Your favorite biplane British WW2 Torpedo plane begining with S

A new thread to allow full and frank discussion on everybody's favourite biplane British WW2 Torpedo plane begining with S - the magnificent Swordfish - the most important plane in WW2.

The Swordfish was responsible for
1) Sinking the Bismark - which meant that the surface German Navy spent the rest of the war in port.
2) The attack on Taranto - an attack which not only effectively neutered the Italian navy in the Med, but was also the inspiration for the attack on Pearl Harbour, thus causing Japan and therefore the US entering the war.
3) Was a major part of the air power that effectively won the Battle of the Atlantic - the only battle the British and therefore the Allies could not afford to loose.

So this remarkable plane could arguebly be the saviour of civilisation as we know it.....and thus deserves a thread of its very own.:2thumbsup:

It is with great satisfaction, that I join in with such a witty fellow to sing the praises of this post WWI (can I say that?) aircraft. :beam:

How about the scintillating specifications of this sleek machine used in such a sanguine way?

Quote:

---

* Crew: Three (pilot, observer, and radio operator/rear gunner)
* Length: 35 ft 8 in (10.87 m)
* Wingspan: 45 ft 6 in (13.87 m)
* Height: 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m)
* Wing area: 542 ft² (50.4 m²)
* Empty weight: 4,195 lb (1,900 kg)
* Loaded weight: 7,720 lb (3,500 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Bristol Pegasus IIIM.3 or XXX radial engine, 690 hp (510 kW) (750 hp (560 kW) for Pegasus XXX)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 138 mph (222 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m)
* Range: 546 mi (879 km)
* Ferry range: 1,025 mi (1,650 km)
* Service ceiling: 19,250 ft (5,870 m)
* Rate of climb: 1,220 ft/min (6.2 m/s)

Armament

* Guns: * 1 × fixed, forward-firing .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers machine gun in engine cowling
* 1 × .303 in (7.7 mm) Lewis or Vickers K machine gun in rear cockpit
* Rockets: 8 × "60 lb" RP-3 rocket projectiles (Mk.II and later)
* Bombs: 1 × 1,670 lb (760 kg) torpedo or 1,500 lb (700 kg) mine

---

Wkikipedia

I wonder if the maximum speed was with or without the Torpedo?:wings:

Nisssssssse to see so many S's:laugh4:

The Swordfish was painfully slow - I remember reading an account of one of the battles in the Med where a flight of Swordfish were chasing the Victoria Venetto - the Italian Battle ship - who was making over 35 knots into a strong head wind. Apparently the combination of the wind and the speed of the ship made it difficult for the Swordfish to catch up!!

She could only be effective when there was no fighter opposition, but she was an amazing weapon platform when that was the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Kurt

Nisssssssse to see so many S's:laugh4:

The Swordfish was painfully slow - I remember reading an account of one of the battles in the Med where a flight of Swordfish were chasing the Victoria Venetto - the Italian Battle ship - who was making over 35 knots into a strong head wind. Apparently the combination of the wind and the speed of the ship made it difficult for the Swordfish to catch up!!

She could only be effective when there was no fighter opposition, but she was an amazing weapon platform when that was the case.

---

Have you seen that old classic film Sink the Bismark? The scenes of the Swordfish taking off from the HMS Ark Royal show what looks like a take off run of about 15 to 20 feet. I don't know how the Swordfish pilot's could manage to land on such a pitching deck, as one of a carrier in the North Atlantic must ptich like a bucking horse, but they must have had an amazing slow stall speed.

:sweatdrop:

The slow speed was part of the success factor -- lots of time to line up the shot. Moreover, being an old-school bipe with "fabric" wings, it was actually a bit harder to knock down with flak than you would expect -- certainly it wasn't any MORE vulnerable than all of the other torp bombers.

It's only realy failing was range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The slow speed was part of the success factor -- lots of time to line up the shot. Moreover, being an old-school bipe with "fabric" wings, it was actually a bit harder to knock down with flak than you would expect -- certainly it wasn't any MORE vulnerable than all of the other torpedo bombers.

It's only real failing was range.

