In Defense of the Worst Aircraft of World War II - TBD-1 Devastator
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 06. 2019
- Following the Battle of Midway, the TBD-1 made an unceremonial exit in the United States Navy. What was the story of this maligned torpedo bomber and is its bad reputation deserved?
- Get our Book -
Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Support the Channel
- Patreon: / milavhistory
- PayPal: www.paypal.me/BismarckYT
⚜ Find Me On Social Media ⚜
- Twitter: / milavhistory
- Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Facebook: / militaryaviationhistory
⚜ Music ⚜
Voice actor: SideStrafe.
CZcams: / sidestrafe
Soundcloud: / sidestrafe
⚜ Sources ⚜
Al Adcock, TBD Devastator in action, Aircraft Number 97, Squadron/Signal Publication
Alan Zimm, The Attack on Pearl Harbor - Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions
Andrew Boone, Naval Influence on Aircraft Design
Barrett Tillman, TBD Devastator Units of the US Navy, Combat Aircraft 20, 2000
Barrett Tillmann & Robert Lawson, US Navy Dive and Torpedo Bombers of WWII
B.R. Jackson et al. Douglas TBD-1 Devastator, Aero Series 23, 1973
David Doyle, Douglas TBD Devastator: America's First World War II Torpedo Bomber, Schiffer Publications
Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons Volume 1, The History of VA, VAH, VAK, VAL, VAP and VFA Squadrons,
Douglas TBD-1 Devastator Pilot’s Flight Operating Instructions, 1937
Douglas TBD Devastator, Profile Publications 171
E.W. Jolie, A Brief History of U.S. Navy Torpedo Development, NUSC Technical Document 5436, Weapon System Department, 1978
Flying Machines, Jan 1942, Martin T4M
J.E. Sirmalis, The Mark 13 Aircraft-Launched Torpedo: A WWII Success Story, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 1992
James A. Miller, Gaming the Interwar: How Naval War College Wargames Tilted The Playing Field for the US Navy during World War II, MA of Military Art and Science: United Staees Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland: 2001
U.S. Navy Carrier Bombers of World War II, TBD Devastator - SBD Dauntless - SB2C Helldiver - TBF/TBM Avenger, Aerodata International, Squadron/signal Publications, 1987
Ryan D. Wadle, United States Navy Fleet Problems and the Development of Carrier Aviation, 1929-1933, MA Thesis: Texas A&M University: 2005
Thomas Wildenberg, Billy Mitchell’s War with the Navy, Naval Institute Press
Norman Friedmann, US Naval Weapon, Naval Institute Press
William F. Trimble, The Naval Aircraft Factory, the American Aviation Industry, and Government Competition, 1919-1928, The Business History Review 60:2, Summer 1986, pp. 175-198
Chief of Naval Operations, Revised Naval Aeronautical Organization - Fiscal Year 1923, 1934, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930
All archive footage from NARA
#WW2 #TBD #Pacific
*If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting via Patreon:* www.patreon.com/Bismarck *or Paypal:* www.paypal.me/BismarckYT
Small little addition to my SBD comment regarding Midway - this will be a topic of discussion on the channel soonTM as I want to compare the 'old' & 'new' historiography on this subject!
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.
If the Devastator had: a better torpedo, an escort, better coordination with the dive bombers, the historical reputation about the Devastator would be different.
In Midway, ANY torpedo plane in that situation would have been slaughtered.
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.
One thing is beyond debate, the valor of the aircrews.
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.
The TBD suffered a fate similar to other planes that were aging at the start of the war. The Swordifsh, success at Taranto, success against the Bismark, faced newer airplanes during the channel dash, and got mauled.
Glad you brought this up. Admiral Otto Ciliax aboard the Scharnhorst was truly moved by the bravery of Lt. Cdr. Eugene Esmonde, VC, DSO and his going in against hopeless odds. When a few Fw-190s that had been scrambled shot down all of the Swordfish, he literally stood at attention and saluted, then ordered that survivors be picked up (and, owing to Esmonde's fighter escort getting so hopelessly lost that it couldn't find him, Ciliax's decision probably saved the lives of the men in the water...I truly wonder how he'd react if someone would've told him what happened to Ens. Wesley Osmus when the destroyer Arashi picked him up...). Admiral Ciliax survived the War and when he later read of Midway, he was upset that the USN torpedo bomber crews were, in his opinion, not highly decorated enough (in spite of all of the Navy Crosses).
