Combat aircraft. Fairey "Swordfish". And it’s not even about Bismarck ...

75

Why not admire? Yes, at one time the plane received from the pilots the not-so-flattering nickname "string bag", that is, "string bag", if translated in meaning. Young generations may not know what it is, Google will help.

In general, the Swordfish is a remarkable and delightful car in every way.



A low-speed biplane, with a fixed gear, outdated already at the time of its launch, he not only fought the whole war, remaining essentially the only British deck torpedo bomber, he also survived the one who was supposed to replace him!

It is worth saying a few words about Albacore.


Fairey Albacore is also a biplane, but developed in 1940, it seems to replace the Swordfish. It seems like - this is because he received from the stinging British an even more derogatory nickname, "Stub." Pun, Albacore and Applecore.

Albacore - it’s kind of like a tuna, but here’s the “Stub” fought in parallel with the “Swordfish”, but the British preferred the good old Evil, that is, Swordfish. “Albacore” turned out to be even more dull thing, although somewhere further?

In general, the bottom of the torpedo aviation Britain pounded the whole war, but there was no sense in it. "Barracuda" appeared already when everything became clear that with the Germans, that with the Japanese.

But this creation of the Fairy company, abandoned by the fate and inertness of the Lords of the British Admiralty from the beginning of the 30's, went through the whole war.

Combat aircraft. Fairey "Swordfish". And it’s not even about Bismarck ...

Now think about it: on the account of this volatile archaism and absurdity, more enemy ships were destroyed than any other type of allied aircraft.

This is a fact that can be interpreted in every way. But it has a place to be, this fact. “Swordfish” was bitten by as many ships and ships as no other plane could dream of. The crazy paradox that suggests that the British pilots were still very cool guys.


Let's on stories let's go, it's time.

In general, the concept of a sort of biplane-multipurpose attack aircraft was in the design minds in many countries. The top of the development, it seems to me, was our I-153 "The Seagull", but in most countries everything stopped at the level of a wooden-percale plane with a fixed gear.

Actually, the same was a Swordfish. However, in the technical specifications of this kerogas designed for the needs of fleet, stood the ability to carry a torpedo or equivalent in bombs. And yes, the ability to take off and land on the deck of an aircraft carrier is a matter of course.


April 1934. According to the project of Marcel Lobber (an emigrant from Belgium), the company Fairy built an aircraft that met all the requirements. For the 1934 of the year, he even had speed for himself, almost 270 km / h.

Plus, the aircraft turned out to be very stable, obedient to control and with very good maneuverability. He calmly took off and landed on the deck of the Koreges aircraft carrier designated for testing, and calmly passed the second stage of tests as a seaplane, for which the chassis was replaced with floats.


Just as calmly and leisurely, the aircraft was tested with weapons. The speed, however, fell quite naturally, but this did not stop the British. It didn’t stop so much that in 1936, just two years later, the Swordfish was put into service and went into mass production.

In general, at the time of adoption, the Swordfish was already a complete anachronism. A wooden percale-covered biplane with a fixed gear and an open cockpit - well, not so far, the Swordfish went from the 20 airplanes. Therefore, he received not the most pleasant nickname.


But before the start of World War II, the British maritime aviation had nothing better at its disposal, and the Albacore was no better than the Swordfish.

So Swordfish replaced the already very sad predecessor from Fairy, Fur Seal, Seal, and Albacore did not replace Swordfish and was quietly discontinued during the war.


Fur Seal, predecessor of Swordfish

In general, the beginning of the war, British naval aviation met with 692 “Swordfish” both on the decks of its aircraft carriers (“Ark Royal”, “Korejdes”, “Eagle”, “Glories” and “Furyes”), and at coastal airfields.


The war has begun ...

The first torpedo attack in the outbreak of war was made ... right, the Swordfish crew from the Furyes aircraft carrier. It happened on April 5 1940 of the year, during the battle of ships in Trondheim Bay.


One of the torpedoes hit the German destroyer, but did not explode. And so the attack could be the first successful. But even without the torpedo bombers, the British managed to do quite well, the Germans under Narvik received the full program.

On April 13 of the 1940 of the year, the Swordfish from the battleship Worthspite attacked with bombs and sank the German submarine U-64, which became the first submarine to die from aircraft. Accordingly, Swordfish was the first aircraft to drown a submarine with bombs.

Air groups with British aircraft carriers worked on land, and worked quite well. The finale, however, was literally tarnished when the "sweet couple" Kriegsmarine, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau drowned the Glories aircraft carrier with escort destroyers, at the same time sending two Swordfish divisions to the bottom.

In the Mediterranean, Swordfish also had a lot of work. Reconnaissance, attacks of Italian and German convoys to Africa - this was done by a special land-based division deployed from France and the Eagle and Arc Royal aircraft carriers.


The Igla crews own the record of all time: the sinking of four ships by three torpedoes.

22 August 1940 year in the harbor of Sidi Barani (Egypt) a link of three aircraft under the command of Captain Patch was discovered a huge cluster of ships. The British did not even have to aim, just drop the torpedoes on the ships, which were very tight.

