Shortround6
Major General
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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
on a well defended target, especially a German target
There was a big difference in German AA and Japanese AA.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.
Sorry, I may have miss read the date of the Fairy Battles claim that predated it.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.
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.
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.
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).
An Avro Anson claimed several 109s. The British were not dumb enough to send Anson's out on patrol against enemy aircraft.
Skua's shot down an Do 18 on the 20th of Sept 1939.
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.
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.
And in some cases that is because some accountant thought that something that was "good enough" would do because it was cheaper.In War, you almost never have exactly what you need exactly when you need it.
That should tell you something. The CR 32 went into service in 1933, 5 years before the Skua went into service.Not hugely outmatched by a CR 32 either.
You are looking at result sheets/score again.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.
The Skua absolutely was a fighter. That was part of the specification: dual-role fighter and dive-bomber.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.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 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)
Skuas were overwhelmingly used as fighters. And yes, I agree that they were second-rate.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.
Don't bother.I'll post some examples later.
It sort of splits the difference.But how does it stack up to an Ar 196? or a Do 17?