In fact the very concept of torpedo bombing is dubious and in practice seldom succeeded except under almost complete absence of air opposition. Like the attacks on the Prince of Wales and Repulse, the Musashi, the Yamato, etc. Even the Avenger that replaced the Devastator carried bombs or rockets most of the time. The idea of aerial torpedo attack was largely given up after WWII.
@@Acme633 Bingo. As the Germans, later the British, and we ourselves observed, a plane could not take evasive action during a torpedo run. Therefore, it had to be either bristling with weapons and armor to an almost ludicrous degree (both the USN and the Luftwaffe tried varying degrees of this), heavily escorted to a ludicrous degree (the British solution), or itself be capable or breaking off its run and dogfighting with a torpedo (the Fw 190's torpedo bomber variant could do this and a few very late War British designs were designed around a similar principle, though most were poorly executed).
In fact, the USN's "BT" designation replaced the "TB" designation for this reason in the USN. BT=[Level] Bomber and Torpedo Bomber. An early example would Ed Heinemann's "Turkey", the BTD-1 Destroyer. But Heinemann realized the design was too complex to work after trying to upgrade it and wound up with the BT2D-1 Skyraider...which of course turned out to be fine aircraft after being re-designated, but which also was the reason they were planning to launch torpedo attacks against dams with it in Korea (they did once and it was a success, but no further need arose). There was also the "TS" designation that stood for "Torpedo Scout", and while only one was designed--the Grumman XTSF-1--it was the "bristling with armor and weapons" concept and could also, on paper, function as an attack aircraft. It was in fact based on the very early F7F Tigercat and was armed to the teeth, but canceled when the Navy realized that a torpedo bomber simply was not practical.
You could also argue the Swordfish's Channel Dash disaster killed the concept of a single-purpose torpedo bomber for the Fleet Air Arm. The Fairey Albacore was already designed and in service, but the oft-unfairly-maligned Fairey Barracuda was also designed with the intent of functioning as a level bomber.
The Swordfish was bad plane though probably not as bad as TBD but they are well equipped, radar and functioning torpedoes. They could attack ships at Taranto because there was no CAP fighter and good AA gunners/fire control to shoot down aircraft, same happened during their runs on Bismarck when the Bismarck AA gunners were not well trained or not experienced enough to shoot aircraft plus they also don't have any CAP fighters.
Avengers hands down the best carrier based torpedo bomber in the war, the British switched over to Avengers for their carriers when they entered the Pacific War in early 1945.
The Japanese developed the best successful torpedo aircraft method, the anvil attack but again they need to be unmolested from fighters and AA gunners when they conduct said runs on enemy ships.
One of the successful torpedo attack with multiple aircraft was probably conducted in Phillipines sea or against Yamato im Ten Go where the US hellcats and dive bombers would suppressed the target ships deck and get rid of any fighter cover so the Avengers could come in for their runs
It's interesting that outside of the areas of endurance and range the TBD (which is widely remembered as a terrible aircraft) compares very favorably with the Fairey Swordfish, which is fondly remembered as a great plane by many today. To be fair, the endurance and range of the Swordfish greatly helped it in the duties it faced in the Atlantic and Mediterranean (striking the Bismarck; hitting Taranto at night; convoy escort on the Murmansk run). However, even if Laub's recollections from 1970 are spot on the TBD was still much faster than the Swordfish. One has to wonder how fondly the Swordfish would be remembered today if it had had to attack a Japanese fleet in proper defensive formation with A6M CAP rather than an individual German ship or some Italian ships caught at anchor.
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.
So, at midway:
No escorts.
Having to fly incredibly slow.
Having to fly dangerously low. Having to fly in a *predictable* straight line to the target.
And lastly, knowing this, it should *never* have been the spear tip of the attack.
That aircraft was all but deliberately set up to be a turkey shoot for anyone with a firearm in the receiving Japanese fleet.
It was a needless and hell of a waste of fine pilots and decent machinery.
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.
It should be noted the pilots of the TBD Devastators won the respect of the Japanese Imperial Navy. I met Lt Commander (Ensign at Midway) George Gay. That was a treat.
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.
8:33 That curtain of smoke produced by a plane is impressive!
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.
