Why didn't the Bismarck shoot down any Swordfish?
The Bismarck was struck critically by an attack of 15 Swordfish bi-plane bombers, yet wasn't able to shoot a single one down. How was this possible, considering that the Bismarck was the most advanced Battleship of the Kriegsmarine and the Fairey Swordfish a rather archaic and fragile look plane? Was it the visibility, were the Germans just bad shots, was there a problem with the AA guns or the fire control system or other factors?
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» SOURCES «
Friedman: Naval Anti-Aircraft Guns & Gunnery [Thank you Martin!]
Breyer, Siegfried; Koop, Gerhard: Schlachtschiff Bismarck. Eine technikgeschichtliche Dokumentation
Elder, George H.; Rudofsky, Ulrich H.: Final Report of Artillery Testing Command for Ships No. 700/41 - AVKS Tests aboard Battleship “Bismarck” found on: The Battleship Bismarck - Armament Information
www.kbismarck.com/archives/bar...
NavWeaps: 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER...
NavWeaps: 10.5 cm/65 (4.1") SK C/33
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER...
NavWeaps: 2 cm/65 (0.79") C/30 -2 cm/65 (0.79") C/38 AA MG www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER...
ADM 234/509: Sinking of the 'Bismarck', 27 May 1941: Official Despatches
www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/o...
Naval History Forum - No Swordfish shot down by Bismarck
www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewto...
Horan, Mark E.: “With Gallantry and Determination” - The Story of the Torpedoing of the Bismarck
www.kbismarck.com/article2.html
Reddit - Ask Historians - I read that the reasons why the swordfishs … Bismarck
/ i_read_that_the_reason...
Rielly, Robin L.: Kamikazes, Corsairs, and Picket Ships. Okinawa, 1945
Harrison, W.A.: Fairey Swordfish in action
Rimell, Ray: Swordfish - Fairey Swordfish MKS I-III
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#bismarck #swordfish #bismarckvsswordfish
If you like in-depth researched videos on Military History, considering supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/
Military History Visualized Do blucher
Lol I got here because potential history made a video about bismark but it was sponsored by wargaming and he talked about world of warships and called it realistic which made it hard to take the video seriously.. xD but it was still fun
Military History Visualized The most damaging shots were from the 15” main armament, fired to hit the water in front of the Swordfish. One of these water spouts actually removed the belly skin of a Swordfish leaving the crew’s legs hanging in the wind.
i fear no man but that thing scares me....
Military History Visualize
Real British design here, so obsolete that everyone forgot how to counter it.
James Tang "yesssss"
Same for the Royal Navy‘s ships
Pretty much! lol
Cant say that about the hood.
Aaron Mcconkey Not obsolete enough
When your technology is so obsolete it appears to be magic.
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki It's weird how the pilots describe the German to have extremely accurate fire, and you on the other hand, dismiss them as if you were there lmfao.
Magic swordfish
@@linuxnbg94 Well, hes polish so that explains it. I guess if your country only existed for 5 weeks in WWII that may hurt the national pride
@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 ouch-
@@criseydecatimpo-deleon6803 ayo, that sounds like name of new gen of jet fighter in future
Capital ships of that period were designed to destroy ships and subs. Fighting canvas biplanes was like a tiger fighting a swarm of flies....... except flies don’t have torpedos.
lol
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized So why didn't the tiger win?
@@warbirdgaming8091 Cos they were flies. Plus the tiger didn't bathe sooo.
@@firesturmgaming Your reasons seem... Vaild
@@warbirdgaming8091 Because all the might in the world is useless unless you can hit your target. And even if you can, in the case of airplanes and ships alike, your hits will do far less damage if your shells over penetrate and fly though them without exploding.
"We count thirteen ships, Lord Vader, but they're so small they're evading our turbo lasers."
Hoot-baaaah We'll Have to destroy them craft to craft ...
Did you know the rebel attack on the deathstar was based on those dambuster raids? Straight up man!
It was thirty, not thirteen.
@@RayHardman7567 0:16 _"I find your lack of comprehension disturbing."_
@@Biscuitchris7again I know what you meant, but seeing as I'm a star wars fan more than history, sometimes I can't help but correct people when they get stuff wrong. Consider this a fun fact about star wars if you didn't already know it.
When you look at Bismarck and Battle of Taranto it really shows how the swordfish obsoleteness was it's strength.
Lol underratted comment😂
It wasn't obsolete. It was built that way because that's what got the job done.
@@davidelliott5843 It was obselete, it was an old design. Some say it was really on the bismarck's AA guns, they were designed to shoot down modern planes. So they shoot in front of the plans, not the plane itself.
@@BocchiSensei i heard it was also because the swordfish were too low and the AA guns couldn't hit them
The weather was so bad that no monoplane torpedo bomber could have taken off, but fighter opposition would have given them short shift, like the channel dash, if the German Navy had had a carrier with Bismarck.
