Talk:List of torpedo bombers

List needs cleanup

Dear wikipedians, I've browsed this list and clearly includes aircraft that do not fit the definition of torpedo bomber as per related wikiarticle (e.g.: Breguet Atlantique); also in some cases the number of aircraft built seem to be of "all versions" (e.g.: Vickers Wellington). I'll do a clean-up where possible. Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Finished 1st part of cleanup (to end of "Germany"); this will take longer than expected... Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Other wiki articles cannot be used as a reference, particularly as many are incomplete - I noticed you made a number of changes - including deletions based on other wiki articles - just because the main article doesn't indicate use, does not mean it wasn't used as such, in particular you deleted the JuG-1, which was used by the Russians for testing torpedoes. In addition your change to the focus (by excluding patrol aircraft) you not only make the distinctions fuzzy, but it shows a lack of understanding as to the role of such long range maritime patrol aircraft, such as the Argus, which was used to make torpedo attacks on surface ships in exercises, even if not during wartime. Furthermore, some of those deletions were referenced as being used as torpedo bombers, the book is available online, so it is not impossible to check.NiD.29 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If I've been wrong, please fix the correspondinh wikiarticle, as well as this list, and cite the source used for this. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

See the Wiki policy of not using other pages as references at WP:CIRCULAR), and no - consistency is not a requirement as that leads to errors and omissions as no page is guaranteed complete or even correct. This also applies to web pages (and those print on demand books made from wikipedia pages) that have used wikipedia as a source.NiD.29 (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up this list to its intended topic and title - "torpedo bombers" as defined in the related wikiarticle. If you disagree, it might be necessary to ask for arbitration. I can assume that a lot aircraft at some point carried a torpedo, even experimentally - but that's outside current scope of this list article. With regards to info in wikiarticles used as sources, if you believe those I've used are wrong or incomplete, then please fix the corresponding wikiarticle accordingly, and cite the sources used. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just read the comments in your talk page, and left a response. Thanks for the information, apologies if I misunderstood anything. Will appreciate your help in this clean-up. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is in providing a solid definition - you'll then need a reference for each and every instance, indicating that it was a torpedo bomber by someone's definition, which will then change from reference to reference. In addition, there is the problem that various armed forces changed their definitions - an aircraft may have been a torpedo bomber under the earlier definition, but not later, and US and British definitions differ, as they do from French, German and Russian definitions. Basically they can be divided into two categories as far as I can see - aircraft used to fly from point a to point b, attack a target with a torpedo, then return to point a. The Grumman Avenger originally fit this category. The second is an aircraft that conducts an extended patrol, then by luck comes across a target, which it then attacks with a torpedo, then continues on its way. These are normally considered "patrol bombers", although the later term is maritime patrol aircraft. If we exclude the latter, the problem then is that they are sometimes used in the same manner as the first. For example, during an exercise between the US and Canada a number of years back, a Canadair Argus took out the opposing force's carrier, with torpedoes...a bit a background, the Argus was frequently flown at very low altitudes over water (the Neptune it replaced, and which was flown in the same manner, on more than one occasion created a wake with its radome), and was able to penetrate the CAP screen, which wasn't able to descend to intercept it before making its attack, hence the reason the USN now has high CAP and low CAP. Not that is was normally used in this manner, but the capabilities are there in any of the aircraft you are wishing to exclude. The Catalina was routinely used as a torpedo bomber, taking out a lot of Japanese shipping in the process. The ability to carry a torpedo on the other hand, is itself restricted, which was the intended focus here. You may notice that the Torpedo Bomber article is itself severely lacking in references, especially as to the definition, which is a problem that needs to be resolved.NiD.29 (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So is it to be by defined role (which changed over time, and by operator), or by capability of carrying torps? Also keep in mind that the original definition was for a specialized aircraft whose sole weapon was a torpedo - by ww2, the Avenger could carry bombs, depth charges and rockets as well, and after the war, was modified into a maritime patrol aircraft, with an extensive ASW suite.NiD.29 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking for definitions, I found:

1. The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary doesn't have an entry for Torpedo bomber. Neither do the Cambridge or Oxford online dictionaries.
2. Merriam Webster says that a torpedo bomber is "a military airplane designed to carry torpedoes —called also torpedo plane".
3. Dictionary.com says it is an "aircraft designed to launch torpedoes."