Three torpedoes blew up two submarines and a vehicle loaded, as it turned out, with ammunition. The explosion on its board smashed not only the ship itself, but also the destroyer moored to it, the crew of which just took on board these ammunition. Actually, three torpedoes - four ships.

But the finest hour of the Swordfish was undoubtedly in Taranto. Generally Taranto's story is an underestimated episode. Perhaps only the Japanese appreciated, who literally a year later did roughly the same thing for the Americans in Pearl Harbor.

Aerial reconnaissance showed that the main forces of the Italian fleet are located in the inner harbor of Taranto: 5 battleships, 5 heavy cruisers and 4 destroyer squadrons.

The British engineers upgraded the torpedoes so that, having plunged onto the 10,5 meter, they could slip under the network barriers that the Italians so hoped for.

At 22 hours 25 minutes on November 11, two divisions of 12 vehicles took off from the deck of the Illastries aircraft carrier. Each pilot knew his purpose in advance.


First, two Swordfish hung SABs (lighting bombs) over the port. Then two more aircraft installed additional lighting, dropping incendiary bombs at the oil storage.

And when a fire in warehouses with fuel and lubricants flared up in full, torpedo bombers went into action. Three battleships, two cruisers and two destroyers received torpedoes on board. The battleships Conte di Cavour and Littorio sat down on the ground. In general, the small harbor of Tarento greatly helped the Italians, since it was impossible to drown in it seriously. But the victims escaped not with a light fright, but with months-long repairs at the docks.




Italy lost an advantage in large warships in the Mediterranean and from that moment very carefully used its battleships and cruisers.

And all this at the cost of two aircraft ...

Well, in the 1941 year, “Swordfish” continued his career in the same vein.

Of course, the highest point of the Swordfish combat work was participation in the sinking of the Bismarck.


The fact that without the reckless crews of Ark Royal airplanes would have gone foamy in the water, I hope it’s not worth explaining. Everyone knows everything for a long time and every minute.


On May 26 on 1941 of the year, in absolutely stormy weather, 15 of the Ark Royal torpedo bombers flew out at their own peril and risk and ... found the Bismarck! Two torpedoes found a target. Well, in general, what is a torpedo weighing 700 kg "Bismarck"? Elephant grains. The first one, which hit exactly in the middle, probably nobody noticed it except for the emergency party.

And here is the second one, which jammed the wheels ...

Everything else, torpedoes from the British destroyers that deprived the Bismarck of the course, shells from the Rodney and so on - everything was secondary.

It was the torpedo from the Swordfish that became the first nail in the lid of the Bismarck’s coffin, and there’s nothing more to add.

True, in the same 1941 year, the Swordfish star began to roll. Both Germans and Italians realized that this anachronism is a very dangerous thing, if you give it to an experienced pilot. But in Britain there were enough of them.

By the way, there is an interesting version of why the British had such modest losses in Taranto. It's all about speed. It is said that the Italian air defense gunners could not take a normal lead because the Swordfish trailed at a speed less than 200 km / h. And the Italian gunners, having incorrectly determined the speed, could not calculate the real lead.

But over time, not the Air Defense crews began to work against the Swordfish, but the Messerschmitt and Mackey Saett crews. And on this, in fact, the career of the Swordfish as a torpedo bomber ended.


No, torpedoes didn’t go to the warehouses, they just started using our slow-moving vehicle then and there, where it was possible either to reliably cover from the Messerschmitts or to exclude the appearance of enemy fighters.

And at the same time, “Swordfish” began to master related professions.


In general, it turned out to be a very good PLO plane (see the beginning). In the midst of the “Battle for the Atlantic,” which I would call the “Battle for Food for Britain,” when the Doenitz ripped up convoys from the US and Canada to the UK, the British found that, as a submarine hunter, Swordfish unmatched.

Quiet move just proved to be very useful in finding the enemy submarine. Throwing bombs from a dive into such a small target as a submarine was also not difficult. Yes, and strong defensive weapons (which the Swordfish did not shine offspring) are also not particularly necessary.

So in the composition of the British convoys began to appear the so-called "escort aircraft carriers" - small aircraft carriers, usually converted from transport ships or tankers, with several anti-submarine aircraft on deck.

The first anti-submarine Swordfish were armed with high-explosive and deep-wing under-bomb bombs. Later, in the summer of 1942, they began to mount launchers for rocket shells of 127 mm caliber, with 4-5 pieces under each console. At the same time, part of the linen sheathing on the lower wing was replaced by metal panels. This innovation was elevated to the rank of modification and named Mk.II.


But in 1943, a really serious modification appeared, Mk.III. Universal units for mounting missiles and bombs were installed on the plane and equipped with an airborne radar. These aircraft were used mainly to search for and destroy submarines that float to the surface at night to recharge batteries.

A plastic radiolucent radome radar was located on the Mk.III between the main landing gear, and the radar itself was in the cockpit, instead of the third crew member.


“Swordfish” Mk.II and Mk.III were equipped with the majority of escort aircraft carriers escorting Anglo-American convoys, including those that went with cargoes of military aid to the Soviet Union.