The Mk 14 torpedo it carried was CRAP. Until mid WW2 all U.S. Navy torpedos were CRAP. A major scandal in itself. Worth its own episode, TIK
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
As always, I appreciate the opportunity to voice a few more heroes. Had a lot of fun with this one!
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. CZcams needs to wake up to what people like and think.
...from an old NAVY gunners mate.
@@SideStrafe Well done SideStrafe!
The 6TBF’s at Midway were literally the first 6 planes that came out of the factory door at Bethpage, arriving at Midway with their paint still wet. The crews experience with the planes was little more than their flight halfway around the world. They arrived at Pearl a day late to link up with Hornet, so they were sent straight to Midway. Nimitz was grabbing any random air asset that he could find capable of reaching and reinforcing Midway. (And able to fit on and operate off its runway). Of the 6 Avenger Flight crews I believe 5 of them were new green crews fresh out of school. The 6th experienced crew is the one that made it back intact. 2 others returned to Midway but ditched in the lagoon or crashed on landing with the planes being total losses. Similarly the 4 B-26’s at Midway we’re 4 pre-production test and evaluation planes. It would be 2-3 more months before the B-26 would officially enter US Service. Why they Jury Rigged them to carry Torpedos is anybodies guess? They all had experienced crews, and might have actually hit something with a heavy bomb or two. Those pilots and bombardiers had never even seen a torpedo until that morning. The only successful US Torpedo attack at Midway was made by a Jury Rigged Radar Equipped PBY Catalina dropping on one of the slow moving invasion transports the night before the Carrier battle. (Which was kind of a brilliant idea. A shame they didn’t keep doing it more until much later in the war.) Well technically the Submarine USS Nautilus did finally get a shot on the already burning Akagi. The torpedo ran true, hit the Akagi and broke in half. The unexploded warhead sunk, and a half dozen Japanese sailors used the floating torpedo body as a life raft. US Torpedos, saving Japanese lives since 1942!
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.
Preaching to the choir. Ever since the 70s when I read extensively about Midway I knew the TBD's problems were the torpedo and obsolescence. "Obsolescence" does not mean a bad aircraft per se. All it means is that the aircraft is out of context for its era.
Absolutely fascinating video none the less and thank you!
Based on what my father, who served 1953-1973 in the Navy, told me, the Devastator and those who flew it at Midway are synonymous with courage and sacrifice. The terrible losses of TBD's opened the gate for the Dauntless dive bombers and the tide of the Pacific War turned in minutes. The loss of an entire squadron in one mission, the famous Torpedo 8, is legendary to Navy sailors (at least for those recruited in the 1950s like my father).
Navy sailors remember the courage of the TBD crews, not the plane's low airspeed or the Mark 13 torpedo. Like the sailor quoted in the video says, Devastator crews knew their plane was helpless against the Type 0 (Zero) fighter and enemy flak, and they still flew their mission. Fortunately, some of the Devastator crew were saved from the ocean, unlike the thousands of Japanese lost forever in the Pacific
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 Douglas Devastator was the unsung hero of Midway...whilst the Devastators were down on the waves on their torpedo runs and getting slaughtered by the Zeros...the distracted Zeros never saw the Dauntless dive bombers diving from above and their bombs sinking 3 Japanese carriers in minutes...
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.
I just randomly found this video and i'm very impressed with the academic approach - it stands apart from all the melodramatic military aviation content on youtube. Great choice to tell the TBD-1 story, awesome video!.
Yes- a Naval BZ for the video !
Absolutely & why USN Academy tends to share sides of the story that aren’t “friendly”. 😎👍
The TBD's at Scapa Flow was Air Group 7 that were left behind so the USS Wasp could carry more Spitfires and supplies for Malta. The USN was the only operator of the TBD. The Torpedo used was flawed due to the fact it was tested only in calm waters of either the Great Lakes or Chesapeake Bay. Many of the operators knew this (PT Boat crews and Submariners besides the USN Torpecker crews) and tried to get BuOrd to implement the fixes before the war started. TBD's scored numerous hits with their torpedoes at Coral Sea and the early Hit and Run raids. However only one or two actually detonated. At Midway, the USS Nautilus hit the IJN Kaga with a full spread of torpedoes of which none detonated. They just broke and sank. It wasn't until the Middle of '42 before this was addressed.
