Kevin J
Banned
You don't need Skua's because you can sling a bomb under a Fulmar.
Better luck for the RN carrier force 1939-1941
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Skua's were a bit passed it in 1942.
- Thread starter
- #43
Admiral Beez
Major
True, true. And with five carriers that should bring at least five squadrons of Fulmars transiting undetected by radar towards Nagumo. Not dive bombers - were Fulmar crews trained as such? Perhaps some would have been former Skua crew.
Kevin J
Banned
The Fulmar has a good turn of speed in a dive too, 415 mph, and a theoretical 435 mph. Far higher than an A6M2 at 390 mph. At low altitude, only a little bit slower than an A6M2 flat out, 265/272 mph as opposed to 273/296 mph. I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts whether a daylight unescorted attack could work.
- Thread starter
- #45
Admiral Beez
Major
And the Fulmars' observer should reduce the odds of being bounced from behind, with his single .303 further giving the IJNAF pilots something to consider.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The Fulmar didnt have a gun for the Observer. Some carried a Thompson gun and there are stories of the Observer throwing a bundle of toilet paper out the window to try and distract a pursuer.
- Thread starter
- #47
Admiral Beez
Major
Damn, I missed the "occasionally" in the Wiki specs.
But if it's good enough for the Fleet Air Arm Museum's Fulmar, it'll do for me.
"Armament - 8 wing mounted .303 machine guns or rear mounted single Vickers K type machine gun"
Shortround6
Major General
Photo is of a Fairey Battle.
Fulmar had a different canopy set up.
Not saying none of them carried a rear gun, just that is a bit more difficult to use.
Fulmar had a different canopy set up.
Not saying none of them carried a rear gun, just that is a bit more difficult to use.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #49
Admiral Beez
Major
I can't find any pics of Fulmars with bombs.
The bomb was carried using the same lugs as the slipper DT.
- Thread starter
- #51
Admiral Beez
Major
They were still basically equivalent to the Val or SBD-3.
Ark Royal was most likely doomed once that single torp had hit her. Due to a mix of lucky hit in the worst possible location with construction faults any damage control effort may have only slowed her sinking but could not prevent it.
Restarting the engines to provide power for pumps proved fatal for the structurally weakened ship, torp hit and long delay to stop engines after hit had inflicted a lot of hull damage.
Restarting the engines to provide power for pumps proved fatal for the structurally weakened ship, torp hit and long delay to stop engines after hit had inflicted a lot of hull damage.
Shortround6
Major General
Very basically.
The Vals used either 1000 or 1070hp engines and the SBD-3 used a 1000hp engine. SBD-3 also used a two speed supercharger, I don't know about the Early Val. 10% or more of extra power is nothing to sneeze at at. Both planes were evolving, the Skua might have been able to evolve, but was never given the chance. Flying the same plane (or attempting to) in 1942 as they were using in 1939 doesn't sound like a good idea even if you have them in depot or training unit's.
SPD-3s got armor and self-sealing tanks. Also had twin rear guns.
Skua II had folding wings vs fixed wings on Val and SBD-3 [edit: folding wing tips on the Val]
SBD-3 was ~25% heavier than a Skua II
Basically, if the IJN and/or USN had used Skuas at Midway, the results would very likely have been the same.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #56
Admiral Beez
Major
Midway demonstrates that getting any bomb hit on an IJN carrier should light it up like matchwood. Skuas with their single 500 lb. AP bomb, if they make it through the IJN fighter screen should score the fatal hits. But by 1942 it looks to be shallow dives by Fulmars for this job.
No British carrier with CAG on-board was ever killed by bomb strikes. It would have been interesting to test Ark, Glorious and Courageous with CAG on-board against vertical hits (Glorious certainly burned). The Illustrious class took Stuka and Kamikaze hits that would have destroyed an IJN carrier.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #57
Admiral Beez
Major
I was thinking back to this thread. Given the need for the armoured carriers in home waters, were Glorious, Courageous Furious able to operate in the Indian and Pacific waters? I ask, as at Ceylon in 1942 the Revenge class with their original machinery were unable to condense sufficient water to keep their crews alive. And of course there's no air conditioning, but on that score you've got big hangar doors both fore and aft for ventilation. IIRC, these three carriers are rather short ranged.
IIRC, they all served in the Pacific pre-war, and Glorious was serving in the IO when war started. IMHO, they would have been invaluable as aircraft ferries, if nothing else. In an single sortie Glorious could have doubled the number of Hurricanes on Ceylon, for example.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Glad you reopened this thread. I love this stuff.
- Thread starter
- #60
Admiral Beez
Major
Perhaps to Malaya and Burma beforehand. I've always thought the RAF fighter squadrons and their Buffaloes are remembered unfairly. Five squadrons of any fighter, even the latest Spitfire could not possibly defend a Malayan territory that excluding the Sarawak is larger than the entire UK (where over 80 Spitfire/Hurricane squadrons were active in Dec 1941).
So, let's first have Glorious, Courageous and Ark Royal add to the hammer at Taranto in Nov 1940, and then the first two run circuits to Malaya with Hurricanes and Spitfires and their BoB experienced crews. After twenty squadrons are delivered switch over to more Blenheims, Beauforts and Hampdens.