So, in the convoy PQ-18 there was an aircraft carrier Avenger with 12 th Sea Hurricanes and 3 me Swordfish on board. One of the Swordfish on 14 on August 1942 discovered and seriously bombed a German U-589 submarine with bombs. Unable to finish off the submarine, the crew of the aircraft brought the Onslow destroyer, the crew of which completed the destruction, onto the boat.

The Swordfish from the ships of the RA-57 convoy sailing to Murmansk reliably caused the death of the U-366, U-973 and U-472 submarines.


The last Swordfish was built on 18 on August 1944 of the year.

The total output was 2392 machines. Of these, 992 - Mk.I, 1080 - Mk.II and 320 - Mk.III. In the 1943 year, the 110 Mk.II aircraft were commissioned by the Canadian Air Force to equip a closed cabin with heating for use in polar winter conditions. This modification received the unofficial name "Mk.IV".

I would like to say a few more words about the weapons of the Swordfish.

The aircraft could carry a combat load on the suspension nodes with a total weight of up to 730 kg. An 457-mm caliber aviation torpedo or a sea mine weighing 680 kg, or an additional outboard gas tank with a capacity of 318 liters was mounted on the main ventral node.

Underwing units (4 or 5 under the lower consoles) allowed the use of various types of weapons: HE bombs in 250 and 500 pounds, depth, lighting and incendiary bombs, and on modifications Mk.II and Mk.III - rockets.

Small arms consisted of a Vickers K synchronized machine gun with a tape feed, mounted on the starboard side of the fuselage, and the same machine gun, but with a disk magazine, on a turret near a radio operator gunner.

LTX: Swordfish Mk.II

Wingspan, m: 13,87
Length, m: 10,87
Height, m: 3,76
Wing Area, m2: 5 639

Weight, kg
- empty aircraft: 2 132
- normal takeoff: 3 406

Engine: 1 x Bristol Pegasus XXX x 750 hp
Maximum speed km / h: 222
Cruising speed, km / h: 193
Practical range, km: 1 700

Practical ceiling, m: 3260
Crew, prs: 3
Armament:
- one synchronous 7,7-mm machine gun in the fuselage and one 7,7-mm machine gun in the rear cockpit;
- torpedo weighing 730 kg or depth charges, mines, or bombs weighing up to 680 kg, or up to eight NURS.

What can we say by looking at the LTH and weapons? Only that so much luck does not happen. The plane was not a fighter at all, so all the victories won by the Swordfish can be safely attributed to the highest training of British naval pilots, as well as their fighting spirit.
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    2 December 2019 18: 25
    In fact, in aviation, not divisions, but squadrons. And the second, I never thought about it, but the bomb load of the string bag is significantly greater than that of the pawn.
    1. +8
      2 December 2019 20: 02
      And the second, I never thought about it, but the bomb load of the string bag is significantly greater than that of the pawn

      How much more"? A "string bag" has a maximum of 730kg, and a Pawn has a maximum of 1000kg (4x250, for example).
    2. +17
      2 December 2019 22: 05
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      And the second, I never thought about it, but the bomb load of the string bag is significantly greater than that of the pawn.

      =======
      Are you kidding me? Only young pilots were hung on "pawns" - 700 kg! Those who are more experienced - downloaded from tons (!) up to 1 kg !!!
      Do not believe me?
      Pliz! 4 FAB-250 under the center section of the "pawn":

      PS Already after the end of the War, at the beginning of the summer of 1945, at the airfield in Pionersk (formerly Neikuren), the Pe-2 made an emergency landing (making a training flight for bombing), whose right engine "died" during takeoff! There were TWO under the belly FAB-500!! Landing on ONE engine went quite well! ..... The navigator of that "pawn" was my father!!! request
      1. +7
        3 December 2019 00: 52
        Vladimir-you for this episode hi Father- good ... In the book A. Medved and D. Khazanov "Pe-2 dive bomber", there are episodes of both outright "hatred for the" Pawn "and the designer, and respect for the Pe-2. In the hands of competent pilots, the "pawn" is rather "inconvenient" as a target for fighters (it can snap), and "hated" for the Nazis - on the ground - ironed them for kindness. Your Bath-Respect ...
        1. +2
          3 December 2019 14: 23
          Quote: Petrograd
          Vladimir-you for this episode hi Father- good

          =====
          Alexander! I answered you in a "personal". good drinks
      2. +1
        3 December 2019 13: 42
        Quote: venik
        Are you kidding me? Only young pilots were hung on "pawns" - 700 kg! Those who are more experienced - loaded from a ton (!) To 1 400 kg !!!