Thank you for this. It's rare I find a video that the author actual did some research and had knowledge of the subject. As someone who has spent his live doing research on USN aircraft and tactics in early WWII , this gets a huge thumbs up.
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)
It's difficult to properly assess the TBD Devastator since they had so much trouble with their ordnance. The torpedoes used at Midway were horribly unreliable and, while torpedo bombing as a tactic was mostly outdated by WW2 and was a very high-risk idea in the first place, the Devastator might have had much more success if the torpedoes it was dropping actually deployed, ran, and detonated properly. It's an absolute travesty that brave men lost their lives while delivering faulty ordnance which should have been corrected long before.
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.
I have to say I’ve always have been mystified by the absence of any punitive action(s) or any action at all toward the hierarchy within the United States Navy Bureau of Ordnance during or after WW2 subsequent to the disclosure of the absolute intentional criminal handling of the development and deployment of the Navy’s failed Mk. 13 arial-launched torpedos and Mk. 14 submarine-launched torpedos. Even the older Mk. 10 submarine-launched torpedo, together with the Mk. 15 destroyer-launched and early war Mk. 8 motor torpedo boat (PT)-launched torpedo had serious systemic problems that NavBurOrd refused to address or even acknowledge until politically compelled to do so within the War Department at that time.
The costs, when calculated in dollars, lives, and length of time the problem extended the war were a horrendous abomination.
An abomination that at the very least, should have resulted in post-war congressional hearings, indictments, and criminal convictions handed down to those responsible.
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 !
I've always had a soft spot for the TBD ever since I was a little kid. I actually wrote a letter to the secretary of the navy when I was about 8 asking them to raise one off the coast of florida since no TBDs survive.
did they reply...did the letter begin something like Dear Chip/Bud...?
TBD-1 Devastator -right aircraft fighting at the wrong time with the worst ordnance, I think, ever. Their crews became the sacrificial lamb.
I have never heard of it as being "the worst" aircraft of WW II but it was certainly not a new aircraft. It took its hits during the battle of Midway that is for sure.
The TBD was a big jump forward for the Navy. So glad you brought that to light. The early days of aviation were like the early days of computers. Major advances were happening every year.
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.
I always thought of the Devastator as one of the classics up there with the Wildcat and Dauntless. Sad that it has such a poor reputation.
It's not really fair to call it the worst. The losses at Midway were mainly due to uncoordinated attacks. The aircraft performed alright against the Shoho at Coral Sea. The Swordfish showed that outdated aircraft could be effective under the right circumstances.
Bottom line, Midway was just a bad place to be a torpedo bomber. You made some good points about the TBD.
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 CZcams 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.
LOL "Ominous Foreshadowing" hilarious, keep up the good work
There were a couple of Freudian slips like "flame" used instead of "fame". I need to take time to pinpoint exact time and context.
Where can I get a coffee mug like that? My father is a WW2 veteran , 95 years old. I believe he will love this. Thanks.
Devastators at Midway...….. ultimate taking one for the team
Takeoff weight was about 10,000 pounds. With an 850 horsepower engine, that was about 12 pounds per horsepower. That's compared to the SDB-5's 10,700 pound takeoff weight with a 1200 horsepower engine, or 9 pounds per horsepower. The SDB was not just faster in level flight but much faster climbing to altitude but faster pulling up and out of danger from a torpedo or dive attack.
A most fantastic look at an aircraft that has been unfairly maligned. Superlative video Bis.
Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed it
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Have you done the Vought SB2U Vindicator?
Technology in WWII is interesting. People constantly compare late war production models with early war and say 'x aircraft/tank/ship/bomber' was the best in the war.
It's seriously frustrating. I love the P-51, but it was put into service exactly half way through the war.
You can't do a side by side comparison with that vs, say, the I-16, which was a formidable aircraft... in 1939. It was aging in 1941, but it still did a good job.
@harrylongbaugh1 which has nothing to do with my post.
I think you hit the nail right on the head when you said, in effect, that the TBD-1 was the the leading edge of new technology. It was in fact the foundation of all aircraft of similar purpose. It's strengths, it's weaknesses all contributed to what followed.
While the TBD had it's limitations it was most hamstrung by lousy torpedos.
