In Defense of the Worst Aircraft of World War II - TBD-1 Devastator 

Mukhtair Dogar a WW2 Burma front vetran of Pakistan Air force was flying a Dakota on a supply drop mission for the freedom fighters and after dropping the supplies was returning to base when he spotted 2 indian tempests and joined their formation thinking they were Pakistanis since the were also operated by Pakistan. The indian pilots ordered the Dakota to land at an india airfield but he refused and so the india tempests began their attack runs with 20mm cannon against a defenceless Dakotafatally wounding one pilot and knocking the navigator unconscious but still Dogar eluded the enemy fighters scraping almost the river's surface and he cried ' if you haven't got me so far you will never get me!' They seemed to agree and pushed off. Air Commodore Dogar was awarded the Sitara-e-Jurat for his daring handling of the belligerant Indian Air Force Fighters on 04 November, 1948. His Sitara-e-Jurat is the first for Pakistan Air Force.

Torpedos have to be dropped low and slow*laughs in motobomba fff*

Wait bis you made 2 videos in defence of 2 different worst aircraft of ww2 please choose one

Hi, can you make an explanation video on how WW2 gunsights work?

The TBD Devastator shared the partially retracted landing gear and the philosophy behind it with the Boeing B-17 and Douglas DC-3 / C-47. Ironically, those two aircraft designs went on to be considered "war winners," unlike the TBD.

On both sides.

@@lindsaygraham5687 LOL, let's not make it political. I see what you did there.

@@therealuncleowen2588 >Apolitical content >War history content Pick one.

The Japanese never expected US pilots to behave so heroically. Our guys were up against some of the best naval aviators in the world.

I always thought one needed a particular screw loose to be on a bomber crew. For dive bombers, there is two screws. I see those films of flak and tracers and cant imagine how they did it.

I think one issue is that the opportunities the Swordfish had worked out in it's favour. They were involved in those two massively publicized events you mentioned, that being the sinking of the Bismarck (a good old David vs. Goliath story) and Taranto which were a success. Beyond that you also had Mers-el-Kebir, and the Swordfish was also tasked into recon and ASW without a clear replacement slotted to come in until '43. Midway is the 'only' battle the TBD usually gets linked to even though it flew multiple operations before that and did not have single loss to enemy fire until that very last battle. However these engagements were less publicized, and the TBD (courtesy of the Mark XIII) punched perhaps below its weight in pretty much all of them except Coral Sea where it had that one 'claim of fame'. Had the hit ratio at Kwajalein, Lae-Salamaua and Tulagi been higher, to lets say an overall average of 30% which would have been perfectly possible in at least the latter two (since like Taranto and Mers-el-Kebir they were 'harbouresque' attacks), then I do think history would have been kinder to the aircraft. These missions did show that it could do its task, if properly supported, just that the torpedoes made those particular drops null and void - something that only worked out properly at the Coral Sea.

@@MilitaryAviationHistory I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the swordfish's own "Midway" scenario the Channel Dash, where all of the swordfish sent out to attack the KM ships were absolutely destroyed with zero damage dealt to the KM or the LW by them. Almost as Identical to the TBDs at Midway with their lack of fighter cover and their heavy opposition, I guess it hadn't mired the Swordfish's PR as 2/3 major actions they had been that were heavily publicized had been positive.

@@legoeasycompany Yes, that could be an example, but I think the circumstances are different. In the Channel Dash (‘42) about a handful of Swordfish were lost (iirc), among a plethora of other planes - if it was only/nearly only the Swordfish that did poorly that day, with the rest of the planes achieving success, then maybe it would have stuck out. But both the RN and RAF had a poor show that day and in the chaos the Swordfish was only part of the casualties, other than in Midway where the individual carriers lost close to their full complement which was more significant overall - and the reasons were more apparent. Before the Channel Dash, the Swordfish had already hit Taranto (‘40) and the Bismarck (‘41) before that - and nowadays (and for some time) give it that David vs. Goliath vibe. I guess ultimately there is a fine line between that and gaining a bad reputation - one or two missions can make or break it. If we were to assume that the early TBD sorties would have seen more success, maybe if would have also taken a softer blow to its reputation. That said, I also feel like the fact that the Navy did have a replacement for the TBD in the TBF (the latter was supposed to play a more prominent role at Midway anyway) contributes to its status today because it artificially underlines that ‘outdated’ status and the tragic nature of VT-8, VT-6 and VT-3 at Midway.