        T.P. Pe-2 easily took 1200 kg. This is if you take off from concrete airfields. True, the maneuver with such a burden is difficult. These are six bombs in bomb holes (three each on cluster holders), under the center section two and two, and two in the nacelles. Bombs "weave."
        We, for a fight, usually took 800 kg in "weave". And you take off from the ground without problems, and maneuverability, despite such a load, is very good.
        During the bombing of Breslau, we hung 4 on 250 kg on the outer suspension, respectively, flew with 1000 kg.
        Several times they took the "five hundred" - the maximum for our caliber - two pieces.
        They bombed PTAB, their internal suspension, in two cassettes, out of 400 pieces. According to 2,5 kg bomb, the "circle" is also 1000 kg.
        © T.P. Punev

        True, I met information that 1000 kg of combat load was hung on the Pe-2 with new engines. And usually, combat machines took 600-800 kg.
        1. +3
          3 December 2019 14: 20
          Quote: Alexey RA
          True, I met information that 1000 kg of combat load was hung on the Pe-2 with new engines. And usually, combat machines took 600-800 kg.

          ======
          Strange as it may seem - "usually combat vehicles" took from 700 to 1200 kg! Everything depended on the QUALIFICATION of the crew, the CONDITION of the airfield, the DISTANCE to the target and weather conditions!!! Well, of course, from the "character of the goal"!
          It happened that they acted in TWO approaches (the first - bombing "from the horizon" - the second - "from a dive") ..... Or - VERSAI! But usually - EXACTLY so!
        2. +2
          3 December 2019 15: 01
          Here you also need to understand the nature of the target and the method of attack. It is clear that if the load is Pe-2 hundred square meters, and bombing from a dive, then you cannot take 1000 kg, because you cannot drop these hundred square meters from the internal suspension during a dive. But - a fact - the Pe-2 had a maximum bomb load more than Avoska, and the normal one was the maximum "avosechnaya". We must also see what normal bomb load the Avoska had. Obviously not 730kg, but less.
      3. -2
        3 December 2019 21: 35
        The normal load of Avoska is 1 torpedo (720 kg), the normal load of a pawn is 500-600 kg. A ton and more of the pawn was raised in greenhouse conditions - an experienced crew, good runway, good fuel, a brand new car, etc. Any digit relating to the TTD from reports and directories can almost always be reduced by 30 percent, or even more.
        I'm not talking about pilots who are honor and glory, I'm talking about "iron".
        1. +1
          4 December 2019 21: 00
          Normal load Avoski 1 torpedo (720 kg)

          Once again, look above at Skomorokhov:
          torpedo weighing 730 kg or depth bombs, mines, or bombs weighing up to 680 kg, or up to eight Nurses
          If bombs, then "up to" 680kg, that is 680, is the maximum with bombs, and it turns out that 720 is maximum for Avoska in general (the question about the "greenhouse" conditions for take-off with this load, in the form of aircraft carrier speed, wind speed or length of the take-off deck is open)
          As for this:
          normal pawn load 500 - 600 kg. A ton and more pawns raised in greenhouse conditions - Experienced crew, good runway, good fuel, brand new car, etc.

          In this document:

          regarding this:

          not a word "about greenhouse" But 1000 kg is indicated as the maximum value of the normal load. I will not argue about the average (not normal!) 500-600 kg, moreover, I will say that it is more likely 400 kg. the main load for work with a dive FAB-100 (the most applicable bombs in the bomber aviation of the Red Army Air Force) gave an average of 500-600. But that doesn't mean that
          "string bag" bomb load is significantly larger than that of a "pawn"

          Any digit relating to the TTD from reports and directories can almost always be reduced by 30 percent, or even more.
          - why are you reducing this figure for Pekha, but for Avoska you don't want? wink
          1. 0
            4 December 2019 21: 10
            By the way, with a practical range of 1700 km for a Swordfish with torpedo armament, for some reason, a range of 880 km is indicated. Is it because to take off with a weight of 720 kg, you had to reduce the fuel supply on board?
          2. 0
            4 December 2019 23: 17
            In the document you cited there are no concepts of “normal” and “maximum” load. So the question remains open. I will never believe in life that the weight of one torpedo is for a torpedo bomber
            is the maximum load, this is just normal. As for the bombs, here we need to dig deeper into the design of the aircraft, but I'm not interested. Regarding the tabular values ​​of the performance characteristics of the Swordfish, I also came across a maximum load of 1500 kg, which I do not really believe in. It is necessary to watch the English reports on the actual operation of the aircraft. And where to get them? And most importantly - I am very skeptical of such information on the Internet, too much engagement and inaccuracy. He taught personal experience in communicating with real technology and articles about it.
            1. 0
              4 December 2019 23: 41
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              In the document you cited there are no concepts of “normal” and “maximum” load. So the question remains open. I will never believe in life that the weight of one torpedo is for a torpedo bomber
              is the maximum load, this is just normal. As for the bombs, here we need to dig deeper into the design of the aircraft, but I'm not interested. Regarding the tabular values ​​of the performance characteristics of the Swordfish, I also came across a maximum load of 1500 kg, which I do not really believe in. It is necessary to watch the English reports on the actual operation of the aircraft. And where to get them? And most importantly - I am very skeptical of such information on the Internet, too much engagement and inaccuracy. He taught personal experience in communicating with real technology and articles about it.

