I am from Uruguay, 85. Very good video. Believe it or not I saw Avengers (and Hellcats) in operation back in the fifties. They had been acquired by our Armada in the US, and were based at the Capt. Curbelo Base here, about 70 miles east of MVD. I spent holidays at my aunt's house in Maldonado near the base, and spotted these blue painted machines from a hill. If you come to Punta del Este (PDP) by air, you will land at this very place --the base still exists, Avengers & Hellcats do not, just small transport & training planes share the airport with commercial aircraft.
Dad was a TBF-1c driver with 852 Squadron Fleet Air Arm. After training and forming-up the squadron in the States, they were deployed against Tirpitz in Alten and Kaa Fjord, Norway, whilst embarked on board HMCS Nabob. . an escort carrier . . . The carrier was torpedoed off the Norwegian coast, but the crew managed to get it to the Firth of Forth for a beaching, but only after the commander flying and his no 2 took off from the heavily listing carrier, which was also down at the stern, to mount a 4 hour anti-submarine patrol to thwart the trailling submarine which would have otherwise closed on the carrier and finished it off. On completion of the patrol and In atrocious weather, the two aircraft made it back to the carrier. The no 2 came on board without in incident but the commander flying crashed on the deck, causing the bomb bay to open and an armed one ton depth charge to fall-out and roll down the heavily sloping and listing deck. Luckily members of the Canadian ships crew managed to arrest the depth charge's travel - if it had fallen off the stern, the explosion would have finished-off the carrier. Unfortunately, in the crash, the commander flyings Avenger hit other aircraft still parked forward, damaging one beyond repair. This aircraft was later dispatched over the side into the Barents Sea... dad's aircraft. The landing-on in incident was commemorated in an oil painting which, I understand was hanging in the ward room of HMS Ocean, until she was decommissioned in the early 2000s This dit does have a bitter-sweet ending. The carrier was written-off and so some of the squadrons aircrew were deployed to the British Pacific fleet. Unfortunately the former No 2 to commander flying of 852 was posted to one of the squadrons on a fleet carrier and was subsequently killed when a kamikaze Mitsubishi zero crashed on deck whilst he was nearby in his aircraft . . .he suffered flash burns from the explosion and succumbed two weeks later. The commander flying of 852 found himself posted to Sydney, Australia, together with other members of 852 but unfortunately were not deployed to action before the end of the war with Japan. The commander flying was somewhat peeved and was further annoyed by a subsequently issued order banning military aircraft flying under the Sydney Harbour bridge, at pain of Courts-martial, following a complaint made by the Sydney Harbour Master. Such that during the V-J Day flypast over Sydney, said commander flying peeled-off and took the whole squadron, in formation, under the bridge, whilst gesturing the "Sailor's fair-well" in the harbour-master's office direction . . . .the state of flux being what it was post war . . .no action was taken ! Again, this is the subject of another commenorative painting:- n5490.org/Pilots/Bradshaw/Bradshaw.html Bradshaw had previously risen through the ranks of 826 squadron at the time when the comedic actor Peter Butterworth had flown aircraft with that squadron.
years ago I stopped in at a BBQ joint in Ruston, LA. there was a model of an Avenger hanging from a string. I asked the owner about it, and he said he flew in one as the rear gunner off of escort carriers in the Atlantic. He said the scariest he had ever been was facing backwards during night landings on the small aircraft carriers. Said he had not flown since.
Greetings from America. As someone who has been to many military aviation shows, as well as the reknowned USAF museum at Wright Pattetson AFB here in my home state of Ohio, I can attest that the Avenger is one monster of a plane. In fact, it was the largest single engine combat plane built for WW2. I'm glad you Brits got to use these planes to good effect, as they were in good hands. After all, it was your navy that figured out how to use our designed and developed F4U Corsairs off a carrier after the US Navy gave up trying. That's really saying something for the ingenuity of the Royal Navy.
Even when deprived of their original purpose (US torpedoes were almost worthless) it was such a versatile and adaptable craft that it continued to be used well after the war was over and torpedoes were utterly obsolete. Mine laying... sub hunting... supply drops... advanced recon... glide bombing... there was very little they couldn't do apart from dogfight. My grandfather was the copilot/radioman/belly-gunner in one of these planes (Marine Squad 232: the Red Devils). I wish he'd told us more about his service before he passed.
