ from me lol
Thanks Bryan.
Thanks Greg for yet another epic video! I appreciate your work in providing such a thoroughly researched and detailed program about what seemed to me to be a rather uninteresting subject which in the end proved facinating.
By the way, how are your automotive projects coming?
As an airplane crazy kid, the Avenger was the first WW2 plane I ever saw in person. My first airshow. Pulled into parking lot , got out and walked toward the field which was shielded from view by hangers and other buildings. We came around the corner of the end hangar and there she sat. At the end of the flightline sat the Avenger. I was amazed at how BIG she is. Book pics and documentary films did not prepare me for what I saw when I came around the corner of that hangar. Spellbound might cover it. 50+ years later, that visual still burns bright..Thanks to the CAF
FWIW: Paul Newman was a crewman on an Avenger in WW2. Found to be color blind he was not allowed pilot training.
Always look forward to your videos! I probably checked youtube every hour after you announced the video would be posting soon. Thanks for putting these together.
Knowing some of these sea battles, I knew the only answer could have been the mighty Avenger, Thanks a bunch for your indepth analysis, highly interesting.
What a very balanced and thorough video! I was very surprised that you considered the swordfish, most people just look at it and laugh even though it was responsible for 4 battleships and was instrumental in causing the Pearl Harbor strike, at least according to Yamamoto.
Greg, great video as always. You did make me sit up with the comment that torpedo bombers had a very narrow window in time. If we define that as an aircraft that drops torpedos in the water to attack enemy vessels (admittedly a broad definition) most sub hunters could be considered torpedo bombers. Of course, they are mostly either land based or helicopters. Off the top of my head, the last carrier based fixed wing aircraft carrying torpedos must be the Viking, the Gannet or the Alize. Still, not the same as the mighty Avenger.
Add Shackleton, Nimrod and your Orion.
@yo yo What airplane do they use (I am assuming we are talking about the USN)? I thought they were down to versions of the F/A-18. Does that carry torpedos?
The other benefit of a torpedo attack on the high side of a listing ship is that the torpedo could do much more damage if it detonated under the belt armour or any torpedo protection the ship might have. Thanks, Greg - that was an engaging presentation as ever.
1:08:29 Damn.... looks like he's missing HALF his wing.
Amazing he's still airborne, let along stabilized!
You need a lot more lift to take-off with bombs,
than to return empty.
Thank you Greg ! Another video very well done
Amplidynes work by using a low power signal to power the field coils of the generator in a motor-generator set. This will then cause the resulting output of the generator to vary proportionally with a higher power level. This enabled a low voltage in the gunners' controller to command a larger voltage from the Amplidyne to move the turret with sufficient authority to track targets.
Like your excellent P-47 series, this video did a great job of explaining why an on-paper (in coffee-table "Planes of WWII" books) unremarkable aircraft did such an excellent job.
Regarding level bombing, Lancasters did have success using Tallboy bombs against the Tirpitz. When it was finally sunk, it was practically immobile but the first raid did succeed in heavily damaging a perfectly sea-going ship - albeit in tight fjords rather than open sea.
Greg, you're the only person I know who takes a video that only needs to be a minute long and can somehow stretch it out to over an hour.
I love it.
Thanks General, for those wanting the short story, I think I knocked it out in the first min. when I said it's the Avenger. However it looks like most of you are sticking around for the long story.
Lol. Greg. The pictorial digs on suburu are hillarious. I just watched the dc 7 video and there was one in there and again here. So funny. And the advanced response to trolls is always entertaining as well. Great content. It is always a pleasure to learn about this stuff.
One of the points people miss in talking about early war TBs and why they generally sucked, is the torpedoes they launched. At the outbreak of war, aerial torpedoes could not be launched at high speed nor high altitude. Doing either one would destroy the torpedo upon impact with the water. Therefore, there was no point for an aircraft designer to specify a high-speed design when the plane would have to slow to a crawl and fly very low to safely launch it's weapons. One of the major reasons the Avenger and other TBs like her were so much more effective, was that by mid-war, the Allies had developed torpedoes that could be dropped at high speed AND high altitude. Thus, her performance was not hindered by the robustness of her main weapon.
