Fairey Swordfish

This is a question which I often have an internal dialogue about, e.g. during boring meetings at work. I am glad to have found a forum where I can get it off my chest to people who will understand….I hope! The Fairey Swordfish torpedo-bomber: should we be proud of it or ashamed of it? (By “we” I mean the British - apologies to non-UK forumites).

If the popular press mentions it, they will say something like: “Fragile biplanes that torpedoed the Bismarck”, and possibly remind us that, allegedly, they were so slow that the Bismarck’s gunners couldn’t calibrate their gunsights on them (any of you know if this was true?). This is seen as an example of the Great British Make-do spirit

In fact, the one good thing you can say about the Swordfish was that it was definitely not frail. It was extremely robust. Biplanes can be extremely robust, as those of you who have seen a Pitts Special at an airshow will know. Basically, the wings can be braced against each other, which is why most early aeroplanes were biplanes. The Swordfish was also easy to handle. It operated in very severe weather in the North Atlantic, from small carriers, often carrying torpedoes that weighed three-quarters of a ton. Later in the war when we introduced the small Escort Carriers and the even smaller Merchant Aircraft Carriers, the Swordfish was the only torpedo-bomber that could operate from them - though this was fortuitous for us rather than the result of forward planning. Operating in the ASW role from these carriers, armed with depth charges or rockets, they probably made a greater contribution to the war than in the torpedo role. And nothing I say here is intended to denigrate the courage and skill of the men who flew them.

But the fact is that by the start of World War 2, both the Americans and Japanese had all-metal, closed cockpit, monoplane torpedo bombers that were over 100 mph faster than the Swordfish. True, the Avenger, the Devastator and the Kate needed larger carriers and did not operate in North Atlantic weather, but they did not have the reputation of being any less robust than the Swordfish - unlike the latter’s successor the Barracuda. Britain was the only major country other than Italy to operate biplanes in major frontline combat roles in WW2: this is hardly something to be proud of.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the difference in speed was little protection against enemy fighters. Whether a bomber is 50 mph slower than a fighter or 200 mph slower, the result will be the same. At Midway, the US Navy TBD Devastators were…well, devastated is the word, and we all know about the Blenheim and the Battle (though the Stuka was even slower). But speed does allow you to get to your target quicker, and Midway was won on the basis of who found their opponent’s carriers first.

At the end of WW1, the British were the world leaders in Naval Aviation. But for reasons that would take too long to go into here (not that I claim to be an expert) we neglected Naval Aviation between the wars. After the early thirties, we did not produce a world-class naval aircraft until the Buccaneer of 1957, which was so good the RAF swallowed it’s pride and bought some. Then of course there was the Sea Harrier, which their Lordships are now ditching in the belief that we can rely on the Americans, until the F35 JSF comes along which won’t be able to take off from our future carriers unless they are lengthened and which doesn’t come in an air superiority version. But I digress…

So, the Swordfish: thumbs up or thumbs down?

Adrian Roberts

 

My best friend used to fly the "String bags" He had the distinction of landing the "Wrong way" 13 times. His chief complaint that if the headwind was strong enough the blasted thing damn near flew backwards.
Sapper

 

Well, 21 Swordfish attacked Taranto, a lot of damage was done including three Battleships out of commission - interested parties after were the Japanese Navy who used the same methods for Pearl Harbour.

Aye
MalcolmII

 

Malcolm
Well, 21 Swordfish attacked Taranto, a lot of damage was done including
Taranto was certainly their finest hour. But the Italians didn't have air defences. When Esmonde and his men attacked the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, if they had been flying faster aircraft, could there possibly have been a chance that some would have survived?

Sapper
He had the distinction of landing the "Wrong way" 13 times
How do you mean, wrong way? Did he actually land downwind, from bow to stern of the carrier? If so I don't think anything other than a Swordfish could manage that!

To quote myself:
This is a question which I often have an internal dialogue about
Of course I mean an internal Monologue! An internal dialogue would be really serious - ask a schizophrenic!

Adrian

 

I seem to recall that the Swordfish led the aviation league in total tons of merchant ships sunk, so that should say a lot right there. One of the key points of the Allied victory was that they mostly eschewed premature development of 1950s technology, and simply honed 1930s technology to its highest pitch. So while they used piston-driven fighters, they were among the best and most reliable of the breed. The Swordfish was in a similar position...what it didn't do, it didn't do. But what it did do....ASW and merchant-ship sinking...it did extremely well.

 

Kiwiwriter and everyone:
Of course all of you are right in your support for the Swordfish. I still think we could have had monoplane torpedo bombers by 1940 (preferably not the Barracuda though!). Part of the reason we didn't was that the Fleet Air Arm was part of the RAF not the Navy until 1939 and they neglected it. However the over-riding reason was that we had to prioritise resources during the Rearmament programme of the late thirties. In the end, a slow torpedo-bomber is less of a problem than a slow fighter, and to that extent we made the right decision. It was the Italians who had monoplane bombers but biplane fighters in 1940!

