WI: Kido Butai sunk at Pearl Harbor

Markus

Banned
Estimate on performance improvement with the larger engine?

Per CalBear part of modernization would be increased range would assume.


In OTL half of Lex´s TBD were armed with bombs as it was uncertain if the plane could fly over the Own Stanley range in New Guinea with a 2000lb fish. With an engine that generates up to 1/3 more power all TDB would have been armed with torpedoes thus significantly increasing the japanese losses on 10 March 1942. Speed would increase too, no idea to what degree.

You would certainly need to increase the size of the fuel tanks to compensate for the thirstier engine. IIRC the TDB had a range similar to an F4F and since sending in bombers unescorted was not navy policy, more range is not needed.
 
Bismarck had two different AA control systems, one forward and one aft, which the crew was still not completely trained on. The Swordfish survived their strikes on Bismarck because her crew was poorly trained and not because of some mythical They Flew Too Slowly To Aim At nonsense.
No, not quite. Partially incorrect.

The swordfish flew too slowly for the German Fire Control Predictors and as such most of their flak shells exploded too far infront of the aircraft to do any damage. The Swordfish also flew very low (18 ft/5.5 meters) on approch, and as a result most of the Bismarck's AA guns could not depress far enough to engage them.

As to their range.
A Fairy Swordfish under combat load and normal conditiobs could make 546 miles before running out of fuel.
Under the same conditions, the TBD could make 435 miles.
While you say that is only 100 miles more, you are correct. It does however represent a 20% increase in range and that is one hell of a big range increase!
 
No, not quite. Partially incorrect.

The swordfish flew too slowly for the German Fire Control Predictors and as such most of their flak shells exploded too far infront of the aircraft to do any damage. The Swordfish also flew very low (18 ft/5.5 meters) on approch, and as a result most of the Bismarck's AA guns could not depress far enough to engage them.

care to put up some evidence, here? IIRC, Bill is completely correct.
 
I Sank the Bismarck: Memoirs of a Second World War Navy Pilot by John Moffat. He was the pilot that is credited with the torpedo hit that crippled the Bismarck. As he was there, I would believe him over anybody else unless they were there too.

His memoirs say that the flak shells exploded infront of the aircraft or flew harmlessly overhead. This indicates that German Fire Control was doing something wrong with the ranging of the shells, and that either their aiming was crap or they could not depress the guns enough to hit the low flying Swordfish.

As to the torpedo drop height, any technical book on a Swordfish will tell you that.

Other info on the Bismarck's Fire Control System I pulled from Anatomy of a Ship: Bismarck.

You could look under the second paragraph of the Operational History section of the wiki page for the Swordfish too, but that may not be accurate.

Other than that, I am with Warspite. Can you prove what you say?
 
Last edited:
I Sank the Bismarck: Memoirs of a Second World War Navy Pilot by John Moffat. He was the pilot that is credited with the torpedo hit that crippled the Bismarck. As he was there, I would believe him over anybody else unless they were there too.

His memoirs say that the flak shells exploded infront of the aircraft or flew harmlessly overhead. This indicates that German Fire Control was doing something wrong with the ranging of the shells, and that either their aiming was crap or they could not depress the guns enough to hit the low flying Swordfish.

As to the torpedo drop height, any technical book on a Swordfish will tell you that.

Other info on the Bismarck's Fire Control System I pulled from Anatomy of a Ship: Bismarck.

You could look under the second paragraph of the Operational History section of the wiki page for the Swordfish too, but that may not be accurate.

Other than that, I am with Warspite. Can you prove what you say?

The memoirs of a pilot arent usually a technically accurate evaluation.
Your first quote -shells not on target - does not mean it was because of the Swordfishes's slow speed. Its an assumption, there isnt any evidence that was the reason.
I dont see what the drop height has to do with the f/c systems ability to track the aircraft.

perhaps you should ask Bill for proof if you dont believe, his was the original statement - one with which I agree.
 
Other than that, I am with Warspite.