I was fortunate enough to talk to John Moffat (credited with being the pilot of the Swordfish whose torpedo struck the Bismarck’s rudder, although this has recently been questioned) at his home in Scotland a few years ago and I asked him to recount the story of the attack and how he survived it. He explained that when he was on Ark Royal in the Mediterranean some months earlier, as he was not flying at the time of an attack from Italian torpedo bombers he was given the task of manning a light machine gun mounted on the side of the ship. As they were being attacked by the planes, he found it very difficult to depress the machine gun to a low enough angle to target the low flying torpedo bombers. However, as they broke their attack run these planes had to bank their wings and in the process had to climb slightly to ensure their wing tips did not contact the sea, and it was at this point that they then were high enough for his and other guns to bear on them. He said this was a critical lesson for him that he used when attacking the Bismarck and other ships. On the particular evening of the Bismarck attack he said there was a heavy sea running and they came in as low as 10 - 20ft above the swells which he estimated at 30ft, so they were rolling up and down following the contours of the waves. Most of the fire was above them because of their low level and at the end of their attack run, mindful of his experience when defending Ark Royal, he said he just used full rudder deflection to in effect yaw the aircraft through his exit turn rather than using his ailerons as this would have meant he would have to have gained height exposing himself to the defending fire which could not deflect low enough to hit him. Based on this explanation, your first reason was therefore the biggest factor, coupled with the ability of the Swordfish to skid in a turn if the rudder only was used with the ailerons being used to counter the aircraft’s roll thereby keeping a flatter flight path beneath the Bismarck’s defensive fire.
"used full rudder deflection to in effect side slip through his exit turn rather than using his ailerons as this would have meant he would have to have gained height exposing himself to the defending fire" I've read accounts of attack aircraft like the A-26 doing that on very low-level attack runs in Europe.
So, old fashioned piloting, using the rudder to steer a slow-flying aircraft, was the key to survival. Moral: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
"However, as they broke their attack run these planes had to bank their wings and in the process had to climb slightly to ensure their wing tips did not contact the sea, and it was at this point that they then were high enough for his and other guns to bear on them." At this point the torpedo would already have been launched. Shooting down the aircraft as it's coming off the attack run is too late to defend the warship, no?
@@davidcurrie6955 And the shot that sank the Hood wasn't?.
@@paulflory3532 Warships will try almost anything when attacked by airplanes, before, during and after dropping torpedoes. Sometimes they'd fire 15 inch shells in an attempt to knock the planes down with the water sprayed by the shell hitting the water. 5 inch shells might be fired at running torpedoes. A lucky shot from anti-aircraft fire might prevent a torpedo from reaching its target.
The Germans never in their wildest dreams thought that the British would send obsolete aircraft against their greatest battleship.
Sorry Jack but Pz. V, VI and VII certainly were NOT reliable. The guns yes, but the engines definitely NOT. And if you are no longer mobile (cos your engine is kaput) then you're not a tank anymore, you're just a very expensive and relatively vulnerable pill-box. The principle of quality vs. quantity is fair enough up to a point, but the Germans - driven mainly by their leader - got totally carried away with it and went WAY too far (like the Maus was any kind of sensible design?!?!). The StuG. III, whilst not being any actual panacea of design, was by far the best value-for-money tank killer that the Wehrmacht had: they had a good chance of killing any allied tank (year for year), they were pretty mobile, reliable, fairly well protected and - crucially - they were cheap to build:Stug. III cost 82,500 Reichmark Pz.III cost 100,000 Reichmark Tiger I cost 250,000 Reichmark!Tiger II cost 800,000 Reichsmark!!!! They could build FOUR StuG III for less than the price of a Tiger I and TEN for the price of a Tiger II! If Hitler had stopped poking his nose in and demanding ever bigger and more powerful tanks they could have taken the more pragmatic approach which would have been to just churn out a whole lot more StuG III. They would have been far more successful at fighting off allied tanks … although they would have still lost for a whole bunch of other reasons …
Bobby also has a very valid point in the "difficult to repair" comment - it's bad enough if your tank keeps breaking down (which later German tanks did) but if it takes days to fix rather than hours then it's not on the battlefield doing its job and instead is costing you more man--hours in non-combatant troops to work on it - double whammy!
Jack the Gestapo and the fact that one of these tanks was in service for decades and the other was left after the war for scrap. The Sherman could be modified easily and cheaply and could still kill modern tanks
Jack the Gestapo not modern but all the way to at least the t72 with stuff like what the Israelis used with 105,90 and higher velocity 75 mm cannons. Also the Yugoslavians mounted a 122 millimeter cannon on one given the proper ammunition it could definitely kill a modern tank
Swordfish was no obsolete. It was a heavy lifting STOL aircraft that could fly in heavy weather and launch a torpedo into heavy Atlantic swells without breaking the weapon. Germany was foolish to ignore them. Probably because they had nothing equivalent and assumed that biplane meant old tech. In reality, that particular biplane was the perfect tool for the job.
Try chucking an object into a bin while going 100mph in a car. Do this until you get the object the bin almost every time. Now try it only going 30mph. Your aim will be well off because you've become accustomed to aiming at a fast moving target.
Andrew Ince No, your aim will be off because you haven’t practiced at 30mph, while you’ve practiced enough at 100mph to make it 100% of the time.
Andrew Ince I get your point though
@@james-gm3sf that's exactly the point.
@@james-gm3sf you are dumb lol
ulfenburg ok
"Swordfish OP plz nerf" Captain Ernst Lindemanns' final words.
Sadly, even Valve nerfing the swordfish the day after couldn't stop the Bismark sinking.
"Wtf stupid op German bbs" - Captain Ralph Kerr when HMS Hood got ammoracked.
I'm pleased that you find the violent deaths of close to 3,750 men a suitable subject for such stunning wit and humour.
If you can't find humor in everything, you're a sad, sad person.
Fucking British bias! Nerf Brits, buff Germany
General Dodonna: "The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. Its defenses are designed around a direct, large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense." Gold Leader: "Pardon me for asking, sir, but what good are snub fighters going to be against that?" General Dodonna: "Well, the Empire doesn't consider a small one-man fighter to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense."
Punky Pilot: "I've shot Womp rats smaller than Darth Vader!!"