@@MilitaryAviationHistory I do just like how the Swordfish and TBD both considered "outdated" while the former had the triumphs of Taranto and the HF the Bis, while getting completely slaughtered at the Channel Dash without it's perception being tarnished that much. While they both had their bad day against 1. Strong AA and CAP and 2.Were attacking in small uncoordinated strikes unsupported by friendly fighters. The Swordfish still has the proud moments of the previous 2 mentioned events, while the Latter the TBD has good but not outstanding records when used effectively. Yet one gets praised for it's actions while considered "outdated" yet the other while with good service gets lambasted for being outdated and said to perform poorly for it's actions at Midway. (Even though as you mentioned the 6 "State of the Art" TBFs stationed at Midway had similarly poor results and suitability). One gets all the praise for it's actions and outdatedness, while the other gets all the smack talk for it's similar outdatedness and other poor factors at Midway.

Bear in mind that the best two performances of the Swordfish (Taranto and Bismarck) were done at night (Taranto), with no aerial opposition (Taranto and Bismarck), and/or in execrable weather (Bismarck). The Devastator never went into combat at night (and I can find no evidence of it attacking in bad weather), and even the Swordfish, when up against a target defended by fighters (Channel Dash) did predictably horribly. Also of note, the Brits never had our problems with aerial torpedoes - apparently, theirs actually worked. Later in the war, the Stringbag proved viable in the North Atlantic, where it's good poor-weather performance, its ability to operate off a CVE "baby flattop" and its ability to fly slow and stable in a bomb run, put it in a good position to sink U-Boats (and the same could have been said of the TBD if it had been used in that role). But in a contested battle, the Swordfish (imagine it at Midway, vs. the TBD) was certainly at least as vulnerable as the TBD.

It would help if the plane carried a torpedo that worked. Somewhere I ran across a reference to a memoir of a Japanese officer on one of the carriers at Midway; he said he saw two torpedoes hit the ship, break up and sink without exploding. Later one sub commaander fired 15 fish at a sitting duck without an explosion. He brought back the 16th torpedo for examination. The brass were extremely slow to accept that there were multiple flaws with the torpedo and most of the identification of problems was done in the field. We have no idea how many torpedoes may have hit at Midway, but whatever went wrong was not the fault of the plane.

Where does the SBD Dauntless Dive bomber fit in? Isn't that the plane that smashed the Japanese carriers at Midway?

@@jameshorn270 That was COMSUBPAC, Charles "Uncle Charlie" Lockwood. They were using the Mk 14 (the Avengers used the Mk 13,) which had a whole slew of problems due to poor engineering and ridiculously ineffective testing (due in part to the absurdly small budget granted by congress, but mostly to the Bureau of Ordnance's practically-criminal defensiveness.) First, they ran too deep, then the magnetic exploders were too sensitive and tended to detonate prematurely (or not at all,) and finally the contact pistol tended to deform and misfire. Each problem had to be discovered and dealt with in sequence, done entirely by Lockwood and his people, and the brass responsible for the delays had an awful lot to account for, but of course they were never held *to* account.

The Midway Avengers were also from VT-8, but they were overlooked in the accolades accorded to the Devastator crews, probably due to John Ford's film.

Yes, I've read somewhere about the Avenger formation that got jumped and badly messed up later in the war, aside from the small USMC force of them that were nearly wiped out at Midway..I think it was one of those situations where a USN and Japanese CAG passed each other en route to each other's fleets? anyway, some of the escort Zeros left off to come over and take a swipe at them, and messed them up pretty bad..not sure how many were lost, it was not on the scale of the 37/41 Midway massacre of TBDs, but it was still a worthwhile beating ....

Very true, as were the TBF Avengers also used at Midway. The torpedoes these poor pilots were forced to fly with were a disgrace.

@@sidefx996 not to mention that even though the Avenger was a good plane, all but ONE were shot down. Later naval attack aircraft like the skyraider dispensed with defensive gunners because tacticians finally realized that escorting fighters were essential.

Agree, the TBD was outdated but hardly the worst plane of the war. In my opinion the SB2C Helldiver would take that title, a AC that was designed in the early 40s but still no better than the type it was intended to replace (the SBD Dauntless) and in many respects worse. Even the objection that it 'eventually' gave good service damns it with faint praise - it took two years before the USN would finally accept it for service, by which time rocket-armed Corsairs and Hellcats had taken over much of the Helldiver's roles. The Brewster Corsairs also deserve mention, AC so poorly assembled that they were only good for ground training duty.

@@paulfrantizek102 The only thing an SBC did better than an SBD was fly faster. SBDs were what dealt the deathblow to the Japanese Navy. SBCs merely played cleanup

@@paulfrantizek102 If you only look at the first model which barely saw service, yes, the SB2C is bad. Yet the majority of the aircraft are of the improved models, so this stranger obsession with the SB2C being the worst thing ever is just endlessly amusing to me.

I recognized your voice, buy fortunately, your acting was good enough I wasn't sure.

