What Was The Best Torpedo Bomber of World War 2? 

Thanks for covering the Turkey, I honestly thought it may simply be too boring for you to ever do a video on, but 75yr after it was built, there’s nothing boring about them today lol (especially if you can see one up close!) You mentioned most were 1,700hp and a few were 1,900 - that’s not really the case. The vast majority of Avengers produced had the 1,900hp R2600-20, as you mention they were also the GM TBMs. Regarding the engine, early development issues became so bad that there was talk of sabotage - they just couldn’t figure out the corrosion and pitting issues. By the time of the -20 they were very reliable, ours basically looks like a normal car engine internally during checks, but a LOT of that is due to modern oil and the modern massive dual oil filter setup we (and most warbirds) run these days. The strainers back then would pass anything smaller than about the size of a BB through the engine🤮 . Also (I don’t deal with the TBF much at all) the TBM-3 numbers are very different, showing an extra 100 gal internally (I didn’t realize that changed with later models) and by the time you add the wing guns etc it’s MTOW was over 18,000lbs, so about the additional weight of a compact car for the same size aircraft lol. Anyways we operate around 12,000lb and with any headwind, the plane can be off the ground in around 500’ which is pretty amazing. There are certain engine parameters that have to be met on T/O roll/power, so we can’t really “baby” the plane as much as some people think. I believe in the book “Avenger at War!” it was stated that only something like 20% of Avenger takeoffs used catapults, even though (something most don’t realize) almost all US carrier were so-equipped, even pre-WWII ships. Those 20% were almost exclusively near the end of the war or post-war, I wasn’t really able to find a reason for this. BTW that photo of the Avenger cat launching out of the hangar deck is REALLY cool, something I’ve never come across. As far as the Amplidyne (love the names back then) system, I believe it’s simply a motor-generator, which seems like a contradiction in terms but anyways… I had actually never come across that part of the turret on the TBM, BUT we have an operational B-26 turret that we bring to airshows, and it has a LARGE motor-generator mounted on its rotating frame that I assume serves the same purpose as the one Grumman used. In addition to being an AC/DC converter, it’s high RPM and intertia likely serves as a “mechanical capacitor” of sorts for the rapid movement the turret requires (both the Avenger and B-26 turrets have a “rapid traverse” mode.) That’s funny you mention the turret egress / chute issue, it’s definitely a problem even today. Our radio position will assist the turret position to don chute and bail. It’s actually not hard to get out (just straighten your body and you slip down) but there’s a LOT of stuff to snag on. The radio operator position can also monitor some elements of the hydraulic system (the primary hyd bulkhead is directly in front of you, including the accumulator gauge) plus he can see a lot of the systems in the bomb bay including fuel and hydraulic lines (probably what that window is for, I’ll always check for obvious leaks or problems through that) also (theoretically) he would probably reload the turret gun if required, I believe they carried significant spare ammo for the turret (more than what the charts mention.) He also had random stuff like heater and oxygen controls back there I think? 🤷🏻‍♂️ They also dropped mines and depth charges, which I think was likely released back there as opposed to the pilot. I’ve heard from many people that the torpedo would be armed through the small door in front of the radio/bombardier, but I’ve never seen anything official to back this up. Something that’s really difficult to visualize is the size of the plane and the radio/bombardier area. I’m 6’ tall and can stand up fully back there if you’re under the turret (even then my head is about even with the foot/leg armor plate) - it’s a BIG plane. Mentioning striking a battleship on the opposite side of list is interesting because that was almost immediately corrected as a BAD thing to do after Musashi, which took something like 19 torpedoes (distributed from various angles) and was counter-flooded continually to correct her list as much as possible. Yamato was later specifically attacked so that hits would be coordinated on the initial listing side only, making any attempt to counter-flood futile. I don’t think any consideration for anti-aircraft range of traverse was really taken, just sink the ship as quickly as possible. Yamato was probably the most decisive blow that Avengers ever dealt in WWII; even though the ship posed almost no realistic risk to the allies at the time, it was the “heaviest and most powerful battleship ever built” as the press would say, and now she was gone. Indeed the entire perceived threat of the Imperial Japanese Navy sunk with that ship.

The Swordfish must have been a roomy aircraft, as they were crewed by real men with balls the size of cantaloupes. Kudos and respect, Gentlemen!

