Originally posted by Sikboy
I am familiar with the historic record, however I believe that VT-8 provides far too small a sample to be considered representative of the survivability of each plane.
Is the TBF a significant improvement over the TBD? I believe that it is.
-Sik
Then look at history a bit closer. You will note that the TBF/TBM required escort as much as the TBD. What made the biggest difference was the arrival of the F6F-3, which completely out-classed the A6M3. The Hellcats could protect the bombers where the Wildcats were hard pressed to protect themselves.
Of course the TBF is superior to the TBD. However, that means nothing in the face of heavy fighter opposition unless fighter support is equally heavy.
When unopposed by fighters, the TBD could be as effective as the newer Grumman. Don't forget that when unopposed by fighters, the FAA Swordfish was very effective despite being utterly obsolete.
Two points.
This discussion began with this statement: "I would really like to see and participate in a large scale CV battle...mid 1942 or 43 era planes."
Midway was the last combat for the TBD, already being replaced by the TBF. From there on the TBF was the standard torpedo bomber of the Navy. So if we were to have the scenario described, that’s what the USN will be flying. It's too bad that the Japanese didn't have better aircraft until later, but life sometimes bites.... If the B6N were in the game, we could have a more balanced late 1943 scenario, although the B5N2 was still their primary (in terms of numbers) torpedo bomber at that time.
My second point is this: It would make little or no difference if they were TBDs or TBFs. If caught low and slow (where they must be to drop their torpedo) by fighters both types have little chance to survive.
Torpedo bomber performance will not decide the outcome of any fleet carrier battle by itself.
My regards,
Widewing