              The document ALL the workload of the Pawns. From 200 to 1000. And in this light 720 ALL of Avoska’s workload is no more. Since we do not have documents about the real load of Swordfish, it is illogical to say that Avoska’s load is much greater. Do not find?
              1. +1
                5 December 2019 00: 12
                In this I completely agree with you.
      4. +1
        3 December 2019 21: 40
        Honor and praise to your father, mine only got into the regiment in 1948, into a fighter, but nonetheless he told a lot of interesting things about those vehicles, there were a lot of things, including how one day an entire regiment of attack aircraft died in the exercises after the war.
  2. +13
    2 December 2019 18: 51
    The most unpleasant enemy for "avosek" and "stubs" was ... the wind. On Mediterranean, a headwind once thwarted an attack on the Italian fleet - the string bags simply could not catch up with the Italian ships. And in the north on account of the wind - a thwarted attack of "stubs" on "Tirpitz": because of the strong headwind, the speed of the aircraft dropped so much that they did not dare to overtake the LK under anti-aircraft fire to attack the target from the forward course angles.
  3. +15
    2 December 2019 18: 51
    As the saying goes: in skillful hands and horseradish balalaika.
    1. +4
      2 December 2019 22: 16
      Quote: Aleksandre
      As the saying goes: in skillful hands and horseradish balalaika.

      ======
      Well ... I do not know - did not try !!! laughing good
      1. +3
        3 December 2019 00: 56
        Damn, sorry for the question (humor, if anything) that you haven't tried horseradish or balalaika (babalaika - "Elusive Avengers" - "Crown of the Russian Empire")
        1. +1
          3 December 2019 08: 23
          Quote: Petrograd
          Damn, sorry for the question (humor, if that) that did not try horseradish or balalaika

          Didn't try to combine "one" with "another" lol
  4. +2
    2 December 2019 19: 38
    Thank you for the article. He himself learned about this plane when he bought a model for gluing in childhood. At first I was even upset when I read those data, but then I liked it with the details and lots of little things)
    1. Alf
      +19
      2 December 2019 20: 22
      A joke happened to me in general.
      I saw this model in the department store in the classic Soviet version, in a package worth 85 kopecks. Immediately I bought it, stepped aside, unfolded the instructions and saw that there were two options for the chassis, on wheels and on floats. Immediately decided to take a second. I take out a coin box, I consider cash and, here is disgusting, EIGHTY FOUR pennies. The question was what to do? I went around the store like an hungry shark, if only someone had lost a penny, but no, and chose the victim, the captain, infantryman. He came up and asked for a KOPEY on the plane. The captain openly laughed, but still gave a nickle. At the end of the week, two Swordfish were already on the shelf ...
      1. +1
        3 December 2019 00: 58
        Made of black plastic? I had floats in my kit and chassis, and that and that option was + decals.
        1. 0
          3 December 2019 01: 31
          I bought a set of gray plastic, with two chassis options, with decals. For a long time I stood on a shelf in a student dormitory .... irretrievably lost when moving))))))
        2. 0
          3 December 2019 09: 30
          No, the plastic was gray! Black, I recall little.
          1. Alf
            0
            3 December 2019 19: 41
            Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
            No, the plastic was gray! Black, I recall little.

            I had and have white, but came across bright yellow and chocolate brown plastics.
        3. Alf
          +1
          3 December 2019 19: 33
          Quote: Petrograd
          Made of black plastic? I had floats in my kit and chassis, and that and that option was + decals.

          Nah, I was lucky plastic was white, and even with decks in the set. True, a year later I washed these decks, and translated Traverses.
          1. 0
            3 December 2019 20: 30
            White and gray, I personally do not know how others, gluing and painting was easier.
      2. +1
        3 December 2019 06: 08
        * String bag * I glued on the floats and with a torpedo! To reduce the biplane box, I had to use my mouth besides my hands!
      3. +1
        3 December 2019 12: 19
        And I was lucky, I lived in the 70s five minutes from Dfi (Don. Toy Factory). And then the boys and I dragged from there any models, planes, cars, all sorts of knights, Indians.
        1. Alf
          +4
          3 December 2019 19: 34
          Quote: Sergey Mikula
          And then the boys and I dragged from there any models, planes, cars, all sorts of knights, Indians.

          Where was your proletarian conscience? laughing
      4. 0
        3 December 2019 12: 42
        Alf.
        Also reminded ...
        Bought somewhere in the late 80s, in the hero city of Volgograd, in the central department store.
        Summer, the heat is terrible ... I accidentally walked in and got to "throw out" the models. Then he took two: "Harrier" and "Swordfish".
        Not otherwise, there was some RAF holiday that day ... Harrier was green, and "Swordfish", by the way, was white, and in two versions. Chose, of course, float.
        To the present day, alas, not a single one has survived ...
        1. Alf
          +1
          3 December 2019 19: 35
          Quote: fighter angel
          Chose, of course, float.

