Improved Skua for FAA?

[nuuumannn]

(how 1917 can you get in 1938?)

So true!! But let's not forget that even in 1940 the majority of the world's bombers were flying around with defensive positions little more advanced than this...

RAFM 158

Despite sweeping technological advances in some areas, other areas suffered lags in development much slower than we often give credit to. The P-40s that went to war in 1941 still had ring and bead sights, for example.

The Skua is in that same blanket area like the TBD, both good at what they did but overtaken by advances in aircraft performance and expectation, although the difference was that the TBD had no pretenses at being a fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

TBD was also cursed with a defective torpedo which pretty much nullified it's reason for being.

 

[Macandy]

So, how about we just focus on making the Skua smaller, lighter and more streamlined?

It was already a death trap with no armour or self sealing tanks, making it smaller and lighter wont fix that.

 

[buffnut453]

It was already a death trap with no armour or self sealing tanks, making it smaller and lighter wont fix that.

While you have a point given the Skua's operational use in 1940, we must ask how many other aircraft had armour or self-sealing tanks in 1938? Short answer is...none.

How many American aircraft had armour and self-sealing tanks even in 1941?

 

[Admiral Beez]

So true!! But let's not forget that even in 1940 the majority of the world's bombers were flying around with defensive positions little more advanced than this...

View attachment 677395RAFM 158

Despite sweeping technological advances in some areas, other areas suffered lags in development much slower than we often give credit to. The P-40s that went to war in 1941 still had ring and bead sights, for example.

The Skua is in that same blanket area like the TBD, both good at what they did but overtaken by advances in aircraft performance and expectation, although the difference was that the TBD had no pretenses at being a fighter.

Not TBD, but I bet the bomber-exclusive SBD Dauntless shot down more enemy aircraft than the fighter-bomber Skua.

 

[Shortround6]

While you have a point given the Skua's operational use in 1940, we must ask how many other aircraft had armour or self-sealing tanks in 1938? Short answer is...none.

How many American aircraft had armour and self-sealing tanks even in 1941?

I agree.
To bring it a bit closer to home or on point.
In 1940 The SBD did not have either armor or self sealing tanks.
In 1938 the SBDs direct predecessor, the Northrop BT-1 (Douglas acquired Northrop and inherited the BT-1/2) was death trap even without requiring enemy gun fire.
In addition to fixing the handling problems Douglas replaced the 825hp engine with a 1000hp engine and in later models fitted 1200hp engines and finished with a 1300-1350hp engine. With the addition of more power protection could be fitted with out much sacrifice in performance, except for range. And with there further increases in power allowing for higher gross weights some of the range was recovered.

SBD went through the change from the BT to the SBD-1 and finished with the SPD-6.
Skua had two Skua I prototypes and then were told to switch engines from the Mercury to the Perseus as the RAF wanted all available Mercuries leaving the Perseus sleeve valve for the RN. And there was your Skua II, A 2nd rate engine and no way to change it.

There is difference between a design that was not allowed to change/mature and one that hit a limit that didn't allow for change.
Since the Skua ended production at about the time that armor and self sealing tanks were being introduced in other aircraft it seems rather harsh to criticize it for not having them.

 

[Shortround6]

Not TBD, but I bet the bomber-exclusive SBD Dauntless shot down more enemy aircraft than the fighter-bomber Skua.

We have been over that before.

They Built about 190 Skuas,
They built just under 6000 SBDs.

The Skua would have to shoot down about 30 times as many planes per Skua as the SBD did.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not TBD, but I bet the bomber-exclusive SBD Dauntless shot down more enemy aircraft than the fighter-bomber Skua.

I've read that the SBD was one of the very few bombers with a positive air-to-air kill ratio, but I can't vouch for that claim and so am very amenable to correction.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I've read that the SBD was one of the very few bombers with a positive air-to-air kill ratio, but I can't vouch for that claim and so am very amenable to correction.

The prowess of the SBD as an ersatz fighter is greatly exaggerated.