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
I think this was an excellent summary; many forget at which point in time aircraft was developed and don't realise what they had to offer at the time of design; otherwise we could say EVERY aircraft like the P-51 or Fw-190 was just crap; they don't stand a chance against a F-22 Raptor, but that is not a fair comparison, but neither is comparing the TBD with a plane four years junior in the highly accelerated development phase of WW2 era.
PS: What on earth does CZcams have against your channel?
That doesn't make sense...
I loved the TBD and TBF and the men lost in them are heroes. Thank you all for caring about all the men and women of history
Great video!
I think you hit the nail on the head. Midway was not to the fault of the plane, but just the logistics that failed it.
I remember a film about Midway, it used real footage of the dogfights and some rough carrier landings - evem featured one of those rescued crew members. It really put into perspective not only the struggles we had, but also the sensation of a tide finally turned in the war.
8:08 - I thought he said "snorkeling devices".. 😁
Interestingly, the A-10 also has exposed gear for the same reason!
The TBD was a good airplane, but obsolete, and the Navy knew it, but there was a war on. As you point out, had the strikes at Midway went as briefed, more aircraft would probably have made it back, but Midway would still have been the last battle for the Devastator.
@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.
One of the best accounts of any WW2 aeroplane I have heard and seen. Excellent - Many thanks.
Excellent presentation ; here is a few considerations on the Devastator, (1) it was heavy due to its folding wing and overbuilt structure (2) it was under powered at a thousand horsepower . It also had the misfortune of operating when Japan controlled the airspace around the fleet. However, due to it success at coral sea and the success of the enemy at Pearl Harbor , the Japanese navy feared the torpedo as did all Navies at that time. At Midway the enemy swarmed the Devastator squadrons and left the sky above the fleet open. That day went to a hand full of Navy pilots who were excellent dive bombers who flew the another outdated aircraft, the Dauntless. The lesson here is that bombers do not operate without fighters. Your video is excellent.
I appreciate your comments on the TBD. Lets also remember the crews of torpedo squadrons 3, 6, & 8 who died at Midway.
My grandfather was in Torpedo Squadron 8.
@@patrickkenyon2326 my grandfather was torpedoed off the Cape in 1939.
Thank you for the book credits, not everyone does that!
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.
Thanks for that one, Mate. I've ALWAYS wondered how well the Fleet Air Arm's Swordfish, Wildebeest (or possibly Beauforts) would have faired against the massed IJN Type '0' fighters in such circumstances in comparison - for all their vaunted qualities : not very well, I suspect ('Channel Dash', anyone ?). TBD outmoded ? Yes (& so were lots of aircraft in early WWII) but saddled with ineffective torpedo payload, it's hardly surprising. As people have said - what cannot be doubted (for flyers of the TBD, the LAGG-3, the F2A/Buffalo, the IL-2 [early on], the Fairey Battle, the He-111, the Bristol Blenheim etc) is the absolute valour of the guys who flew them, especially when they knew full-well their likely odds when facing serious & determined opposition. Many thanks.
I fell in love with the TBD-1 when I started playing War Thunder; I'm not sure if I'm alone in this or not, but I think it's gorgeous. I like it's shape and the jaunty pre-war paint job is very colorful.
I'm shocked by how good you present this topic on camera. You are very good at this
Thanks !
So it was kind of like the lebel rifle... One of those situations where it was too good too early and everybody else caught up so quick that it was made obsolete.
My father was a Marine TBF Avenger pilot during the Guadalcanal campaign. His squadron was scheduled to get the hand-me-down TBD's as the Navy would get the new TBFs. Since all the TBD's were lost at Midway, the Marines actually got the first line TBF's. If he had gotten the TBD I may not be here writing this post. He's gone now, passing to guard the gates of heaven as it says in the Marine hymn, but I remember him telling me that he never dropped a torpedo in combat. They either glide bombed, dropped depth charges or occasionally laid mines. He said they usually carried bombs when they went to Rabaul or other shipping targets in and around Guadalcanal.. Anyway he was shot down twice and never got scratch so I am a real TBF fan and very thankful that he never got the TBD's they were scheduled to equip with.
So - you undertake extensive research. You present your findings in perfect English with a clear, concise and extremely interesting narrative. You source and display relevant and clear videos and pictures. Then - you share it with us. And people ask me why I am a Germanophile ('Tutonophile'). Truly outstanding. Thank you.