There is one thing that seems to go under the radar, when discussing torpedo bombers. The weapon itself! The Mark 13 torpedo sucked badly all the way up to 1944, where improvements finally made it an excellent torpedo. So until 1944 the TBM AVENGER kinda sucked as a torpedo bomber. You really had to nurse the Mark 13 into the water from very low altitude and with low speed. Only 31% of all dropped torpedos ran satisfactory. Way too many ran too deep, or on the surface. From 1944 a shroud and a wooden box like attachment to the tail and slight changes to the propeller, made it able to be dropped at very high speeds and from great heights still running straight and good.

The TBF/TBM was such a leap in capability that it took USN commanders some time to learn how to exploit it. Having an aircraft able to search out as far as an Avenger with a relatively high cruising speed plus excellent on board electronics was a revelation. It did take a while for the Mk 13 torpedo to become as good as the Avenger, but they finally had them working reliably and surviving higher speed and altitude drops later in the war...

I really have nothing to add here except my sincere gratitude to you, Greg, for making these outstanding videos. As an aviation history buff and current military pilot, it's been difficult to find any channels that really go much beyond a surface level when it comes to the history and performance of warplanes. I haven't found any other channels that go into the pertinent details in such a straightforward, relaxed, and easy to follow manner that yours does. I subscribe to a lot of channels and have been watching youtube for many years, and yours is the first channel I have subscribed to via Patreon. I wish you continued success and hope you continue to get as much out of making these videos as we get out of watching them. Thank you!

But, if you were including the land based bombers as well Greg, then the Bristol Beaufighter would have to be right up there. Masses of axis tonnage sunk thanks to the Beaufighter, multiple theatres of operation including the north Atlantic, Mediterranean and the Pacific. Flying from Malta alone they sank an average of 54,000 tonnes of axis shipping per month for a 9 month period. That is pretty impressive.

A few additional bits of information: The US Navy's Mark 13 aerial torpedo had just as many problems as the notorious Mark 14 torpedo used by submarines (and the Mark 15 used by destroyers). Some of the problems were the same, some were unique to aerial torpedos, but it took until 1943 to work them out. One problem in particular was malfunctions due to damage when the torpedo hit the water. In order to minimize the possibility of damage, the US Navy instructed pilots to drop at 50 feet altitude and 110 knots. This was in fact the wrong approach, as it resulted in the torpedo entering the water at a very flat angle and as a result the tail section would slap the water resulting in damage. This also meant that the torpedo bomber was very vulnerable to enemy fighters during the approach. Operational research showed that a higher-altitude, higher-speed approach in combination with a breakaway wooden nose drag ring, breakaway wooden tail fins, and an additional tail shroud ring made it so that the Mark 13 could be reliably launched from up to 7000 feet altitude and 300 knots, although the ideal approach was a bit lower and slower at 800 feet and 260 knots. This was a much more survivable and easier to fly approach. While AA gun depression was one reason for making torpedo attacks on the side of the target that was higher in the water, it was not the primary reason. Most naval AA mounts had at least -15 degrees of depression available to compensate for the ship's roll in a seaway. The more important reason for attacking from the high side of the target was to bypass the torpedo defense system and armor belt. A torpedo that strikes a listing ship from the high side may impact on the bottom of the ship's hull rather than the side. This will produce much more damage than a strike that impacts on the torpedo defense system which is designed specifically to absorb and mitigate the explosion of a torpedo. It seems unlikely that the bombardier was not on board for a torpedo attack, as the on-board radar was used to check the range to the target. The use of the Avenger as an ASW plane is mostly understated. It could carry depth charges or the Mark 24 ASW homing torpedo (which was given the nomenclature "Mark 24 Mine" as a deception measure).

Quality Subaru dig, Greg. 😂

When I was in Boy Scouts our troop leader told us one time when he was in the Navy he was flown from the carrier he was on to a different carrier. He wasn't air crew. He was either an electrical or electronics rating. They flew him over on a TBF-3R. When it came time to go back they were already headed for port. He asked if he could just stay on board the rest of the way. The landing scared the heck out of him.

Thanks for this. My dad was the radar/radio operator in an Avenger flying from the Shangri-La and he rarely talked about it.