I thought the acting was really cheesy. Please dial down the southern accent and read just what is there.

@@squidboii I did as I was directed. It's meant to be a interview with a young pilot, not a book reading.

Good video. Very, very informative. The one on the TBF ought to be good as well. RU-vid needs to wake up to what people like and think. ...from an old NAVY gunners mate.

@@SideStrafe Well done SideStrafe!

Not to mention that the torpedo would rarely work

Replace 'Midway' with North Atlantic on a stormy night. Replace 'Japanese fleet' with a new 30 knot battleship. You get to eat your breakfast.

@@20chocsadaywait are you saying it would have faired better in those conditions?

I don't believe they were intended to be the "tip of the spear". They were supposed to arrive at the Kido Butai together with VB-8 and VF-8. But they were given a wrong heading, and the torpedo bombers, led by Waldron, were the only ones that corrected. The fighters and dive bombers continued on the original heading, leaving Waldron's flight to fight by themselves.

Yes, regardless of the quality of the aircraft, those pilots had some serious balls.

on Memorial Day always a special thought for the heroes of VT-8 at Midway. 4 June, 1942- "In the Hornet’s ready room, the men of Torpedo 8 were up early to prepare for battle. Settling down into their comfortable chairs for briefings, the pilots found a memo from Lt. Cmdr. Waldron. His message concluded: “My greatest hope is that we encounter a favorable tactical situation, but if we don’t, and the worst comes to the worst, I want each of us to do his utmost to destroy our enemies. If there is only one plane left to make a final run-in, I want that man to go in and get a hit. May God be with us all. Good luck, happy landings and give ’em hell.”"

Charles W Jansen II meeting George Gay gives you a BIG claim to fame! I once met the sister of another one of Squadron 8's flyers. Meaning a flyer who didn't make it back.

japanese tend to respect suicide. weirdos.

@@HalfLifeExpert1 One wonders how could they take of with such a heavy load, nutty load.

They did iron the bugs out of the Mk. 13 aerial torpedo eventually . Battleships I.J.N. Yamato and Musashi were sunk by mas attacks of U.S. carrier aircraft, but it was updated Mk.13 torpedoes released by TBM Avengers that did the major damage.

Torpedoes were very expensive, funding for research and testing was very scarce, and they simply couldn't afford to fire live torpedoes at actual ships to see how they worked. Blame the people who insisted on spending the money on domestic programs instead. There may be a lesson in that for today.

@@brucetucker4847 Well, ultimately the had to fire many more to determine reason - if you believe that learning is too expensive, be prepared to pay the price for lack of it. Japanase did A LOT of testing for their very modern (at the time) torpedoes, contrary to Germans who had similar problems.

Actually most Navies in WWII had some problems with torpedoes. Even the vaunted Japanese Navy's Type 97 torpedo had its own problems including, sensitive firing pins that would explode could explode while hitting a ships wake, the dangers of oxygen combination, which could cause it to explode if prematurely corrupted by sea water, etc.

@@coleparker .... there was a serious risk of torpedo explosions aboard destroyers and cruisers when they were attacked by aircraft or naval artillery. Torpedoes were a double edged sword. Nether the less the Japanese Long Lance torpedo did terrible damage to American and Australian ships. While American torpedoes were defective till halfway through the Pacific war

Cool pic. Alas, winds tend to happen & they get a vote too lol. 😛👍

Yep, works great when there is no wind. And how often is that? Radar anyone?

Impressive indeed. I'd heard of that tactic but had never seen it in action before.😎 Keep in mind too that that tactic was developed before radar was widely used by ANY navy. Even during the war smokescreens were often used to hide damaged ships or cover a torpedo attack - not all opposing ships had radar, or at least effective fire-control sets.

Yes- a Naval BZ for the video !

Absolutely & why USN Academy tends to share sides of the story that aren’t “friendly”. 😎👍

thing to remember is that the gov sent them to death in BAD equipment

manuelkong10 It was all they could hope to send at that point. The pacific is huge, it’s not a trivial task getting new equipment to the front lines in timely manner

@@manuelkong10 Then as now, spending lots of money on the military in peacetime is politically unpopular, and when war inevitably comes around, the better equipment that wasn't funded turns out to be sorely missed. I found it ironic that the same left-wingers who adamantly opposed any spending on better military equipment all through the 1980s and 90s then turned around and roasted the government and the military for deficiencies in equipment (like vulnerable Humvees used as combat vehicles) that ended up costing lives in the early phases of the Iraq war. Likewise, the New Deal Democrats had other priorities for spending in the 1930s. Fortunately FDR had at least had the prescience to start building a new, modern fleet of carriers; if he hadn't, our counteroffensive after Midway would have been postponed to 1944 or 45 at the earliest.