Eternity,

Which isn't surprising. You both routinely post well worn myths under the guise of "research".

Can you prove what you say?

Of course.

German technical historians have recently discovered that the Bismarck's 10.5cm guns were controlled by two different fire-control systems, one forward and one aft. To make matters worse, gun crews were not familiar with either system. The failure to destroy the Albacore and Swordfish attacks is often attributed to the aircraft speed being too low for the fire-control predictor's lower setting; the new evidence suggests that the fire control was not good enough.

Page 152 The World's Worst Warships, Anthony Preston, Conway Maritime Press 2002.

You can read about Anthony Preston here. He was a maritime historian, some neither you, Warspite, or I are. He was also the editor of Conway's Warships annual for a few decades.

Let's just say I'll believe him well before I'll believe you, especially considering what I've seen of your "work" here.

As for Warpsite's lunatic assertion that Swordfish would be anything but flying coffins in the Pacific, why don't you ask a few of the board's aircraft experts like Calbear or Markus?


Bill
 
The memoirs of a pilot arent usually a technically accurate evaluation.
So just to be clear here. You are saying that you do not believe what a man WHO WAS THERE is saying? Were you there? Do you know what happened by virtue of being there? I doubt it. As I have said, I will believe what a man who was there is saying over other people's opinions, so unless you care to tell me who you are, and can prove that you were there I am believing John Moffat as he was there.

German technical historians have recently discovered that the Bismarck's 10.5cm guns were controlled by two different fire-control systems, one forward and one aft. To make matters worse, gun crews were not familiar with either system. The failure to destroy the Albacore and Swordfish attacks is often attributed to the aircraft speed being too low for the fire-control predictor's lower setting; the new evidence suggests that the fire control was not good enough.
You may have noticed that I did not mention anything about there being two fire control systems on Bismarck, and did say that a lack of familarity of the system (Crew training) was also part of the problem. I am aware that crew training will play a big part, and if two systems are in existance there may be conflicts between them.

The other AA systems are not mentioned however. The 10.5cm guns were high angle AA guns and the Swordfish approched form a very low angle! What about her 16 x 37mm AA guns and her 20 x 20mm guns?

I also note that you ignored the comment about the aircraft flying too low for the Bismarck's guns to bear. Where is your evidence that her guns COULD bear on a target 18 ft/5.5 meters above the water at the range which the Swordfish were at?

As to Swordfish being flying coffins, well since they never flew in the Pacific as torpedo aircraft we will never know if they would have been or not I'm afraid. Anything other than that is pure speculation.

The failure to destroy the Albacore and Swordfish attacks is often attributed to the aircraft speed being too low for the fire-control predictor's lower setting; the new evidence suggests that the fire control was not good enough.
Dosn't logic dictate that if the speed of the aircraft was too low for the fire control's predictor setting, then the fire control was indeed not good enough?

That aside however, can you tell me what the new evidence that suggests the fire control system on the Bismarck was not good enough is? How was the fire control system on the Bismarck not good enough in this situation?
 
The Fairy Biplanes were still made of fabric mainly, which looked oldfashioned, but still had its advantages, when under fire. Only fire could effectively destroy the integrity of fabric surfaces, while objects, simply passed through, without making much more damage than a small hole, the size of the object. Metal surfaces, desintigrate and fracture much more, so a rifflebullit calliber round hitting a metal wingsurface, makes more damage than when hitting a fabric wingsurface.

Compared to eachother the obsolete Swordfish and the equally obsolete TBD when under fire with AA artillery, the Swordfish most likely gets through, taking much more hits, while the TBD will not get through, being unable to continue to stay airborn, as her metal skin looses too much integrity. (unless you score a direct hit, with a large caliber round, on the aircrafts engine, or pilot naturally.)
 