It is well known that the swordfish flew below the bismark's ability to shoot them down. I read this in a book about the Bismark in probably somewhere 3-5 grade.
We should have Swordfish rather than X-Wings.
Yes, the Spacefish.
''Gold Leader standing by, Red Five standing by.....Jock Moffat, is that you?
Is no one gonna mention that the captain himself, decided to also use the big boi guns at the lowest elevation to fire into the water in an effort to cause humongous fountains of water to shoot up and add just a little more pizzazz to the AA defenses.
That was not so special these days.
I knew a tail gunner in one of those famous R.N. swordfish. Eric Hodgett. When he died he received a Naval funeral & was toasted at his wake; As an 'Avenger of the Hood.' Next to me here is a chair which belonged to him.
Avenger of The Hood, Thats one Hell of a Title.
@@Cipher00007 It sure is : )
you've got to admit those pilots had balls of steel!
@Steve Canvas bags
the saying goes go for metal not meat but its super easy when there is no meat only steal balls
Mark 1 eyeballs, that is!
I'm assuming the Mark II eyeball is a guy with glasses
Mk III is a guy with Lasik. =P
Wouldn't be the first upgrade that's actually a downgrade (compared to I and II).
That's why I've always referred to my glasses as "Mk. II eyeballs".
Stuff 96 yep, that is me...
Ahh so the guy with glasses is the Mark -1 eyeball
"no armor is best armor" - PhlyDaily
I do not understand
It’s a reference from a KZheadr who plays a game called “War Thunder.” It’s a war simulation where you can drive all sorts of vehicles used in the 20th Century. Now for what the phrase means; it’s just that sometimes having little to no armor can actually be extremely helpful in preventing explosive charges in shells from detonating. In this case, the Swordfish has little thickness in their wings that prevents the charges from AA to detonate. Getting holes in your wings is way better than getting your wings blown off.
Stupid reference besides tell that to any P47 vet.
Apart from mgs
Yeeeee
You have a strong but pleasant accent and your English is superb. But more importantly the story is well informed and explained a lot. The illustrations are really great too.
@Benjamin Zev what?
Either you aren"t a native speaker , or you are deaf, or you just don't listen at all. The English is sometmes incomprehensible, often incorrect.
@@Waldvogel45 said the guy who typed “aren"t”
Because I don't harm animals....
Military Aviation History Just don't let the fish harm you!
I am sure if 15 Swordfish came flying at you dropping torpedoes you would reconsider ;)
DagarCoH Would this be similar to a Sharknado?
ADIT ADDICTS someone should make a movie out of this... wait, maybe not...
DagarCoH Ha!!
I totally agree with your conclusions, however, we cannot discount the utter bravery of the Swordfish pilots in their attack on such an impressive ship as the Bismarck.
disagree the swordfish is the greatest airplane of all time. swordfish>f-22
Oh pitiful mc pity
Amen. Those pilots must have thought when they took off that they were on a suicide mission flying such an obsolete aircraft against the most modern battleship in the German navy. Little did they know that those obsolete aircraft would be the reason for their survival. Very strange things occur during a war.
I don't see how Bismarck was impressive... Most of it's stats are comparable to battleships of the 1920s (like the Colorado-class) but with greater speed. It's only "impressive" quality was that it was really big... and therefore an easier target.
Tally Ho chaps
A very interesting and detailed analysis. It reminded me of several conversations with my uncle Commander Pat Jackson, who as young Lieutenant at midnight on May 24th 1941 was flying a Swordfish torpedo bomber of 845 Naval air squadron led by Lt. Commander Eugene Esmonde from the carrier Victorious, when he spotted the battleship Bismarck. I can do no better than quote his obituary in the Daily Telegraph November 11th 2004. ‘ as Jackson flew down through the cloud for a low level attack, his observer Lieutenant ‘Dapper’ Berrill tapped him on the shoulder to wish him Happy Birthday. Bismarck’s greeting was a heavy barrage of flak which shook his flimsy aircraft, filled the cockpit with the stench of burning explosives and drenched him with walls of water thrown up by the battleship’s main armament. Amid the confusion and violent manoeuvring, Jackson thought he saw a torpedo hit the Bismarck’s side, but, he confessed later, ‘ he was not brave enough to wait and see’. I asked him why he thought that the Bismarck was not able to knock out any the the attacking aircraft and he said that they were told by naval intelligence after the war that the German gun layers could not conceive that any aircraft would be flying at less than 50 knots and consequently the fuses were set to explode to coincide with aircraft flying at approximately that speed. He said that laden with a one ton torpedo and flying into the wind he doubted they flying much faster than 40 - 45 knots, which would account for his description of a ‘wall of flak exploding in front of them’. He got back to Victorious and the next morning took off to conduct a box search for the Bismarck which had disappeared during the night. Owing to navigational problems he lost contact with the carrier and late in the afternoon had to ditch in the North Atlantic. His and his crew’s survival for nine days in an open boat is one of the great sea survival stories of the war.
Very cool, thanks for sharing.
Amazing story
Great video, explained very well. One thing I believe worth mentioning. They attacked in heavy weather, more modern aircraft would not have been able to be launched from a carrier in such heavy seas. This was another factor in favour of the Swordfish, being able to fly in conditions that would ground most other aircraft.
The older the technology, the more reliable it is!
Spot on and great if no opposing carrier/fighters. If Graf Zeppelin had been her escort might have been a different story
the french history magazine "Guerres & Histoire" issue n°31 featured an interview of Terry Goddard who actually participated in the swordfish attacks on the Bismarck. I remember he said the Bismarck's AA fire was thick and dangerous above the ship level but nearly nonexistent near sea level. And that indeed, the bad weather and low visibility allowed his swordfish to not be worried much about AA fire before it went into low-enough angles to be completely safe.
