Fairey Albacore | A failed Swordfish replacement?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- The Fairey Albacore was intended to replace the Fairey Swordfish. Instead, some Albacore crews found themselves being transferred back to Swordfish for the final battles against German E-Boats, submarines and coastal forces in the last years of World War II.
The Albacore entered service in 1940, during the height of the Battle of Britain. This meant resources were stretched thin even before the Fleet Air Arm's logistics storage centre at Coventry was bombed. The resulting lack of spares and equipment considerably slowed the rollout of the Albacore to front-line squadrons.
But the Albacore was also plagued by a number of technical problems, including engine reliability troubles. Meanwhile, the Swordfish proved to be an easily accessible fallback option.
Ultimately, the Swordfish was a highly effective aircraft.
Despite its apparently old design, it represented the peak of its technological era. And it had repeatedly proven itself in combat, including during the famous night attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940 and in all-weather anti-submarine operations in the North Atlantic.
Finally, the Fairey Barracuda was also under development. It was far more technologically advanced than the Albacore and was to enter service in 1943. This, and the arrival of the excellent Grumman Avenger, saw the Albacore largely relegated to secondary roles.
USER EXPERIENCE
► RUclips Channel - @ArmouredCarriers
► Website - www.armouredcarriers.com/
► Twitter - @ArmouredCarrier
RELATED CONTENT
• USER EXPERIENCE ► More User Experience documentaries
• USS Robin: Pt1 - HMS V... ► Avengers join "USS Robin"
studio.ruclips.net/user/videovLWB... ► Avengers over Sakishima Gunto
CONTENTS
0:00 INTRODUCTION
0:21 Anthony Rushworth-Lund
1:00 William Coster
1:43 Bruce Vibert
2:32 Ian Templer
3:34 George Meacham
5:16 Aircraft Recognition - Fairey Albacore
5:59 AIRCREW
6:06 John Fay
6:40 Alan Hufford
7:39 Bruce Vibert
8:02 Alan Hufford
9:10 Aircraft Recognition - Fairey Albacore
9:54 THE COCKPIT
10:02 John Fay
11:17 Eric Rickman
12:25 Alan Hufford
13:03 Aircraft Recognition - Fairey Albacore
13:35 PERFORMANCE
13:42 Eric Rickman
15:11 Lionel Hooke
16:42 George Meacham
19:00 Aircraft Recognition - Fairey Albacore
19:51 USER EXPERIENCE
19:59 John Fay
23:50 Eric Rickman
30:00 Aircraft Recognition - Fairey Albacore
31:23 EPILOGUE
31:30 George Rutherford
32:40 Alan Hufford
34:48 Eric Rickman
SEO HASHTAGS
#documentary #military #ww2 #navy #war #history #warthunder #worldofwarships #dark #lost #memories #airplane #aircraftcarrier
Seriously, this channel is criminally underrated.
Literally brings history to life.
High praise indeed, thanks. But these videos are made to satisfy a more focused curiosity than most. Intentionally. So it naturally has less broad appeal.
@@ArmouredCarriersindeed.
The topic is specialised and it will never go viral. But for those who are genuinely curious about the topic.
This channel is extremely valuable.
I love the cheerful way these old chaps recall incidents which were likely very frightening at the time. A lot of people today could take a leaf out of their books when dealing with the minor inconveniences of current life
Maybe these chaps benefitted from 5 or 6 decades of circumspection to achieve their sangfroid.
G'day
But of course,
Digger...
When ye be
Levitatin' in an
Alba
Bloody
Core...;
Why then,
A
Sucking
Chest-wound is
Nought but
Nature's Way of
Tellin' one to
Slow
Down...(!).
Can't say
Fairer that
That,
What ?
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot is that a quote from somewhere or did you come up with it? I haven't finished the video so I don't know if it's in the video either
@@Festias
G'day,
Thanks.
I might have come up with
"Alba-bloody-core",
But
I doubt if I were doing any more than
Reinventing the
Wheel...
Somebody else surely would have said it first...
But,
"A sucking
Chest Wound if merely
Nature's Way of
Telling you to
Slow
Down...!"
is definitely not
Original.
Not from this video,
But it's a phrase collected
Somewhere during 1980-'84
When I was a
Student Nurse, at a
Repatriation Hospital
(Concord Repat. Sydney, Oz)
Where it came up in a
Conversation about the sort of
Gruff, bluff, self-deprecating minimisation of difficulties which characterised a lot of
Veteran Patients who had been socialised into habitually waiting till they were nearly dead - before voicing any discomfort.
I don't think I nursed anyone who flew an Albacore, but I did have 2 Patients who had flown Fairey Battles.
The one who trained on them, in Oz, under the EATS - recalled them as being a bit of a joke, saying that the best way to take "Evasive Action" in a Battle was to unstrap, jump up, and perform Calisthenics on the Seat-tray, hoping to better dodge incoming gunfire...
When I mentioned that to the bloke who was seconded to the RAF's # 1 Squadron in France in May 1940 he failed to see any "funny side" to the comment...; as he was shot down onto the Tow-path beside the Albert Canal, by Flak, while trying to get to the town to bomb the Bridge...
One Section went low, and he was with them ; and so as soon as the Flak started shredding his Battle the Fan stopped and he didn't even have time to jettison the Bombs, before skidding to a stop beside the Canal.
