wrote:
>On 8/8/2015 2:04 PM, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/8/2015 2:35 AM, Byker wrote:
>>>
>>> Fairey Swordfish - A remarkable aircraft:
>>>
>>> "Although Swordfish numbered no more than 27 aircraft, they sank an
>>> average 50,000 tons (50,800 MT) of shipping every month. During one
>>> month, they sank a record 98,000 tons (99,572 MT). Swordfish attacked
>>> enemy convoys at night although they were not equipped with night
>>> instrumentation. The risky night missions were necessary to avoid German
>>> fighters which encircled the island of Malta by day. On June 30, 1940,
>>> Swordfish completed a raid attacking oil installations at Augusta in
>>> Sicily."
>>>
>>> http://www.aviation-history.com/fairey/swordfish.html
>>>
>>
>> Ricardo, I read the article you posted. I was shocked the Swordfish holds the record for sinking more tonnage
>> than any other allied aircraft during WWII.
>>
>> I am guessing this had a lot to do with circumstance as opposed to any remarkable capabilities of the
>> aircraft, what is your perspective on this?
>>
>
>Well, one obvious thought must be that as the British had in excess of
>two years of hostile action before any other major participants appeared
>in the conflict on the Allied side, they bore the brunt of the onslaught
>of the Axis powers. So, yes, circumstances and a frenzied fight to
>survive meant that we had to fight with tooth and nail with every
>available asset - even if some of those assets were completely outdated.
>
>Those two fraught years were used to good advantage, however, with
>substantial losses being inflicted on the French and Italian navies, as
>well as Germany's fleet. As early as 1940 it was Swordfish aircraft that
>crippled the Italian fleet at Taranto, where two thirds of their
>battleships were lost, as well as many other vessels, at the cost of two
>Swordfish. These aircraft were also used against the French fleet in
>1940, following the fall of France, plus, in 1941, the Germans lost the
>Bismark to the actions of these aircraft, which disabled her steering
>mechanism.
>
>That said, it seems that the Swordfish was a versatile and easy to fly
>aircraft, and its slow speed capability made it ideally suited to
>carrier operations. It's interesting to note, given other recent
>postings on this NG, that the Swordfish also used rocket assisted
>take-off gear. They were also used as artillery spotter platforms for
>warships.
>
>Its success can probably be defined by four factors:
>
>The first, as you surmised, being circumstances; second would be the
>capabilities and sheer ruggedness of the aircraft; third would be the
>rigorous training of the flight crews and, finally, the planning and
>reconnaissance involved with the operations against major multiple targets.
>
>Of course, I could be wrong...
>
>;-)
>
>I'm surprised to see that we actually exported Swordfish to five other
>nations!
You provided an interesting analysis, thanks for taking the time to do
that!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
|