---

I just can't for the life of me figure out how the German anti aircraft gunners on board the Bismark could have missed. Didn't the Germans excel in gunnery optics and range direction? Captain Lindemann should have kicked the gunnery officers rear end, and fired a few Petty Officers after the first attack. Sheeesh!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

PS: Slightly off topic remark warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

I just can't for the life of me figure out how the German anti aircraft gunners on board the Bismark could have missed.

---

I think the problem was the equipment was calibrated for higher speed aircraft than the Swordfish, so they aimed too far forwards. I'm open to correction though.

A lot of little things contributed to this I think.

1. Flavius is likely right. Most of their training would have been with towed targets with planes doing 150-250 mph. Moreover, Swordfish would have been a very small target. Operating according to the "drill" may have had them leading these small targets way too much.

2. While the optics on the Biz were excellent, I don't believe they had radar gunnery for any of the tertiary armament. Nor were visibility conditions good for gunnery. Dicey weather may be miserable for TO&L on a carrier, but was ideal for torpedo planes on the attack.

3. Simply didn't have the volume of fire that was necessary. The convoy battles to Malta and Archangelsk, along with Coral Sea and Midway, had yet to occur. Take a look at the amount of AA retrofitted to all of the battlewagons in 42-44 as evidence. Biz mounted 76 AA-class tubes, only 16 of which were in the near 40mm range. Most were 20mm, though 16 were 105s in double mounts. These were good weapons with high angle mounts. Oddly, Biz did not mount the proven 88mm AA weapon so ubiquitous in most of the rest of the German armed forces.

By contrast, the New Jersey mounted 129 AA tubes, 80 of which were 40mm. This was in addition to the 5" DP secondaries. Kongo was retrofitted to mount 118 25mm guns plus here DP tertiaries.

4. Altitude fuses. They could do altitude fuses to blow up at a set altitude, contact fuses, or timed fuses. The Germans did NOT have the proximity fuse just then being developed (and which was VITAL to late war naval AA effectiveness.

Quote:

---

3. Simply didn't have the volume of fire that was necessary. The convoy battles to Malta and Archangelsk, along with Coral Sea and Midway, had yet to occur. Take a look at the amount of AA retrofitted to all of the battlewagons in 42-44 as evidence. Biz mounted 76 AA-class tubes, only 16 of which were in the near 40mm range. Most were 20mm, though 16 were 105s in double mounts. These were good weapons with high angle mounts. Oddly, Biz did not mount the proven 88mm AA weapon so ubiquitous in most of the rest of the German armed forces.

---

Here is the Anti-Aircraft weapons and their data from: http://www.kbismarck.com/armament.html

Quote:

---

Heavy Anti-aircraft Battery.

Designation: 10.5 cm SK C/33
Number: 16 (2 x 8) in 4 double mounts by side
Barrel length (L/65): 6.825 meters
Barrel weight: 4.56 metric tons
Mount weight: Mounting C31: 27.350 metric tons
Mounting C37: 26.425 metric tons
Elevation range: Mounting C31: between -8° and +80°
Mounting C37: between -10° and +80°
Angular velocity: Mounting C31: vertical: 10°/sec, horizontal: 8°/sec
Mounting C37: vertical: 12°/sec, horizontal: 8.5°/sec
Rate of fire: 18 rounds/minute/barrel
Maximum range: 17,700 meters = 19,357 yards
Vertical range: 12,500 meters at 80º
Muzzle velocity: 900 meters/second = 2,952 feet/second
Shell weight: 15.1 kg = 33.1 lbs
Ammunition supply: 6,825 shells

Medium Anti-aircraft Battery.

Designation: 3.7 cm SK C/30
Number: 16 (2 x 8) in 4 double mounts by side
Barrel length (L/83): 3.071 m
Elevation range: between -10º and +80º
Rate of fire: 80 rounds/minute/barrel
Maximum range: 6,750 meters = 7,382 yards
Muzzle velocity: 1,000 meters/second = 3,281 feet/second
Shell weight: 0.745 kg = 1.64 lbs
Ammunition supply: 34,100 projectiles

Light Anti-aircraft Battery.