@@manuelkong10 You fight what you got.

My dad was an aviation machinist's mate and "plane captain" at Norfolk NAS in 1941 and 1942. Torpedo 8 became legendary to everyone in naval aviation, and probably everyone else in the USN. Incidentally, dad worked on aircraft for all the young ensigns training at Norfolk in 1941. He saw them again in later 1942, when they returned, as lieutenant commanders and squadron leaders, to train pilots in 1943. That's a huge reason why the US won: when pilots became experienced, they trained more, and those new pilots trained more pilots.

The B-26 was actually designed to drop torpedoes. In addition to the Norden bombsight the plane came with a torpedo director to help the pilot aim. USAAF never really seemed to wrap their heads around just what these mysterious tubes with propellers attached to the ends that traveled underwater of all places were for (seriously, underwater?! humans don't live underwater! in what lovecraftian nightmare world would we ever need a weapon that works underwater?!), but British Commonwealth forces used them to pretty good effect against the Germans the few times the had the opportunity to.

In defense of the bureau of ordinance, they checked the torpedoes multiple times before 1942 and all the paperwork was filled out correctly

@@jamesricker3997 but the tests were done with a practice warhead that did not simulate the actual weight of the live warhead. And they did very few live fire tests, so they did not know that there were issues with magnetic detonators and even the simple contact detonator.

I think "all paperwork properly filled out" was a pun! As always hind sight is 20/20.

I read that there were two problems with the Mark 14 Topr. The contact exploder and the magnetic exploder. Apparently the magnetic expolder tended to prematurely detonate (so did the one on the British torps) and I've read that wasn't fixed until '43. To make matters worse, while submariners operating out of Pearl tended to deactivate the magnetic exploder starting in '43, those operating out of Australia didn't do that until '44.The contact exploder was an even bigger problem. I read it would not detonate if the torp hit the ship straight-on; it had to hit at a significant angle, but not so steep an angle that the torp would bounce off! Apparently this was not fixed until late '43 either. Not fair to the guys whose lives depended on this. In some ways, the magnetic exploder fault was even worse because a premature detonation alerted the enemy to your presence. I imagine some senator whose state contained the place where the torps were built probably blamed the men rather than the torps.

Only one of the torpedoes fired by Nautilus actually struck the Kaga, but yes, that one did fail to explode and broke in half. The warhead sank and the rest floated. Some men from Kaga who'd been blown overboard by the previous bomb hits swam to it and used it as a flotation device. (Per Mitsuo Fuchida, who wrote up the after action study for the IJN)

exactly. the B5N2 Kate never had such problems with its torpedoes and enjoys a much better reputation as a result.

The Navy looked at replacing the Mark XIII, but a program to develop a new torpedo was believed to be too protracted a process. (Yet the Mark XVIII Electric and the Mark XXIV were developed) Personally I would have made a deal with the UK to build their Mark XII torpedoes and adapt American aircraft to use them.

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer too protracted!?!?!? that's their JOB lol

Torpedo attacks were devestating in WW2. The problem with American torpedoes was pretty criminal. The Kate was feared. Predominantly because the Japanese air dropped torpedoes were so good. One interesting note: the Japanese torpedoes used PID control to prevent deflection on drops. It took the US Navy about 15 years to do this (long after the war). This meant that their torpedoes ran much straighter after an air drop. Note: in 1945 American torpedoes took down the Yamoto and Mushai

@@manuelkong10 The development problem was that the development would have been done in the same Navy-operated facility that did such a horrible job designing and producing torpedoes. The navy turned to industry for a new torpedo out of sheer desperation because the Navy facility could only produce small numbers each month.

They also exposed one of the zero's major weaknesses.It's utterly inadequate ammunition load. When the dive bombers arrived the zeros were on Deck being rearmed

Yep!

@@michaelbizon444 That and the Japanese worked their aces to death, they didn't rotate them out with fresh pilots.

Santa Cruz and the Marianas saw some of the worst attrition rates for the IJN’s air corps...

Some models like the A6M5c (labelled in the Japanese inventory as the Type 52) would have had it worse. Although the Type 52 Zero did have better guns (a pair of 13mm MGs and 2x 20mm cannons) it still used the same design which IMO would have worsened the poor ammo load problem... Oh wait, it did because the Type 52 Zero (most particularly the A6M5c model) had it’s guns mounted in the wings.

did they reply...did the letter begin something like Dear Chip/Bud...?