Falklands War anyone?
TOME Julien always respect an informed opinion,..his story can be backed up by naval history! Approach from a low,rear position,....most guns are now incapable of return fire....however as for the Stuka it pounded the retreating British ships from,Norway and Dunkirk....and many weapons have a cumulative affect,..ie AA.though individually seem almost useless.
I remember interviews where this was discussed, literally hanging off the wing. I think it was the crew who's torpedo actually hit the rudder.
A Soviet torpedo bomber pilot, Hero of the Soviet Union, Pavel Galkin, says that German warships had a gun depression flaw that created a big "dead zone" around their major fleet units. lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/galkin/index.htm
The Stuka was overrated bullshit due to its noise-maker. It was shot down more often than not. Not bad in Poland 1939 and France 1940 but against decent AA or aircraft it was a sitting duck.
Who would win The largest battleship built by the Germans that took out the pride ship of the Royal Navy Or Some WW1 era flying bois
Who would win? A big boi or gal ship named after a Prussian boi. Or. Some planes that were so outdated.
Pride of The Royal Navy? Don't take propaganda seriously. HMS Hood was a WWI Battle Cruiser of the same design as the "Big Cats", which suffered badly at Jutland in 1916. A floating disaster waiting to happen.
@DjBalkoni she was the pride of the royal navy cause she was a pretty good looking ship and in 1920 when she was built she was the most powerful ship in the world
@@pilot1721 Yes correct. By the late 1930s it had become propaganda, which people still take as fact, as with much WWII propaganda, both allied and axis.
I thought the pride of the royal navy got sunk near Singapore
Polikarpov PO-2: *Finally a worthy opponent. OUR BATTLE WILL BE LEGENDARY*
Swordfish vs Po2, I want to see it!
Unexpected undetected aviation deviation...
I am glad you covered the effect of cloth wings on light AA fuses. I remember reading an account of the raid on Taranto by the British using Swordfish. The account told of light AA shells passing straight through the wings of the Swordfish without detonating. I wish I could remember where I read it.
Your analysis in general are quite frankly refreshing, in-depth, moderated, with conflicting perspectives and from various sources. Given a broader picture to correctly understand what was going on. I guess I forgot how historical sciences were supposed to be, too many people use it for an agenda or to prove an already made up point, not really to find truth in it. Thank you for your quality content! After watching half your videos, I finally subscribe.
The Bismarck didn't shoot any of them down because the Swordfish is clearly the best aircraft ever built.
Foo-Foo Cuddlypoops. Sir squire would agree
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
This is the real answer.
Swordfish OP, plz nerf ASAP.
Swordfishes served during the entire conflict with great success, clearly the best plane of WW2. They could even fire rockets, how awesome is that? What's a "Po-2"? I've never heard about it before.
Extremely well-done and well-documented video. I have never seen any account anywhere near yours in completeness and historical accuracy. Bravo!
I love all your videos. Precise, informative, always well disgraced and explained in detail. Thank you again on another superbly made video! Achtung!
9:48 Small correction: "despatches" is a British variant of "dispatches," so it is not an error in a report by the British Admiralty.
oh, I thought it was "old English".
Military History Visualized well it's more like late middle English but it was still outdated when it was used in that report.
Outdated and pompous. Much like the admiralty.
^ Hahaha, precisely.
I've seen first world war British reports and messages that used to-day and to-morrow. It seemed that some of the archaic spelling stayed around in the higher classes in Britain for awhile.
Something about tiny bi-planes going up against behemoths like the Bismark, warms the heart.
The Swordfish sank more Axis shipping than any other type of aircraft (says the wikipedia page on Fairey Swordfish). By 1944 the British had armed them with rockets. Not bad for an old plane considered obsolete before the war started!
In terms of crews/effort/spending/resources it also turned out that the german aircraft bombing/torpedoing convoys in Atlantic was more effective/efficient than the U-boats. But all cards were laid on the U-boats (as also the british airplanes covered more space and made the german planes dwindle in efficiency). Planes rule !
Bi-planes have went up against ships, more modern monoplanes (such as the Bf. 109, for example), and even jet aircraft, and have won. On paper, they’re clear underdogs because they’re outdated designs, relatively weakly armed, are made out of... well, paper, and are slow. That’s what makes them so effective against faster aircraft and AA. Most of the time, the bi-plane is flying at a much lower speed than the stall speed of monoplanes and jet aircraft, and the fact that they’re pretty much all wood and canvas makes them more resilient than one would expect. Bi-planes, war’s greatest winning underdogs.
Uranprojekt biplanes are also a surprise factor. Something you wouldn't on a mission.
I guess there may have been issues with.. calibrations
This is like the real life version of the attack on the death star
George Lucas knows his history. The similarities can’t be accidental!
One other thing to remember in this discussion.........the British has some pretty damn good pilots.
Look at Taranto and the number of aircraft and impact - pilots of that quality at Pearl Harbour and the US wouldn’t have had anything left afloat
Well, I'd say you kill a swordfish with a sailfish, but that'd be shellfish of me.
See Kip Adotta- wet dream... For the halibut.....
Nah, just a little fishy!
The Bismark is like the First Death Star and the X-Wings are the Swordfish.... Also I enjoy your videos greatly.
More like the Executor and the Swordfish the A-wings.
Entirely possible that it was part of the inspiration for it
Yeah now that I think of it
It was a mix of this & the dambusters movies that Lucas got the inspiration from.