Minor correction: the time between VT-6 attacking and when the first SBDs started diving was enough for the A6Ms to reach the latter's altitude. The main flaw of the Japanese CAP wasn't their ability to respond to threats at varying altitudes, it was their inability to respond to attacks developing simultaneously from multiple directions. The book "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway" by John Parshall and Anthony Tully covers this myth fairly thoroughly.

Greg, Thank you once again for a thorough and enjoyable presentation on this subject. The Avenger’s ability to operate from escort carriers was a huge contribution to the Allied war effort. 1. In the atlantic, the carrier anti-submarine role was primarily performed by Avengers with good success. In fact, the USN hunter killer groups were actually using sona bouys and homing torpedos late in the war. 2. In the Pacific, escort carriers performed many functions. Close air support during island invasions would not have been nearly as effective without the load carrying capacity of the TBF.

As a Brit, The Swordfish is Legendary 👌🏻 But, who could not love a plane called “Avenger!” 😎

Part of the problems early in WWII for the Avenger and all other US torpedo bombers were the defects in the design of the Mark 13 torpedoes. They were almost as bad as the submarine launched Mark XIV and worse than the ship launched Mark XV.

I had wondered whether the Italian three-motored 'Sparviero' might have rec'd a mention. It was used only in the Med but it was an effective beast.

The Swordfish succeeding to such a large degree, very much in spite of its obsolescence, is what makes it one of my favorite WW2 aircraft. It really encompasses the British early-war ethos of fighting with whatever they had, wherever they could, odds be damned! Contributing in no small part to the sinking of the Bismarck is just the icing on the cake.

Many years ago, I was visiting a air museum with my Grandfather. We wandered by an Avenger in the collection when stopped and commented that he had been on a few missions as a belly gunner. I thought this was odd, as he was a machine gunner with the New Zealand 3rd Division up in the Pacific Islands and, as far as I knew, New Zealand didn't operate Avengers. He said they didn't but the Americans had a shortage of gunners (!) and because he had been trained on the .50 cal (they were also supplied with US equipment) and he was small, so he volunteered. The deal was that he would get a cut of the booze picked up on the return leg, which he pointed out the bomb bay was most useful in this task. He rarely talked about his experiences (although he just adored the Americans and the stories he did talk about tended to describe how generous they were) so I asked him what happened. He pointed out that the belly gunner couldn't get out unless the bay doors were open [edit: from what you were saying, this may not be true but he wasn't a trained crewman so, it may have just been his perception] and that the last mission he went on, they were lucky to get back. He finished by saying, he realised that if they had been killed, he would have been listed as missing because this wasn't officially sanctioned by the New Zealand military and that, as a new father, that would have been unfair on his family. He is long gone now but, particularly in light of your podcast, I wish I had asked more questions. Edit: This has got me thinking, if he was the belly gunner, the bombardier wouldn't have been needed as he wasn't trained as such. This has been boggling my mind, if you say this crew format without the need for a bombardier might have been for torpedo attacks.

Kermit Weeks has stated that in his opinion the TBF/TBM is the easiest WW2 plane to fly. Which was good for all the inexperienced Ensigns and J.G.'s that took it to war.

The last torpedo attack by USN was during the Korean War when Skyraiders attacked North Korean dams. It’d been so long since they were used, There was some trouble finding anyone who had experience hanging them on a plane 😂until a few old timers were located in other ships.

FWIW: Paul Newman was a crewman on an Avenger in WW2. Found to be color blind he was not allowed pilot training.

My friend Leo Pyatt was a TBM radioman and flew with VC81 from USS Natoma Bay in 1944. They never carried a torpedo after training he said. Rockets, 500 lb bombs and a few 1000 lb bombs. Depth charges once.

The "Stringbag" (Swordfish) punched way above its weight and the crews liked them despite the lack of protection from even light rain never mind incoming rounds. Agree its not the best, but it was pretty much all we had.

42:50 - Amplidyne, is a motor-generator. or electromechanical converter/inverter, used to convert power from lower to higher voltage. The amplidyne had to convert a lot of power to run a turret. Lower powered units, to power smaller devices such as radios, are dynomotors, for transmitters, and vibrators for car radios. These are all from the vacuum tube days, when tube electronics could not deliver a significant amount of power. Modern semiconductor electronics has replaced all of these elecromechanical methods. Your modern house solar grid-tie inverter handles much more power than an amplidyne.

