Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.

[Shortround6]

on a well defended target, especially a German target

or they would have A-20s or B-25s with multiple machine guns in the nose come in strafing sometimes from multiple directions before the bombs skipped in. All of this was important in making bombing attacks successful.

There was a big difference in German AA and Japanese AA.
The Japanese had the poorest quality (both guns and quantity) of AA of any major power after France surrendered.

Every nations quantity of AA improved every year.

 

[Shortround6]

That's not to say the Skua was effective as a fighter. It was too slow and under-armed. However, its performance under the circumstances is pretty decent, IMHO.

Sorry, I may have miss read the date of the Fairy Battles claim that predated it.

The Skua does get a bad rap. But the Skua was being taken out of service in 1941 and the SBD had yet to see combat and the SB2C was 2 years away.

Somebody may have had the idea that the Dive bombers could be 2nd line fighters when thy were being designed. But that idea should have gone away (and it did in the USN) after just a few weeks of combat (granted in the Pacific it took a while to get few weeks of combat experience with 1-2 day battles being separated by weeks).

The US had quite a time with the .50 cal machinegun. They were putting it in just about everything in 1940-41-42 but it didn't actually work very well in a number of installations and even when it did run (keep firing) it didn't take to synchronization very well and the rate of fire of fuselage mounted guns was low.

 

[buffnut453]

Sorry, I may have miss read the date of the Fairy Battles claim that predated it.

The Skua does get a bad rap. But the Skua was being taken out of service in 1941 and the SBD had yet to see combat and the SB2C was 2 years away.

Somebody may have had the idea that the Dive bombers could be 2nd line fighters when thy were being designed. But that idea should have gone away (and it did in the USN) after just a few weeks of combat (granted in the Pacific it took a while to get few weeks of combat experience with 1-2 day battles being separated by weeks).

The US had quite a time with the .50 cal machinegun. They were putting it in just about everything in 1940-41-42 but it didn't actually work very well in a number of installations and even when it did run (keep firing) it didn't take to synchronization very well and the rate of fire of fuselage mounted guns was low.

Agree with everything you're saying. I always enjoy your informative posts.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I am not real impressed with a pair of .50 cal guns (synchronized) for air superiority duties. The US Army gave up on that in the spring of 1940, (added .30s to the Tomahawk.) The US Navy had given up on it with the Buffalo and the the F4F-3.

Yeah, I know you aren't, but some of the most successful fighters in WW2 were armed with just a pair of machine guns in the nose, notably Ki-43 and MC 202. Successful in terms of shot down enemy planes, if not pleasing postwar critics.

The Ju 87D showed up in Spring/late winter of 1942, but that was the D-1. The 20mms don't show up until early 1943 with the D-7.
The SB2C with 20mm guns didn't show up until 1943.

I never put a time limit on these

You need more than speed, you need climb or the ability to actually turn without falling out of the sky. (climb is an indication of excess power available at low speed).

True, but speed seems to ultimately be one of the most telling factors. Once a dive bomber commences an engagement, it won't be able to escape in most cases.

An Avro Anson claimed several 109s. The British were not dumb enough to send Anson's out on patrol against enemy aircraft.

Wouldn't that be with defensive guns though? Or was it an offensive action?

Skua's shot down an Do 18 on the 20th of Sept 1939.

A Skua in 1939 is somewhat plausible, especially out over the sea and away from land based fighters. Not hugely outmatched by a CR 32 either.

When you are desperate you do desperate things.
Planning on doing desperate things just to have another use for unsuitable aircraft is poor planning indeed.

In War, you almost never have exactly what you need exactly when you need it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Sorry, I may have miss read the date of the Fairy Battles claim that predated it.

The Skua does get a bad rap. But the Skua was being taken out of service in 1941 and the SBD had yet to see combat and the SB2C was 2 years away.

Somebody may have had the idea that the Dive bombers could be 2nd line fighters when thy were being designed. But that idea should have gone away (and it did in the USN) after just a few weeks of combat (granted in the Pacific it took a while to get few weeks of combat experience with 1-2 day battles being separated by weeks).

I would say it did definitely work and did not actually go away. SBDs used in 'scout' mode were still shooting down various types of float planes and enemy light bombers in early 1943. Using them as emergency CAP to intercept bombers escorted by Zeros was a mistake, which was quickly phased out (definitely born of emergency situations as they never had enough fighters) but there is considerable gray area beyond that, and it was also important to shoot down enemy scouts and seaplanes. SBD had longer legs than the F4F or any other early war Allied naval fighter, so it was helpful in that role.

