Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Why didn't the Bismarck shoot down any Swordfish?" video.

  1. Rather difficult 350 miles from the French coast.
    3
  2. planning had nothing to do with it. How were the Luftwaffe going to provide air support in mid-Atlantic?
    2
  3. If so, it failed.
    2
  4. Actually, 'Stringbag.'
    1
  5. Cloud was down to around 2000 feet, and the attack was carried out in semi-darkness. German AA didn't have radar direction at the time.
    1
  6.  @Obyss682  Aircraft Carriers never played the dominant role in western waters that they did in the Pacific. They were an important part of the fleet, but in a subordinate role to the battleship.
    1
  7.  @Obyss682  Because there was no need for them. British carriers were support vessels, whose air groups were intended to bring enemy vessels within range of the battle fleet, and to fly reconnaissance missions. Fleet carriers were too large and vulnerable for use on convoy escort duties, where escort carriers and Mac ships were more than adequate. The naval wars in the Atlantic/Mediterranean and the Pacific were totally different in nature.
    1
  8. The RAF had nothing to do with it. The Swordfish were part of the Fleet Air Arm.
    1
  9. Firstly, there were only six Swordfish attacked during the Channel Dash. Secondly, there were three German heavy ships and a number of supporting escorts, none of which had been at sea for a few days, and whose gunners were still fresh, thirdly, the (four) MTBs were forced to fire at extreme range, as they were unable to get through the screen, and fourthly, the RAF fighter cover for the Swordfish failed to arrive on time.
    1
  10. It didn't help her cause that her secondary armament was low angle only. The KGVs and the North Carolinas both had DP secondaries. Another element in the obsolescence of the Bismarck design.
    1
  11. Just out of interest, how would Bismarck 'pound subs?'
    1
  12.  @thepruh1151  The alternative, I suppose, would be to sit on the Atlantic sea bed and fire upwards?
    1
  13.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  In the Mediterranean, carriers had been effective against capital ships. Taranto probably wasn't relevant here, in that the Italian fleet was attacked in port, but in March, 1941, Albacores from Formidable succeeded in crippling the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto, bringing about the battle of Matapan. At this point in WW2, the Fleet Air Arm did not see the role of carriers as being that of strike weapons, largely because the 18 inch torpedo, carried by the Swordfish, wasn't deemed capable of sinking enemy capital ships. Instead, their role was to scout for the main battlefleet, provide air cover against the long range enemy aircraft they were expected to encounter, and when opportunity permitted, to inflict sufficient damage on enemy heavy ships in order to slow them down and bring them within range of the RN battlefleet. They achieved this twice, against Bismarck & at Matapan, and almost succeeded in doing the same to Tirpitz in the Arctic. Tirpitz escaped, but never sortied again. Needless to say, the Bismarck enthusiasts, ignoring the fact that Fleet Air Arm pilots had trained for this for years, will claim that the damage to Bismarck was both lucky and, somehow, unsporting!
    1
  14. Not really. The Swordfish strike slowed Bismarck down and enabled Rodney & King George V to destroy her. Something similar had happened two months earlier, when Albacores damaged Vittorio Veneto. The Italians sent a cruiser squadron to help her, and this resulted in the Battle of Matapan.
    1
  15. Fleet Air Arm tactics were intended to disable enemy warships in order to bring them within range of the battle fleet. This happened with Bismarck, and had almost happened at Matapan. The 18 inch torpedo carried by the Swordfish was not big enough to sink a battleship, but could, and did, slow if down sufficiently to achieve the desired objective.
    1