As always, your topic is thoroughly researched, and well presented.
Having years of experience firing the bofors 40/60 (and the tripod mounted .50cal), I found that the weapon was completely useless in a heavy sea, or against jets. The motorised mounting on a ww2 type Daring class destroyer (enclosed bridge variant) that I served on (in peacetime 1970's) was quite deadly in a calm sea against propeller driven aircraft, or surface targets (caveat: the sleeves we fired at did not evade or shoot back). Our guns had electronic sights (and mounting motors for training left and right, up and down for the barrels) which placed a small dot on the estimated impact point of the shells, which of course Bismark did not have. In a heavy sea, the roll characteristic (not the pitch aspect) was the deciding factor. a few shells would fire into the sky the the ship would roll violently the other way and the next shells would go into the sea alongside the ship. With no electric aids and heeling over sharply during evasive turns, I would be shocked if Bismark got a single 40/60 round into any aircraft.
MrRationalDebate Yes quite true. You only needed to watch or participate in the practises against de commissioned ships to see that even a destroyer sized target is missed!
Very interesting
+MrRationalDebate Did your ship have the "simple" twin Bofors, or the stabilised STAAG mounting with the onboard predictor and radar? The STAAG was reputedly extremely unreliable!
madseavets cSimple. No stabilisation, No Radar. Electric predictor sight. Ship is now a museum piece.
Still, the swordfish would do a blistering hundred knots, if two of the guys in it got out and pushed.
The Virgin Zero vs. The Chad Swordfish
Zeros are not torpedo bombers. It's really the Virgin TBD Devastator vs the Chad Swordfish
Nate Kaufman we can compare them in their ability to take down ships. Zeros have to sacrifice themselves to take down a ship. The swordfish didnt even get shot down the whole time they were flying
Jack the Gestapo it just allows me to put similarities between the zero and the swordfish so that the meme will work
Should've been the G4M not the Zero. but im gonna let this pass for the sake of the meme.
next the weeb f18 vs the godly camel
Thank you sir. Such a trip down memory lane. As a kid I would be sent out to get Commando comics o a Sunday morning. Along with all the papers available. These comics led me to ask for models as presents and a life long interest in history. Several of these comics stick in my mind forty years later. The one about the P38 and how you’d get caught on the rear stabiliser if you had to bail out. Another about the Sea Scua’s reputation. The LRDG. And the Bismarck attack by Swordfish. I ended up with models of both craft I was always impressed with the courage of the war fighter and this story of the attack on the Bismarck was a cornerstone for this belief. Seeing your video here has in no way diminished my thoughts on the matter. Much appreciated. Kind regards. - Mac
A very eloquent KZhead comment. What a breath of fresh air!
Actually, there's another advantage to the Swordfish's archaic construction - the fabric was not a structural component. In 'modern' stressed-metal construction, the stressed metal skin of the aircraft was actually a structural component, so damage to the metal skin damaged the structural integrity of the aircraft. In 'traditional' wood and fabric aircraft, the wooden frame was the structural component, and the fabric covering simply improved the aerodynamic qualities of the design. As such, you could poke as many holes in the fabric as you liked without significantly damaging the aircraft. That's why the Hurricane was considered so sturdy...
Always your videos are just plain great... and insightful
A most superlative video to watch before going to bed. I have learned a lot on in this one video alone. Great work.
Very thorough and enjoyable video! As a special note the summary of the main points combined with the visual representation (colours, graphics) really added to the video. Thanks!
Your video styles are amazingly informative, the summaries you do are not only clear but perfectly formatted, keep it up
Amazing that “old” technology like the Swordfish was responsible for the disabling of a state of the art (at the time) battleship, which of course led to its being sunk.
"With the jawbone of an ass, I have slain a thousand men." --Samson at Ramath-lehi (Judges 15:17)
I havent clicked on a video so fast. I think this is the first non-documentary youtube video on this subject
Wow, years of "knowing" about the sinking of the Bismarck, but I never thought the question, "What happened with the enormous AA Defense? Why they could not defend against a bunch of big, slow-ass WWI-designed planes at sea level, heading directly to the AA guns?"
Daniel Eyre it was a 1930 design wasn’t it ?
Logical Detection: Actually, the reason that the Royal Navy was equipped with the Swordfish was because the RAF controlled the purchase of aircraft, and aircraft for the Royal Navy was a very low priority.
He was probably trying to be funny, but if you stop and look around, at the very start of WW II there was an awful lot of "WW I++" technology, and more importantly, thinking, present in all the Western armies. This shouldn't be too surprising: military funding tends to dry up when there isn't a war on, so buying anything new is hard, and everyone in charge fought in the last war, so expects it to be the way they KNOW war is done. As usual contact with the enemy quickly changes everything.
Swordfish were not WWI-designed, they were from 1934. The Hurricane and Spitfire were just about to break through as the UK's leading one-engined monoplanes in the mid-1930s, and the contemporary RAF fighters were biplanes like the Hawker Demon of the Hawker Hart family..
The Bismarck didnt have an enourmous AA defense, it had outdated and limited in number light flak, slow firing medium flak, and mismatched heavy flak that operated at different speeds thus constantly throwing off the fire solution of the control system... Add to that that this sortie was a political stunt, Raeder feared a future in which the KM got no funds whatsoever so he had to show Hitler some success BEFORE Barbarossa, which is why Raeder did not wait for the Lützow to be ready or for the AA crews to be trained. With a little more love and less political opportunism, the Bismarck would have at the very least sailed with a fully trained crew, homogenous heavy and light (flakvierlings) flak and more support in the form of the Lützow, Scheer and a sortie by the twins. When Albacores tried the same thing against a properly armed and worked-up Tirpitz, two got shot down, many damaged and none got hits...