My great great uncle flew in TBF/TBM Avenger during WWII in Pacific, he was onboard USS Cabot (CVL-28) as radioman onboard the Avenger, he said that the aircraft was so huge for WWII carrier aircraft, he said he can fit 2 more guys in a seated position inside the bomb bay or the underbelly part of the aircraft, where the .30 Machine gun was at.
Glad those English pilots liked the TBM. They might like to know the Avenger that led the RCN flyover at Queen Elizabeth's coronation is still in the air honoring the men and women who built and flew the Avenger. NL53503 is my fun time job
This episode it so good I've watched it twice. Thinking about the British choice to use in-line engines in carrier planes, it seems mostly determined by the RAF. My dad was an aviation machinist's mate, USNR. He always said that the in-line engines, favored by the US Army Air Force, were too "fiddly" to be used aboard an aircraft carrier. "We didn't have time to fool with water-jackets and all that mess". Radial engines were simpler, and that's what the USN had learned over a dozen years of operating big carriers. The RAF owned the Fleet Air Arm until about 1938, so it learned nothing about design for carrier aircraft because it did not care. It is amazing that that the FAA built out its air crews as quickly as it did as the war began. Aircraft design took longer. As it was, the USN needed all the Wildcats it could get, as Grumman began to turn build them in 1940 and 1941. The RN had wanted a combination torpedo plane and dive bomber, so it could use neither of the USN's specialized TBx and SBx aircraft. ArmouredCarrier explained, once, that this derived from the smaller hangars that the RN built into its armored carriers: with an armored hangar, designed for defense, the air group needed to deliver either torpedo strikes or dive bombing strikes depending on the targets. The USN had judged, in the 1930s, that its next war would be against Japan, across the Pacific. The USN would face Japanese-held islands, but the islands would be widely separated. The RN expected to fight in the North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean, where it would face too many airfields -- smash one and planes could move in from another. Therefore, the RN leaned toward armor-protection for its hangars. The USN wanted as many aircraft as possible. This "hit them first and as hard as possible" strategy was reinforced by results of several Fleet Problems -- discussed in a Drachinifel episode -- in which carrier aircraft bombed Pearl Harbor or bombed the "enemy" fleet before the fleets got into gun range. Different enemies led to different-sized air groups.
Thanks for another great video. The TBF/M has always been a favorite-all the Grummans were favorites. The TBF was produced by Grumman on Long Island, NY and the TBMs were built by General Motors after the Grumman plant switched over to building Hellcats. I believe the GM plant was in Tarrytown, NY. I have been past the old Bethpage Long Island plant location many times. The first time I got close up to an Avenger I was stunned at the huge size of the aircraft, it must have been a handful on an escort carrier. Thanks again!
The Avenger appears to have come in for a good deal of criticism from the British for not being a good dive bomber, especially in comparison with the Fairey Barracuda. However, it should be borne in mind that, unlike the Barracuda, the Avenger was never designed to include dive bombing in its' operational repertoire. However, the Avenger could, as was, very effective as a "glide-bomber". During the pre-war period the U.S. Navy required three types of aircraft for use aboard their aircraft carriers: "Fighters", "Torpedo/bombers" (which meant torpedo-dropping and level, not dive, bombing) and "Scout Bombers" (which meant reconnaissance and dive-bombing). However, as a result of wartime experience with the small escort carriers, which could accommodate only a limited number of aircraft and spare parts, the Navy quickly reduced the air groups on their smaller carriers to only Fighters and Torpedo/Bombers because the Navy found that there was very little that the "Scout Bombers" could do that the Avengers could not already do just as well, if not better. In addition, although never designed with that specific role in mind, the Avenger proved to be much more adaptable to the anti-submarine role than any of the "Scout-Bombers", such as the Douglas SBD or Curtiss SB2C.
Another superb episode, Armoured Carrier! I think I remember reading that the British torpedo would not fit in the Avenger, which would explain why the FAA would have used American torpedoes on the rare times that they wanted to use the Avenger as a torpedo plane. (Maybe read that in one of the accounts of "Victorious" serving in the South Pacific in 1943).