This makes the Defiant look like a saint. At least the defiant looked modern and had a decent speed but god.
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.
"Bo... Don't. Shoot. The bombs."
"But I was just wondering-"
"Don't. Shoot. The bombs."
Still my favorite moments. This is nice, too.
I think one of my aircraft books closes on the Devastator nicely: “the Devastator was withdrawn from combat units - left behind by a war that was moving faster than it did.”
Great job of an objective look at the Devastator. At the time of the Battle of Midway, The US Navy was still learning how to organize strikes utilizing multiple carrier air groups. The Devastator was a victim not just of it obsolescence but of this lack of coordination. I believe in addition to the TBF Avengers based out of Midway, some Army Air Corps B-26 Marauders also attempted torpedo attacks, with the same result.
The Torpedoes the American's went to war with is criminal. The obstinance of the Bureau of Ordinance in defense of the Mark 18 and Mark 13 torpedoes bordered on the paranoid. In a properly executed, coordinated attack, the F4F would have been hard pressed to protect both the Devastators and the Dauntlesses. I think you gave this plane the respect it deserves.
I will say having studied WWII for many years, I strongly support providing the military with the right equipment to fight and return. By this I don't just mean the latest and greatest, I mean equipment that works and can carry out the mission.
Hey, it might have been slow, it might have been vulnerable, but the Fleet Air Arm attacked the Italian Battle fleet in Taranto harbour with the Fairy Swordfish. The Ancient Swordfish also crippled the Bismarck.
Respects to the Yanks who started WW2 unprepared and ended WW2 with the most advanced navy and best equipped forces on the planet.
National Pride aside, we cannot knock the efforts of the USA.
High 5s.
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.
I just remember building the model of the TBD-1 with my Dad when I was a kid. I always thought the plane looked really amazing.
Two things: First, he Bismark was sunk in May of 1941, after being disabled by British biplanes carrying torpedoes. So that was one of the "lessons" of this kind of combat that the US Navy had to go by. Namely, a far inferior plane to the Devastator had done a remarkably good job against a mighty opponent. Second, drawing enemy fighters down to sea level was just one result of the Devastator's sacrifice. They also forced the Japanese carriers to maneuver, during which time it is almost impossible to launch or recover aircraft. Aircraft carriers are generally required to go more or less straight & into the wind for such operations. So this complicated & delayed Japanese responses in no small measure.
I enjoyed your video. Very well done! (My comments are minor points compared to your overall excellent analysis.)
It’s very much like the British String Bags with it’s successful attacks on Bismarck and the Italian fleets. Who would have thought how well they’d have done. Their bravery and professionalism were top notch. Have to say, how much I enjoy listening to young men from any country telling the world what happened to so many brave men in all these combat encounters and how bad it was and of course the obvious conclusion of why we should stop doing it. You young men seem to be doing a great job of learning from history. Thank you!
Absolutely fantastic video (as are all of yours). Very well researched and thought out. Much appreciated. Every once in awhile a real gem comes along and your videos are just that. Looking forward to more.
The U.S.N. WW2 torpedo debacle was mostly due to the pre-war mentality of admiral rank officers. Even after Pearl Harbor there was a strain of thought by top brass which did not want to "waste" torpedoes by testing them. The admiral in charge of Navy ordinance was, in my opinion, criminally obtuse in his obstinate denials that there was anything wrong with the Navy's torpedoes. His usual excuse was that it was the combat pilot's fault (easy to say while sitting at a desk over a thousand miles away from danger). It wasn't until they tested several torpedoes against static rock outcroppings off Hawaii that he was finally forced to admit there was something wrong. Of 3 torpedoes to strike direct hits on the rock, only one exploded - and that one happened to have hit at an angle by mistake. The Navy eventually asked one of history's greatest mind, Albert Einstein, to help them solve the riddle of their non-exploding torps; whereupon he performed some calculations and figured out that the contact exploder would likely malfunction in a direct, side-on hit. Come to think of it, you should do a video on this story, as at several levels, it's quite fascinating.
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?
The devastator is hardly the only pre-war design to run afoul of progress in the early years of the war. The Gloster Gladiator, I-16, Curtiss P-36, BF-110, and many others come to mind.
great video and I must applaud your find on films of the TBD that I never seen before and I find them exciting. I met the lone survivor Ens. George Gay at an airshow back in 1983 and his story just amazed me the will and strength to carry on the mission.