Dad was a TBF pilot. One of the air looms I have is his gloves. It had the finger cut off on one of his gloves. I asked him why it was missing. He said they would wait until the finger turned blue to turn on oxygen

My dad was a TBM 3E gunner in VT37. I have all his gunnery manuals and his gear, G-1, goggles, microphone, summer and winter helmets and earphones, etc. They planned to die in the invasion of the Japanese mainland as they'd switched from torpedoes to bombs. Their job would have been to soften the beachhead. I got to meet Gen Paul Tibbets and thanked him for letting me exist. I he hadn't dropped the first bomb, I would not be here. Avg life expectancy of a TBM gunner in combat? 20 seconds.

This is probably the safest call to make regarding the best aircraft of a certain type. Thanks Greg, entertaining

What Greg said about relative ease of egress explained a lot of why George H. W. Bush got out of his Avenger, but his two crewmen did not.

"Swordfish: the plane that inspired Pearl Harbor" I put together a Revell kit Avenger that secumbed to a battle with my younger brothers commanding. I always liked that plane, I gave the pilot a very stylish moustache.

Just ran across this excellent video. Gramps was the tail gunner/radioman on a TBF that flew off the Ticonderoga. He was part of CV-14's first crew, embarking in May of '44. He joined at age 17 and actually ENJOYED his time in the Pacific theater (he knew wasn't going to die, according to him). Although the TBF was considered a "glide bomber", his pilot was known to dive it hard when the situation called for it, and pull out at the last second to drop the fish. He told me that based on the noises coming from the plane and the turret gunner, he was happy he couldn't see what the wings were doing during those maneuvers! The Avengers were also extremely survivable, and once his plane was so shot up that the deck crew just pushed it over the side to clear the deck...but that Grumman had made it back and landed cleanly with all hands intact. The only fatality in his plane was a turret gunner who caught a 25mm shell directly from underneath, but again the plane made it back fine. On only one occasion was he worried they may have to ditch. They had parked the Ticonderoga off Ulithi (I believe?) and they launched with zero wind. He said they flew WOT and still couldn't get any altitude and basically followed a shallow glide path to the strip, still touching down a few yards short of the runway!

I think Sky Haven air field in Rochester NH had an Avenger when I was a kid, I used to beg my dad to go slow when we drove by so I could look at the big beast. Grumman sure knew their business when it came to carrier aviation.

Thanks for the great video on the Avenger. My father was a radioman/bombardier in one flying on the USS Essex in 1944-45. His duties included not only handling the radio, bombing and stinger machine gun, but also the navigation of the aircraft. When he was being trained in Florida, his plane flew into the Bermuda Triangle and the plane’s compass went bonkers. He said he had to navigate back to Florida by listening to the strength of the signal from a Florida AM radio station!

I appreciate the praise for the mighty Swordfish. Slow, obsolete and ungainly. And yet, it kicked butt, routinely and without fanfare.

1:08:29 Damn.... looks like he's missing HALF his wing. Amazing he's still airborne, let along stabilized!

It was a really good idea to have a discussion about a niche airplane like this. The least you get a conclusion. Very well done!

47:26 - The message in the "Food for Thought" magazine ad by a piston ring manufacturer is really interesting, too dense and faceted to summarize why. A real diamond of the copywriter's art.

Well done Greg ….I can tell you did your Homework on this one as always … I never knew the A-26 could carry a torpedo… Thanks 😊

Nice, very interesting presentation. Torpedo planes probably had the most difficult mission of all attack aircraft IMO limiting the contenders to carrier born aircraft discounted the Beaufighter and the Sparviero. In the European theater the proximity of large land masses to large bodies of water allowed for better use of land based torpedo bombers, as you noted with the Swordfish flying out of Malta. Sparviero is of similar vintage as the Swordfish. Video is already pretty long but I would have liked to have seen these two in the discussion.

Yes New Zealand had Avengers in WW2, we didn't have any aircraft carriers but the Avengers were used by the RNZAF in support of our ANZAC brothers and we had them based in the Pacific Islands. There is a beautiful one on display at the Royal New Zealand Airforce's Museum here in Wigram Christchurch! It is a beautiful beast! Up close it is a very impressive Aircraft;- In WW2 New Zealanders flew;- Hurricanes P 40's Spitfires Typhoons Wellingtons Blenheims Stirlings Halifax's Lancasters Sunderlands Catalinas P-51 D Corsairs Avengers And the good old Harvard and Tiger Moth! New Zealand fought in Europe and the Pacific so we have a good collection of Aircraft!

