take off

BAE WARTON off to the southport air show

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

What a neat old airplane! That thing must be a blast to ride in!

Fairey Swordfish Maritime Strike and reconnaissance aircraft. Operated by the Royal Navy during WWII. The Swordfish was replaced in service by the Fairey Albacore, which was also a biplane, but with an enclosed cockpit. The Albacore was then replaced in service by the Swordfish! The problem was that the Albacore, was heavier and even slower than the aircraft it replaced. It made it a bit of a flop, and so the RN effectively just carried on using the older aircraft.

There are now two flying Swordfish left, both operated by the RN Historical Flight based at RNAS Yeovilton.

Alan

Nice shots! If memory serves, the Swordfish was the type of aircraft that disabled the Bismarck.

texaskev wrote in post #17815525
Nice shots! If memory serves, the Swordfish was the type of aircraft that disabled the Bismarck.

Yes correct, and probably even more famously disabled/sunk most of the Italian Fleet's battleships in Taranto Harbour, in a low level night torpedo attack on 11/12 November 1940. It was the RN's attack on Taranto that proved that the attack on the USN in Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 was highly likely to be successful.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17815756
Yes correct, and probably even more famously disabled/sunk most of the Italian Fleet's battleships in Taranto Harbour, in a low level night torpedo attack on 11/12 November 1940. It was the RN's attack on Taranto that proved that the attack on the USN in Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 was highly likely to be successful.

Alan

So Pearl Harbour could be blamed on us Brits rather than the Japanese? Ooops!

Ian Mackie wrote in post #17815997
So Pearl Harbour could be blamed on us Brits rather than the Japanese? Ooops!

Well the Japanese had been working on using aerial torpedos in shallow water since about 1938, so I think they already had that idea in mind. There was a Japanese Military Attache on site in Taranto within 24 hrs, and a larger delegation visited soon after. What it does say is if the Brits could do in Taranto with Swordfish and standard "deepwater" torpedos, that then they could do it at Pearl Harbour with their improved equipment. Which is pretty much exactly what happened of course. I think the real lesson of Taranto, which was the first ever true "Naval Aviation" battle, where only aircraft engaged the opposing fleet, was that Naval Aviation worked and was the new cutting edge. It was also where the Japanese attack on Pearl failed, as none of the American carriers were in harbour that morning. So it is Taranto that we should really be remembering, not Midway. By Midway Naval Aviation was fully proved.

Alan

nice string bags! great sets!

would like to see this in person!!!

DaveC
www.airwingspotter.com

Ian Mackie wrote in post #17815997
So Pearl Harbour could be blamed on us Brits rather than the Japanese? Ooops!

It's best to blame your friends, 'cause your enemies just don't give a sh!t? ; D

Its such a shame that the string bags did not act against the Bismarck when they were in action from Hood and the other British battle ship, instead I believe they were just used for recon, perhaps the Hood would not have been destroyed if the Swordfishes had carried and used torpedo's?

P.

The thing is you are not going to load up your reconnaissance aircraft with a very heavy torpedo, s it drastically reduces the range/patrol time. The Stringbag was designed as a multi role, Torpedo Strike and Reconnaissance, TSR, although in the later infamous TSR2, of the 1960's the Torpedo was changed to Tactical. The only disadvantage of using the same airframe for both strike and reconnaissance is that you have to bring the recon birds back to base to convert them into strike aircraft. Rather than being able to launch your strike, while the recon assets stay in place. With a squadron of ships that are cruising at around 25 Kts, a couple of hours or more between the initial sighting and the arrival of the strike force means you still actually have quite a large area of ocean to cover to reacquire the target.

Even the type of weapon chosen can make a big difference. The classic is Yamamoto at Midway, he had his aircraft loaded ready for a bombing strike against Midway Island, when parts of the US carrier fleet were spotted. Instead of then sending the strike aircraft off with the already loaded bombs, he decided to rearm them with torpedoes for a strike against the US carriers. While they were rearming the US got in a hit the Japanese carriers with their own strike aircraft, putting a couple of the carriers out of the battle, and sparing the US fleet serious damage. The US did have a lot of tactical advantages at Midway, but if Yamamoto had launched immediately the successful US strike might not have had any aircraft carriers to return to either.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17816103
Well the Japanese had been working on using aerial torpedos in shallow water since about 1938, so I think they already had that idea in mind. There was a Japanese Military Attache on site in Taranto within 24 hrs, and a larger delegation visited soon after. What it does say is if the Brits could do in Taranto with Swordfish and standard "deepwater" torpedos, that then they could do it at Pearl Harbour with their improved equipment. Which is pretty much exactly what happened of course. I think the real lesson of Taranto, which was the first ever true "Naval Aviation" battle, where only aircraft engaged the opposing fleet, was that Naval Aviation worked and was the new cutting edge. It was also where the Japanese attack on Pearl failed, as none of the American carriers were in harbour that morning. So it is Taranto that we should really be remembering, not Midway. By Midway Naval Aviation was fully proved.

Alan

Thanks for the info Alan, much appreciated.