It's like the F4 Phantom. Give a brick a big enough engine and you can make it fly. Like the F4 and the A10 its big, beautiful and well hung. The right aircraft for both the USN and the RN at the time. Considering that some of them saw service well into the 1960's calling them good enough is an understatement.
Biggest problem for US torpedo planes at Midway: no fighter escorts, except for Yorktown's strike. And, of course, the torpedoes did not work well. The TBD was not very good, but delivered some hits at Coral Sea.
@@georgekraus9357 The _Musashi_ and _Yamato_ would like a word with you. _Shohi_ and _Yahagi_ might also have something to add. 😉 (It is unfortunately true that the Mark XIV was terrible, though, and for far too long.)
Very few Avengers were actually TBFs. Grumman was at capacity building F6F' Hellcats while developing the F8F Bearcat and the twin engined F7F Tigercat. Most Avengers and Wildcats were TBM's and FM's built by G.M.s Eastern Aircraft Division.
Yes thats right. A shame there are no flying TBFs because they are so rare whereas the TBM-3 was in much larger numbers. Here in New Zealand we have four surving TBFs from the 48 we got during the war(mainly because we used them for target towing postwar and proved the top-dressing of farm land concept) and I was lucky enough to be on the restoration team for NZ2504 for the RNZAF Museum. Even got to ground run her a few times (this was in 1979/80). Being my first WW2 aircraft restoration I become very attached to the type!
You really do impress. I dunno how you won so much relevant footage and married it so well to the dialogue. I wish I had big bucks to donate to your work. You deserve reward, this is very talented and worthy work. Thank you for preserving and honouring this history and thank you for providing it for free. Beautiful and fascinating episode. Cheers!
Wow. High praise indeed. Thanks very much. Mostly, though, I'm doing it for myself. I wanted to "see" what these guys were talking about. And the footage exists - just scattered all over the place in often mistitled productions ... So I collect and sort ... Some stories remain unpublished as I've not yet found enough relevant footage. But I live in hope!
@@ArmouredCarriers Well I love it. Especially the way you allow these histories to reveal themselves and not insert a bias or narrative. Alack and Alas: So many unwatchable "RU-vid history channels" do this and pollute their subject. Please keep up the good work matey!
"Good enough" was risky - but an enticing bit of controversy perhaps slightly justified by it not trying to be all things to all people - like the Barracuda.
@@ArmouredCarriers It was an inspired title. The stolid and sturdy Avenger was similar to the Hellcat. Not as flashy as the Corsair or the Seafire, it did the job efficiently, reliably and resolutely. It is the one I would choose to fly hundreds of miles over water to combat and return. Of the hundreds of F6F pilots who trained here on Maui at Pu’unene and signed the Von Temsky wall (at the naval air museum now), many survived and owed their life to that Grumman that was “good enough”. Aloha!
I've been flying this in Enlisted for few days now, very special airplane as it's slow in speed but very good turning, making it strangely nice to fly as it's very effortless to keep in air even being slow. Armament is pretty unusual too with it's heavy mg and light mg towards back and couple heavies to front, good bombs too! (2x 500 pounders)
The enemy of success is perfect, because it takes so much longer. You can have it good, fast or cheap, or any two of those. Americans will sacrifice somewhat on cheap depending on the situation, especially in wartime, followed by good. Fast is paramount. When Desert Shield cooked up in 1990, we threw a system that had never seen combat into the fray as a prototype, the JSTARS that could see moving target indicators generated by Iraqi Army unit movements. It performed brilliantly, but it was a risk as an untested aircraft.
Not good enough. Almost certainly the best carrier torpedo to be produced in quantity during WWII. Easy to fly so you could concentrate on the attack. Thanks to the internal bomb bay it's approach speed was faster that bombers that had a higher listed speed, since it didn't have all the parasite drag of a torpedo hanging outside. When you are flying in with heavy antiaircraft fire getting to the drop point fast could save your life. A Devastor chasing a carrier moving at 30 knots only had a closing speed of about 60 knots. In the same situation and Avenger would be closing 3 times as fast.