Lol. Greg. The pictorial digs on suburu are hillarious. I just watched the dc 7 video and there was one in there and again here. So funny. And the advanced response to trolls is always entertaining as well. Great content. It is always a pleasure to learn about this stuff.

It's hard to believe the serendipity, but whilst halfway through this video I heard the unmistakable staccato of a big-inch radial engine in the distance. I took a look outside and it was our local TBM-3 Avenger flying over (operated Paul Bennet Airshows). It's the last flying Avenger in Australia and I'm lucky to live only about 15 minutes from the airfield where it operates. I'm currently learning to fly in a Cessna 150, and to see the big TBM on the same field really highlights how massive it truly is. Thanks for the great video!

Ive always had a soft spot for the Swordfish. Thanks for giving her an honorable mention. 😎

Another OUTSTANDING presentation! Thank you for all of the time and effort you put into this video.

I am really enjoying your content and only wish I had discovered it sooner! As an old aircraft mechanic I very much enjoy your deep dives below the "skin" into engines, systems and so forth. I was a P&W radial engine overhaul inspector for a number of years and it's refreshing to watch that content. 1830-92's were my favourites, from DC3's and Cats.

I’m always impressed by the variety and quality of your source materials. Graphics in the vintage ads are great. I saw one showing a sinking carrier that looks a lot like Akagi before conversion to a single flight deck. Regarding Midway, in Shattered Sword, Parshall and Tully have shown pretty convincingly that the conventional narrative that the Zeros were unable to climb back up to meet the SBDs is false. Nonetheless, it is obvious that a multi-axis attack from multiple altitudes greatly complicates defense of a carrier group.

Fantastic content, as usual, Greg. I've seen a few still-flying Avengers, flown to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, WI. They really are amazingly big airplanes in person. Several of the pilots who fly them bring along their entire family, along with tents, baggage, etc. - everything you'd need for a family camping vacation, including bunks for the junior aircrew, all inside the cavernous hull. The fact that these warbirds are still flying today, and flying safely enough to be used to fly young families around the country - speaks volumes about the toughness, practicality, and overall airworthiness of the Avenger. The wing folding mechanism is a masterpiece of practical engineering. It seems like it should be too complicated to be practical - but it isn't. It just works, and manages to do its job so much better than anything out there at the time. Good engineering was a true "force multiplier" - by allowing US ships to carry more airplanes and firepower - long before that expression made it into military parlance. Thanks to Greg and the commenters for adding a bit more to my knowledge of a fabulous - but sometimes under appreciated - WWII veteran.

That was an incredible revelation of countless factors that contributed to the outcome of the War in the Pacific (PC). As much as I know about airplanes, I always learn more from you, every time you post your excellent content. As you may recall, which if you do not, my resume includes a lot of hours in C-130s, T-38As, T1-As, AC-130 Gunshups and stuff I can't reveal on unclassified media. I thank you for your diligence and devotion to our love of Aircraft.

Savoia Marchetti SM79 " Sparviero" , Sparrow... Big respect to You , your pilots your achievements .

Fantastic research and presentation Greg. I'd never asked myself the titular question but your case for the Avenger is very compelling.

Greg, you're the only person I know who takes a video that only needs to be a minute long and can somehow stretch it out to over an hour. I love it.

Glad you mentioned the swordfish in a good light far to many people say how bad it was compared to more powerful and modern airframes .but the one part you didn't mention was the swordfish was capable of flying when other aircraft were not especially nigth

As an airplane crazy kid, the Avenger was the first WW2 plane I ever saw in person. My first airshow. Pulled into parking lot , got out and walked toward the field which was shielded from view by hangers and other buildings. We came around the corner of the end hangar and there she sat. At the end of the flightline sat the Avenger. I was amazed at how BIG she is. Book pics and documentary films did not prepare me for what I saw when I came around the corner of that hangar. Spellbound might cover it. 50+ years later, that visual still burns bright..Thanks to the CAF

Thanks for covering the RNAS Swordfish nicknamed String Bag by its crews. Your absolutely right it was obsolete when it entered WW2 in 1939. However as you said it was combat proven and hit the Bismark's steering gear. Our local museum in the UK has photos of the captured Bismark crew being lead off tenders into captivity. The UK was a world power in 1939 and it was deploring obsolute aircraft which shows we weren't prepared for war. I love some of the rare aircraft that is shown on here - Great video.