There was a difference with computers, though, in that there had been about a 15-year interval when almost no money was available for development of military aviation (or tanks) in most countries so major advances in basic technology (like engines, materials, construction techniques, and so forth) were not developed for military use. So in the mid and late 1930s, when most of the world powers began thinking seriously about military readiness again, there was a tremendous amount of catching up to do which made the rate of advance of military technology much more rapid than it otherwise would have been. That period then extended into the war because of the massive commitment of resources for wartime development. For all that time you had the unusual situation that every plane deployed into combat was already being rendered obsolete by other planes (most notably jet fighters) that were already in development.

And to think if the battle of Midway took place a week later , the Grumman Avenger would have replaced the Devistator , in torpedo 8 it was that close.

There were a couple of Freudian slips like "flame" used instead of "fame". I need to take time to pinpoint exact time and context.

I could not agree with you MORE! Abomination describes it well. It is impossible to believe that higher-ups were completely aware of the problems. Just how many of our enemies' capital ships would have been severely damaged or SUNK by effective torpedos will never be known. So sad.

Theres a bunch of events and incidents involving the US navy in those times which are uncharacteristicly damning in hindsight, if not suspicious really...

AMEN to. That , Navy B of ORD should have. Been brought to justice , their failure , loss of. Life & treasure ! TOTAlly incompetent !

In fact, the most successful torpedo bombers for Midway were the Japanese counterattack against Yorktown.

The Vought SB2U Vindicator also served at Midway. They also served on carriers from Dec. 1937 - Sept. 1942. The Japanese had some good bombers. Some were clearly obsolete during the middle of WWII though: B7A Grace D3A Va E16A Paul H8K Emily Ki-48 Lily Q1W Lorna (Anti-Sub Bomber) G3M Nell G4m Betty Ki-45 Babs Ki-21 Sally Ki-30 Ann Ki-67 Peggy (Anti-Shipping role was one of its functions) B5N Kate B6N Jill D4Y Judy P1Y1 Frances and the never used Aichi M6A Seiran

@@steveconrad1525 Yes, but this RU-vid is not about the Vindicator, a dive bomber.

@@kriley9386 This is true. I was merely pointing out an aircraft that is often overlooked in the Battle of Midway

@Daniel McGrath It was actually about all the inefficiencies with the IJN's naval and carrier doctrines coming home to roost.

Poor torpedoes *and* poor doctrine. Whem Midway was fought the USN had yet to work out how to have aircraft that had wildly different endurance and cruising speeds arrive over a target simultaneously.

Similarly with the USA submarine fleet which only had recourse to a defective torpedo type - more often than not duds which failed to reach and / or detonate on striking the target vessel. The Japanese Imperial Air Force, on the other hand, had the best submarine torpedo of the war

@Marry Christmas Ah, no. All external tanks on the A-4 were removable and jettisonable, but the aircraft was small and light enough that sliding in on those big drop tanks might not be impossible.

Many Lieutenants and LTJGs along with some Ensigns were killed in those TBDs , especially at Midway. All were heroes none the less.

Thanks !

Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed it

@@MilitaryAviationHistory Have you done the Vought SB2U Vindicator?

I don't know how tough a bird the TBD-1 was in real life, but in War Thunder battles, it is an absolute tank.

I agree. This really makes your effort more of a scholarly piece and worthy of serious consideration.

An objective view using actual facts and words from the men who had to fly a TBD-1 into the mouth of Hell. AMAZING!!!

Or a Buffalo. The R.A.F. tested the Brewster Buffalo and found it unsuitable for use in hot climates, so, of course, they sent them to the Far East.

lazyboy395 I was also thinking defiant - can’t be much in it.

@@mrmegahousefly The Buffalo was as if someone had glued a fan blade on a beer barrel

Fairy Battle was worse than any of these

@@denz8261: The Battle fell into that same temporal technology gap as the TBD-1.

@harrylongbaugh1 which has nothing to do with my post.

My grandfather was in Torpedo Squadron 8.

@@patrickkenyon2326 my grandfather was torpedoed off the Cape in 1939.

Eh. The TBD was a fantastic aircraft *for its time.* The best in the world at what it did, even. The trouble was, time - and aviation technology - had moved on by the time it went to war. Even so, the TBD was used reasonably successfully (speaking of the plane itself, not the defective torpedoes) in its designed role up until Midway. The Defiant, OTOH, was based on a fundamentally misguided concept; it was less that it was made obsolete with the passage of time and more that it was unworkable from the start. And yes, the RAF did manage to find roles which the Defiant could fill successfully; but that was very much a matter of necessity, as they still had significant numbers of Defiants on strength when they realized the type was hopelessly unsuited for service in its designed role as a day fighter.

@@Philistine47 I once (long, long ago) read an article on the Defiant. A Polish General (and his"aide) had a "joy ride" in a Defiant. The turret had been removed. They found the thing would have been a part way reasonable ground attack aircraft (very steady in a dive enabling accuracy with the flour bombs they had) but, by then, there were better ground attack aircraft on the way.