Designation: 2 cm MG C/30
2 cm Flak C/38
Number: 10 (1 x 10) in 10 single pedestals
8 (4 x 2) in 2 quadruple mounts
Barrel length (L/65): 1.3 meters
Elevation range: +90º
Rate of fire: 200 rounds/minute/barrel
Maximum range: 4,800 meters = 5,249 yards
Muzzle velocity: 900 meters/second = 2,952 feet/second
Shell Weight: 0.132 kg = 0.291 lbs
Ammunition supply: 44,000 projectiles

---

I could agree about the 8 dual 105 mounts, being that they are really meant for high angles of attack. I am a bit dismayed to look at the numbers of medium and light pieces, and think that they could not have done a bit better. Even though they are not up to the numbers carried in later war battleships, there is still a pretty impressive amount of lead capable of firing at fairly low angles here. I think the fault may have been in training and experience of the gun crews. I think that there must have been a high proportion of new sailors aboard the Bismark. I also think that they had not been adequately trained against torpedo plane attacks. Of course this is highly speculative, but it seems logical that with that much lead going down range, at least one or two of the total of 19 Swordfish (9 in the first, and 10 in the second attack) should have been knocked down. As it was, it was Swordfish 4, Bismark 0.

I must admit, that this is consistent with footage I've seen of Japanese planes flying through huge volumes of fire, perhaps three times as much as the Bismark was capable of putting up, and surviving to deliver their death blows.

A lot of the 20mm stuff would have had comparatively little time to fire. Torpedos were released as much as a mile from the target, and never less than 400 yards or so (arming requirements). Even at 100mph, the time from sighting (in mixed visibility conditions) to release of weapon would not have been long. Doesn't explain why they didn't bag a few on the follow through, though.

I think the visibility and the weather played quite a part. The second attack was in conditions of near darkness - gone 9 o'clock at night in May and poor weather - wind was force 7 so the sea must have been quite rough. Also the torpedo plane's biggest enemy was the fighter - it was the Zero in the battle of Midway which did all the damage against the Devastator attacks - and the Bismark did not have that weapon in its armoury. Also the Germans did not have proximity fuses at that time in the war, so the bigger guns were at a disadvantage.

However the attacks on the Bismark are incredible feats of arms and bravery. To fly a fragile looking plane like the Swordfish with little modern flying aids off a pitching deck in the middle of the Atlantic to attack a modern battleship in conditions of near darkness is truely amazing. The fact that one of those 10 aircraft actually achieved the key hit of the total engagement - the one on Bismark's rudder that meant she could not control her steering - is quite remarkable. For all our discussions about equipment and what it can or can't do, it is these pieces of good fortune coupled with bravery which seem to be the turning point in so many of these actions.

Let's be honest here, though - the planes the RN was saddled with (largely thanks to the chronic, and *still* ongoing, inter-service rivalry with the RAF) were really pretty crappy, even by the standards of the time. The Swordfish was among the *better* of the lot, which is saying something as it was really pretty lackluster by the standards of period torpedo bombers...

Its successes regardless should IMHO really be attributed more to two or so foactors; first, the RN knew its business and trained its crews very well; and second, capital warships just plain were horrendously vulnerable to aircraft - as would become painfully apparent in the Pacific in particular. This was, after all, specifically the period when it began dawning to the more forward-thinking naval theorists that the aircraft carrier was rapidly eclipsing the big-gun ships as the core of fleet combat power...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Let's be honest here, though - the planes the RN was saddled with (largely thanks to the chronic, and *still* ongoing, inter-service rivalry with the RAF) were really pretty crappy, even by the standards of the time. The Swordfish was among the *better* of the lot, which is saying something as it was really pretty lackluster by the standards of period torpedo bombers...

Its successes regardless should IMHO really be attributed more to two or so foactors; first, the RN knew its business and trained its crews very well; and second, capital warships just plain were horrendously vulnerable to aircraft - as would become painfully apparent in the Pacific in particular. This was, after all, specifically the period when it began dawning to the more forward-thinking naval theorists that the aircraft carrier was rapidly eclipsing the big-gun ships as the core of fleet combat power...

---

Very true. It always has astounded me that Mr. Churchill was so keen to send the HMS Prince of Wales and company off on there own from Singapore, knowing what the RN Swordfish accomplished against the SMS Bismark. Did he not think that the Japanese had such a capability? Was he not aware of what thier aircraft accomplished in China? Perplexing.