Thank you for the very well done analysis of this particular battle. It is interesting how the AA ship and fleet tactics, equipment and ship design evolved in the Pacific war based on hard experience over the three years of intense engagement, while this battle was mainly fought with between the wars training, technology, and tactics.
Super good ! You've mastered the art of objective, informative and scientifically strong topics about very complicated matters. That new video is a pure masterpiece and helps us comprehend way more about the events that happened. Like if we were aboard tbe ship behind a gun !
when you plan for a strong enemy, and end up swinging and passing through them.
The swordfish holds the title of the allied aircraft that sank the highest tonnage of axis shipping throughout the war.
Source?.
Thank you for gathering concrete information and keeping speculation to areas that are debatable.
Great video, thanks for your hard work in creating and sharing!
Clearly the AA system on the Bismarck was meant to counter Zeppelin-Bombers, but someone had to mess up the timeline and stop Einstein from assassinating Hitler!
Plz don’t bring up red alert that game is based on communist bullshit I’d rather Hitler then that mother fucker Joseph Stalin
But I will admit it was a fun game
it was all Kane's fault xD
He dies no matter which side wins so...
"communist bullshit" on a game that makes the USSR unrealistically aggressive becoming a world domination super villain? LOL what are you smoking? Surely if its pro-soviet, it would of either went for a more realistic historical alternative or make the USSR less evil?
Bismarck: "I am unsinkable!" Swordfish: *"Are you sure about that?"*
Rex Wort it only jammed bismarcks rudder tho.
@@mrpuck68 thats main reason why the Bismarck was sunked. If they didnt hit the rudder. The brits would fail to chase down the Bismarck
@@errornamenotfound2513 It would have been sunk later in the war, the bismarck was an overal bad design.
Great video that shed light on the subject. Never considered the saturation point of these old ships. Centralized fire control always provided more accurate gun directory but never considered that being a single unit, it became much more easily saturated than separate systems aiming at separate targets.
Accurate, Informative , Well researched, Un Biased. Well done!.
MHV: Brilliant work! Thanks for sharing it.
Fairy Swordfish. The first stealth bomber!😂😂 Stuffed the Italian fleet too I believe.☺
USSR's night witches
Get the spelling right mate. If l had a quid for every time I've had to say that .....
@@tonyfairey7733 sincere apologies. I blame either that ducking spellcheck thingy or early onset something or other...😌
@@stevemorris6855 No problem,I was just being pedantic. 😊
Because the Italians didn’t know how to Navy just like the Germans.
I honestly love your videos not only because they are entertaining and packed full of information but also because I discover new books to read :D
Great video. Had the pleasure of speaking with the owner and seeing Stringbag HS554/C-GEVS at our annual gathering of classic aircraft in 2002.
I remember reading a "Sink the Bismarck!" book in my teens, and I was mystified by the failure of the Bismarck to swat away the Swordfish attacks, and the anti-climactic demise of the Bismarck. Thanks for clearing that up. The very end of the book in which the British try but fail to save most of the Bismarck's surviving crew was truly sad.
Bernhard: I was watching this and the Friedman quote at ~3:40 triggered a memory of an old war story from my father who passed in December, 2012. Pop was a US Navy AO2 (aviation ordinance 2nd Class Petty Officer) with VBF-16 (fighter/bomber 16) attached to the airwing on the USS Randolph. In 1945 the ship was undergoing training at sea for anti-aircraft. They used a drone for a target and as it approached the carrier, the guns all opened up - quite a hullabaloo according to Pop... this went on for a good 30 seconds or so, and you guessed it - the little drone "buzzed" its way right on across the sky without a critical hit. Dad recalled a slight pause, then the voice of the Captain come on the 1MC (ship-wide loudspeaker) and say "Now, we're going to try that again..." I believe they did better the second time around, but considering the vastly superior US 50cal, 20mm, 40mm and 5" 1945-era antiaircraft guns and directors and radar; well, it shouldn't be a surprise at all that the Bismarck had such a difficult time with those pesky swordfish. There was a pretty good reason why the US Navy relied on task forces and multiple rings of AAA protection for capital ships- it was the only thing that worked against small aircraft more times than not. Germany didn't have that luxury with her raiding vessels- she might have stood a better chance with Prinz Eugen next to her. Alas, we will never know. Kudos for the excellent research and video! P.
"vastly superior US 50cal, 20mm" i wouldn't consider them vastly superior at all. The Germans also had very good guns. Though as you mentioned the 40 mm bofors and 5 inch antiaircraft gun very better
Well researched, comprehensive, informative and very enlightening! 10/10!
You nailed it ... good job. Thanks for the upload.
Your content is honestly amazing, you have opened me up to a number of topics via your content so please don't ever stop, despite the low(er?) views.
Donate to him on Patreon.
Your programs are superb and I seldom miss one. Please allow me to make one small suggestion: Military times use the 24-hour clock and are never expressed alphanumerically. Thus, "oh one thirty" is correctly expressed as, "zero one thirty." This is to avoid the confusion of mixing letters and numbers. I am a retired U. S. Army infantry officer. Thank you!
Thanks for such a clear and informative explanation. By the end, it almost sounds as if the Bismarck was without much hope against the seemingly weaker opponent. Your Davis vs Goliath analogy is perfect. Great job!