None of the entries on the page fail any of these definitions, nor do these definitions preclude the aircraft being called something else, such as maritime patrol aircraft, or patrol bomber or any other designation du jour.NiD.29 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Curious as to what other use you think torpedoes are used for? They are used to sink ships. (period). That some of those ships may be capable of travelling underwater is entirely irrelevant, as the same torpedoes can, and are still used to attack surface ships.NiD.29 (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you got to the crux of the problem: a precise definition (that may have evolved along time and operators) of what a "torpedo bomber" was. And that needs to be nailed down first in the parent article (which agree needs improvement), if verifiable sources are found that could provide a "solid" definition(s) - of these I'm not aware of.

At this point I'm inclined to support the "traditional" view that TB's were primarily designed to attack (surface) ships with torpedoes (ie: not primarily A/S), and call out the entries that adjust to this "broad" definition (even accepting that the wikiarticles about them may not be properly cited). These would be in scope for this article without additional concerns. And to be more inclusive, we can consider in scope other aircraft that had the capability (either experimental or operational) to carry torpedoes, anti-ship or anti-submarine (as there is a distinction between both roles, and the weapons are not usually the same); and call-out the primary role of these too, mentioning that capability.

Does this make any sense to you? Can we tackle this matter collaborating together? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan :) - I know there a quite a few still missing - wasn't aware of the Pucara but it makes sense it was tested for them. The US and UK sections need references still. The definition for maritime patrol aircraft includes the ability to attack surface ships, and they don't usually carry special weapons for that purpose (although a number of air-surface missiles have been tested, very few are used regularly).NiD.29 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My original plan, whenever the page was nearly complete, was to reorganize it all into a single table - it would be a natural fit to include a column for primary role - ie anti-submarine warfare vs. surface attack.NiD.29 (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your approach; a (sortable?) table is the ultimate list to me! Let me know how I can help. Maybe reusing the references from this list in the wikiarticles for each plane? Sadly I don't have access to the books you're using, and 90% of my book collection is (still) in storage...

As this "section" is now a bit long, and we've moved from "cleanup" to "enhancement", I suggest drafting our workplan under a new talk header. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding "IA 58 Pucará" to the list

Dear wikipedians, following the discussion in the heading above, and adhering to the "broad" scope of this list agreed, I'm adding the IA 58 as it has been experimentally tested with torpedoes during the Falklands War. More details in this aircraft's article, where there is information appropriately cited. Regards, DPdH (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

DONE - now I'm after a "PD" pic or image of the AX-04 prototype with a torpedo under its fuselage... Can anyone please help? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Article improvement plan

<--- to draft improvement steps --->

1. references for each aircraft (indicating the carriage of torpedo, date first flight, number built and typical usage)
2. adding missing types - needs reference works on aircraft of USN, RN, RAF, specific manufacturers, etc.
3. reorganize each national section into sortable table with type/nationality/1st flight/# built/role/notes/references columns.
4. find remaining missing data elements.
5. merge tables together and sort entries.
6. images in column beside table, don't need them for every type, just some, and balanced so no overwhelming national bias.

NiD.29 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a sound plan, which may take a bit to complete. Regards, DPdH (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Bit by bit and it will get done.NiD.29 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

List format

Following this discussion on the Aviation WikiProject talk page, this list is to be reformatted to the "general" format as specified at WP:AVILIST. Note that the general format now retains the count of numbers built. If you have any objections to the format in principle, please raise them in the linked discussion. If you believe that this list should be an exception, please seek a local consensus on this talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)