Although the Swordfish actually practiced a diving torpedo attack; using the high drag of the biplane design to rapidly slow back to launch speed after a (relatively) high speed dive down to launch altitude.
However you're right that the vast improvements to the launch profile of the mid war or later Mark 13 torpedo were a game changer. One less obvious effect from a higher and faster torpedo release is that you could also release further from the target because the torpedo would arc forward some considerable distance before hitting the water and beginning its attack run. That let Avengers stay mostly out of range of the light AA guns of their target; whereas the early war low and slow launch profile made them carry the torpedo well into light AA range. And since light AA is going to be the most numerous type of AA (because its small size and weight means you can festoon a ship with it) that's a non-trivial survivability bonus right there.
It is an excellent choice Greg; we used them against the Japanese in the Pacific and they served for a long time with the RNZAF.
I'm glad you included your narrative on the Swordfish. It's war time accomplishments are wildly out of proportion to the plane's capabilities.
I feel like the Pratt & Whitney engines in the 40’s and 50’s tended to be better and more reliable than the Wright engines from the same period
The aircraft stated to be a Val in a pic in the middle of the presentation is actually a Mitsubishi B5M torpedo bomber. A small number were built but the Nakajima B5N was chosen instead. B5M had fixed undercarriage like the Val, whose wings folded at the tips unlike the plane shown in the pic. The offset torpedo rack can also be seen in the pic.
Nice job! Your usual thorough research.
As a Brit, The Swordfish is Legendary 👌🏻 But, who could not love a plane called “Avenger!” 😎
I prefer the name "Beaufighter".... Or Whispering Death....
Better than Tarpon (what the FAA called them initially)
My dad worked at Grumman in the late 70s and early 80s. He worked in the warehouse and was responsible for sending the random plane parts to the right section of the factory. He was liked by his bosses so much because he was a good employee that they put him on a company poster. He died in 2012 and I kept that poster for many years. Sadly I think I lost it. I've been looking for a replacement poster for it on eBay but so far I haven't had any luck finding one. I found other posters from that same series of posters Grumman made but I haven't found the one with dad on it. Hopefully one day I'll find the one I had or I'll be able to find a new one.
Great, informative video! I've always felt that, had the US carrier strikes at Midway gone as planned, with the various types staying together for a co-ordinated attack, the TBDs would have avoided the massacre and had a much better reputation as it was retired--the TBFs at Midway were actually part of Torpedo 8, so the squadron was trying to transition to the type.
The US Navy, after Midway, did consciously move away from torpedo strikes to bombing for shipping strikes.
Lastly, the Stringbag was only successful in the absence of enemy fighters. When a squadron went after the German cruisers during their Channel dash, in daylight, they were slaughtered by German fighters.
After the battle of the Coral Sea the US Navy realized their carriers were extremely vulnerable while they had fueled and armed aircraft on board. The feeling going into Midway was to launch as soon as you could once the enemy was sighted or else risk losing it if the enemy attacked first. This meant at Midway the US dive and torpedo attacks from the three US carriers were largely uncoordinated, but ironically resulted in the Japanese CAP (with no radar control) being pulled down low to deal with the torpedo bombers, opening the door for the dive bombers. At the same time the Japanese held up their attack to be able to make a coordinated attack with the correct anti-ship munitions. Three of their four carriers were knocked out before they could launch.
Fletcher dilibertely launched the way he did in hopes of achieving exactly what he did. With Nagumo's carriers coming under constant piecemeal attack, he couldn't spot and launch his planes. It also kept the decks clear so the CAP could rearm, as the Zeros needed to do frequently.
Love your videos. In-depth, we’ll researched and presented from a seat of authority on the topic. Thanks Greg!
I've always wondered why other manufacturers did not copy Grumman's wing-folding design. From what I can tell, the folding sequence never exceeds the aircraft's basic envelope, so no extra headroom is needed. Also, the whole wing always seems to be within the maintenance crew's reach.
Patent probably?
@@WALTERBROADDUS Probably. I know there also was patent feud surrounding the main landing gear of the P-40, which was already used/patented in another airplane.
Grumman kept using the system up to the E-2 Hawkeye.
It's terrible for structural strength from an engineering pov, where the wings join the body is probably the most important structural area and also affects wingtanks etc.
