Talk:Grumman TBF Avenger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Torpedoes ignored after Midway?

This is actually not true, Avengers carried torpedoes in the battles of Santa Cruz,torpedoed Nachi class CA and Eastern Solomons TBFs from VT-3 torpedoed a destroyer. Hiyei was also torpedoed. Anynobody 08:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Clearly, American aerial torpedoes didn't disappear for two years until June '44. Perhaps the original writer of that section was thinking about a hesitancy to use torpedoes that were having developmental problems. If so, more detail would have been appropriate. Binksternet 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame them for thinking that way, the Mk 13 torpedo pretty much sucked. Though I'm pretty sure it wasn't as bad as the sub launched torpedoes deployed by the US. Anynobody 19:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

---

My Uncle flew a TBF during WW2 and was highly, highly decorated, sinking a cruiser, cargo vessels, wiping out a Japanese convoy as attack pilot and squadron commander, ground attack missions in the Solomons and Guadalcanal, Rabaul and Okinawa battles. He said they used a technique called "skip" bombing. Same as skipping rocks across a pond, except it was more accurate than a torpedo and the attack could be faster with less time in the Japanese AA envelope. Put a 1,000 pound bomb in the side of a ship and it will sink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4A02:2F00:80BB:8508:74F1:1073 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ventral gun operation

I believe the man firing this weapon laid down on his stomach or sitting directly on the floor of the fuselage to do so. I'm not sure why it reads (somewhat awkwardly) that it was fired by a man standing and bending over. Was this perhaps edited and not resolved to its clearest form? This image makes the gunner's position pretty easy to envision: Profile Drawing DulcetTone (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Avenger Name

Is there any chance of getting a citation on the name "Avenger"? I've never read anything to suggest it was given that name before both Midway and Pearl Harbor ... but my reading on the subject is rather generalized rather than specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmontandon (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.137.238.83.12 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

URL reference style

When we add URLs to this article, let's give them readable names. Here's what it looks like when this is NOT done: There are citation templates aplenty at WP:CIT. Otherwise the least you can do is put a title on it, like this:

<ref>[http://blahblahblah.com Some Kind of Title]</ref>

Which ends up looking like this:

1. Some Kind of Title

Alrighty? Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While proving to a non-aviation, non-military VFW Aux member that the TBM/F was not operated from a carrier in the battle of Midway. There were 6 based on Midway, of which 5 were lost. Those airplanes were brand new, probably no pilots had made any carrier landings as yet!

On the afternoon of 7 December 1941, Grumman held a ceremony to open a new manufacturing plant and display the new TBF to the public. Coincidentally, on that day, the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, as Grumman soon found out. After the ceremony was over, the plant was quickly sealed off to ward against possible enemy action. By early June 1942, a shipment of more than 100 aircraft was sent to the Navy, ironically arriving only a few hours after the three carriers quickly departed from Pearl Harbor, and so most of them were too late to participate in the pivotal Battle of Midway.

But those big ole Turkeys made up for poor showing at Midway quickly.

The first major "prize" for the TBFs (which had been assigned the name "Avenger" in October 1941,[4][5] before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) was at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in November 1942, when Marine Corps and Navy Avengers helped sink the battleship Hiei.

This part dropped me to my knees,

Forest Protection Limited (FPL) of Fredericton, NB once owned and operated the largest civilian fleet of Avengers in the world. FPL began operating Avengers in 1958 after purchasing 12 surplus TBM-3E aircraft from the Royal Canadian Navy[12]. Use of the Avenger fleet at FPL peaked in 1971 when 43 aircraft were in use as both water bombers and spray aircraft.[12] The company sold three Avengers in 2004 (C-GFPS, C-GFPM, and C-GLEJ) to museums or private collectors. The Central New Brunswick Woodsmen’s Museum has a former FPL Avenger on static display.[13] An FPL Avenger that crashed in 1975 in southwestern New Brunswick was recovered and restored by the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum and is currently on display.[14]FPL was still operating 3 Avengers in 2010 configured as water-bombers, and stationed at Miramichi Airport. With one crashing just after takeoff killing the pilot on April 23, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.101.218 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted links

I have attempted to upload links to the TBM Avenger page. These links go off to spherical panoramas of a TBM Avenger in refurb. I thought they were appropriate for the page and topic and was quite surprised when they were deleted. This hasn't happened before so it took me a bit to find my way here.

Please explain why these links are inappropriate and self-promoting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.169.178 (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because the links are to the images themselves and provide no context or ownership. A single link to a page that itself has links to each of the spherical pans would be more appropriate - then you can also provide information on the Avenger (identity, history and location) and on the photographer. Interesting images btw.NiD.29 (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested edit

A new editor posted this request to add A 1944 TBM Avenger is on display within the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Texas.. While the request itself was messed up (wrong place, next edit deletes part of it), it does not look completely absurd. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

All surviving aircraft are detailed in the List of surviving Grumman TBF Avengers article; looks like this example is already listed there. No edit needed, near as I can tell. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Grumman TBF Appears to be a Model.

Grumman_TBF_Avenger#/media/File:TBF_early1942.jpg This seems to be a model, not an actual aircraft. The figures look to be plastic figurines. While it's a very nice diorama, it shouldn't be represented as an actual aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucelucier (talk • contribs) 21:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Brucelucier (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a model at all. How do you explain the rotating prop? Looks a little contrived, posed for the photographer, but genuine I believe, especially given the rest of the information in the image. Moriori (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

According to https://imodeler.com/2017/06/midway-group-build-torpedo-8-grumman-tbf-1-avenger-148-accurate-miniatures-back-dated/, the image is a publicity photo captured when the Navy was accepting the plane. Also, agreed with Moriori above, the rotating prop is pretty much a dead giveaway for its authenticity. sbb (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that it was also part of a series - this image and this image (flipped) were obviously taken in the same session, with the aviators in slightly different positions. Given that the engine is on it must have been a fairly elaborate shoot. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has photographed models, a spinning prop is simple to do with a vacuum cleaner, but this is a VERY well known period photo. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The things people say about old photographs. Like, "You know it's a real photo because they didn't have Photoshop back then." I guess they never heard of airbrushing! BilCat (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Without Photoshop, how could they dodge and burn?" um...  — sbb (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Amazing how much was edited manually, and how so many photos were more artwork than photo - and how much a few tricks on the enlarger could change a print so much. I never did get to work with colour though. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"TBF"?

Is it explained anywhere what "TBF" etc stands for? Hexmaster.se (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"TB" is Torpedo Bomber. "F" is for Grumman. The third letter was used for manufacturer, "G" had already been assigned to a different manufacturer. Hence why the same aircraft manufactured by GM was called "TBM". And why the Vought F4U ends with a "U" ("V" had already been assigned). See 1922 United States Navy aircraft designation system for full details.  — sbb (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Need cite for "pilots say it flew like a truck"

I believe it, but where did this come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucelucier (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

On the basis of tonnage sunk, the Fairy Swordfish was a more effective torpedo bomber than the Avenger

The claim at the start of the article that the Avenger was the most effective torpedo bomber can be disputed in terms of tonnage sunk and even naval shipping sunk. The Fairy Swordfish sunk a greater number of ships, largely due to its role in attacking Italian and German shipping in the Med. Thus the claim based on an apparent pamphlet at a Pearl Harbour museum might need to be backed up or at least qualified. I haven't found the reference again, but one put it that during 1941, Swordfish were sinking the equivalent of a Japanese battleship a month in terms of tonnage. Here is one web-reference for the 'highest tonnage' claim: http://www.aviation-history.com/fairey/swordfish.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.114.155 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)