Best because it followed a "good enough" design strategy. It didn't try to be all things to all people - such as the Barracuda. So it found a very effective balance.
@@ArmouredCarriers The Navy and Grumman certainly chose and pursued a reasonable number of requirements. Of course, the US had the luxury of money to spend and capacity in carriers. In terms of cost and space they could afford to have torpedo/level bombers, dive bombers, and fighters. Deck parking also helped; the Pacific is not usually as savage as the North Atlantic.
I often wonder if the Barracuda would have fared better if it had been designed and built to take the later Bristol Hercules engines or early Bristol Centaurus engines, both radials. The later Hercules engines on Halifax and Beaufighters had the same nominal power output as the Merlins in the Barracuda, but may have helped with the power issues in the hot climates. It is an interesting thought experiment whether it would have made it more reliable.
The Barracuda might have had a fighting chance if it had been fitted with a more powerful air-cooled radial engine such as the Bristol Hercules which would have been better suited to hot and humid tropical conditions than liquid cooled in-line engines such as the RR Merlin and Griffin. Most likely if the Hercules was ever considered as a powerplant for the Barracuda it was ruled out due to the large number of engines of that type already earmarked for bomber (Wellington, Stirling, Lancaster, Halifax) and Beaufighter production.
I'm always amazed, and disappointed, that a country that produced the Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster could not produce a quality carrier aircraft until the Sea Fury which was near perfection but too late!
@@well-blazeredman6187 This channel has a great account about the Hurricanes that were flown onto the _HMS_ _Glorious_ to be evacuated from Norway. No tailhooks, so they weighted the tails with sandbags so they could apply full braking without nosing over. I highly recommend listening to those stories. Necessity is most definitely the mother of invention!
@Tango6nf The Fleet Air Arm was definitely treated like a red-headed stepchild. They had less resources and were limited to different manufacturers and engines compared to the RAF.
Because until 1939 the Fleet Air Arm was part if the RAF, not the Royal Navy. As such it was the RAF that decided what the FAA flew, and Carrier aircraft were extremely low on the list of priorities for the RAF who were concentrating on Fighters and Strategic Bombers. Hell Churchill had to literally force the RAF to assign more long range heavy bombers to Coastal Command because they were refusing to, despite the obvious dangers the Atlantic campaign posed to British supplies! Even after the RN regained control of the FAA in 1939, the FAA were still low priority, and more than one very promising aircraft was cancelled essentially because the RAF refused to allow the FAA to use specific engines. Supermarine for example designed a Carrier Fighter that while based on the Spitfire was in most respects a completely different aircraft. Because it used the RR Merlin the RAF essentially killed the project, forcing the FAA to look at Sea Hurricanes and Seafires, neither of which were designed for the rigours of carrier operations. So yes, in essence there was nothing wrong with the British when it came to being able to design such aircraft, everything wrong with the RAF's constant refusal to allow resources they saw as 'theirs' be used elsewhere. The FAA had to fight tooth and nail for every single RR Merlin they were allocated, and, as I said, some promising aircraft were literally dropped because the RAF said no.
@@alganhar1 A lot of the problems with aircraft and tank design were an effect of lack of investment in modern machine tooling and in engine development between the wars. The competition for engines and production capacity killed off many promising projects. When you compromise on one aspect of a design, particularly the engine, there is a chain of negative effects on other aspects of the design.
Forget about the concept "the country that designed the Spitfire". The RAF demanded the design of the Hurricane and Spitfire and the rest, as well as all the aircraft the RN FAA has in September, 1939. And the RAF disliked the idea of aircraft carriers, believing that its bombers in Coastal Command would cover all the seas and oceans around Britain. In contrast, the USN never lost control of its aircraft. The USN defeated the famous Billy Mitchell, who "demonstrated" that level bombers from the Army could sink a German battleship. Of course, the battleship was anchored and had its water-tight doors open. Like the RAF, Mitchell believed that a navy was obsolescent.
Depends how it is paired. Corsair and Tempest II / Fury look purposeful. Spitfire and Mosquito look lethal. Skua looks stunted. La5 looks starved ... IMHO
I wonder if the British used the Avenger for hunting Nazi submarines. Fascinating to hear British veterans talk about the plane. But what amazes me most is the wing folding mechanism.