          In vain, the Swordfish floats weren’t really marked anywhere, but the wheeled ones ..
  5. +7
    2 December 2019 20: 09
    loss of flight personnel of the British Air Force in World War II - 2% mortality of the total number of crews (44.4 killed out of a total of 55.573 RAF.) I don’t know only bombers or all categories ?? And you also need to consider that the flight crew of Britain is an aristocracy, in the literal sense. so 125.000 thousand aristocrats is a lot.
    1. +2
      2 December 2019 21: 46
      Are you talking about the RAF or just about the FAA? Yes, and arrows on the "Blenheim", "Manchester"
      "Lancaster" obviously did not fly lords.
      1. +1
        3 December 2019 02: 46
        There are still such Royal Auxiliary Air Force, for example, Johnny Johnson from there ... And in general, there is no way to figure out the structure of their Air Force in the WWII without a half-liter, there canadians are unclear how even the Poles and the French were considered ... Not to mention the structural mess with two commanders of each unit and a crew registry not to the unit, but to the place of basing)))
        1. Alf
          0
          3 December 2019 19: 46
          Quote: RWMos
          And in general, there is no way to figure out the structure of their Air Force in WWII without a half-liter, and there canadians are nepoymi, as were even Polish and French ...

          Why is it not clear? In 2005, in the Aviation Collection series, the beautiful N12 was released under the name Painting and designation of RAF aircraft until 1945, everything is fine, clear and clearly painted and the RAF structure and painting of aircraft and marking.
          1. 0
            3 December 2019 20: 02
            Baz "Madcap" Burling. Canada. Affiliation - RAF, Royal Air Force, everything shot down by him is considered from England. Well, with the structure, coloring-coloring - blamts!

            Aircraft technicians hang bombs under the wing of the Fairey Albacore MkI 820th Squadron on deck of the British aircraft carrier HMS Formidable. Operation Torch.
            Source: S. Robertcon, S. Dent. "The war at sea in photographs. 1939-1945 ".
            Zuleniy zaletik on an aircraft carrier do not notice? What are you talking about coloring? There are no options - they threw them from the ground to an aircraft, they were assigned to the aircraft carrier, and at the same time in the 820 squadron, and did not have time to repaint them in their eternal mess. I am sure that the identities - all the more so, have not changed.
            1. Alf
              0
              3 December 2019 20: 10
              Quote: RWMos
              Zuleniy zaletik on an aircraft carrier do not notice? What are you talking about coloring? There are no options - they threw it from the ground to an aircraft carrier, they began to be assigned to an aircraft carrier, but did not manage to repaint it in their eternal mess.

              RAF aircraft carried green-brown camouflage, FAA aircraft, too, only slightly changed shades. The signs in both the RAF and the FAA are the same.
              Quote: RWMos
              thrown from the ground to an airplane,

              Why toss? Albacores were only in the FAA.
              1. 0
                3 December 2019 20: 30
                Hm. Did not know. They really painted sailors in green? Well, this is precisely from the category of the fact that they had two commanders on the ground — an air wing and an air base, similar to a carrier as a captain and an air wing com, what kind of camouflage is green for the waters of their latitudes? Still in white painted, calling camouflage. By the way, FIG knows him - white and then it’s more suitable
                http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sww2/albac.html
                By the way, there are coloring options ... And the portal is serious ... And there is not so. Although pure green tezh dumb ...
                1. Alf
                  0
                  3 December 2019 21: 04
                  Quote: RWMos
                  What kind of camouflage is green for the waters of their latitudes?

                  Normal greens. The fact is that for the FAA aircraft, the color green was chosen, but with a brown tint, closer to the swamp, and brown was really close to dark gray. By the way, against the background of the dark sea, and the water at those latitudes cannot be called blue or blue, it is very invisible. But the line of separation of the colors of the top and the bottom was very high on sea airplanes, up to two-thirds the bottom was white or off-gray.
                  To understand the color of a Briton, one must have not so much photographs as colors of flowers, the fact is that the names of British air paints sometimes differed greatly from real colors.
                  1. 0
                    3 December 2019 21: 07
                    Since it’s not a secret, where does the information come from? And the water there even looks strongly on black, the swampy there I say it will glow cooler than white - at least there will be white in the surf.
                    True, I am not a pilot, but I had a chance to look at the waters from above, though not many times)
                    Tfu, I’m fooling about the waters of the Canal, so far I haven’t been brought to the Mediterranean
                    1. Alf
                      +1
                      3 December 2019 21: 14
                      Quote: RWMos
                      Since it’s not a secret, where does the information come from?

                      From various sources, 30 years of modeling still make themselves felt.
                      Quote: RWMos
                      And the water there looks strongly even on black, the swamp there I say will glow

                      Will not be. The fact is that, firstly, camouflage greatly distorts both the shape of the aircraft and the perception by the eye, and, secondly, if you just look from above at the plane hanging motionless, then "yes", but the plane moves and instead of a clear profile only a blurred blurred silhouette is visible, in which both the color of the camouflage and the shape of the aircraft merge into one spot.
                      1. 0
                        3 December 2019 21: 27
                        Well, I don’t know, I usually looked at the flyers from below, and the color is very strong, Zelenka on a thunderstorm, for example - almost a headlight. But also not always. But it’s what’s now, and what’s then ... By the way, if you don’t know for an hour, modelers usually have a good understanding ... Here is a photo. Over the heads of two technicians in an embrace - you do not know what it is? Well, after all, it’s definitely not a landing light. But does it really look like something like a searchlight? By golly, I just don’t understand if the lighting device is real - what for it? Shine in a dive? No - then what a plate ...
                      2. Alf
                        +1
                        3 December 2019 21: 50
                        Quote: RWMos
                        Well, after all, it’s definitely not a landing light.