A large part of the SBDs claim to fame is the battle of Coral Sea. I was always puzzled by the extremely high USN claims for Zeros shot down during this battle. If these numbers were remotely true the Zero easily wins the title of the worst fighter of WWII. In fact, it would qualify as one of the worst aircraft of all time. A pilot would be safer in a BE2 flying over the Western Front during Bloody April.

A while ago I did an accounting for the Zeros at Coral Sea on May 8 based on Lundstrom's book "The First Team". The claims of Zeros shot down by the USN were extraordinarily high, a total of 32 plus an Me 109! Clearly this could not be the case Zeros considering that the Zuikaku started the day with 19 operational Zeros while the Shokaku started with 18 for a total of 37.

Each of the carriers contributed 9 Zeros for bomber escort with the rest reserved for CAP. During the battle over the Japanese force SDBs claimed 11 Zeros destroyed with the F4Fs claiming 4 more.

The reality was far different. Two of Shokaku's CAP Zeros were shot down with both pilots killed and 3 accompanied her as CAP as she withdrew from the battle. I am not sure what their ultimate fate was. I presume they ditched. The remainder landed on Zuikaku. None of Zuikaku's CAP were shot down. Lundstrom credits the 2 Zeros shot down to F4Fs. Note that only 16 of the 19 Zeros actually took part in the battle.

Of the Zeros accompanying the strike, none were shot down, 1 ditched and 3 landed on Zuikaku but were pushed over the side to make room for incoming aircraft. The other 14 all landed safely on Zuikaku. In contrast, the F4Fs claimed 1 Me 109 and 9 Zeros shot down with the SDBs claiming a further 6 Zeros. To quote Lundstrom "From a correlation of Japanese and American sources, it appears reasonable that the F4Fs actually shot down no Zeros , but perhaps splashed three dive bombers and one torpedo plane, while the SBD crews accounted for no Zeros, but downed one dive bomber and five torpedo planes – total ten Japanese aircraft destroyed by aerial engagement. American anti aircraft fire from the ships likely destroyed one dive bomber and two torpedo planes." My emphasis in bold.

On that day the SBDs claimed to have shot down 17 Zeros 1 Val and 1 Kate. The reality according to Lundstrom was 0 Zeroes 1 Val and 5 Kates.

Going back to the previous day and the attack on Shoho the SBDs claimed to have shot down 5 Type 96s and 1 Val. The reality was 0 Type 96s and 0 Vals. F4F did shoot down 1 Zero and 2 Type 96s.

In the battles leading up to Coral Sea the SBDs claimed to have shot down 6 Type 96s when in fact they shot down 0.

Total SBD claims up to and including Carol Sea:
17 Zeroes actual 0
11 Type 96 actual 0
2 Vals actual 1
1 Kate actual 5
31 total actual 6

For the entire war SBDs claimed to have shot down 75 fighters and 39 bombers vs a loss of 40 SBDs in air to air. The above numbers put a serious dent in those claims

A summary of the Japanese Attack on TF 17 at Coral Sea where the SBDs were used as low-level fighters:

F4Fs
20 participating 3 shot down
Zeros 9 claimed 0 shot down
Me 109 1 claimed 0 shot down
Vals 4 claimed 3 shot down
Kates 1 claimed 1 shot down

SDBs
23 participating 5 shot down
Zeros 6 claimed 0 shot down
Vals 1 claimed 1 shot down
Kates 1 claimed 5 shot down

The Zuikaku finished the day with 24 fully operational Zeros, 1 easily repaired Zero and at least 2 heavily damaged Zeros. That leaves 1 not specifically accounted for by Lundstrom, which was likely a badly damaged Zero aboard the Zuikaku.

In summary the F4Fs claimed to have shot down 13 Zeros (and a 109) when in actual fact they shot down 2 and the SDBs claimed 17 Zeros when in fact they shot down zero Zeros. With 3 of Zuikaku's Zeros remaining on deck during the battles over the Japanese task force, if the claims are taken at face value the USN shot down virtually every Zero they saw. This was plainly not the case. The incredible over claiming of Zeros (a factor of 15 to 1) can be attributed to two factors: the USN overall over claimed by a factor of almost 4 and they tended to claim everything they shot at was a Zero. To be fair the Japanese pilots were even more optimist in their claims.