Actually, even without the Zero-Sen fighter, the Devastator would have been easy meat at Midway. Two reasons: First, the A5M "Claude" monoplane fighter - the one the Zero replaced - had brilliant performance for its time, with a top-end speed of 270 mph, as well as plenty of range to fly standing CAPs waiting on the TBDs. While not as fast or as powerfully armed as the A6M Zero, it had enough superior performance to crush the TBD, as it did with so many other mid-30s aircraft over China. Second, the TBD's margin of speed over Japanese carriers (roughly 90 knots vs. 35 knots) made it hard for the TBDs to catch up with the Japanese carriers. They spotted one another at a range of about 10 nautical miles, and the Kidō Butai immediately poured on the coal to make it hard for the TBDs to get close enough to strike (also bearing in mind that the carriers were nearly as fast as the Mk XIII torpedoes), making the planes fly through a deadly flak zone. Read John Lundstrom's The First Team, focusing on the air battle over the Kidō Butai off Midway to see just how long it took the TBDs to cross that 10-mile separation, with a closing speed of barely 50 mph. A plane that was that slow, with no self-sealing tanks, not much in the way of crew-armor protection and just one or two pop-gun .30 Brownings for defense, would have suffered badly in 1939, just as it did in 1942. It would take the later TBF/TBM, able to drop a torpedo from a modified Mk. XIII torpedo from as high as 2,400 feet at 410 knots (roughly 125 mph faster than the TBF's top speed) for American torpedo bombers to come into their own, as exemplified in the First Battle of the Philippine Sea and even more so in the several naval battles in and around Leyte Gulf during our invasion of the PI. However, with the inferior Mk. XIII (which tests indicated had at least 12 major flaws), drop speeds above 100 knots were unlikely to succeed, and "ditto" for drops above about 50 feet altitude - a performance envelope likely to be deadly to even the best torpedo bombers of the war, let alone a dog like the TBF. While something to write home about in 1935, it was way outclassed by 1942, as was shown at Midway.

@@barryjobe Points taken. I appreciate the reply.

Also less than par torpedoes didn't help

Ned Barnett : Good post. Note: Japanese carrier AAA, especially in 1939 and earlier, was poor.

@@racinnut77 Thank you!

You are spot on with your history mister! You obviously are well read on this.

Einstein was a fraud largely.

@@davidnoone3254 Ridiculous!

​@@michaellorenson2997 Not exactly, John von Neumann was the real intellectual powerhouse, and would often just hand out ground breaking papers and science to his colleagues, probably because he simply didn't have enough time to write all of the papers he wanted to. And we all have to thank him for saving our lives and singlehandedly preventing nuclear apocalypse by mathematical proof. He used to play loud nazi music to annoy Einstein in the office over. Einstein wasn't intentionally fraudulent, the papers just liked his picture, he fit a stereotype, and neumann enjoyed him getting all of the attention and pressure instead. xD

@@carbon1255 It's just absurd to suggest that Einstein was "a fraud largely". I suppose the earth is flat, too, right?

@@michaelbizon444 The Sherman performed better than the popular imagination likes to think. Its record against Panthers in tank vs. tank engagements was actually pretty favorable. It was outmatched against the Tiger, but so was every other medium tank of the war, and it was pretty rare for Shermans to encounter Tigers at all. However, effective as they were in single tank-on-tank matchups, the heavy tank concept proved to have its own drawbacks, and it's worth noting that later model Shermans were much more effective against T-34/85s in Korea than the Americans' heavy tank designed as the answer to the Tiger, the Pershing, was. Likewise the Soviets found the T-34 much more effective in the field than the heavy KV and later IS tanks even though the latter were superior on paper. The way forward proved to be the MBT, which was more like an upgraded medium tank than a heavy tank in conception. The Panther was a formidable tank on paper, but it had some pretty severe shortcomings that made it much less effective in combat than its paper stats suggest. Its heavy armor taxed the transmission beyond its breaking point, and maintenance of the transmission was a nightmare, so even if the Germans had built as many Panthers as the Americans did Shermans the number available for use in combat at any given time would have been much lower - and many vehicles had to be abandoned and destroyed when they broke down where a more practical tank like the Sherman could have been recovered and repaired. It had too much gun, which made the turret excessively cramped and made the job of the loader extremely taxing, and while its gunsight was optically superb, crew visibility for anyone but the commander was atrocious, while crew visibility in the Sherman was excellent, which meant a Panther was extremely likely to kill a Sherman if it spotted the Sherman first, but it was very unlikely to spot the Sherman first other than in optimal conditions. Ironically, the advantages that made the Sherman more effective than paper stats would indicate were very similar to the advantages that made the Panzer III and IV outperform British and French tanks that were similarly superior in paper stats in 1940. The only inexcusable shortcoming of the Sherman was the failure of the Army to adopt the 76mm gun in much greater numbers prior to D-Day. The Easy 8 Sherman with a 76mm was arguably the best and most effective medium tank of WW2. As for the TBD, its engine was already too anemic to fly the aircraft as it existed in 1942, and I don't think adding any more weight would have been practical without a complete redesign of the airframe to accommodate a more powerful engine. At that point you might as well field a newer, more modern design, especially since one with about twice the engine power was already available. It's a bit like the Hurricane, which soldiered on in other roles long after it had become completely outclassed as a front-line fighter - the airframe just couldn't handle the more powerful engines that kept later marks of the Spitfire and Bf109 competitive.