                        It is she who just removed the fairing.
                        Quote: RWMos
                        if really a lighting device - what for it? Shine in a dive?

                        Imagine the situation. Low cloudiness, dull, possibly night, the submarine is floating above the surface. A plane falls out of the clouds and dives. The boat either dives or, if it is not possible, shoots back, by the way, the chances often fought off PLO aircraft. The question is, will it look good in general and aim in particular if a light spot dives at you? Neither determine the distance, nor precisely aim.
                        And on Swordfish and Phishington a spotlight was installed precisely for this.
                      3. 0
                        3 December 2019 22: 05
                        You need to aim it down, and not on the flight line, you yourself said about the search. Also, why doesn’t it become a landing headlight - landing on a hook, count at three points, already at approach - the headlight shines up
                      4. Alf
                        0
                        3 December 2019 22: 09
                        Quote: RWMos
                        You need to aim it down, and not on the flight line, you yourself said about the search.

                        So when the plane dives, this is the flight line.
                      5. 0
                        3 December 2019 22: 10
                        And when it sits down - Nichrome never dives. It will shine up
                      6. +1
                        5 December 2019 08: 31
                        The car's headlights are "along the line of flight", and they shine (at least, they should) strictly in certain areas. The landing light reflector sets the direction of the beam. And it does not match the direction of flight. hi
    2. +2
      3 December 2019 10: 55
      125 thousand flight personnel and 55 thousand killed are data for the RAF Bomber Command
      I honestly did not notice the abundance of aristocrats among British pilots. Everything is like everyone's plus or minus.
  6. +5
    2 December 2019 20: 12

    hi ... Fairey Swordfish on take-off of HMS Illustrious (British aircraft carrier Illastries) in 1942.
    1. Alf
      +3
      2 December 2019 22: 11
      In the second video of Albacore.
      1. +4
        3 December 2019 11: 49
        ... got it hi ... Corrected:
        The Battle of Taranto took place on the night of November 11-12, 1940 during World War II between the British naval forces under the command of Admiral Andrew Cunningham and the Italian naval forces under the command of Admiral Inigo Campioni. The Royal Navy launched the first ever fully air naval attack using 21 legacy Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers from the HMS Illustrious aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The attack hit the Regia Marina anchored in Taranto harbor using air. torpedoes despite the shallow water. The success of this attack foreshadowed the dominance of naval aviation over the large cannons of the battleships. In the words of Admiral Cunningham:
        "The Taranto and the night of November 11-12, 1940, should forever remain in our memory, as they showed once and for all that the navy's air armament contains the most destructive weapons."

        ... History is a bonus for attention smile
        1. +4
          3 December 2019 15: 37
          Sanchez, friend, thank you! hi I watched this video with pleasure as an illustration of the books I had already read. good drinks
  7. Alf
    +3
    2 December 2019 20: 15
    Small arms consisted of a Vickers K synchronized machine gun with a tape feed, mounted on the starboard side of the fuselage, and the same machine gun, but with a disk magazine, on a turret near a radio operator gunner.

    Is this the notorious British conservatism, to put a machine-gun with a store food on a turret, although there are Vickers with a tape? Or according to a saying, if only the soldier was busy?
    Then two more aircraft installed additional lighting, dropping incendiary bombs at the oil storage.

    Everywhere there is evidence that the bombs on fuel storage were dropped by mistake in the dead reckoning. Verily, there is no silver lining.
    "Barracuda" appeared already when everything became clear that with the Germans, that with the Japanese.

    Barracuda itself was far from a present. With bombs to an altitude of 4267 meters, crawling in 45 (!) Minutes is something. Therefore, as soon as the conveyor was dispersed across the ocean, the FAA squadrons began to jump onto the Avengers.
    1. +1
      3 December 2019 14: 31
      Quote: Alf

      Barracuda itself was far from a present.

      An interesting design, but I do not think that it can replace airplanes.

      © Attributed to American aircraft carrier pilots after seeing the Barracuda.
  8. +3
    2 December 2019 21: 29
    Yes, due to their greatest morale. And the Victoria Cross posthumously.
    Percentage of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau shot down in the breakout?
  9. +6
    2 December 2019 22: 59
    In general, the whole war was pounded at the bottom of torpedo-borne aviation in Britain, but there was no sense in it. "Barracuda" appeared already when everything became clear that with the Germans, that with the Japanese.
    Fairey Barracuda - the first flight - December 7, 1940 (exactly one year before Pearl Harbor), the next year the plane went into production and by 1945 overtook the release of Swordfish.
    Moreover, in February 1942, the first flight in Britain was made by the Blackburn Firebrand - an aircraft far ahead of the Fairey Barracuda.