My uncle, Alan Gray, was an aircraft mechanic on the HMS Ark Royal, the aircraft carrier that launched the Swordfish. He told me that the Swordfish flew so low and slow that the Bismarck's AA guns couldn't lower their barrels low enough to fire at the approaching Swordfish. He told us about a humorous incident, once the Swordfish returned, that one of the pilots semaphored (or radioed) the Ark Royal to slow down because the ship was moving too fast for the Swordfish to come in and land on the flight deck. Apparently the seas were very rough and it was very windy on the day of the attack. I enjoyed the video BTW. Well researched and presented.
Very technical but lets remember the lives lost on the HMS Hood and The Bismarck, over 3000 sailors Let them rest in peace
We should never glorify war but respect the courage of all combatants. All brave men far from home facing a very real ugly death.
Battleship combat was probably the grizzliest form of warfare back then. When a battleship went down, the lucky ones were those who evaporated along with the exploding magazines, for most of the thousands of men on the ship though, death would be slow, cold and painful, as the last thing they would feel would be two lungfuls of sea water in pitch black darkness. Tiny numbers of men survived battleship sinkings, you had more chance of living by joining a Russian penal batallion, going to a Japanese pow camp, or even getting sent to Auschwitz than you were surviving a battleship sinking - only submarines had worse survival rates, but a sub only carried 70-ish men as opposed to around 2000 on a battleship. Even merchant ships, destroyers, and cruisers completely blown out of the water usually had more survivors than a battleship that went down.
@@Debbiebabe69 Yea, the worst aspect is, that the crew of the Bismarck knew for 14 hours, that they were going to die. I would have rather been on the Hood, even though only 3 man survived, because you probably didnt feel much, but knowing of your death 14 hours in advance has to be terrible
"The Bismarck and the Swordfish" sounds like a good title for a mystery-thriller.
I love it when a video provides accurate information based on technical and historical sources.
Very informative video. Thank you for your research and your work ! I love the icons btw.
One reason the US late war Proximity fuses were such a technological advancement, and made AA fire much more leathal. Research Proximity fuses...facinating.
Excellent video, sir. Thanks for posting.
Great video. I really like your explanations, they deal with the facts, not emotions
i LOVE the precision presentation and attribution of these posts. you handle tough ideas with great effect.
Why didn't the Bismarck shoot down any swordfish? Because he didn't do enough Military Aviation Visualized videos...
That was a good, objective and unbiased study of events. Well Done Sir! I will subscribe.
Welcome aboard!
Thank you for your awesome videos. Don't ever stop.
The Reich doesn't consider a canvas biplane to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defence.
Pete Hague , oh dude, that's nice! :) Maybe where Lucas got the idea from.
The swordfish was largely metal covered. Believe it or not its crews loved it, yes it was slow, and fighters would shoot them down in droves, but it was a stable platform, and its slow speed meant it had an incredibly low stall speed, making it very easy to get off and on the deck of a carrier (which are generally the most dangerous parts of Carrier Aviation). Add to that the fact it was a surprisingly robust and tough aircraft. Obsolete, but despite that the men who flew them loved the Stringbag.....
If you want even more of a parallel, the guy who launched the torpedo that hit didn't use the sight but hung out of the side of the Swordfish because he'd seen everyone else miss. Makes you wonder if the pilot said "That was one in a million, kid!" as he flew off, doesn't it? :)
It is. He ripped off so many WW2 movies for Star Wars. The attack on the first Death Star has elements of this (remember the fire control on the Death Star guns couldn't hit the X-wings?) and also the movie "Dambusters"
Actually The Dambusters was an inspiration for Lucas in the attack on The Death Star........ .
The development of the proximity fuze was one of the most highly guarded secrets of WWII and one of the most important. The U.S. Navy had problems shooting down enemy planes in the Pacific War until the Fleetwide deployment of the proximity fuze.
Acoustic proximity fuses were widespread by the end of the war.
I am amazed at the thoroughness of the video. Kudos, good sir, for making this educational and very detailed video!
I had the opportunity to sit in the cockpit of a rebuilt Swordfish, as I sat there I was amazed at how vulnerable it was. Just tube frame and yes, just canvas. We must never forget the courage involved. When those pilots began their attack, most expected to die.
Good work. Amazing to think that when building the then best battleship in the world no account was taken about the sort of planes that would maybe attack it.
Exactly. They fell down big time. The Germans knew that torpedo bombers, in general, flew low and slow, and that the Brits used the Swordfish, which flew very low and very slow.
Buddy, your depth of research and the thoroughness by which you trail your logical consequences are amazing. I honestly salute you on that work. Kudos! Junge, die Tiefe die du bei der Recherche an den Tag legst und die Genauigkeit mit der du logischen Konsequenzen verfolgst sind bemerkenswert. Ich verneige mich vor dieser Arbeit. Kudos!
How about we meet in 2 weeks time in Duxford, UK at the Imperial War Museum?
Kann man sagen.
"Buddy, your depth of research" his so called "depth research" completly ignoring fact that Polish destroyer "ORP Piorun" found Bismark and exchanged fire with him, ofc British sources will not gonna say much about it and try to denny as much Polish achivments as posible(Because they betrayed Poland in Yalta...). For example in wikipedia in "en" version about ORP Piorun we can read this "Alone, Piorun exchanged fire with Bismarck for an hour, with neither side scoring any hits" if you switch to Polish version you can read "druga i trzecia salwa „Pioruna” miały być, według obserwatorów, celne[55]."(second and third salvoes of Piorun was according to observators in target). So Polish crew that was there say that they scored multiple hits on Bismark and Brits that wasnt there say that they were not able to hit anything for over an hour... ORP Piorun cannons was big enoght to seriously damage AA systems mounted on Bismark and kill or seriously injury people operating them... and there is nothing about it in this movie he is talking instead that there was wind and somehow slow speed of planes made them harder to hit(that have no sense if you ask me, especialy that this planes would just fly in direction of the ship so slower speed of the plane=more time to hit them, where is logic in that?).