I believe they did. But there was a problem with supply and the need for rough weather operations. I hope to do a carrier-v-sub episode in the future. Hopefully I'll stumble on an example to explore their use.
Because it had the Hellcat watching its back. When they finally got the Mk 13 torpedo working it dropped its torpedo at the maximum effective range of Japanese medium anti-aircraft guns.
When discussing the settings the pilot needed to set when doing a diving bomb run, he said the Blower Needed to be Set on Low. What does that mean? What is the Blower? Thanks!
The engine was equipped with a two-speed mechanical supercharger, this is colloquially referred to as the "Blower" as it forced extra air into the engine cylinders. It had two settings low and high. The higher speed is used for better performance at higher altitudes.
All of the engines, no matter which nation, used multispeed essentially air compressors thar forced more air into the cylinders. The speed was determined by height, which is air density. An analogy would be low speed on the blower below 7000 feet and high speed above that altitude. This is all to pack more O2 into the volume of the cylinder.
Good Enough to Win Wars; P-39 P-40 F4F SBD TMB/TBF and more Most aircraft received significant upgrades over time, and had they been the only options, far more effort would have been devoted to improving them. But even in their final forms by war's end the above aircraft as well as others could have gotten the job done if necessary.
@@ArmouredCarriers They paid a horribly stiff price in that operation. IIRC, the Germans had fighter cover as well as escort vessels, adding to the flak. Additionally, the German crews were relatively fresh compared to the state of _Bismarck's_ crew when the Swordfish found her.
Post war the Royal Navy was forced to push their Avengers over the side. If they kept them, H.M. government would have to pay for them. Sadly, they were replaced by the Fairy Firebrand torpedo fighter.
Grumman only built the first variant of the Avenger. Once the Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors began building Avengers, Grumman stopped completely and converted the Avenger assembly line towards greater numbers of the F6F Hellcat. Later production of the Avenger went through additional significant changes causing later Marks and sub-Marks, like the Spitfire progressed from the Mark I to Mark V, to Mark IX, etc. The TBM version of the went from TBM-1 which was identical to the production TBF-1 to TBM-1C with more fuel capacity, TBM-1D with centimeter band radar under the right wing for hunting U-boats, TBM-1E for early Electronic Warfare, TBM-1P for Photo-reconnaissance, TBM-3 introduced the more powerful engine. Likely it was the introduction of the TBM-3 with the more powerful engine that required a different set of Pilot's Notes.
@@spikespa5208 An interesting discussion about that subject here: www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234939504-tbf-1-to-tbm-3-avenger-differences/
The biggest drawback to the Avenger was that it was not stressed for divebombing or any high-G maneuvers and they had a habit of shedding wings as a result.
A lot of aircraft carriers went back to the Swordfish as the Barracuda was no good or to closed cockpit biplane that was like a swordfish with a closed cockpit that wen by a different name a Albacore that was not as good as the swordfish
Just brute force it till the enemy succumbs, what a thoroughly American aircraft. Is it possible to have some USAAF personnel give their thoughts on aircraft? I suppose it hinges on wether recordings were made. Thanks for the content.
Hi there. Yes, I intend doing so. I have found some recordings at the Library of Congress. But they don't often follow the same interview format these do - which means their content quality varies greatly. Nobody to prod deeper memories for details ... But my next video will be about Tassafaronga. I found one account from an RN liaison officer. I'm now digging to try and find some detailed US accounts.
The Britts complain, But the English and Australians flew far more American aircraft in WW2. Packard made there Rolls Royce Merlin because they didn't have the manufacturers and resources like the United States.
Dunno why this vid is trying so hard to be complimentary. According to Jeremy Clarkson, the Avenger was a slow, out-dated, unreliable, ugly pile of junk. Sorry just being honest.
These are the opinions of veterans. The difference, of course, is the affinity actual pilots and aircrew feel for the aircraft their lives depend upon. It becomes an emotional attachment, based on personal experiences under extremely stressful conditions. Commentators get the benefit of hindsight, mountains of historical research by their producers - and charisma.