I haven't had the chance to look at the numbers at Midway in detail where the Japanese did lose 13 Zeros. Lundstrom credits 12 of those to F4Fs with 1 possibly shot down by an SBD or TBD.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The prowess of the SBD as an ersatz fighter is greatly exaggerated.

A large part of the SBDs claim to fame is the battle of Coral Sea. I was always puzzled by the extremely high USN claims for Zeros shot down during this battle. If these numbers were remotely true the Zero easily wins the title of the worst fighter of WWII. In fact, it would qualify as one of the worst aircraft of all time. A pilot would be safer in a BE2 flying over the Western Front during Bloody April.

A while ago I did an accounting for the Zeros at Coral Sea on May 8 based on Lundstrom's book "The First Team". The claims of Zeros shot down by the USN were extraordinarily high, a total of 32 plus an Me 109! Clearly this could not be the case Zeros considering that the Zuikaku started the day with 19 operational Zeros while the Shokaku started with 18 for a total of 37.

Each of the carriers contributed 9 Zeros for bomber escort with the rest reserved for CAP. During the battle over the Japanese force SDBs claimed 11 Zeros destroyed with the F4Fs claiming 4 more.

The reality was far different. Two of Shokaku's CAP Zeros were shot down with both pilots killed and 3 accompanied her as CAP as she withdrew from the battle. I am not sure what their ultimate fate was. I presume they ditched. The remainder landed on Zuikaku. None of Zuikaku's CAP were shot down. Lundstrom credits the 2 Zeros shot down to F4Fs. Note that only 16 of the 19 Zeros actually took part in the battle.

Of the Zeros accompanying the strike, none were shot down, 1 ditched and 3 landed on Zuikaku but were pushed over the side to make room for incoming aircraft. The other 14 all landed safely on Zuikaku. In contrast, the F4Fs claimed 1 Me 109 and 9 Zeros shot down with the SDBs claiming a further 6 Zeros. To quote Lundstrom "From a correlation of Japanese and American sources, it appears reasonable that the F4Fs actually shot down no Zeros , but perhaps splashed three dive bombers and one torpedo plane, while the SBD crews accounted for no Zeros, but downed one dive bomber and five torpedo planes – total ten Japanese aircraft destroyed by aerial engagement. American anti aircraft fire from the ships likely destroyed one dive bomber and two torpedo planes." My emphasis in bold.

On that day the SBDs claimed to have shot down 17 Zeros 1 Val and 1 Kate. The reality according to Lundstrom was 0 Zeroes 1 Val and 5 Kates.

Going back to the previous day and the attack on Shoho the SBDs claimed to have shot down 5 Type 96s and 1 Val. The reality was 0 Type 96s and 0 Vals. F4F did shoot down 1 Zero and 2 Type 96s.

In the battles leading up to Coral Sea the SBDs claimed to have shot down 6 Type 96s when in fact they shot down 0.

Total SBD claims up to and including Carol Sea:
17 Zeroes actual 0
11 Type 96 actual 0
2 Vals actual 1
1 Kate actual 5
31 total actual 6

For the entire war SBDs claimed to have shot down 75 fighters and 39 bombers vs a loss of 40 SBDs in air to air. The above numbers put a serious dent in those claims

A summary of the Japanese Attack on TF 17 at Coral Sea where the SBDs were used as low-level fighters:

F4Fs
20 participating 3 shot down
Zeros 9 claimed 0 shot down
Me 109 1 claimed 0 shot down
Vals 4 claimed 3 shot down
Kates 1 claimed 1 shot down

SDBs
23 participating 5 shot down
Zeros 6 claimed 0 shot down
Vals 1 claimed 1 shot down
Kates 1 claimed 5 shot down

The Zuikaku finished the day with 24 fully operational Zeros, 1 easily repaired Zero and at least 2 heavily damaged Zeros. That leaves 1 not specifically accounted for by Lundstrom, which was likely a badly damaged Zero aboard the Zuikaku.

