Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Why didn't the Bismarck shoot down any Swordfish?" video.

@paulflory3532 Small (up to 20mm) AA guns on ships were largerly "revenge weapons". There were low chances for them to stop a torpedo-bombers or dive-bombers first than they drop the ordnance, but could shoot it down after it, as they had to come further close after it. Another thing. Contrary to the Bismark, other battleships often used their main guns vs the torpedo-bombers. As the water columns could easily be lethal for them.
4
@TheArgieH Few ships had been sunk by aircrafts based at Malta, and much of them were sunk by Blenheims and Beauforts, that had a much greater range. between 10/06/1940 and 8/9/1943 the Italians lost to torpedo-bombers 61 merchants, 325 had been sunk by submarines, and 396 by traditional bombers (much of those in port, after the US heavy bombers started to target them).
1
@TheArgieH It has to be seen what sources had been used. It seems that he used British claims and not Italian reports about the actual losses. A total of 61 merchant ships of any tonnage sunk by torpedo bombers in the entire Mediterranean teater between 10/06/1940 and 08/09/1943 is not consistent with "50,000 tons of enemy shipping per month" unless assuming that any single Italian merchant sunk by torpedo bombers had been sunk by a Malta-based Swordfish (when Swordfish had a quite short range, that was outflanked by italian shipping), and that Italian merchants had an average displacement of 21.311t (almost that of the battleship Giulio Cesare), that really seems unlikely (much ot the Italian merchants were fast and lightweight ships, many below 1000t).
1
@TheArgieH The "he" that likely ised British claims about ship sunk is is the author of "Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II". The datas about Italian merchants sunk are from "la battaglia dei convogli" ("the convoys battle") of the Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare (historical office of the Italian Navy) 1994.
1