His Backseater was Mincemeat before they got onto the ground...; from 20mm Shells in the Glasshouse and rear Fuselage, but the mass of the Merlin kept the Shrapnel off the Pilot.
British Military Aircraft Design, traditionally, has long suffered DEEPLY from
"Committee-Thunk"...,
as illustrated by the following
Titbit of totally
Apocraphyl
Assertions...(!).
The fact that the
White Knight proved to
Alice,
In Blunderland,
The extreme efficacy of the Mousetrap upon his Horse's
Saddleback -
Citing the point that since it's addition,
He had never seen any Mice cavorting on his
Horse's back...,
Not any, not ever...!
So, clearly, it was doing a great job of prevention.
Is said to have
Bin-Raised in discussions within the
Air Ministry, during
Heated debates with
Fairey and his Design-Team,
(Of Sprites and Leprechauns ?)
Over
How many
Mousetraps should be built into the
Albacore's Airframe, under the Skins,
To control any possible
Pestilential
Rodents, which might otherwise be
Trapped within the machine -
By that there
New-fangled
Perspex Canopy Enclosure...(!) ?
Whereas with the
Tried, trusted and proven olde Swordfish,
It was far too cold and draughty inside
For any self-respecting
Vermin to ever attempt to build a
Nest
Therewithin...(!).
The
Spirit of
Heath Robinson
Lives on,
Going strong...
Within the
Aerial Fire-Chariots furnished by the
Royal Navy to their
Aircrews -
Within which they were expected to
Ascend, going aloft,
All the better to
Pursue,
And chastise and persecute and
Punish unmercifully,
Any designated
"Enemies"
(Any Me's...?)
Of the
British
Crown...
Funny people, the
Pommies...;
Hilarious to
Watch from any distance,
Actually.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
That’s a pretty shitty take considering just how many veterans turned to alcoholism, beating their wives and children, suicide, etc. as a consequence to what they experienced during the war.
Hardly cheerful.
The Albacore was due to be in quantity production in 1939 but was delayed due to Taurus engine production problems. It was, in fact, all-round superior to the Swordfish, in every aspect. However, the Swordfish was subcontracted to Blackburn, whereas the Albacore was built only by Fairey, and when Fairey moved onto newer models (Barracuda, Firefly) they had to close the Albacore production line but Blackburn continued to build Swordfish for another year or so.
Indeed. As I pointed out in my Swordfish book, the Admiralty recognised the superiority of the Albacore in 1939 but realised if they tried to set up a second production line of Albacores they might run out of airframes if losses were as expected - whereas contracting Blackburn to build Swordfish, using many of the tools and jigs from Fairey when they switched to the Albacore, it would keep the supply of aircraft up at the critical time. That was the reason the Swordfish rather than the Albacore went on to a successful second career in convoy protection
Likely explanation of the Albacores flying off with 1942 USN markings, alongside Martlets/Wildcats with the same "roundels": must be Operation Torch. RN aircraft were painted to look American in hopes that the French might be friendlier, and more likely to surrender, toward Americans than the British.
Great story regarding the broken Taurus conrods.
This is absolute solid gold for me, thank you so much for uploading.
I have slowly been putting a book together regarding my Granddad's war time experience and the attack run of 820 Squadron on U-Boat U331. If anyone has any more details or could point me in the right direction I would be eternally grateful, thanks. Wayne
There is an account by a Ron Mason in the Imperial War Museum's audio archives. The summary reads: "8/11/1942; story of sinking of U-411 with depth charges, 12/11/1942; story of U-331 attempting to surrender to aircraft and subsequent destruction by aircraft from HMS Formidable"
www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80023578
@@ArmouredCarriers Tremendous. Thank you.
I can believe it! No one called it an ‘Applecore!’
I know! I was looking for that soundbite while researching the audio!
Absolutely love these programs. Love hearing the voices of the guys who were actually there. Sadly most of these gentlemen are now gone.
Outstanding interviews. Well done gentlemen.
Thanks for this!! A much overlooked aircraft!
Another great video, interviews are excellent.
Two pots K.O'd out of an engine and still got home? He may not've been impressed that it happened, but I'm deeply impressed that he got to tell the tale...
Hurrah! A week (or so) ago, I asked you about The Albacore, Mr. Armoured Carrier, and you said "soon". Wow! Sooner than I had hoped!
Now, I've watched the episode. Maybe the best you've done, since you gave us so much of the engine--eering. The engine, I mean...the pistons explained by the fitter, in such detail. Then the failure while Eric Rickman (I think) who makes a miracle landing after two pistons fail. Then the description from Alan Hufford.
Seems to me that the Albacore proved itself as a good successor to the Swordfish. Albacore was a good torpedo plane and a good dive-bomber. A good strike plane. That the Swordfish was better flying anti-submarine patrols, probably from an escort carrier, shows that the Swordfish could be adapted to a new role, but not that the Albacore failed its original role. And your episode on the Barracuda details the many ways that the Barracuda was an unworthy successor to both.
What about radar? One of the last speakers mentions that the Swordfish, in 1945, carried the same large radar set that the Lancaster carried. Could, or did, the Albacore carry the same radar?
In all, this was a fascinating episode.
I'm not sure if it was exactly the same set, but Albacores could and did carry radar.