In summary the F4Fs claimed to have shot down 13 Zeros (and a 109) when in actual fact they shot down 2 and the SDBs claimed 17 Zeros when in fact they shot down zero Zeros. With 3 of Zuikaku's Zeros remaining on deck during the battles over the Japanese task force, if the claims are taken at face value the USN shot down virtually every Zero they saw. This was plainly not the case. The incredible over claiming of Zeros (a factor of 15 to 1) can be attributed to two factors: the USN overall over claimed by a factor of almost 4 and they tended to claim everything they shot at was a Zero. To be fair the Japanese pilots were even more optimist in their claims.

I haven't had the chance to look at the numbers at Midway in detail where the Japanese did lose 13 Zeros. Lundstrom credits 12 of those to F4Fs with 1 possibly shot down by an SBD or TBD.

Exactly why I expressed my skepticism, and thanks for the solid details explaining the BS in the claim.

ETA: I really need to get a couple of Lundstrom's books. Thanks for the reminder, as well.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Skua had two Skua I prototypes and then were told to switch engines from the Mercury to the Perseus as the RAF wanted all available Mercuries leaving the Perseus sleeve valve for the RN.

Interesting that the FAA wanted the poppet valve Mercury. Besides the four shipboard squadrons of Skua and those of the Albacore did the FAA operate many sleeve valve engine aircrsft from the RN's aircraft carriers? I get the sense that their maintenance and delicate handing needs made them less popular.

 

[EwenS]

Interesting that the FAA wanted the poppet valve Mercury. Besides the four shipboard squadrons of Skua and those of the Albacore did the FAA operate many sleeve valve engine aircrsft from the RN's aircraft carriers? I get the sense that their maintenance and delicate handing needs made them less popular.

Napier Sabre in Blackburn Firebrand I/II in secondary roles. Bristol Centaurus powered Blackburn Firebrand III/IV/V & Hawker Sea Fury And it was intended for the Blackburn Firecrest & Fairey Spearfish which only reached the prototype stage.

 

[yulzari]

The difference between the 'bomber' SBD and 'fighter' Skua is the use of fewer 0.500" as against more 0.303" machine guns. The firepower was thus not that different. The principal difference was that of doctrine whereby the Skua was to be employed occasionally as a long range/loiter fighter against multi engined fleet attackers whilst the SBD was armed to defend itself.

But we digress from the OP, in which the real answer is that you can make a better aeroplane a few years later (eg the Fairey Fulmar) but not do much to make the Skua itself better.

At the time of design decisions it was right at the top of the game, but the goal posts were moving so fast that it soon fell from the Premier League down to good club football. It might be more instructive to think about a better and sooner Fulmar.

 

[Macandy]

Not TBD, but I bet the bomber-exclusive SBD Dauntless shot down more enemy aircraft than the fighter-bomber Skua.

Yes indeed they did.
I believe a few SBD pilots got enough kills to be transferred to fighters. Loses to enemy fighters seem to have been a tie.
Its performance was actually significantly better than the Fairy Fulmar 'fighter'.

 

[Macandy]

Re the F4F Wildcat?

The last Fleet Air Arm victories in the European Theatre occurred on 26th March 1945 off Norway when 8 Wildcats engaged 8 Bf 109s, shooting down 4 Bf 109's for no loss while escorting Avengers on an anti shipping strike.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Yes indeed they did

re-read post 269 from R Reluctant Poster
The "fighter" SBD has been blown out of proportion

 

[Shortround6]

Going back to the number of enemy aircraft shot down compared to the number of aircraft built.
The Skua may have shot down two aircraft before Norway.

With just 6000 SBDs built the SPD needs 60 victories just to maintain that rate of success.

