NAME SOMETHING THE RN DID BETTER THAN THE USN

Appart from its significance in the Med (actual damage and causing the Italian Navy to withdraw to bases too far from the action), Taranto, with its lesson in shallow water launching, had a big influence on the attack at Pearl Harbor - there's an interview with a Jap officer in The World At War in which he states this.

 

What did the RN do better than the USN? Have a daily rum* ration.


* Technically 'Grog', which is watered-down rum.

 

Absolutely agree with you, but it's only one occasion and hardly proves the RN was better at night flying than the USN.

 

of course at taranto and the in bismark fight the rn was useing swordfish biplanes as attack aircraft ....relative landing speed of what 30mph? in a nice headwind...i think even i could land on a carrier at that speed...

 

On a pitching and rolling flight deck? The fatal strike against Bismark was launched in terrible conditions. Probably none of the Swordfish's contempories would have even got off the deck. It was that kind of performance that kept the swordfish frontline.

Oh and in a strong enough head-wind the swordfish could actually fly backwards.

 

The really amazing thing the RN did better than the USN in those cases was: (1) hitting a ship with (2) a torpedo that worked!

Hitting the Bismarck in those conditions was nothing short of miraculous, much less doing it twice.

 

Especially when you consider that BISMARK was also shooting at the planes.

 

that was some really poor shooting....especially for germans,a huge biplane approaching at 100mph,level and straight....how many swords did the geman aa guys knock down that day?

 

I'd guess quite a lot-after all, it is a bunch of vintage WWI antiques attacking a well-armed WWII battleship, but the Swordfish losses that day weren't really famous. The antique thing was just kinda' like a figure of speech.

 

I don't think the Germans succeded in downing any of the Swordfish.

 

NOT a WW1 antique
The Fairey Swordfish was designed in the 1930s and came into fleet service in 1936. Production continued till 1944, with over 2000 aircraft built. By the way, none were shot down by Bismarck, unlike the Channel Dash where all 6 were shot down and LCDR Esmonde won a VC

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircr ... rdfish.htm

 

If you were prepared to accept that there wasn't much in the way high end performance the swordfish had a lot going for it.

Highly reliable Pegasus engine

Forgiving of damage (survived service on the hangerless MAC ships)

Forgiving of pilot error (wasn't used for training as apparently considered too easy to fly)

Great load hauler

Very low stalling speed (often had to be tied down in heavy winds in case it flew off on it own)

And on a final minor note; almost silent in a dive.

Edit 13.30 added high end to first sentence

 

The Swordfish was a GREAT plane !

Very much maligned and misunderstood, it was (and still is) subject to prejudice based on its retro looks rather than any logical consideration of its actual operational effectiveness (which was GREAT). True it was slow but - so what - it worked.

Mind you - the pilots probably cursed the long wait in and out of the target when they probably felt like sitting ducks - brave men indeed.

 

Absolutely not!

The wooden decks of the USN were penetrated by the planes. They also burned.
The steel decks of the R.N were Kamikaze proof.

I have heard stories of sailors who have been on both types. They say that the looks on the pilots faces as they bounced off the metal of the R.N ship's decks & into the drink was a sight to behold!

No doubt they eventually took to attacking the waterline or superstructures.

 

Check again the various comments in this topic. Kamikaze proof RN carriers is a myth of WW2 on par with indestructible Tiger tanks and RAF Fighter Command being the only thing stopping Operation SeaLion.

 

Aah! But who said anything about carriers? Not me!

 

Kamakazi pilots seldom learn from their mistakes

In reality, a few inches of armor lends no invulnerabilty to bombs of 500 lbs to 2000 lbs detonating against it. Remember that battleships and armored cruisers were sunk by divebombers dropping bombs on their armored decks.

 

it would be quite strange for one to see the look on a persons face if he crashed into a deck of a ship no matter what the deck was made of....the plane going 200mph or faster would not bounce ,it would crumple into a firery wad of molten metal and the pilots head would snap foward then off the instant his engine struck the deck or any other hard surface...anyone close enough to make out the pilots face before he struck would very likely be killed by flying bits of metal even if the plane carried no fuel or bombs...your r.n. sailor freinds were pulling your joint a bit i think ,dave....

 

The battlecruiser HMS Hood's deck armor was not that much thicker than aircraft carrier deck armor, and one of Bismarck's 15-inch shells went through and blew up the magazines on Hood, and I don't think a shell's that much powerful then a kamikaze plane. So, I don't think kamikazes would bounce off aircraft carrier deck armor.

 

The shell that killed Hood managed to avoid her thickest armor. The armor deck over Hood's magazines was 3in, and the flight-deck armor of a British carrier was 3in. There are differences, of course. The carrier armor was a single chunk of NC armor, while Hood's deck was three plies of simple HT steel. On the other hand, a kamikaze would probably never hit Hood's armor deck because it would detonate on one of the higher deck levels.