It's not Like GB had carriers aplenty in the pacific to send though (did they have any?). And they might have thought carriers were better for protecting shipping? Probably just had to do something...

ASW Sunderland with "Fido" homing torpedo!!!
not a biplane but I can't help saying it!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

It's not Like GB had carriers aplenty in the pacific to send though (did they have any?). And they might have thought carriers were better for protecting shipping? Probably just had to do something...

---

I surmise that many of the things that Mr Churchill ordered his military to do at that time were a bit like symbolic gestures. The British high command could have at least ordered up better air cover for two such important symbols of British Naval might, don't you think?

Quote:

---

I surmise that many of the things that Mr Churchill ordered his military to do at that time were a bit like symbolic gestures.

---

Exactly.
When Churchill was running the admiralty he produced the report that said sending any less than 8 battleships to the far east would be a waste of effort , also that they shouldn't be sent without aircraft carriers, and to top it all off they shouldn't be based at Singapore at all but rather the safer base in Sri Lanka.
For Chuchill to order the deployment flies in the face of the very report he had commissioned. For not cancelling the deployment while the ships were in S.Africa and it had become obvious that they had lost their carrier and any prospect of getting a replacement is really quite beyond belief .
The only good news from the whole debacle was that Churchills idea of adding HMS Centurion to force Z was overuled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Exactly.
When Churchill was running the admiralty he produced the report that said sending any less than 8 battleships to the far east would be a waste of effort , also that they shouldn't be sent without aircraft carriers, and to top it all off they shouldn't be based at Singapore at all but rather the safer base in Sri Lanka.
For Chuchill to order the deployment flies in the face of the very report he had commissioned. For not cancelling the deployment while the ships were in S.Africa and it had become obvious that they had lost their carrier and any prospect of getting a replacement is really quite beyond belief .
The only good news from the whole debacle was that Churchills idea of adding HMS Centurion to force Z was overuled.

---

Thanks Tribe. Maybe they should have put Ole' Winney in a Swordfish during the attack on the Bismark. Then he might have thought twice about the invulnerability of capital ships to aircraft. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Thanks Tribe. Maybe they should have put Ole' Winney in a Swordfish during the attack on the Bismark. Then he might have thought twice about the invulnerability of capital ships to aircraft. :beam:

---

Never imagine that Churchill would be dissuaded by a practical demonstration of danger. His follies as PM were many, disregard for personal safety being one of them. If someone suggested putting him in a Swordfish for an attack on the Bismarck, he'd likely be thrilled by the prospect of getting a front seat for a shafting of the Germans. Remember he wanted to be over the beaches on D-Day, overruling his staff's protests, and was only dissuaded when the King insisted on being on the same plane if he was going.

One of my favourite stories involves Churchill dining on the side of the Rhine with his chief of staff, while the frontline was not far off. After the dinner, he calmly walked to the riverbank, undid his trousers, and pissed in the Rhine.

I am reminded here that cynics occasionally point out Winnie may have started getting a bit senile around the time and was often rather sickly - details understandably not exactly advertised to the general public at the time - which would certainly go some ways to explaining some of his odder decisions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One of my favourite stories involves Churchill dining on the side of the Rhine with his chief of staff, while the frontline was not far off. After the dinner, he calmly walked to the riverbank, undid his trousers, and pissed in the Rhine.

---

Brilliant!

Force Z included a carrier (Victorious, I believe) but because of engine troubles it had to return home. Thus PoW and Repulse where easy targets.

The carrier struck a reef in the Bermudas I think.

edit: I made a quick search and the carrier was HMS Indomitable

Bismark shot at the Swordfish with her main guns, trying to knock them out of the air with the splashes.

I'm more a fan of the Skua.
Not quite as outdated a design as the Swordfish, they were the Fleet Air Arms' first monoplane.

Skua was a dive bomber, not a torpedo plane. But it was too a nice exemple of british esthetics anyway: awesome to say the least.

Yes, sorry I was going to say that it was a fighter/dive bomber.
Got the first UK air kill of the war too.

I like the Skua because its so astoundingly ugly that it becomes kinda cute.