Yes, the Albacore carried most of the earlier radar sets (some of the photos and video clips have the wire TV-style aerials on the wings). It was the centimentric radar with a scanning dish that proved to be a problem, as it was too big to fit between the wheels.
Heh, I was already working on it then. But sometimes I hit a brick wall and can't find enough video or audio to turn it into a presentation and have to put it "on hold" until I stumble across more. So I don't like to over-promise.
I've seen illustrations of Swordfish with a radar bu lge between the wheel struts. Did no favours for the torpedo bomber role, but, by then (late war), they were used from escort carriers against submarines etc. No need for torpedoes. Rockets and bombs preferred. I'm sure the Albacore would be similarly equipped, but the Swordfish was obviously preferred for the escort carriers
Thank you for covering this aircraft.
As always, a fine presentation.
Love these.. keep them coming.
The Albacore may seem lack luster but they acquitted themselves very well so they were a successful aircraft. The biggest loser was the Blackburn Botha . Good for nothing.
Excellent channel! I wish it had more subscribers. Also, it is not easy to find this kind of information, images and first hand accounts online, let alone YT. Keep them coming!
It's very "niche". Not the sort of generalisation that appeals to most people. And, unfortunately, a lot of people get so convinced those generalisations are gospel truth that they can't accept there may have been variations to those generalisations ...
But I do these as much for myself as viewers anyway. I like finding these anecdotes and experiences.
@@ArmouredCarriers well said, that is why i find very comfortable with channels like this. It is very difficult to talk or hear about these topics we like so much elsewhere. Niche is a good definition.
Another excellent video. Thanks for sharing.
It's reported that Albacores were hard to find at night. They were quiet, and when painted black were rarely found by searchlights or fired upon. As bad as they can be, when combined with ASV Mk. II radar, the Albacores might be the first true night attackers in naval aviation history.
Never underestimate anything.
Brilliant Work 👍👍👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Imagine flying these primitive contraptions like a bloody Morris minor they must have had superb flying skills to keep them airborne
Not all of them made it back though, Accident rates and attrition were high. I know that during operations in the Pacific, replenishment at sea, which was about every couple of days not just involved taking in fuel and ammo, but also replacement aircraft and aircrew. The advent of the angled deck was a major boon in reducing landing accidents. But yeah, balls of steel!
I love these stories
Early in the vid, an Albacore is shown, coming up a forward lift. It has 1942 US markings on the wings. I presume this was during the Torch landings?
Yes. I really must do a video on that operation to explain that.
@@ArmouredCarriers I knew an old fellow, he had immigrated to the States, but was a Walrus TAG. He once showed me pics of his Walrus during Torch, with hand-painted stars. "Frogs still shot at us." was his comment.
Great video!
The Albacore's low stall speed, relatively quiet engine, and good pilot view made an effective nighttime pathfinder and interdiction bomber in the Western Desert.
I Love Albacore...with a little Butter and Salt.
Incredible that the Navy replaced an ancient biplane with another biplane.
Superb!
At the end of the day the Albacore could carry a much greater war load much further than the Swordfish which was the fleet job. The Swordfish excelled at short deck handling so moved from fleet strike to anti submarine work.
great video, thx !
Hi! Thank to Mr Ed Nash, you have a new subscriber!
Brilliant video and love the story’s from the aircrew but I think it’s just crazy how highly trained men were sent off to war in complete and utter junk! Yes I know the RAF had priority over air craft and Britain was on the bones of its ass but imagine going up against a ME109 or Zero in that They have my complete admiration
They weren't intended to go up against single engined fighters, and if they were engaged by a Ju 88C heavy fighter, then they invariably had Fulmers to protect them, until Martlets arrived. The Fulmer is more utter junk, I can hear you say, but it had a positive kill ratio, because it didn't go up against Bf 109s. Flying in the weather conditions of the North Atlantic, or even the Med, with plenty of low cloud, is treacherous without a navigator who could dedicate his time to establishing where the aircraft was, and not have to combine that with flying it, maybe under duress if it had been hit. Hence, at least a two man crew was necessary. Flying over the Pacific was different. And the FAA didn't plan for a Pacific campaign when these aircraft were designed, as far as I know. By the time the second half of the war had got going, these aircraft had been replaced, except the Swordfish, with its radar hanging between its legs, in various niche roles, that it had made its own, because there was nothing better, and there were still no German single engined fighters flying very far from shore...........
The Fulmar was a aircraft cursed by design its roots from a light bomber as you rightly said few navigation aids were available at that time shooting down reconnaissance aircraft and unescorted bombers it could just about manage when directed by ships radar but in the far east it was a death trap for its crew In both escort and CAP in 1941/42 the Fulmar was hopeless a dead end in design As for the swordfish and Albalcore not being intended to go up against single engine fighters well guess what the enemy gets a vote! In the channel dash six swordfish were lost being escorted by 3 squadrons of spitfires Would any torpedo bomber of the time got through? I don’t know but perhaps if they had been in avengers more of the highly trained crews would have got home I’m sorry the Fulmar Swordfish and Albalcore are great provided your enemy can’t get fighters in the air
@@anthonysmith4784
I see you are very much from the school of history, that makes the facts fit your narrative, however uncomfortably.