I finally saw one of these at an airshow a few years ago. Quite amazing how large it actually is in real life for a single engine aircraft!

One win for Grumman Iron works. US Navy kept Avengers on their aircraft carriers because Navy doctrine held that torpedo sink ships better than bombs. TBF and TBM avengers were also quite effective in reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare, and even airborne early warning. The primary role of escort carriers was protecting convoys against submarines and hunting down submarines in hunter killer groups.

This is a brilliant analysis, I really enjoyed it. Every point made was carefully considered, and very respectful but truthful about the swordfish and the significance of timing when aircraft appear.

Late to the game for a comment... I worked with an Avenger turret gunner when I was a co-op in industry at Baldwin Lima Hamilton, Eddystone, PA in 1967 (while attending Temple U in Philly). The thing he mentioned that really stuck in my memory, was him telling me how many antennas he had shot off this aircraft... was happy to hear you mention that happening in your video!

Amplidynes or in the UK rotary converters/dynamotors were used in a number of tank and command transceivers such as the British Army 19 set, to increase voltage from 12 or 24V DC to the 275V and 500V high tension required for the receiver and transmitter respectively. They are both noisy and difficult to shield the electromagnetic and radio frequency interference.

Really excellent as always with only the slight omission of the Sterling Atlantic service of this aircraft... keep up the good work!!

Thanks for the video but it's the manuals I am more excited about this time. Either way, I have never regretted being a Patreon.

With regards to the Grumman wing folding design. the compactness was aided by a fairly narrow track on the landing gear that allowed more of the wings to be folded back. It is a tribute to Grumman's engineers that they achieved excellent deck and rough field handling with this narrow track

Great video Greg, Well thought out and a great presentation of your thoughts and ideas. I would be extremely interested in your thoughts on the XF8B-1 and the XF5U, Have an excellent and safe 2022!

Greg, great video as always. You did make me sit up with the comment that torpedo bombers had a very narrow window in time. If we define that as an aircraft that drops torpedos in the water to attack enemy vessels (admittedly a broad definition) most sub hunters could be considered torpedo bombers. Of course, they are mostly either land based or helicopters. Off the top of my head, the last carrier based fixed wing aircraft carrying torpedos must be the Viking, the Gannet or the Alize. Still, not the same as the mighty Avenger.

My Grandfather served on HMS Nelson for 4 years and they were mostly on Malta Convoy Escort duty. Their Torpedo Bomber nemesis was the Savoia-Marchetti SM-79. The Mediterranean Theatre was vastly different to the Pacific and Atlantic for obvious reasons and land-based torpedo bombers like the SM-79 and Ju88 were extremely successful, able to range out from all sorts of bases in range of Malta meaning a continuous anti-air watch was required not long after breaching the Straits of Gibraltar. Both aircraft I mentioned carried two torpedoes and were significantly faster than their CV-based brethren. The SM-79 was was more feared because it it approached lower and faster than the German-crewed Ju-88s. They would approach low and out of the sun in the early morning and prior to the widespread installation of radar, this approach was very difficult to spot visually, for obvious reasons. The British also had gun-laying issues when it came to very low aircraft, with the 4.7 inch AA batteries being unable to depress enough at long enough ranges for AA shells to fuse, leaving AA duties to initially what was a very sparse smaller calibre automatic weapon battery. He bought me a model of the SM-79 when I was 11 so that he could initiate the discussion about his service in WWII with me as I was already regularly raiding his library of war diaries, biographies and autobiographies of which he had almost an entire wall of his library devoted to. You are completely correct about the Avenger though. Very nice work indeed.

Greg finds a topic that he does not have too explain in detail why we need to rethink our myths of WWII. A well deserved tap in for an eagle.

I'm glad you included your narrative on the Swordfish. It's war time accomplishments are wildly out of proportion to the plane's capabilities.

The last airial torpedo attack that I know of was an attack or series of attacks on hydroelectric dams in North Korea by Corsairs or Skyraiders. Probably Skyraiders. See Mark Felton for US or American dambusters. Hard to miss a dam. Maneuvering or not.