I never thought I'd see a video on the TBD Devastator. Kudos!
In response to this statement:” the devastator was the worst aircraft of WW2”
Hey, at least it wasn’t a Defiant
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.
An excellent presentation, and your point of view has made me rethink all I have heard of the TBD-1. If course, the courage of the crews and the tragedy of their great losses I don't think has ever be doubted - quite the opposite!
Thank You for a very thoughtful and informative video. Considering the background of the plane, and the impossible situation it was in at
Midway. any torpedo bomber would have been at a disadvantage. Thanks for sharing this information!
Your excellent presentation covers all the angles-- relies on primary sources whenever possible, publishes these resources, and offers extensive graphic support. The analysis, itself, is direct and well-edited, and your series has taken its place among my (subscribed) favorites.
An objective view using actual facts and words from the men who had to fly a TBD-1 into the mouth of Hell. AMAZING!!!
You have a GREAT site.....thoroughly enjoyed your posts...Vietnam vet Helicopter 1968-69...
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 thoroughly enjoyed your dissertation and annalists on this topic of the TBD..you made perfect sense..and had always wondered what went wrong at Midway..
“Ships can’t be churned our like tanks or planes “
Liberty ships : HOLD MY BEER
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
There is one other thing, which could be worked out from the information you provided but which you didn't mention explicitly. Look at the total number of TBDs produced, and the numbers lost in pre-war accidents. Then consider what the losses at Coral Sea (where Lexington took most of her air group to the bottom with her) and Midway did to the remaining inventory of the type - which was long since out of production by that time. It seems clear that the withdrawal of TBDs after Midway was due as much to a simple lack of remaining flyable aircraft as to its real and perceived deficiencies.
@@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.
Your discussions of aviation history are the best I have ever heard. They are clear and extremely well imaged. They are better than the "academic historians" I have seen. You are a doctor of aviation history. Have you ever considered doing an extended documentary say for, PBS, DW, France 24, or the BBC? If you ever write a book it will be better than anything out there. Your discussion reminds me of some the same comparisons of the P-39 and P-40. Both excellent aircraft in the right hands!
An entertaining piece of work. A strong analysis, exceedingly well organized. Thanks much.
My father flew in TBF/TBM's from 1943 to the end of the war. Torpedo attacks were rare after Midway. Mostly they were used in a level bombing and ground support roles--roles in which they were very effective.
Nice vid, I really like the look of the TBD Devastator. RIP VT-8.
If the Battle of Midway occurred in 1939 prior to the introduction of the Zero, the TBD would have been a perfectly fine torpedo bomber. But, it was obsolete in 1942 and forced to fight in a battle it was no longer able to fight.
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!
Thank you for sharing, i find your videos informative and funny (IL2 missions) I've been an aircraft mechanic for over 30 years and still learn the history aspect from you.
Thanks much, for providing some balance & wider understanding to the otherwise horrible reputation of the Devastator
Outstanding video on a plane that rarely gets the spotlight (other than to be derided)!
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)
Excellent presentation and insight about lack of coordination.
Thanks!
Excellent video. The TBD-1's experiences at Coral Sea and Midway are perfect examples of how any weapon is only as good as its utilization.
You're so good getting deeply inside the planes life and why's.. I do Love your Page Bismark .
Excellent video. You comments are spot on, and in particular, the context is very important. There are a number of aircraft that were in similar situations. They were cutting edge when introduced, but technology rapidly improved and very soon the aircraft were obsolete. Some aircraft were able to be upgraded and improved but many were not. The Fairy Battle, the Hawker Hurricane, and a number of others fall into this category. History certainly gives the Hurricane a better reputation than many others though.
A number of other aircraft could have gotten a bad rap too, but were fortunate in that their designs were able to be improved and they ended up being successful. The early B-17s didn't have self sealing fuel tanks and had other deficiencies, yet they went on to be very successful. The Bf/Me 109 and the Spitfire are two great examples of being able to be upgraded, and towards the end of the war were far superior to their early versions.
Great video and I always look forward to your videos.
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.
The TBD Devastator was frightfully obsolete by 1941, but it had the job until the TBF Avenger could be brought on line in adequate numbers. That's all there is to it.
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.
