Improved Skua for FAA?

[Reluctant Poster]

"Fighters Over the Fleet" by Norman Freidman is a must read to understand procurement strategies pre WWII. We should never forget that aircraft technology was in the midst of a major upheaval and that crystal ball reading is difficult at the best of times. According to Freidman:
"From a fighter point of view, the Skua was the victim of rapidly changing policy."
"The Skua had not yet flown, but production was urgent because the existing Nimrods and Ospreys would soon have to be retired:.... Limited Skua performance, including in a dive, was considered acceptable because by this time the dive-bomber fighter was considered no more than a stop gap until a more capable dive bomber reconnaissance (DBR) aircraft became available."
The surprising part is that the Roc was to be the replacement for the Skua in the fighter role (actually fighter -observation). It was crippled by the turret fighter concept but also by the requirement to be capable of being catapulted from battleships with floats attached.
We should always bear in mind that the Gun Club ruled in all navies at that time and aircraft carriers were definitely subordinate to the line of battle. Spotting fall of shot on the enemy battle line and shooting down enemy spotters was a prime function. Dive bombing aircraft carriers was important as it took enemy spotters out of service and allowed your spotters to perform unhindered.

 

[Shortround6]

The Skua may have looked pretty good on paper with a speed 30-55mph faster than the Nimrod or Osprey, trouble was that in the time it took to go from paper to production the speed of the target aircraft had also changed.

In the 1930s it was pretty much a given that by the time a plane entered squadron service with the first squadron the replacement aircraft should have already started design, not just requirement issued. Sometimes you could have 3 generations in the works, 1st plane entering service, 2nd plane close to or starting prototype flights and 3rd plane being sketched on paper.
If you are using an existing engine on a new airframe things can go a bit quicker. But if you use an old engine you may get caught and not be able to upgrade.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do think the Skua had potential. The Taranto Raid would have done nicely with a squadron of Skuas dropping incendiary bombs, for example.

How effective would that be against the Italian BBs?

 

[Admiral Beez]

How effective would that be against the Italian BBs?

I was thinking tank farms for the incendiaries. The Skuas 500 lb. AP bomb will penetrate any vessel at Taranto. Here's the day after the Nov 1940 raid.

Just look at those juicy fuel tanks. Mind you it's a night attack, so the Skua pilots will need to be well briefed and prepared.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

How effective would that be against the Italian BBs?

No one in any navy thought dive bombers would be effective vs battleships. Torpedoes and/or gunfire would be required.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I was thinking tank farms for the incendiaries. The Skuas 500 lb. AP bomb will penetrate any vessel at Taranto. Here's the day after the Nov 1940 raid.

View attachment 671104

Just look at those juicy fuel tanks. Mind you it's a night attack, so the Skua pilots will need to be well briefed and prepared.

I don't believe a 500 lb bomb was a threat to a battleship. Also the Skua bomb was SAP not AP. Also diving bombing at night was not possible.

 

[yulzari]

One has to factor in that Blackburn was too occupied with the Botha to continue to make Skuas so the Roc was farmed out to Boulton Paul so a better Skua might be Defiant based rather than Skua based. Less turret, to carry the bomb load.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No one in any navy thought dive bombers would be effective vs battleships. Torpedoes and/or gunfire would be required.

Exactly my point. Incendiary bombs even less so than SAPs etc.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was thinking tank farms for the incendiaries.

That makes sense, but couldn't Swordfish also pull that trick off?

The Skuas 500 lb. AP bomb will penetrate any vessel at Taranto. Here's the day after the Nov 1940 raid.

View attachment 671104

Just look at those juicy fuel tanks. Mind you it's a night attack, so the Skua pilots will need to be well briefed and prepared.

And will need flares to aim by as well, I bet. As for the 500# SAPs, sure, they could damage the BBs, but to sink a ship you've got to let water in. Poking holes in the topsides is inefficient at that task, barring a lucky hit a la USS Arizona.

 

[Shortround6]

I was thinking tank farms for the incendiaries. The Skuas 500 lb. AP bomb will penetrate any vessel at Taranto.

I don't believe a 500 lb bomb was a threat to a battleship. Also the Skau bomb was SAP not AP.

The 500lb SAP might not be able to go through more than 2in. it may also depend on the speed of the dive and height of the release.
The 500lb SAP might do OK against most cruisers. It can also go through the upper deck of a battleship and go off between the upper deck and the armored deck.
Armored deck keeps bombs and shells out of the magazines and engine rooms. It doesn't make bombs, shells bounce over the side.

The 500lb SAP bomb could reach the Ponte di batteria, it was not going to get through that deck.
You would need a 1500-2000lb AP bomb to do that. and dropped from the right height.

500lb HE bombs might well explode on the upper deck (forecastle deck) and would pretty effective in disabling/disrupting the AA guns if in the superstructure area.

 

[Shortround6]

One has to factor in that Blackburn was too occupied with the Botha to continue to make Skuas so the Roc was farmed out to Boulton Paul so a better Skua might be Defiant based rather than Skua based. Less turret, to carry the bomb load.