The US had quite a time with the .50 cal machinegun. They were putting it in just about everything in 1940-41-42 but it didn't actually work very well in a number of installations and even when it did run (keep firing) it didn't take to synchronization very well and the rate of fire of fuselage mounted guns was low.

They had a lot of problems with almost all the heavier guns used in fighters, and some of the lighter ones, in the early years of WW2. The Hispano 20mm gave all kinds of stoppage / jamming problems for example, and the 60 round drums used on most of the early 20mm cannon (Oerlikon or Hispano derived) were insufficient. The early MG FF also had a low ROF (530 round per minute) and fairly low muzzle velocity (600 m/s, compared to 890 m/s for the M2). The Japanese, Russian and Italian heavy machine guns all had issues especially early on.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

By the way I know MC 202 had light machine guns in the wings, but these were often taken out in the field.

 

[Shortround6]

In War, you almost never have exactly what you need exactly when you need it.

And in some cases that is because some accountant thought that something that was "good enough" would do because it was cheaper.

Not hugely outmatched by a CR 32 either.

That should tell you something. The CR 32 went into service in 1933, 5 years before the Skua went into service.

This is from Wiki and could very well be wrong. On the Do 18 shoot down.

"A Do 18 was the first German aircraft to be shot down by British aircraft during the war, when one of a formation of three was caught over the North Sea by nine Fleet Air Arm Blackburn Skua fighter-bombers of 803 Naval Air Squadron flying from HMS Ark Royal on 26 September 1939. The flying boat was able to make an emergency landing but was sunk by the destroyer HMS Somali."

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I know Skuas shot down some aircraft 'like a fighter', I was referring to the famous Anson shoot down. I think Skuas shot down a few enemy planes in the early convoy battles.

The CR 32 may have been into service in 1933, but I mentioned it because it was still one of the most important Axis fighters in 1939-1940 in a region where Skuas were operating (the Mediterranean) and they were still more than capable of shooting down newer Allied aircraft such as the Gloster Gladiator (or the Sea Gladiator) at that time. Not to mention Allied bombers and other types like Wellingtons, Lysanders, etc.

For that matter the Hurricane was still a fairly viable fighter in 1942 which is almost as long after it was introduced as the CR 32 would be in 1939.

 

[Shortround6]

The CR 32 may have been into service in 1933, but I mentioned it because it was still one of the most important Axis fighters in 1939-1940 in a region where Skuas were operating (the Mediterranean) and they were still more than capable of shooting down newer Allied aircraft such as the Gloster Gladiator (or the Sea Gladiator) at that time. Not to mention Allied bombers and other types like Wellingtons, Lysanders, etc.

You are looking at result sheets/score again.
Introducing a "fighter" in 1938 that has trouble with a 1933 fighter is not a success for the 1938 fighter no matter what the score sheet shows.
You have to assume your enemy is not stupid and will being introducing new fighters and bombers in 1939-40.
And sure enough the Fiat G. 50 was being introduced into service in 1938 (might be the very end).
The M. 200 first flew in Dec 1937 and was being introduced in 1939.
The CR. 42 First flew in May of 1938 and was being issued in 1939.
The Re. 2000 Falco was a bit late, first flying in May of 1939.

Shooting down Lysanders is not a feather in cap of any fighter.

You cannot polity ask the Italians to only bring the their old fighters to battle to make things fair, because your Air Ministry screwed up.

The Commonwealth air crew did amazing things, they deserved better from the Air Ministry and the Politicians.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You are looking at result sheets/score again.

The "result sheet" (or more precisely, outcome of battle) is what actually matters.

Introducing a "fighter" in 1938 that has trouble with a 1933 fighter is not a success for the 1938 fighter no matter what the score sheet shows.

I never said a Skua (or an SBD) is a "fighter". Maybe someone in the RN decided it was on some kind of basis, I wouldn't put it that way. But a dive bomber could act as a second tier fighter, in addition to it's main and much more useful role in dropping bombs.

You have to assume your enemy is not stupid and will being introducing new fighters and bombers in 1939-40.
And sure enough the Fiat G. 50 was being introduced into service in 1938 (might be the very end).
The M. 200 first flew in Dec 1937 and was being introduced in 1939.
The CR. 42 First flew in May of 1938 and was being issued in 1939.

Yes but of these, only the CR.42 was available in much numbers in the Theater in 1940, and it was still the CR 32 which was fighting most of the major air battles.