Unfortunately for the SBD fans, the Skua racked up the following victories according the Digger Dell website

.
Blohm and Voss BV138 Flying Boat - 2 destroyed by strafing
Dornier Do 26 Flying boat - 1 destroyed
Dornier 18 flying boat - 3 destroyed.
Heinkel 115 floatplane - 12 destroyed, 10 of these by strafing
Henkel 111 bomber - 9 destroyed in the air, another 8 damaged and written off after crash-landing.
Junkers Ju 88 - 5 destroyed

This is supposed to be from"Flying sailors at War" by Brian Cull with Bruce Lander and Mark Horan" lists some 40 enemy aircraft verified destroyed by Skuas during the Norwegian Campaign (see Appendix II in the book). These are not just claims, they correspond with German records.

So how many hundreds of planes did the SBD have to destroy to keep up the pace the Skua was setting?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Going back to the number of enemy aircraft shot down compared to the number of aircraft built.
The Skua may have shot down two aircraft before Norway.

With just 6000 SBDs built the SPD needs 60 victories just to maintain that rate of success.

Unfortunately for the SBD fans, the Skua racked up the following victories according the Digger Dell website

.
Blohm and Voss BV138 Flying Boat - 2 destroyed by strafing
Dornier Do 26 Flying boat - 1 destroyed
Dornier 18 flying boat - 3 destroyed.
Heinkel 115 floatplane - 12 destroyed, 10 of these by strafing
Henkel 111 bomber - 9 destroyed in the air, another 8 damaged and written off after crash-landing.
Junkers Ju 88 - 5 destroyed

This is supposed to be from"Flying sailors at War" by Brian Cull with Bruce Lander and Mark Horan" lists some 40 enemy aircraft verified destroyed by Skuas during the Norwegian Campaign (see Appendix II in the book). These are not just claims, they correspond with German records.

So how many hundreds of planes did the SBD have to destroy to keep up the pace the Skua was setting?

If you're counting strafing victories for the Skua, ain't it fair to count bombing victories for an SBD? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's a decent number.

Asking for a friend.

 

[buffnut453]

If you're counting strafing victories for the Skua, ain't it fair to count bombing victories for an SBD? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's a decent number.

Asking for a friend.

You have a friend now? Wow, that's progress!

Sorry, brother, just couldn't resist.

In a bid to contribute more positively to this discussion, "Aces High" by Shores and Williams lists the following Skua aces:

• Lt Cdr John Martin Bruen: 5 Skua claims comprising 1x Curtiss Hawk dmgd, 1x Morane 406 dmgd, shared kills of a Cant Z501 and S-79
• Lt Cdr William Paulet Lucy: 1x He 111 prob, 1/3x He111, 1/2x Do17 dmg, 1/3x He111 dmg, 5 shared kills of He111s, 1/2x Ju88 and another 1/2x He111 dmg

The fact that the Skua was taking on aircraft like the P-36 and Morane 406 is pretty impressive, IMHO.

As others have noted, the Skua was actually a good aircraft based on the specification that was levied. It had a decent bomb load and range, and was very well armed for its time. Unfortunately, it was rapidly overtaken by events and was never further developed. I still have a considerable soft spot for it, though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You have a friend now? Wow, that's progress!

Sorry, brother, just couldn't resist.

In a bid to contribute more positively to this discussion, "Aces High" by Shores and Williams lists the following Skua aces:

• Lt Cdr John Martin Bruen: 5 Skua claims comprising 1x Curtiss Hawk dmgd, 1x Morane 406 dmgd, shared kills of a Cant Z501 and S-79
• Lt Cdr William Paulet Lucy: 1x He 111 prob, 1/3x He111, 1/2x Do17 dmg, 1/3x He111 dmg, 5 shared kills of He111s, 1/2x Ju88 and another 1/2x He111 dmg

The fact that the Skua was taking on aircraft like the P-36 and Morane 406 is pretty impressive, IMHO.

As others have noted, the Skua was actually a good aircraft based on the specification that was levied. It had a decent bomb load and range, and was very well armed for its time. Unfortunately, it was rapidly overtaken by events and was never further developed. I still have a considerable soft spot for it, though.

Look, I want to count the kills on the carriers at Midway, do you freakin' mind?!