Yes, but no more were produced BECAUSE they were planned to be replaced. Again, pre-war slowness was partly to blame. The Avenger design was created when the Navy asked for designs in 1939. the Avenger won and in 1940 2 prototypes were built (Grumman's first torpedo plane accepted by the Navy). The first flight of the prototype was in August 1941, and the program was delayed when one of the prototypes crashed. It was during the ceremonies for the opening of the factory that was planned to produce the Avenger that word came of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Really, the TBDs weren't supposed to be front line aircraft for so long.

@@brucetucker4847 "The only inexcusable shortcoming of the Sherman was the failure of the Army to adopt the 76mm gun in much greater numbers prior to D-Day." I've seen a convincing argument made that the standard Sherman was what was needed in the theater, based on what the tankers were in practice actually shooting at. For the great majority of their service, most American tankers weren't fighting other tanks; they were fighting infantry, or fixed emplacements. In those cases, the 75 was actually a better gun, it's HE round produced roughly two times the shrapnel as the 76 HE round did. No question, the 76-armed Sherman was a better tank fighter, but more often than not, that's not what was needed.

Thanks Justin!

Well said Justin. I can't understand why You Tube doesn't treat this chap with the appreciation he - and his programming - deserves. True, there are wheels within wheels grinding all in its works, as it cogs its way through so much kitten-video dross (no offence intended to kitten video-ers, The Mighty Jingles being one of the funniest IMHO); still, they could do more. Oh! well, sorry to gripe. ;o)

Thanks!

I agree with you sir! Thanks for your service.

Ham Slammer thank you for your Service

The United States Army produces the finest rotary wing aircraft pilots and crews in the world, I know, they used to fly us around, go Army👍👍👍

I've heard it claimed that the Bismarck couldn't shoot down the low and slow Swordfish because its AA guns couldn't aim as low as the Swordfish flew lol.

Hail to the Stringbags, MVPs of the battle against the Bismark! Without them Bismarck would have gotten away.

@@seanbryan4833 . Not necessarily, just think about what happened to the Tirpitz. Bismarck had severe damage and the biggest drydock on the French coast was at St, Nazaire. Imagine if it was strand there when Commandos blew off the dock gates using an old WW1 destroyer packed with explosive.

But under the circumstances the TBF would have fared just as poorly. And at Midway it did.

@@sidefx996 Most likely. Its survivability was better tho.

The Hurricane was continuously upgraded and modified for a variety of roles throughout its career, both by the UK and Canada. A Sea Hurricane, which required a lot of mods, was also produced.

liberty ships are not often mentioned...my dad was 24 with 2 kids..drafted a welder producing libertys in oakland. cal...sent okinawa. handed a BAR AND TOLD TO GET READY TO INVADE JAPAN..forrtunatly for me didnt happen ,,though a very sad chapter

billy thibaud it was used in a few Pacific landings as well.

I'm no aviation or military history expert by any standard, but I think, if upgrading the engine would have ben that easy, and obvious a solution it would have ben done. A few possible explanations: - A more powerfull engine creates more torque. Just ask Corsair pilots. Maybe it would have ben too much torque? - A more powerfull engine is a more thirsty engine. Unless you increase fuel capacity - might be rather difficult to do - you end up with shorter range. - Other technical problems like vibrations being too much. - The change of engines and getting the pilots used to the aircraft's changed characteristics would have taken them out of action for too long. Having a sub-par aircraft available is better than having an on-par aircraft not available... - Availability of engines. Maybe the engines were needed elsewere and thus simply weren't avilable. After all, what's the point of taking engines away from new aircrafts on the assenbly line just to put them into obsolete aircrafts? All you do is delay the replacement of the obsolete aircraft with new ones. - Just not worth the hassle. New, better, aircraft will be introduced soon and the old aircrafts even with better engines would still use the same crappy torpedo much the same way a prisoner "uses" his ball and chain, so why bother?

