Your favorite biplane British WW2 Torpedo plane begining with S

[King Kurt]

Nisssssssse to see so many S's

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.

[rotorgun]

Nisssssssse to see so many S's

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.

[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 torp bombers.

It's only realy failing was range.

[rotorgun]

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.

[Flavius Clemens]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[rotorgun]

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

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.