@@jeebus6263 The fuel in single engine aircraft is generally in tanks behind the engine.
Many many thanks for the exceptionally insightful and in-depth technical expertise. Perhaps already commented on, just one additional note on effectiveness of torpedos, namely that the damage is well below the waterline. Not only will that cause an explosion and likely secondary fires but damage to the hull below the waterline means the ship will start to sink.
Another great video. Feeding my need for knowledge. Many thanks!!
Nice, very interesting presentation. Torpedo planes probably had the most difficult mission of all attack aircraft
IMO limiting the contenders to carrier born aircraft discounted the Beaufighter and the Sparviero. In the European theater the proximity of large land masses to large bodies of water allowed for better use of land based torpedo bombers, as you noted with the Swordfish flying out of Malta. Sparviero is of similar vintage as the Swordfish.
Video is already pretty long but I would have liked to have seen these two in the discussion.
If I included those two, I would have had to add in a ton of US, Japanese and German land based torpedo bombers. The video would have more than doubled in length. Plus I really feel that land based torpedo bombers are another category.
Damn right - it might mean you don't get 57 minutes on just how good the Avenger was though compared to the non US made planes that made the first 13 minutes. If the title of the video met the parameters of discussion that might be helpful.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles " Plus I really feel that land based torpedo bombers are another category."
If that means we're getting another video all I can say is shut up Pepper Mill! (and Hudson).
I wonder how the G55 would have performed as a torpedo fighter?
Always appreciate your uploads Greg. Extremely technical, but accessible and interesting at the same time. Thank you as always!
Glad you mentioned the swordfish in a good light far to many people say how bad it was compared to more powerful and modern airframes .but the one part you didn't mention was the swordfish was capable of flying when other aircraft were not especially nigth
Yes, as well as Escort Carriers in the heaving North Atlantic hunting U-boats! This was when NOTHING else could fly, including the Avenger. They were in use against the U-boats right till the end of the war, even after "modern" were available. Claimed to be obsolete, how then, at Taranto were they far more effective PER AIRCRAFT than the Japanese air armada that attacked Pearl Harbour on 7 Dec. 1941. Obsolete my ass!
And he did not mention that the Swordfish sank 4 U Boats in one voyage No Avenger could do a flight of 10 hours to torpedo a ship
Lol @@jacktattis
@@kenneth9874 It did Source Bill Gunston Combat Aircraft and Eric Browns Wings of the Navy mentions more exploits
@@jacktattisbecause they wouldn't have to being well over 100mph faster! 😂😂😂
Thank you for covering who does what. Astonishing when you consider the solo pilot.
Great video Greg, Well thought out and a great presentation of your thoughts and ideas. I would be extremely interested in your thoughts on the XF8B-1 and the XF5U, Have an excellent and safe 2022!
The town that I went to highschool in was right adjacent to the C-W engine factory. An elder teacher there said the noise was deafening even with the berms against the fencing. They shook the town fiercely as well.
Great video! Haven't watched it all yet but already my assumptions about the Grumman Avenger are challenged in a cool way. . .Based on the shape of the aircraft , I always assumed that it was developed more in chronological parallel with the F6 Hellcat. It just looks like it is from that specific "generation" so it is interesting that it kind of predated the Hellcat and yet was a very cutting edge aircraft. Grumman did some very good work.
Beyond an awesome video. Thanks for the hard work and great information. Two weeks of hot reserve is taking its toll and content like this helps pass the time.
I hear you Bill, I'm on reserve myself, I have flight but it keeps getting pushed back.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I am in PDX on R3 until Feb 5th. If you get near Atlanta, let me know and I would like to give you a tour of the CAF’s Airbase GA formerly known as the Dixie Wing. The Dauntless is there along with a Corsair, P-51, P-63, and more. Also, rumors of another plane coming. You may be familiar but if you haven’t already visited, I think you’d enjoy.
I would love to do that. At the moment I'm in HHN.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles tell Michael hi for me and have a plate of Jäger Schnitzel. That is one of my favorites. You will be amazed at the machine shop, hangar, and the Stearman restoration at the CAF. A vote for another restoration project is happening this coming Saturday. If it goes through, and the stars align, a VERY unique airplane may be coming to Airbase GA.