And I was mindful that the 'Channel Dash' would come up in conversation, and here it is. It was not the fault of the Swordfish that an RAF squadron of escorting Spitfires went AWOL that day, in fact unprotected, it would have been better if they had all stayed tucked up in their bases, than to send those brave crews to their death, in unsupported 'Stringbags'.
And in Feb 1942, no US service had an aircraft to touch the Fw 190. Nor did the RAF for some months, but at least the Spitfire 5 and the new Typhoon came close . The P-40 would have also been wiped out, IMO. Same with Brewster Buffalos!
And your fantasy that Avengers could have done better, when Wikipedia claims their first service was at Midway 4 months later, demonstrates that you are muddling up Avenger aircraft with Avenger comic strip cartoons.😀
Im not sure what the history of operation for WW2 US carriers is in the North Atlantic, but if so many USN pilots could get disorientated in the clear conditions of the 'Bermuda Triangle', imagine them trying to find a carrier off Greenland in a snow storm. The navigator was the real Captain aboard FAA aircraft. What he said, went. They were essential, and so was an aircraft to carry them.
You will note that I also anticipated your put down of the Fulmar, because I recognised that you dealt in the cliches that often come from your side of the Atlantic. You've been pretty good at tackling my agenda, as I hope I've been at tackling yours, but clearly you decided to ignore the kill ratio of the Fulmar, which you think undeserved. That ratio says everything you need to know, and undermines unsubstantiated emotional prejudice, like yours, because its not an exciting aircraft. Kill ratios speak for themselves.
Some people stubbornly ignore the facts, because they are different to their own experiences, or to the operating conditions they would see out of a California of Florida window.
The UK didn't have unlimited resources in WW2. It was not ready for war, unlike N*zi Germany, its factories and population had been bombed by the Luftwaffe, and the considerable UK owned business portfolio in the US and elsewhere, had to be sold to pay for the importation of American war goods, because British factories still standing couldn't cope. Those goods purchased by the war Commissions of Britain and France, helped elevate US industry out of the depression, led to world beating designs being commissioned by foreigners, like the P-51, and those loans were not repaid until 2006, in the case of the UK, whereas the Soviets never repaid a penny that I know of, to either the UK or US.
A country can only fight a war that it can afford to fight, and a stopgap like the Fulmer was fine in Europe until the war spread to the East, when the Fulmer showed its inadequacies and was replaced by better tech.
What Im sorry about, is the constant carping from our US allies, over a matter where they at last think they can claim back some sense of design superiority, i.e. carrier borne a/c, because the FAA was poorly served by the British Government.
It does you no credit by over compensating for your inferiority complex, by trying to exaggerate the faults of others. Be grateful that the US had a good ally in the UK in WW2, as I celebrate the fantastic war effort of the USA..........
You seem to have fallen into the trap of first hand accounts. That is, coal face opinions tend to be formed in the dark, in isolation from other evidence. When subjected to daylight, they breed like a yeast infection around the best source of myth.
For instance, Albacore was indeed removed from european coastal and anti-submarine service before Swordfish - but that wasn't the end of the story - Albacore were removed so they could be concentrated in India and Burma, where they would fly coastal and riverine patrol / attack missions, close support and night bombing missions to the end of the Pacific war. So she lasted in combat service longer than Swordfish, just in a 'forgotten' campaign. Swordfish squadrons were all stood down by VE day and the aircraft junked. Albacore continued in service as a maritime patrol and attack aircraft (at Aden) until 1946, utility roles (including hunting surface mines) unit 1949. .
You also claim Albacore "was intended to replace the Fairey Swordfish as the primary torpedo bomber" but claim that it failed to do this. This is also untrue. The final use of Swordfish as the primary torpedo bomber aboard a fleet carriers was November 1941, aboard Ark Royal. The other carrier air groups Illustrious, Victorious, Furious and Formidable had all converted to Albacore by then*, Indomitable, Indefatigable and Implacable would never operate Swordfish, they commissioned with Albacore.
Swordfish would only be used in the torpedo role once more. The last operational TSR squadron flew from coastal bases against the Channel Dash in February 1942 - and all of them would be shot down for no gain. The Swordfish was never again used with a torpedo, secondary duties like ASW in the Atlantic, coastal patrol in the western approaches. The Albacore remained the primary torpedo / dive bomber with the fleet carriers until late 1943, so a fleet carrier lifespan of three years - against Swordfish's combat lifespan of two and a half years, Barracuda less than two, Avenger just over one year.
Many accounts say the Swordfish could do everything Albacore did. This is again not true. The reason Albacore was heavier and had such stiffer controls, was because it was designed for dive bombing, something the lighter Swordfish simply couldn't do. This was used to great effect in North Africa where Albacore crews went after artillery positions and truck convoys at night, dive bombing under flares - the only allied aircraft in WW2 cleared to dive bomb at night.
I don't actually think these fabulous first hand accounts support your argument. Most of them praise the aircraft, rightly question the early Taurus engine reliability, but certainly don't show the full story.
*829 Squadron had a mixed Swordfish / Albacore complement, following Albacore losses. They were used from Illustrious during the Invasion of Madagascar in May 1942, alongside Albacore.
Good points. As is your observations that the opinions - as opposed to the experiences - of these people are "formed in the dark".