Have you ever seen a Swordfish being started? I watched the RN Historic Flight's LS326 being started at Biggin Hill Air Fair a few years back. The engine was primed by turning the propellor: this took two blokes, one pulling on a blade and one pulling on his other hand, i.e. a human chain. Then they inserted a starting handle in a socket in the upper port cowling, just forward of the wing leading edge. To turn it, one man stood on the port wheel and reached upward, the other on the lower wing leaning forward. They turned it faster and faster for maybe twenty seconds, during which time the propellor didn't move. Presumably they were spinning either a flywheel or a starter magneto. Then the pilot must have done something in the cockpit, engaged a clutch maybe, and the propellor turned and the engine burst into life.

Anyone shed any light on this process?

Adrian

 

The Swordfish?

I love it.

How could anyone not?

 

I've added a poll to the topic.

I personally believe that in the correct situation the Swordfish was a very good aircraft, OK it wasn't fast but it was reliable and could take a lot of battle damage. To site 2 examples of the Swordfish in action take Taranto & the Bismark in both the Swordfish was instrumental. As result I believe that it was a good aircraft. Thumbs up.

 

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Feb 16 2005, 01:46 AM
Britain was the only major country other than Italy to operate biplanes in major frontline combat roles in WW2: this is hardly something to be proud of.
[post=31544]Quoted post[/post]

Just as an aside, didnt the Russians use the I-153 'Chaika' extensively until 1943 (perhaps even later)?

That was also a bi-plane, supposedly the best that took part in WWII.

 

The Bulgarian and Slovak air forces also operated a biplane fighter, the Avia 534, I believe, which was used as a fighter. The Bulgarians used them against the American raid on Ploesti, which probably astonished the Americans.

The Gloster Gladiator saw some service in the Chinese Air Force, along with a variety of Russian biplane designs. And Japanese biplanes sank the Panay.

 

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Apr 8 2005, 01:42 AM
The Bulgarian and Slovak air forces also operated a biplane fighter, the Avia 534, I believe, which was used as a fighter. The Bulgarians used them against the American raid on Ploesti, which probably astonished the Americans.

The Gloster Gladiator saw some service in the Chinese Air Force, along with a variety of Russian biplane designs. And Japanese biplanes sank the Panay.
[post=32986]Quoted post[/post]

the hawker hart was used by the yugoslavian, spainish and south african airforce.
the hawker fury ws used by the Danes.
Both the HE51 and the henschel 123 was used by the Luftwaffe and the He59 floatplane was used by their asr forces.

The italins used CR32 in the Battle of Britian!

The dutch had the Fokker CX

the americans used the Boeing F4b/p12 briefly in WW2

belguim used the Fairey FoxIII

France used the Liore et Olivier 20

Japan had the Mitsubishi F1m1

 

The Italians used the CR 42 during the Battle of Britain, not the 32. They flew a raid on Hartlepool in October, in daylight, and the RAF shot down some of the Italian bombers. They found the Italian bomber crews had bayonets and tin helmets. The next Italian strike on Britain was carried out with less effectiveness -- the bombers apparently dropped their loads early and at sea. Honor satisfied, the Italians bowed out of the Battle of Britain. It was a token commitment of CR 42s and bombers, to inflate Mussolini's ego and importance. He also offered troops for See Lowe, but Hitler turned them down for logistical reasons.

 

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Apr 8 2005, 03:29 PM
The Italians used the CR 42 during the Battle of Britain, not the 32. They flew a raid on Hartlepool in October, in daylight, and the RAF shot down some of the Italian bombers. They found the Italian bomber crews had bayonets and tin helmets. The next Italian strike on Britain was carried out with less effectiveness -- the bombers apparently dropped their loads early and at sea. Honor satisfied, the Italians bowed out of the Battle of Britain. It was a token commitment of CR 42s and bombers, to inflate Mussolini's ego and importance. He also offered troops for See Lowe, but Hitler turned them down for logistical reasons.
[post=32991]Quoted post[/post]

Okay it was a typo! :ph34r: :ph34r:

There were 50 CR42bis employed by the Corpo Aereo Italiano who operated out of Belguim.

The raids were against Ramsgate and Harwich. Hartlepool which is in the north east was outwith the operational range of the CR42, which was 485 miles

 

The stringbag had the remakable ability to fly backwards in a strong gale! My best pal was out from the carrier when the weather closed in, could not see a thing, and they were completely lost. with fuel running out, they just hoped to find it before they ditched, the all of a sudden there was a break in the sea fog and there was their Carrier, right in front of them. they all landed safely.

Me mate is now a devout Christian, for he feels that only his God could have saved them.
Sapper

 

Be proud of it. Even if it is a biplane, it helped to sink the Bismarck and the Albacore(replacement) couldn't match it.

 

For anyone interested in the Swordfish I recommend John Kilbracken, Bring Back My Stringbag: Swordfish Pilot at War 1940 - 1945. Originally published by Peter Davies in 1979 and reissued by Pen and Sword in 1996. This is an excellent, highly readable account of a war spent with the Swordfish.
Regards,
David

 

Where was it manufactured ?
Linden

 

Fairy are in the West couintry somewhere arnt they?

Thumbs up.

Kev

 

Until September 1939 my father and uncle worked (I think) at the Stockport factory and I always wondered if they worked on it . My uncle joined the RAF , so I guess he may have encountered some of the machines he built .
Looks as though they probably didn't build the Swordfish
Thanks ,
Linden