Thank you for a very informative presentation with excellent documentation.
Really not a subject I'd seek out or was barely even aware of but you made it interesting and I've listened to a couple of yours now . You're clearly very knowledgeable and deliver it in a smooth , easily digestible and light way . Thanks , you made my afternoon of plastering go quickly 😊
I love the narrated quotes :D
Stellar history and storytelling! The visuals and personal recounts are awesome. As is your informal presentation style, coffee in hand.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it
I have always liked the TBD-1. I really like your account of it's importance here as well, thank you!
guys who are like you deserve more subs and views..well researched..editing and time to prep is noteworthy..you earned my respect..thx
Excellent .....as a historian I must say well done
One of the great mysteries of the TBD was that it wasn't upgraded with a more powerful engine. Dramatically more powerful versions of the Pratt & Whitney R-1830-64 mounted on the TBD was also widely used by successful US military aircraft (notably the B-24, PBY, the F4F and C-47), and long before we entered the war, versions of this same engine that could deliver power to the tune of 1,200 horsepower were already in operation. Yet the TBD's R-1830-64 generated merely 900 hp. An example of a plane flying the 1,200 hp R-1830 on the carrier decks was the F4F, which used one of the 1,200 hp version R-1830. This meant that the Navy already had aviation machinist mates onboard all our carriers in 1941-42 who were fully up-to-speed on maintaining that engine during carrier ops.
Upgrading the engines - which were basically the same engine, requiring little (if any) reworking of the engine mounts - would have given the TBD one-third greater power, which would have translated itself into better speed and load-carrying capability, and made the plane at least marginally more effective and survivable in its torpedo bomber role, especially at Midway.
Of course, without fighter cover and/or close coordination with the SBD dive bombers (or better yet, both), the TBDs - like the six TBFs and four Martin B-26s flying from Midway without fighter cover and flying in disconnected penny-packets, rather than in a formidable formation of high-altitude, dive and torpedo bombers - would still have been vulnerable to Zeros and flak that had only those low-altitude "targets" to shoot at. Yet given the actual TBD's execrable performance, especially down on the deck with a one-ton torpedo hanging down in the slipstream, a more powerful R-1830 would not be a panacea - but it would have helped.
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.
Of the 10-20 of your videos I've seen, all have kept me watching and interested in seeing more of your work.
Outstanding video. Your work on this analysis of the plane adds so much to my reading of historical accounts of the war in the Pacific. It helps magnify the bravery of our young pilots who must have known their chances as they committed to their long unsupported run ins to their targets. Thank for the great analysis and presentation.
There is at least one instance when aircraft created smoke screens in WW2 : the british laid smoke from douglas bostons in 1942 during the Dieppe raid to dissimulate their fleet from the eyes of the german gunners
billy thibaud it was used in a few Pacific landings as well.
It is a beast to fly in War Thunder also. But it found it's way into my hart there. One of my favorite single engine prop planes.
Yeah, the thing turns on sharp edge of a penny in that game. Makes it a real fun troll fighter
Thank you for your detailed study! You give a reminder that developments in one technology represent steps in capability that don't always fit current understanding or theory of strategy or tactics (actual usefulness). Nor do they account for holes that may exist when we try to mate them with other other possibly flawed or limited tech. Well done!
What issue does CZcams have with your content? You present some of the most well researched and cogently laid out military aviation history across the entire platform!
Well done doc on this plane. I gained a different perspective and more respect for the TBD. thank you
According to Shattered Sword, only VT-8 had twin 30 cal mounts from SBDs that Waldron had 'acquired' !
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 :)
As a teenager I loved to build models. I soon ran out of shelf space for cars, ships, Submarines...I started building Aircraft... The Douglas was my second build, even back then in all the books I could find it had a bad reputation, but I still liked the design. Oh...shelf space gone..I hung them from my ceiling with thumb tacks and fishing line...A Stuka Dive Bomber greeted everyone at the door. 🙄
You just earned yourself a new Patreon member with this video. The much maligned TBD one of my favorite planes of WWII (the others being the practically unknown B-32 Dominator and the true workhorse of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane). The TBD was definitely a victim of its times, being cutting edged when introduced, but woefully out classed when it mattered. Interestingly, the B-29 suffered a similar fate, being a technological marvel in 1945, woefully obsolete over Korea against jets just 5 years later.