Many post-war opinions, however, seem to germinate only in the light of other opinions. Not experience.
Whatever the case, what these veterans thought at the time affected their decisions and performance. To them, there is no difference between perception and reality.
These accounts are only echoes of those original thoughts. But I don't think any of them would claim their word is the be-all and end-all of academic debate.
Just something worth hearing and adding to the mix.
@@ArmouredCarriers I wasn't questioning their recollections, just putting them in perspective. It was your claim in the title that Albacore was a failed replacement for Swordfish, and your suggestion Swordfish had to replace it's replacement I was questioning.
It's a nonsense myth, which none of your interviewees make, and doesn't stand the test of investigation.
I really like your website, and the archive stuff you've found it great. But if you're in the debunking game, you may want avoid some of the most egregious myths.
Swordfish, Albacore and Barracuda were all less than the FAA required. Swordfish being the least developed and useful.
I had the great fortune to once work on the Jane's Paris Air Show Daily with Capt. Eric Brown.
We talked of aircraft and our opinion of the Swordfish, he cut me off before I could extol its virtues. "What it achieved was down to the men who flew in it, not the aircraft, just imagine what they could have achieved with the proper equipment!"
I'm not a fan of what if's, but I do like to ponder the path not taken.
Eric was referring to the S.24/37 requirement for a monoplane torpedo bomber to replace Swordfish on the fleet carriers. This would eventually produce the Barracuda and Supermarine 322 - but far too late to replace Swordfish in the early war period.
Why did we not get this aircraft in time?
Disastrous planning of engine, factory floor, and tooling logistics, ministry interference, and the perils of 'war contingencies'.
1937-1940 the RAF would get not one but two competing twin engined torpedo bombers. Beaufort and Botha, to replace the Vickers Vilderbeast.
Even Blackburn didn't want to build its Botha, as it was close to being cancelled for its various vices.
And yet here is a company with its own S.24/37 design and more importantly recent all metal monoplane experience with the Skua, being used to crank out 580 Botha's (1938-1940), when S.24/37 could also have replaced Vilderbeast.
580 twin engined bombers! Translate those engines, factory space and tooling costs into S.24/37s and you could have had 1,000 single engined, monoplane carrier bombers by mid 1940, another couple of thousand by mid 1941. Full carrier decks of monoplane TSRs.
But by the time of the Battle of Britain, when Swordfish production was supposed to be ending, the FAA had just 75 Swordfish left,.
The engine for the selected S.24/37 (Exe powered Barracuda) had been cancelled, it best replacement Griffon had been delayed for Merlin, Merlin was needed for fighters, and couldn't accept radials.
What to do?
Albacore was flying at this time, and in full production at Fairey. Blackburn had just finished its pointless production of 580 Bothas, which was again an all metal monoplane - their second. What were they asked to build - 1,170 rag and wood Swordfish.
The first Blackfish arrived in mid 1941 just as the Stringbag was being taken off the carriers for Albacore. Most were expended in training roles, or from MAC ships, but so many remained in reserve they were found roles until the end of the war. For all the E-boat hunting with rockets stuff, that was only two squadrons, most were hunting subs in the western approaches or else getting wrecked on MAC ship flight decks.
That's why the Swordfish had such a long life - bad planning and terrible management of engine supplies.
You really need a section looking at the engine difficulties that throttled FAA aircraft requirements 1937-1944.
The only reason we didn't have Barracuda or Blackburn's B29 in mid 1941, was the failure of the RR Exe. The reason we didn't get Barracuda in 1942 was because the Griffon had been purloined for Spitfire. What we got in 1943 was far less than what had been required six years earlier, with its poorly Merlin.
The reason we didn't have Supermarine 322's in mid 1940, was the failure of Castle Bromwich and Spitfire production. Something had to give in Southampton and the 322 was among those culled.
The reason we didn't have Bristol's S.24/37 (the only one with an engine that worked) in mid 1940 was that company being up to its ears producing Blenheims, Beaufort's and Battles into 1941.
Blackburn was there with all the skills and space to build a monoplane Taurus engined carrier torpedo bomber from 1938 onwards, but churned out Botha's instead.
That's why the Swordfish has such a mythical reputation - it's covering for the failure to produce the proper equipment.
A great many missions could have been flown with even Bristol's least advanced S.24/37s. Victorious could have dive bombed and torpedoed Bismarck, as the faster aircraft could rotate through more strikes. Ark Royal could have flown more sorties as well.
The Med convoys could have launched bombing missions against Italian airfields. Malta could have launched torpedo missions in daylight. Maybe the Channel Dash goes differently?
Albacore scored a single hit at Matapan, because of the extreme range of the chase. It only had a 90kt speed advantage over its prey. S.24/37 could have had a 200kt advantage, maybe we get more hits.
But worst of all, Somerville's sums in the Indian ocean now look doable. Albacore didn't have the speed to get more than one strike in during night time. Nowhere near the speed to go in in daylight. So he had to (rightly) refuse action.
We coulda done Midway, three months early.
That's why the Armoured Carriers get so much stick. `too much got past them, because they didn't have the proper equipment.
Imagine how they would be considered if, after Taranto (where S.24/37s dive bombing could have made even greater mess of things) they had sunk the Bismarck at their first attempt (possibly even had the range and speed to strike into the Denmark straight); properly disabled or sunk the Vittorio at Matapan, squeezed Rommel's supply lines, sunk the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the Channel, and done a Midway on Japan in the Indian Ocean?