I would say that an SBD would be a fairly formidable opponent for any of these, by the way.

The RAF, meanwhile, was still fielding aircraft like the Vickers Wellesley, Supermarine Walrus, and the Swordfish in that Theater, which weren't exactly intimidating in air combat, but could cause problems if they were allowed to peacefully scout friendly positions, spot friendly ships and submarines, drop torpedoes, or drop bombs could cause major problems. A CR 32 could shoot any of these down fairly easily, and could certainly hold it's own against a Gladiator, so they remained in use until larger numbers of Hurricanes arrived.

This is part of what fighters do, they force the other side to retire older designs so they get less use out of them and have fewer aircraft available in Theater.

When it comes to naval aircraft there is also of course the factor that they may sometimes be engaged from beyond the range of the best shore based Axis fighters, which in the Med was often the case due to the short legs of the Bf 109 and MC 202 etc.

The Re. 2000 Falco was a bit late, first flying in May of 1939.

Good plane, but not produced in enough numbers to make much difference.

Shooting down Lysanders is not a feather in cap of any fighter.

Maybe it doesn't get you bragging rights in the barracks, but not all air combat was 'top Allied fighter vs. top Axis fighter' - in the actual war many obsolete types, and types which emphasized things like range, recon, carrying torpedoes or being able to land on the sea over other factors like air combat were still routinely encountered and were still a problem.

A Do 17, an He 111 or a Stuka is a fairly dangerous aircraft if left unmolested, a Skua could shoot these down. So could a D3A probably. An SBD could definitely do so. There was actually a guy who became an Ace flying Skuas. Once the Axis retired their older bombers and started using faster Ju 88s and that old retired airliner the SM 79s, Skua's were no longer really viable in an emergency fighter type role (and I doubt an SBD would be either).

With carrier planes the temptation is always to try to have multi-role aircraft, but it was hard to make a plane that can dive bomb, torpedo bomb, and fight in air to air combat effectively. We do see in modern times though that carriers have multi-role planes that do both strike and air defense.

You cannot polity ask the Italians to only bring the their old fighters to battle to make things fair, because your Air Ministry screwed up.

Neither side got everything they wanted or needed, hence all the CR 32s and CR 42s on one side, and planes like the Swordfish lingering on the other.

The Commonwealth air crew did amazing things, they deserved better from the Air Ministry and the Politicians.

Well if you are going to go there, we'd all be better off not having any wars ideally.

 

[elbmc1969]

I never said a Skua (or an SBD) is a "fighter". Maybe someone in the RN decided it was on some kind of basis, I wouldn't put it that way. But a dive bomber could act as a second tier fighter, in addition to it's main and much more useful role in dropping bombs.

The Skua absolutely was a fighter. That was part of the specification: dual-role fighter and dive-bomber.

See: multiple sources

 

[Shortround6]

I never said a Skua (or an SBD) is a "fighter". Maybe someone in the RN decided it was on some kind of basis, I wouldn't put it that way. But a dive bomber could act as a second tier fighter, in addition to it's main and much more useful role in dropping bombs.

There was no MAYBE about it. It was part of the specification/requirement.

The use of the Val and the SBD were a bit of wishful thinking. In part because they wanted to keep the maximum amount of strike aircraft on the carriers and not reduce strike aircraft numbers for fighters. So the dive bombers were tasked with anti torpedo plane patrols (or anti snooper) and here the use was rather short and not really very successful. The SBD was not really fast enough to catch the Japanese strike aircraft unless blessed with favorable position. The Val was in a similar situation.
The SBDs had protection which made it harder (not impossible) for the Val to shoot down.

And for some reason the "score cards" don't show this well, better Japanese pilots? Japanese 7.7mm guns used the same ammo as the 303, you could use captured ammo.
Yet the Japanese pair of 7.7mm guns (synchronized) was all that was needed to vanquish allied planes while the quartet of free firing, fast firing Browning in the Skua was not good enough?

Now just for context. The SBD was about 40-50mph slower than Hawk 75 using the same engine and climbed much more slowly. Forget 2nd tier, we are well down in 3rd tier.
Val was pretty much the same.

The Idea had some play in the spring/summer of 1942 but by the fall it was being forgotten (swept under the rug except for propaganda)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I never said they didn't classify Skua as a fighter at some point, I'm just talking about how they were actually used and what they were suitable to do. << I >> wouldn't call them a fighter, but a dive bomber typically has some fighter capabilities.