Gregg, allow me to say that YOU ARE THE MAN. This is an OUTSTANDING video. Very informative, accurate and narrated in a way that kept me mesmerized for the whole lenght of the presentation. I have you know that I am also a history buff and everything that you said was right on the money. I also have you know that the Avenger is my favorite WW II airplane. Once again, AWESOME job. Keep at it. I’ll keep watching. By the way, I just subscribed to your channel.

Regarding American torpedo bombers I always have in the back of my head the debacle with Mark 13 torpedo. It was an issue at the beginning of the war. Torpedo runs were extremely dangerous and thought that even if the pilot would be successful in dropping the torpedo it itself would be faulty is just agonizing.

Knowing some of these sea battles, I knew the only answer could have been the mighty Avenger, Thanks a bunch for your indepth analysis, highly interesting.

Thanks Greg for yet another epic video! I appreciate your work in providing such a thoroughly researched and detailed program about what seemed to me to be a rather uninteresting subject which in the end proved facinating. By the way, how are your automotive projects coming?

Always appreciate your uploads Greg. Extremely technical, but accessible and interesting at the same time. Thank you as always!

Thanks for another great video Greg. I sometimes use these to listen to on my way to sleep, and then put me back to sleep if I wake up, then listen fully in the morning with my coffee. So you get many‘listens’ from me lol

As always, kudos to Greg for his diligent research and presentation of the facts.

Authoritative and intriguing, as usual. I was particularly interested in your mention of the Royal Navy's attack on the Italian naval base in the heart of Canada Toronto. ;-) But what's one letter between friends ? It reminds me of the time I joined a ship in Durban, South Africa. I travelled Dublin-London-Durban and my baggage flew Dublin-London-Dublin. I was reunited with my belongings three months later in Yokohama. Thanks Greg.

The Avenger was still dropping loads on target in the ‘70’s. The B.C. Forest Service used them as retardant bombers, fulfilling a similar role to SEAT’s today. Same outfit operated Mitchell B-25’s. At least at their spring training you could see them lined together. Low and slow attacks.

It seems Japan could only produce 900 (early) -1200 HP radial engines for their aircraft. What about the Japanese industry precluded them from building at higher horse power? What if a Kate, or Zero for that matter, had a 1500 HP or larger engine? Would she then compete with the Avengers? Did Japan also have fuel (low octane) issues like Germany ? I have some tech info about how the Brits and Japanese modified their torpedos for use in shallow harbors. The History Channel got it wrong when they did an episode about Pearl Harbor torpedo attack. It would seem that the modified torpedo help made the aircraft (Kate and Swordfish) successful early in the war. The Kate was considered by some (Shattered Sword - The Untold Story of Battle of Midway) the best torpedo bomber early in the war, but Grumman was cream of the crop by the end. Does the right torpedo make the aircraft or the other way around? P.S. B - 17 and B -29 used amplidyne turret systems. Amplidynes are basically DC generators that function as high gain amplifiers. Small control inputs (small error signals) creates large outputs. Very fast response but very heavy system. But then again, hydraulic pumps and motors are heavy also !

A true unsung hero workhorse of ww2 and beyond, great video Greg.

You tell a good story. I also have my 50 year award. 40 years as a private pilot / instrument. Last 12 years as a flight instructor. Still having fun instructing.

Greg, I truly respect and admire you and your channel. You are very effective in communicating your vast knowledge base, and these videos and graphics are generally very well done in my opinion. I like how you base your opinions and conclusions on real info. Thank you for your work here. Fascinating.

One of the points people miss in talking about early war TBs and why they generally sucked, is the torpedoes they launched. At the outbreak of war, aerial torpedoes could not be launched at high speed nor high altitude. Doing either one would destroy the torpedo upon impact with the water. Therefore, there was no point for an aircraft designer to specify a high-speed design when the plane would have to slow to a crawl and fly very low to safely launch it's weapons. One of the major reasons the Avenger and other TBs like her were so much more effective, was that by mid-war, the Allies had developed torpedoes that could be dropped at high speed AND high altitude. Thus, her performance was not hindered by the robustness of her main weapon.

Excellent discussion on torpedo bombers of World War Two.

Thanks Greg. A really enjoyable video/talk. My father was a British Fleet Air Arm pilot and flew the Avenger(I think the Tarpon name had already been dropped) in WW2. He could not praise it highly enough

Always look forward to your videos! I probably checked youtube every hour after you announced the video would be posting soon. Thanks for putting these together.