It was always aircraft that hobbled the Armoured Carrier design. There was a Spitfire derived defence fighter, radar and a monoplane torpedo bomber all for the taking in 1938 - we got Fulmar and Albacore and ever more Swordfish.
@@davidrendall7195 A fair call. Though what brought that myth to mind was Bruce Vibert's opinion at 1:43 and Alan Hufford at 32:40
This is, of course, counterbalanced by other opinions like George Rutherford 31:32
So It's probably fair to reflect this in-video divided opinion by turning the headline into a question.
@@davidrendall7195 PS: Thanks for the very informative and polite debate. Your engine argument is fascinating. I'm not so literate in engine mechanics personally. So if I was to tackle the subject on my website, I would be very prone to mistakes and misconprehensions.
But I do publish rational, detailed, analytical pieces submitted by others (hint hint!!)
@@ArmouredCarriers Dammit, I walked into that.
I always thought Albacore was simply a Lysander made much larger and in biplane configuration to handle much larger payloads.
Different service requirements, made by different companies, with different engines, much different in size, made from different materials, for different payload requirements, using different wing configuration (not just biplane, but the whole shape), one was stressed for dive bombing one wasn't, three crew and radar vs two crew and a good pair of binoculars??? Not sure how you thought they were in any way the same, they share nothing in common.
@@davidrendall7195
G'day,
Strap in.
Constructive
Criticism
Follows....;
Nice to see that you're venturing out from your
Autistic Retreat from Society.
Social Integration/Impersonating a functional Human ; Lesson #357.
"I always thought..."
This statement, when made by a Neurotypical Adult - quite often referring to some OBVIOUS Misconception which only a Beginner could possibly have gotten wrong...; generally refers to a long-gone far-away time, in their childhood, when they knew NOTHING of underlying FORM - and habitually made momentary conjectural Snap-Judgements based upon their own ignorance, and raw appearance.
Apparently, to you, the OP's post
LOOKED like an open admission of Frank Ignorance, which
You
Could not
Contain yourself in your
Effusive
rushRushRUSH to
Demonstrate
Just(ifiably ?) What a
Fully filled little
Bottle of
Knowledge ye have
Up there in your
Head...
Therefore thus and because,
You painted yourself as a
Retarded
Halfwit..., who may be
Full of
Datapoints...;
But is thoroughly
Incapable of communicating
With Neurotypical
Humans in
Print...
Being doomed to
Forever misinterpret writings and
Babble irrelevant nonsense at cross purposes to whatever conversation was otherwise occurring...
All while smiling
Brightly and
Thunkin' that ye be
Being
Helpfully
Informative...
Ye poor Buggar.
For future reference,
What the OP was saying,
In a manner of words..., is that
When he was a little lad
He
THOUGHT
That the
Albacore,
With it's single-Strut
Fixed Conventional
Undercarriage...,
And the Upper Wing Leading-Edge apparently
"Growing" out of the top - rear of the
Pilot's Cockpit, and a
Bristol Radial Engine with a
3-Blade
Airscrew...
He thought that it
LOOKED
(To the otherwise uninformed)
As if someone had
Added on a
Lower Wing to a
Lysander...
Which amounts to having been quite a "charming" kind of a guess, for a Schoolkid.
Especially considering some of the dim damned dumb things the British
ACTUALLY DID DO...,
In that particular vein.
(There WAS that time when the Air Ministry authorised payment for
Retrofitting a Hawker Hurricane with a Jettisonable Upper Wing - allegedly to carry extra Fuel as a Range-extender ; but - going on the LOOK of the thing it arose apparently merely because the Diehard Biplanologist Faction of the Hawker Design Office wanted to take the Hurricane back into being a Fury - but with a retractable Undercart and an enclosed Cockpit...!).
{Jokularis jokulii..., thereinat !}.
So, for future reference, when next you encounter a
Neurotypical Human saying,
"I always thought..."
or words to that effect,
They are opening the Dialogue by
Confessing their
Error...
Then after that they discourse about whatever they
Wanted to say...
So if
You
Insist
And persist
In
Fixating on
And banging on about
WhatTheFuckEver
You happen
KNOW to have
Bin-Wrong
With their originally confessed
Misapprehension ;
Then, when you do that,
YOU are presenting
Yourself as a
Walking talking
Ambulatory
Misapprehended
Malapropism
On
Legs...!
So, maybe go and get some Counselling for your Autism, or do a lot of Self-monitoring and Behavioural Modification oriented towards
Image-Management Skills -
On order to assist you
In not presenting yourself as an
Obsessive-Compulsive Perfectionist Control-Freak living in an Autistic Bubble and constantly reaching out attempting to correct the perceived ills and errors of the surrounding 8 Billion...
The Goal is to
Present as, and be widely
Accepted as being a
Harmless
Eccentric
Oddball..., maybe a
Competent
Smartarse, perhaps...;
Rather than an
Egomaniacal
Fuckwit...
How you choose to
Come across
Is totally up to
You...
Take it easy,
Such is life.