@@Bird_Dog00 We could have an endless debate on the subject, BIrd Dog, but what's the point? It's all hypothetical. I thought about the fuel, but I also realized that with that much added horsepower, it would be easy to add fuel (especially in drop tanks). But if that wasn't possible, and if the engines (remember, these are just different marks of the same engine) were that thirsty, maybe. And as far as the engines themselves, they were in mass production for the other planes (C-47, B-24, F4F Wildcat) and the few TBDs available (140 were built and not all survived from '37 to '42) would not be a problem. However, no military decision-maker is likely to forget that decisions to maintain with an obsolete or obsolescent aircraft will cost American lives, so I don't think that's it. As an aside, I knew Ensign (later Lieutenant) George Gay, the soul survivor of Torpedo 8's suicidal attack on the Japanese carrier fleet on June 4, 1942. I have his autobiographical memoir/book - as well as a thinly-disguised novel by E. Howard Hunt (later one of the "plumbers" at Watergate) who met Gay in '43 at Guadalcanal and wrote a novel about Gay's night interdiction missions over Japanese airfields. I even have a Johnny Ficklen artist's profile signed-and-numbered print of Gay's Devastator (signed by Gay himself) hanging on the wall in my office. Ensign Gay lost every other man in his squadron - a horrific blow to him (he survived it remarkably well, but by the time I knew him, he had a major drinking problem). I can't see the Navy keeping an inferior plane in service, at the cost of so many lives, when an upgrade would make a difference. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your comments.

@@barryjobe Wow. That was quite an addition. Many years ago I recall reading,I think it was Robert Heinlein the science fiction writer, an Annapolis graduate, that getting the pilots to willingly switch out of the Navy biplane fighters was not an easy task. The interwar years had allowed the designs to mature to the point the performance envelope was entirely within the design envelope. That is for instance the fighters could be placed in a vertical dive,engine wide open,and remain controllable due to the drag going up so much it was impossible to pull the wings off,or the upper surfaces of the wings. The pilots deeply trusted their sturdy machines. As late as midwar,experienced Italian fighter pilots were comfortable with their biplane fighters. They knew to fight in the horizontal plane,not vertical,and regularly made monkeys of British pilots in Hurricanes. Facing Zeros in a biplane torpedo machine would have been a slaughter,so the whole picture of going in first,no fighter escort as the TBD did at Midway just made a very bad scene way worse. Poor doctrine,no actual war experience, I can understand Gay having memories he tried to drink away. And the less said about the Bureau of Ordnance, the better.

@@Bird_Dog00 I think the latter point was probably the most important - why spend precious resources on upgrading a few existing aircraft when its replacement was already close to being deployed? Anyway by the time the need was apparent and the resources available, the war was on and most of the remaining TBDs were deployed on carriers and in constant use. I imagine availability of engines was also a big factor - between upgraded TBDs and more F4Fs the Navy was going to choose more F4Fs, the need was absolutely critical.

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it

I do that sometimes when i'm speaking english lol

Капиталист, б****.

@Dalle Smalhals Chrząsczc brzmi w trzczinie w strzebrzeszynie what now m8.

@Dalle Smalhals norwai? no?

@Dalle Smalhals yeeeeees

Twice nothing is still nothing. .30s were popguns even against A6M2s. The main effect of such light weapons was psychological - it's a lot harder to shoot at someone who's shooting back. A single .30 performed that role just as well as two. If you wanted to inflict meaningful damage, even a single .50 would have been much better.

Yeah, VT-8 is guaranteed to have added a second. 30cal since we also video footage of that. Some sources also indicate VT-6 as using them, which is why I added it as a 'maybe'. The fun part about history is that we always find new sources, so perhaps we will know for sure at some point :)

Yeah, the thing turns on sharp edge of a penny in that game. Makes it a real fun troll fighter

The Fins thought the Brewster Buffalo was wonderful. The Russians thought the P-39 was wonderful. The Brits thought the Defiant was the best, until reality reared its ugly head. Amazing how different theaters of war had such completely different ideas of good and bad.

@@chriscase1392 sorry, my great uncle was in the RAF during WW2, and he described the Defiant as (and I quote) "the stupidest fucking design a British designer ever came up with." He was pleased when they removed the Defiant from his night fighter wing and replaced them with the radar equipped Beaufighter.

That did look pretty awesome. Seems like a curtain of Smoke could help in a pinch but if your in a situation where you need to use smoke your probably running and dodging Torpedos. This means your not able to launch an aircraft to even lay smoke.

@@Wallyworld30 it seems my interest in niche and, dare I say, impractical tactics in warfare is forever perpetuating...

@@Wallyworld30 i guess you would launch them before combat.