And if you are far enough out to sea in the Med or Atlantic, there are no 1st tier Axis fighters, period. The most dangerous plane you'll run into is a Bf 110 or a Ju 88, maybe an Ar 196 (which was also used for air to air combat fairly routinely).

The Idea had some play in the spring/summer of 1942 but by the fall it was being forgotten (swept under the rug except for propaganda)

I don't think it went away so fast in the Pacific, with any of the dive bombers being used. You are thinking in terms of kind of optimal situations. The actual combat record is different, and that is where the rubber meets the road. Vals were being used to attack enemy aircraft around New Guinea well through 1942, and SBDs were used as I said into early 1943 to intercept torpedo bombers, seaplanes, seaplane scouts etc. Even flying boats like PBYs, and bombers like A-20s, B-25s, B-24s, Hudsons and G4M Betty's were attacking enemy aircraft in the Pacific.

I'll post some examples later.

 

[elbmc1969]

I never said they didn't classify Skua as a fighter at some point, I'm just talking about how they were actually used and what they were suitable to do. << I >> wouldn't call them a fighter, but a dive bomber typically has some fighter capabilities.

Skuas were overwhelmingly used as fighters. And yes, I agree that they were second-rate.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Skuas were overwhelmingly used as fighters. And yes, I agree that they were second-rate.

But how does it stack up to an Ar 196? or a Do 17?

 

[Shortround6]

I'll post some examples later.

Don't bother.

there is a big difference between planes that ran across some enemy plane while they were out looking for other things and buying them and deploying dive bombers as 2nd tier fighters in formations against incoming formations of attackers.

The SBD thing is huge example of over claiming. Not saying they didn't shoot down a few planes (or even a couple of dozen in 1942 but some accounts claim they shot down 88 Zeros in 1942 alone. Let alone everything else they are supposed to have shot down.)

But how does it stack up to an Ar 196? or a Do 17?

It sort of splits the difference.
The Skua was faster than the Ar 196 by maybe 20-30mph, altitude is important here. As is the model of the Ar 196.

Running about 1000-1200lbs light the Do 17 may have been faster than the Skua, again it depends on altitude. Do 17s best speed was at 13,120ft, 255mph and it was supposed to hit 214mph at sea level. Cruise speed was down around 180-190mph.

Most of these encounters are going to be a single plane (or perhaps 2-3 Skua's) encountering the German (or Italian) plane with both sides at cruising speeds and a lot depends on who sees who first AND what course the planes are steering. As an example if the Skua is 10mph faster than the axis plane and is 5 miles behind it even with a radar vector from a ship it it is going to take 30 minutes to catch the enemy. A lot of hide and seek among the clouds.

The Skua was running 1 year late, entry into service was planned for the end of 1937, not the end of 1938. There was never a MK III version (the two prototypes were the MK Is).

 

[yulzari]

The score sheet tells you about the effectiveness of a fighter in a particular theatre at a particular time. The Fiat CR32 was the principal Italian fighter in the East African campaign in 1941 and matched to Gloster Gauntlets and Hawker Fury's and dealing with Hawker Hart series and a whole variety of old odds and sods still hanging around in the area. It was essentially a 1935 air war for much of the time and so was in a position to score well. Doing the same in the 1940 day time Battle of Britain or Battle of France would have been another story completely and in the Mediterranean campaign they were only marginally useful.

Coming at the issue from another direction, the Blackburn Skua was intended as a fighter, but to deal with ocean going reconnaissance and bombers beyond land fighter escort range. Albeit flying off an island but the Dornier 18 kill was in exactly that role at which it proved at least adequate at the time of service.

Of course there are the odd outliers such as the quoted Avro Anson kill of Me109 and the Blackburn Roc over France got a Heinkel He111. The only Roc lost to enemy action was to ground fire whilst dive bombing the Dunkirk perimeter. So, in the last example, we have a dive bomber/fighter doing both jobs. I wonder what the Finns would have done with the Roc had they received them as planned? Almost certainly as dive bombers and not fighters.

 

[WAFU]

Against ship with sea room and the ability to manoeuvre at speed, the Stuka proved remarkably ineffective.
Although it wasn't much better against slow moving ships proceeding in convoy

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It wasn't? Stukas seem to have sunk a ton of ships lol

 

[ThomasP]

re "Against ship with sea room and the ability to manoeuvre at speed, the Stuka proved remarkably ineffective.
Although it wasn't much better against slow moving ships proceeding in convoy"

??