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
These are fantastic videos but I would love to know what year the pilots and other crew were interviewed. I imagine many of them have passed on now but there are words will be remembered for many decades to come
Thank you
I think the description Failure a tad harsh. On balance from the interviews it seemed a capable aeroplane
Yes, but it did fail to replace the Swordfish ;)
Capt. Brown also said it was a capable and easy-to-fly a/c/
Looks like a crop-duster, on a scaled down An-2!
16:04 What was causing the seizure of the bottom cilinders (lubrication problems)?
Does anyone know if those torpedoes could be set for depth whilst in mid-air or did they have to be set prior to take off whilst onboard the aircraft carrier? If the intended target was a Battleship I would presume the torpedo would be set to run deeper than say, a surfaced U-Boat? Cheers,
Wayne
For the Swordfish, they were pre-set. I suspect it was the same for Albacores (though I'm not certain). It seems to have been later generation torpedoes and aircraft that had the gear for that (Avenger and its smaller torpedo).
@@ArmouredCarriersThanks once more, I think I'm mainlining on your info.😎 If it was the case of being pre-set before take off then The Albacore crew did well to hit a U-boat with such a shallow draft. Probably the great benefit of a proximity fuse?
The bastard lovechild of a Lysander and a Swordfish. Any ideas what the apparatus forward of the windscreen is. Bleed air windscreen blower (a la Vixen)? I wouldn't have thought it needed it.
If you mean the wire frame, I think it is a very primitive kind of "HUD" that gave the pilot things like distance measuring and torpedo offset marks etc
I don't know why you associated with the Lysander?
William Coster obviously wasn't an aircraft fitter, or whatever they were in the RN. Every single engine aircraft ever built, has either the engine, or vertical stabiliser, offset by 2 degrees (or there abouts), to counter the propellor torque.
Coster was a pilot. He was probably surprised when told about the offset by a fitter, who - probably deliberately - didn't explain the context!
Thanks for the explanation always welcome more detail.
Very interesting little aircraft. Something I recall reading about - can't rightly remember the source - was that Albacore crews actually suffered worse from heat and cold compared to Swordfish crews despite having canopy protection. I don't really know the validity of the claim, but it always sort of stood out to me.
all hail!
the mighty applecore!
Does anyone know the story behind those roundels with a star? Looks ~USN
Operation Torch.
Yep, Operation Torch. The British used U.S. markings to avoid irritating the French, who were still upset about Mers el Kébir.
Thanks, gents. No mention of that on Wiki's RAF Roundels page.
I liked the chap at 22 or 23 minute mark describing the difference between the USN and RN landing techniques. It was the first time that I got a hint as to why the methods were different, as he noted that the US method would likely collapse RN aircraft landing gear as the USN's were much more robust. I had previously thought that only the Seafire undercarriage was weak. If all of Brittain's undercarriage were less robust, compared to the US, that makes me wonder just how bad the Seafire must have been for the RN pilots to have noted it.
They needed more powerful engines, in my humble opinion.
Can anyone explain why the take off shots of some of these have US Navy star marking?
Someone up thread mentioned the Torch landings, when the Brits didn't want the French to know they were involved.
Yes. It is explained in one clip I think in the Martlet video. But I'll have to do a video soon on Operation Torch.
5:40 "She's been carrying on the same fighting tradition!"... At 1/35 scale?
Nobody thought in the frugal British government that simply up engineing the swordfish and enclosing the cockpit would suffice for an aircraft already in full production? Also strange that the Italians got a lot of flak for replacing biplanes with buplanes, ( cr32/cr 42), but nobody said anything here? I can't see why to not simply improve on an existing, proven, good design instead of making an entirely new one that doesent quite cut it, and then having to fix all the teething troubles. What a costly fiasco.
The Albacore was not a costly fiasco. It was a fairly good aircraft that has been overshadowed by it's more famous predecessor. It was actually superior in almost every way to the early monoplane torpedo bombers like the USNs TBD Devastator, losing out only in top speed (but not cruising speed). The biplane configuration gave it the added advantage of being able to fly off a carrier in weather conditions that would completely preclude US or Japanese carrier operations - an important consideration for a Navy that expects to operate in the North Atlantic. Meanwhile the Taurus engine would evolve into the highly successful Bristol Hercules and Centaurus engines.
Canada put after-market canopies on a few Swordfish. It didn't catch on. I don't know the details.
If you watched the video, then like me, you'd have been waiting for the pilots and ground crew to stick the proverbial knife into this aircraft, compared to a Swordfish, but they simply didn't. It was more 'even Stevens'. Maybe there are other reasons production of the Albacore pre deceased the Swordfish, which only the comment section seems to emphasis. 1) Ease of manufacture of the Swordfish, after a production line had been created at Blackburn, and 2) the ability to carry radar equipment between its legs. There was no fiasco over the Albacore, costly or otherwise, it quietly but unspectacularly did its job, including at Cape Matapan and all around the Med..................
Seems to me Fairy Aviation made a lot of money selling junk to the Fleet Air Arm.
Junk that crippled the Italian fleet.And the Bismarck and the Vittoria Veneto and Pola .
It was also used in the Western Desert in support of 8th Army at Alamein.
Some of Blackburn's creations were questionable too. The F.A.A. certainly didnt have the most 'streamlined' homegrown aircraft.