You need to get the plane both on and off the carrier deck.
Cutting the wing from 319 sq ft to 250sqft does not bode well for a carrier Defiant. So now you have to enlarge the wing in addition to making it fold.

Some dive bombers were built even heavier than fighters to allow for airframe fatigue. You might figure a fighter is going to do 5-6 Gs on some of it's flights.
A dive bomber is going to do 5-6 Gs on an awful lot of it's training flights and a lot of it's combat flights.

 

[Shortround6]

barring a lucky hit a la USS Arizona.

Lucky hit on the Arizona was by 796.kg (1757lb) bomb that was a converted 16in AP shell.
Japanese rated it as going through 150mm of armor, angle of impact not specified and drop height not specified.

the nose was 486.8mm thick and the bomb only held 2.8% explosive. (just under 50lbs)

You can sink battleships with bombs, but you need big bombs and lots of them.
A 1000lb HE bomb that hits within 10-20ft of the ships side will have a similar effect as an 18in aerial torpedo.
But you need a lot of bombs dropped to get 2-4 hits in that narrow band around the hull. if you double the miss distance the ability of the bomb to spring the ship's plating goes down by at least 4 times and closer to 8 times. A hit on the deck is going to get tangled up with multiple armor decks.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Lucky hit on the Arizona was by 796.kg (1757lb) bomb that was a converted 16in AP shell.
Japanese rated it as going through 150mm of armor, angle of impact not specified and drop height not specified.

the nose was 486.8mm thick and the bomb only held 2.8% explosive. (just under 50lbs)

Right. The luck was in hitting so close to the magazine, with results for all to see.

 

[Shortround6]

Right. The luck was in hitting so close to the magazine, with results for all to see.

And a 500lb SAP bomb even if it hit the exact same place was not get through the armored decks and was going to explode several decks higher in the ship.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Right. The luck was in hitting so close to the magazine, with results for all to see.

3 times the size, AP not SAP and dropped from sufficient altitude to attain enough velocity to penetrate. Not possible at night.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

3 times the size, AP not SAP and dropped from sufficient altitude to attain enough velocity to penetrate. Not possible at night.

And a 500lb SAP bomb even if it hit the exact same place was not get through the armored decks and was going to explode several decks higher in the ship.

Exactly. Expecting 500# SAPs to have the same effects as torpedoes from the Stringbags seems to me unrealistic -- much less a modified 16" AP shell.

You gotta put holes in the hulls to sink a ship, and 500-lb SAPs ain't gonna do that.

Even the Nevada's beaching was forced by its torpedo hit, rather than the three (four?) 250kg bomb-hits.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sometimes (Bf.110), you largely ignore the customer spec, come up with something the customer (RLM) decides they have to have. And they rewrite the specification around what you're selling.

IIRC it was the Bf 109 that went against the spec (predominantly against the specified wing loading) and won, while the 110 was following the spec.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Exactly. Expecting 500# SAPs to have the same effects as torpedoes from the Stringbags seems to me unrealistic -- much less a modified 16" AP shell.

You gotta put holes in the hulls to sink a ship, and 500-lb SAPs ain't gonna do that.

Even the Nevada's beaching was forced by its torpedo hit, rather than the three (four?) 250kg bomb-hits.

The 500lb SAP might not be able to go through more than 2in. it may also depend on the speed of the dive and height of the release.
The 500lb SAP might do OK against most cruisers. It can also go through the upper deck of a battleship and go off between the upper deck and the armored deck.
Armored deck keeps bombs and shells out of the magazines and engine rooms. It doesn't make bombs, shells bounce over the side.
View attachment 671106
The 500lb SAP bomb could reach the Ponte di batteria, it was not going to get through that deck.
You would need a 1500-2000lb AP bomb to do that. and dropped from the right height.

500lb HE bombs might well explode on the upper deck (forecastle deck) and would pretty effective in disabling/disrupting the AA guns if in the superstructure area.

A 500 lb US SAP wont penetrate 2' of amour if dropped from below 4,000 ft. I doubt the RN 500 lb SAP would be significantly better.

As for near misses the following is from a USN paper I posted previously. Near misses don't have much effect on a battleship

The underwater protection of the Italian battleships wasn't as good as US battleships so if we assume it was as good as a US heavy cruiser

Even then the 500 lb SAP doesn't rate a mention. As I have stated in the past, torpedoes are the most effective weapons against large warships. Note that these are US torpedoes. The Japanese 24 inchers with their much large warhead were more effective. Japanese torpedoes sunk just about every large USN and IJN warship in 1942-43 if you include those scuttled. The USN tried to scuttle the Hornet with their torpedoes but the Japanese had to finish it off. The Japanese carriers at Midway were sunk by their destroyers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Exactly. Expecting 500# SAPs to have the same effects as torpedoes from the Stringbags seems to me unrealistic -- much less a modified 16" AP shell.

Which is why I suggested the Skuas go for softer targets.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which is why I suggested the Skuas go for softer targets.

Sure. But I think the point of the raid was the battleships.