    Single-decker aircraft with an 18-cylinder Bristol Centaurus IX radial engine with a capacity of 2520 hp, four 20 mm Hispano cannons, a ton of combat load in the form of bombs or a torpedo, at a speed of 550 km / h, combat radius of 1200 km.
    But from 1942 to 1947, only 220 of these aircraft were produced. Maybe the British Swordfish did not consider the bottom and he suited them?
    1. +1
      3 December 2019 11: 10
      The firebrand is generally a mystery to me.
      Large single radius british torpedo bomber Looks like a double-triple oxymoron. The most powerful engine with which there were probably problems, fairly clean forms and low speed. There are questions to the concept itself.
      Swordfish was almost perfect for escort aircraft carriers in the Atlantic. Of course there he was not the bottom.
      But in general, we can recall the air attack on Tirpitz. Zero used torpedoes. In terms of the use of torpedo bombers in the first line to fight warships in the second half of the war, the British really fell to the bottom as for me.
      1. +1
        3 December 2019 16: 15

        Sometimes aircraft designers were "skidded". The Americans had an even cooler oxymoron, "five", not just triple. Boeing XF8B. Flew in 1944.
        One engine is worth it - the Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-10, a 28-cylinder, four-row, air-cooled piston engine, 3000 hp. (3600 HP intermittently with water injection.)
        1. +1
          3 December 2019 19: 33
          What I mean is that with deck torpedo bombers, limes have a full file (as with deck aircraft in general). Swordfish came in well, but this is a second-line airplane. Albacore, Barracuda, Firebrand, Spearfish - all by. Taranto, Matapan, the drowning of Bismarck are of course light spots (or bright flashes) and then darkness. Against a second-rate enemy or in the absence of air cover, or better, both can and no. The same Japanese look in comparison simply celestials.
    2. Alf
      0
      3 December 2019 19: 52
      Quote: Undecim
      But from 1942 to 1947, only 220 of these aircraft were produced.

      And the first serial went to service only in May 45th, after which the British began to think intensely what to do with this suitcase without a handle ...
  10. 0
    2 December 2019 23: 09
    Aircraft saboteur.))
  11. +5
    2 December 2019 23: 32
    Taking off from the Royal Ark ...
    1. +5
      2 December 2019 23: 33
      And exit from the attack.
  12. +7
    3 December 2019 01: 42
    In general, the concept of a sort of biplane-multipurpose attack aircraft was in the design minds in many countries. The top of the development, it seems to me, was our I-153 "The Seagull", but in most countries everything stopped at the level of a wooden-percale plane with a fixed gear.
    I would consider, after all, such a machine in the USSR was the R-5 with many of its modifications, including the R-5Sh and R-5SSS-attack aircraft and R-5T-torpedo bomber. http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sww2/r5t.html
  13. +4
    3 December 2019 08: 15
    The correct conclusion, honor and praise to the people who fought "behind the wheel of this vacuum cleaner" ©.
  14. +3
    3 December 2019 08: 17
    all victories won by the Swordfish can be safely attributed to the highest training of British naval pilots, as well as their fighting spirit.

    Probably the organization / command?
  15. 0
    3 December 2019 14: 29
    What did I say? Aviation is able to sink any ship, and without much difficulty. That is why aircraft carriers are needed - to deliver a large batch of carrier-based attack aircraft capable of dealing with enemy forces in a sea battle. I would even say that it is the plane that is the main means of destruction, the ship is only a carrier. Those who do not have aircraft carriers can go to the ocean only by the grace of the carrier powers.
    1. 0
      3 December 2019 19: 21
      And submariners say that there are only submarines and surface targets in the sea, nothing is said about aircraft carriers! laughing
      1. -1
        3 December 2019 19: 24
        These submariners, apparently, are not aware of anti-submarine aircraft, capable of unrequitedly interrupt any number of submarines. And most importantly, aviation is universal: there are no targets at sea - we are going to bomb land. The boat can't do that. Boats do not creep on land.
        1. Alf
          0
          3 December 2019 19: 55
          Quote: Basarev
          And most importantly, aviation is universal: there are no targets at sea - we are going to bomb land.

          Well, I don’t know .. Such an excellent anti-submarine as Lockheed Ventura over Europe proved to be rather weak. Yes, and Avenger also hardly flashed.
  16. +1
    3 December 2019 17: 45
    I have not read the article (I will read later) but I support it. Cool car, long-lived. Pilots are heroes. Kamikaze in the British manner.
  17. 0
    3 December 2019 18: 51
    It was interesting to read! ... good
  18. +2
    3 December 2019 22: 02
    An interesting article, thanks, but why was the heroic HMS "Onslow" called a "torpedo boat"? It's ESMinets! The dimensions and weapons are completely different. The future hero of "New Year's Shame".
    There are Swordfish models from different companies on different scales. Including 1/700 (wingspan about 2 cm). With photoetched parts, incl. braces.