EVERYBODY betrayed Poland: Russia, Britain, France, US .......
Biały - or white, please mark that this video was purely answering the question why the German naval anti aircraft artillery was so ineffective against rather old swordfish biplanes. And I have to admit it was answered to the fullest extent. It compared the artillery guidance, fire control, weapon effect and tactics. All in all a very technical and "dry" subject (forgive me the pun in respect to a naval theme). It was never intended to (at least to my mind) to schetch out the historical accuracy of events. I know that in Poland people react rather touchy to the theme of the war allies not giving sufficient honour and memory to their war heroes and Polish war efforts. But that was not the theme of this film. Thus, Bilały, if you see mistakes on Wikipedia then please join the Wikipedia team and correct the mistake on the English site if you can. I'll be very happy if you do so. Maybe you can then also add that ORP Piorun was part of a battle group under the command of the british battleship King George V(? I think) that was supposed to track down the Bismark and keep contact to it. But again, that is not the aim of this film. But while we are at it, did the hits that ORP Piorun do any damage? Do we have any record on it? Any proof? If it did, than that could somewhat explain the low effect of the AAA. But if the hits did not do any significant damage then it is even more of a conundrum why they didn't they shot down any planes. I honestly doubt the hits did any damage, for ORP Piorun's sister Ship ORP Błyskawica is until today on display in Gdynia and I have seen its artillery. And have my serious doubts that it's main artillery was capable of doing much harm to the Bismark. Hence by that account the heroism of the Polish sailors is even more remarkable and undisputed and they have my deepest respect, but i do not think that your remark significantly lessens to the amount of research the author of the film went into. I'd be happy if you could provide any sources (other than Wikipedia) to stress your point. Best are 1st hand accounts, ship logs, battle reports. BTW, if you like to read a 1st hand account of Polish naval heroes I invite you to read a book of a Polish comodore mr. Romanowski "Torpeda w celu" (torpedo in target). A navy submarine officer who fled Poland on board of the ORP Wilk and later got sunk by friendly fire from the British while escorting PQ 16 (or 17 -can't remember) to Murmansk and finnally commanded the ORP Dzik from Malta. Thanks for reading, Biały / Szacunek :-) greetings from the Rhineland
Superb video indeed thank you. I had often wondered why the swordfishes weren't decimated during their attack. You have provided detailed answers.
From what I know about this contest, there were four reasons why the Bismarck had problems shooting down the attacking swordfish. These are... not in order of importance: 1. Bismarck's gun control radar was optimized at 100 MPH as the slowest speed to track. 2. The weather conditions were horrible...' 3. Since the Swordfish was basically a canvas covered frame - AA rounds would pierce the canvas material and go through the plane without detonating if the round did not hit a portion of the aircraft's fame or engine. Finally, and this point is not usually covered in histories of the attack... 4. Due to strong crosswinds and the lightweight/slow speed of the attacking swordfish; many of the planes were flying almost as fast sideways as they were flying forward while in their attack. It is difficult to compensate for an attack which is flying forward and sideways at the same time...
Because fish swim not fly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish
+2and900 - War Thunder Weekly shhhhh...
Swordfishs weren't' shot down because they were already beneath the waves when doing their torpedo runs.
I heard that the Swordfish speed was so slow they could fly very low - lower than the Bismark's AA could elevate
Lower then they could depress my friend Elevate is up and those guns would have probably around 90’ degreased elevation And depress is down
Brilliant! Love your icons, they too are brilliant.
Thank you for your research and analysis. Indeed, an interesting topic.
Excellent and very interesting video, thanks!
This explains why the USN and IJN basically resorted to simply cramming 20-25mm AA guns anywhere they could find a few square feet. Until you have electronic computers linked to radar, AA is very inefficient for sure.
German naval AA did pretty well later in the war. US Navy AA was virtually impenetrable as of 1943-1944
While US navy as was much better late war their losses to air attacks was still significant and not strongly different to the earlier war period.
Kneecapper: The USS Laffey was attacked by 21 Japanese Aircraft, 8 of which crashed into her. The big reason why the US Navy suffered so heavily from Japanese air attacks in 1945 was because the Japanese tended to overwhelm the American defenses. Additionally, the Japanese pilots were very often (though not always) on a one way trip, and so would disregard danger that other pilots would avoid, such as the two Swordfish pilots mentioned in the video above.
David, yes you and me are using the same facts. However I strongly disagree with the posted statement that "US Navy AA was virtually impenetrable as of 1943-1944". 13 USN sunk in 43/44 by aircraft which is not so different from earlier years.
+ Kneecapper simple number of ships sunk don't give us nothing. You should consider type of the sunken ship and circumstances. Also, why exclude damaged ships from the equation?
There are some great documentaries on this exact topic by some pilots of the swordfish. Good stuff thank you.
Brilliant stuff as always.
Very interesting, thank you very much. I'm sorry to see you get a lot of nasty comments from people who can only be described as juvenile.
fascinating! reminded me about the "stealth" bombers who are visible by outdated long wavelength radars
Very nice work, I'd known about the ineffective AA from the Bismarck due to the low speed of the Stringbags; though hadn't thought about the weather nor the apparent flimsiness of the aircraft vs fuses.
Excellent job on the graphics.