Talk:Douglas TBD Devastator

Untitled

In reference to a statement near the end refering to how TBF Avengers would have likely suffered similar losses at the Battle of Midway under similar circumstances as those the TBD Devestators faced: I seem to recall from a book called "Miracle at Midway" that TBF Avengers used during the Battle of Midway also suffered severe losses, though only a handful of them (flying from Midway Island) were present. These also attacked without fighter escort, due to the fact that most of the fighters based at Midway had to defend the base from the initial attack and were unable to join the bombers. The one plane that did survive from this group landed wih over 200 bullet holes in it. I don't have the book with me, so I won't add this to the article until I can verify it (but if someone else verifies this or dis-verifies it before then, feel free to add this or refute it as you wish.)

--Jeff

I've read that story as well. The Avengers were a detachment of VT-8 based on Midway. Six attacked, one returned with the turret gunner (Jay Manning) dead. IIRC the aircraft was heavily damaged, crash-landed, and was scrapped. This is the pilot's story: http://boatcoach.tripod.com/id109.html 198.49.81.33 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph needs a re-write. "Vastly outclassed in both speed and maneuverability by the Mitsubishi Zero"? Really? Of course it was "outclassed in speed and maneuverability" by the Zero, the Zero was a fighter, not a torpedo bomber! The Kate (Japanese TB) was equally outclassed by even the Wildcat, let alone the Hellcat or Corsair. The fact that a torpedo bomber couldn't out "dogfight" a fighter is not a valid criticism. The losses of the Devastators at Midway was far more of a leadership failure to conduct a coordinated attack with dive bombers and torpedo bombers attacking simultaneously while provided cover by fighter aircraft, than a specific failing of the aircraft. Yes, the Devastator was slow-but given the circumstances, I'm not sure that there is evidence to suggest that Avengers would have faired any better.-Brian 6/9/21

Lol

There are no surviving aircraft in museums or private collections, except for the three in al gore's garage

can this be edited? Im doing this on my phone or I would do it myself 94.3.135.22 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

or the ones in the ocean 1111canada (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Douglas TBD Devastator/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Read the article on the TBD Devastator with interest. I have comment that might help to explain their losses at Midway. One of the problems with the use of aerial toperdoes is the speed and altitude at which they are dropped. If the aircraft is flying too fast, the torpedo may break up on impact. This would have affected the Avenger as much as the Devastator. In addition, there is the problem of dropping the torpedo from too high. Simple physics tells us that an object will accelerate in a fall until it reaches terminal velocity. So, the altitude and the aircraft's speed would affect the velocity of the torpedo when it hit the water. Your statements that the low speed of the torpedo bomber made them vulenerable is quite correct. The reestrictions on speed and altitude only compunded the problems that the Devastator suffered from.PatfromMN 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ** *** **** ***** I would like to preface my statements by telling you that the Devastator aircraft was not restricted in its' torpedo run by design as seems to be implied by your article, but by the training given the aircrew. Further, I read a book about the investigation that was conducted into the torpedo issues of WWII and as I remember from the book (I am now living in another country and so I do not have access to it and thus cannot cite this incredibly important source but if I read it, I do know it to be out there) these investigations were concluded in 1944. The conclusions were as follows: The torpedoes upon release from aircraft that were flying the low, straight pattern 'belly flopped' into the water often disrupting the control mechanisms to some degree if not destroying the torpedo outright when it hit 'just right'. To avoid this problem aircrew were then instructed to release their torpedoes while in a dive and then the torpedoes would 'slide' into the water and thus successfully avoid the issues that arose from the 'bellyflops'. Please check into this, I do wish I could be of better assistance for which I am sorry. 180.66.135.17 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Clifford Terry - ttjcterry@hotmail.com

Last edited at 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 13:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

From the Lede

"The Devastator performed well in early battles, most notably in the Battle of Coral Sea"

As a contrast, Toll 2012 summarizes Coral Sea after-action reports and calls it "disastrously obsolete" and says that it "must be replaced as quickly as possible".

So is there a source for the good performance? --84.132.144.110 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It is possible for an aircraft to be both totally obsolete but also to perform well in certain circumstances. They arent totally exclusive concepts. It performed well in Coral Sea because they managed to sink a carrier and several other ships and avoided taking disastrous losses, but that doesn't mean they can't look at the enemy opposition and decide that we really need to get something better very quickly. Idumea47b (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)