Redbeard

Banned
Wasn't much of the air action vs. Bismarck performed in low visibility(dusk)? That may be part of the explanation for inefficient AAA - optical rangefinding sure is much more difficult in low light.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
While the Stringbag never fought the Pacific war, six were shot down over Ceylon by Hiryu's Zeroes.
Doing a bit of "research", I read that the TBD's Vne was 208 mph due primarily to a low speed wing section being selected. A more powerful engine wouldn't make it faster.
The relative range between Stringbag and TBD could be enlarged if the Stringbag substituted a 69 imp. gal. tank for the observer.
Dabbling in machinery comparisons and modifications at this point in the war is rather a waste unless the Zero's air superiority is addressed.
I'm surprised that the Silent Service wasn't more involved in this thread. I seem to recall a JAG TV episode where a submarine sent a radio message before being sunk. The possibility that the flotilla was carrying out exercises in "wolfpack" techniques to get out of having to go to church that Sunday morning, in the launch area, seems a viable answer to this thread's premise.
 
The USN submarines in december 1941 to most of 1943 were not very well equipped with torpedoes, that did do their job propperly. Most ships sunk by them in this period of war was by surfaceaction with cannon and not with torpedoes. This was thanks to mainly the IJN inability to provide propper escorts for the supplylines, making the hunt for Japanese shipping a lot easier.

The four submarines at Pearl Harbor, during the Attack, were too few in numbers to do much against a fast moving target, like the Kido Butai, besides the above mentioned defective torpedoes. Perhaps the Kido Butai could ave been into problems in the Dutch East Indies later in early 1942, as the Royal Netherlands Navy had trained for years with the wolfpack tactic against possible Japanese Navalgroups, including carrier taskforces. Secondly, the Dutch torpedoes were quite reliable, compared to those of the Americans at this stage of war. (and the equally troubelesome British torpedoes of the same period as well.)
 
I just warned you days ago about being an asshole. I'm pretty sure I've warned you about it before. Don't be an asshole.

Kicked for a week.


... But, but Bill Cameron's acid sarcasm is one of his defining characteristics! It's like kicking Hendryk for being a sino-loving frenchman! Or kicking Thande for always being blamed...
 
... But, but Bill Cameron's acid sarcasm is one of his defining characteristics! It's like kicking Hendryk for being a sino-loving frenchman! Or kicking Thande for always being blamed...

Really? I just thought it turned his useful insights into useful insights cum unnecessary unpleasantness.

I would know.
 

Markus

Banned
As for Warpsite's lunatic assertion that Swordfish would be anything but flying coffins in the Pacific, why don't you ask a few of the board's aircraft experts like Calbear or Markus?


Bill

I admit I got no idea if or how much cockpit armour a WW2 Swordfish had but I´m fairly certain the initial design had none.



While the Stringbag never fought the Pacific war, six were shot down over Ceylon by Hiryu's Zeroes.

I forgot about this fight but there is the Endau attack. In spite of a fighter escort more than 50% of the Vildebeest biplanes were lost. Some Albacores, Hudsons and Hurricanes went down too, falling victim to weakly armed obsolescent Ki-27(2*7.7mm).
In the 1942 Channel Dash where Stringbags suffered 100% losses.

Regarding the TBD, acc. to "Shattered Sword" 20mm cannon shells were needed to bring them down.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Japanese discovered early on that the success of a Zero against American aircraft was directly related to how much 20mm the pilot still had available.

It wasn't impossible to kill the American aircraft with .30 cal (7.7mm), a lucky hit could still kill or disable the pilot or manage to hit some vital bit of equipment, but overall, a Zero with only the 7.7mm was much more a nuisance than a threat.
I admit I got no idea if or how much cockpit armour a WW2 Swordfish had but I´m fairly certain the initial design had none.





I forgot about this fight but there is the Endau attack. In spite of a fighter escort more than 50% of the Vildebeest biplanes were lost. Some Albacores, Hudsons and Hurricanes went down too, falling victim to weakly armed obsolescent Ki-27(2*7.7mm).
In the 1942 Channel Dash where Stringbags suffered 100% losses.

Regarding the TBD, acc. to "Shattered Sword" 20mm cannon shells were needed to bring them down.
 
Top