Fairey built aircraft to specifications from the RAF, which controlled the Fleet Air Arm until 1938. And the RAF did not care a bit about aircraft carriers. Once the RN got back the FAA, the senior leaders had little experience with aircraft. Little experience but firmly mistaken idea. On Blackburn, see the Blackburn Skua, the dive bomber / fighter and the Roc, the turret fighter. Both were developed in the RAF era. As late as the RN's hurried development of the Fulmar, the Admiralty insisted that naval aircraft needed a navigator.
Why not just fit a close cockpit to a Swordfish I have seen a picture of one of these in Malta
Those were Albacores at Malta.
Canada, however, did experiment with enclosed cockpits. I personally don't know how successful these were, or what price they imposed on the aircraft's performance.
The FAA was not particularly blessed by British aircraft industries, both during and after WW2. They were lucky to get American gear in the latter half of the war.
1:11 Stars on the wings? Looks like old US roundels.
That would be operation Torch conducted with the Americans. Apparently they adopted American markings as the French would accept an American invasion but would fight a British invasion after Mers El Kabir. It is mentioned in one of the earlier episodes. Martlet I think.
@@bitterdrinker That makes sense, thank you.
I will do a Operation torch video someday
@@ArmouredCarriers The book "Wildcats Over Casablanca" is pretty good. It covers actions by a fighter squadron flying from "Ranger". I found it interesting to compare the "Ranger" air-strikes with everything mentioned in John B. Lundstrom's "First Team: Guadalcanal", the campaign being fought at the same time as Torch.
Looking forward to your "Torch", since I know very little about British carriers during that campaign.
@@redskindan78 Thanks. I'll see if I can find it. I try to read up as much as I can before taking on a memories subject. It not only helps me put their memories in context, but think of the often obscure keywords needed to find their accounts!
Yep sleeve they put em on lawnmowers
Why were the British ahead with land planes but so far behind in carrier aircraft.
It's so much more complicated than that.
Their needs were very different.
They were operating in the weather (and lighting conditions) of the North Atlantic. Thus the need for bad weather, day-night capability. And Navigator/Observers.
They were operating in the North Sea and Mediterranean. Thus the perceived need for carriers to sacrifice some capacity for extra armour.
Their carrier-v-carrier doctrine called for strikes on opponents at night (pre war wargames showing the carrier that got in the first strike tended to win, regardless of air group). This meant they couldn't afford dedicated dive-bombers or dedicated torpedo bombers. They needed dual-capability.
It was a trade-off. It gave them capability their opponents didn't have in the Atlantic and Med. But being tailored for these conditions meant they weren't tailored for the Pacific.
Those who emphasise the Pacific War will then, naturally, judge the RN aircraft through a Pacific Lens. And, correctly, they will generally be found lacking. But even then, one must take pains to compare apples with apples - and pay attention to the different ripening rates of those apples!
@@ArmouredCarriers but the armoured decks luckily paid off against the kamikazes?
@@albionguy1 I think so. Others argue no. And I think the armoured hangar saved HMS Illustrious and Formidable in the Med.
www.armouredcarriers.com/were-the-armoured-carriers-worthwhile
Also, two wings are better than one when you are losing altitude, it provides more lift at lower speeds and with the rolling of the deck on approach you don't want a fast landing aeroplane to hit the deck hard and at an awkward angle, it also allows for a faster climb rate especially when taking off with a massive torpedo slung under your plane.
They did actually design a monoplane version of it along with the biplane design that went into full production but they decided to go with the biplane version, the monoplane version imho would have resembled a Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero, it actually looks pretty decent although it ain't an accurate depiction, just remove the upper wing and replace the lower wing with the wing and undercarriage of the Fairey Fulmar which is most probably the most accurate thing we can do bar use the wing and undercarriage of the Fairey Battle, or Barracuda only because it would have been the same company and therefore the same design teams and reusing parts from other aeroplanes from your factory would make it cheaper to produce due to not having to retool your factory, I think I made the right decision when recreating a monoplane version on my laptop.
I should say that the image that I altered originally came from www.shipbucket.com/vehicles/5554 but the finished image is still on my laptop and not posted anywhere online although if anyone ever wanted to see what a monoplane variant of the Fairey Albacore probably would have looked like then I am only an e-mail message away from sending it to folk.
Fleet air arm had a different set of priorities and specifications than the r.a.f.
I'd never heard of the Albacore until I read Mike Carltons "The Scrap-Iron Flotilla" ...and here I am!
Good vid.
An excellent book. Hopefully I'll find enough audio and related footage to tackle that subject one day.
Go from this to phantom2 wth
I keep looking at the albacore and thinking ok why did it fail ? It failed because instead of designing a modern aircraft they went with another Biplane !
They did actually design a monoplane version of it but they decided to go with the biplane version, the monoplane version imho would have resembled a Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero, it actually looks pretty decent although it ain't an accurate depiction, just remove the upper wing and replace the lower wing with the wing and undercarriage of the Fairey Fulmar which is most probably the most accurate thing we can do bar use the wing and undercarriage of the Fairey Battle or Barracuda only because it would have been the same company and therefore the same design teams and reusing parts from other aeroplanes from your factory would make it cheaper to produce due to not having to retool your factory, I think I made the right decision when recreating a monoplane version on my laptop.
Not a great video, VERY LITTLE information on the aircraft.