What a very balanced and thorough video! I was very surprised that you considered the swordfish, most people just look at it and laugh even though it was responsible for 4 battleships and was instrumental in causing the Pearl Harbor strike, at least according to Yamamoto.

Love your videos. In-depth, we’ll researched and presented from a seat of authority on the topic. Thanks Greg!

Hard to imagine a more detailed Video about the Avengers role as a Torpedo Bomber. Thanks Greg, your contribution is outstanding.

I had a trip to Hawaii last week and of course I had to visit the Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum. After seeing planes like the P-40 and A6M2, I can attest that the Avenger looks absolutely gigantic when standing next to it!

Speaking of the escort carriers and Avengers, the Dauntless didn't have folding wings and therefore wasn't carried on the escort carriers. The Helldiver SB2C wasn't operated off the escort carriers as part of a carrier air group because the Avengers did everything required in concert with the F4F and FM Wildcat fighters. One scheme that never became reality was putting the SNJ on the escort carriers as combat aircraft--by the time the escort carriers were in service, sufficient numbers of Wildcats and Avengers were available.

55:34 My Grandfather was a radioman/bombardier for a TBM Avenger in the Marine Corps. After the Solomons, they pulled him from his post and started training him to pilot the craft instead. I've often wondered why they felt the need to do so; maybe with the number of Japanese planes dwindling, the US torpedoes improving, the lack of a radar in his craft, and the vulnerability of his position, they felt his talents were best used elsewhere. Thanks for helping clear up that personal mystery!

Great video once again Greg, thank you. I was browsing a used book sale at a local library some years ago when I spotted a small black vinyl binder that looked out of place among all the other books. I pulled it from the shelf and found myself holding an original POH for the TBF-1. It cost me a dollar.

Great video! Haven't watched it all yet but already my assumptions about the Grumman Avenger are challenged in a cool way. . .Based on the shape of the aircraft , I always assumed that it was developed more in chronological parallel with the F6 Hellcat. It just looks like it is from that specific "generation" so it is interesting that it kind of predated the Hellcat and yet was a very cutting edge aircraft. Grumman did some very good work.

The PBY needs an honorable mention. Yess, not a carrier aircraft but it was a spectacularly successful one in a wide range of applications.

Beautiful high-depth pictures here that I've never seen before. Thank you!

The Grumman Avenger was, if not the best absolutely one of the best but you really have to give the Gold Star for the most surprising good performer to the Royal Navy's Swordfish.

The aircraft stated to be a Val in a pic in the middle of the presentation is actually a Mitsubishi B5M torpedo bomber. A small number were built but the Nakajima B5N was chosen instead. B5M had fixed undercarriage like the Val, whose wings folded at the tips unlike the plane shown in the pic. The offset torpedo rack can also be seen in the pic.

Amplidynes work by using a low power signal to power the field coils of the generator in a motor-generator set. This will then cause the resulting output of the generator to vary proportionally with a higher power level. This enabled a low voltage in the gunners' controller to command a larger voltage from the Amplidyne to move the turret with sufficient authority to track targets.

Like your excellent P-47 series, this video did a great job of explaining why an on-paper (in coffee-table "Planes of WWII" books) unremarkable aircraft did such an excellent job. Regarding level bombing, Lancasters did have success using Tallboy bombs against the Tirpitz. When it was finally sunk, it was practically immobile but the first raid did succeed in heavily damaging a perfectly sea-going ship - albeit in tight fjords rather than open sea.

Great, Great, Great!!! Much interesting detail told in a flow that promoted listening attention and understanding (helped putting the pieces together)!

As I said in the Chat, the Swordfish succeeded in spite of its limitations. In the face of more serious opposition like in the Channel Dash or against the Japanese, they would be slaughtered. In the end as you mentioned, dive bombers were ultimately more successful than torpedo bombers in the face of well defended ships. The USN had the means to use and defend against them in ways the IJNAS could not with their heavy AA defenses and dense fighter CAP. The IJNAS could never hope to match that with the last time they used torpedo bombers effectively being at Santa Cruz where they got savaged pressing home their attacks. A most well researched and informative video.

love the content. If you take requests, I'd love to see something on the Helldiver. I've read anecdotal comments about it's poor handling qualities but as your channel has taught me, many cases of those types of comments and articles are quite inaccurate.