Rn vs IJN (1 Viewer)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

How many Fulmars on RN carriers, compared to how many Zeroes on IJN carriers? 12 vs 18 or 27?

Fulmars might manage under good tactical circumstances, but like the Wildcat, when caught out of sorts they might be easy meat ... and carry one more aviator down with it as well. Hope the fighter directors can vector the few Fulmars airborne efficiently.

Fulmar was an order of magnitude less capable than a Wildcat

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

IJN long lance torpedoes have a wander left/right of 1km @ 32km range - not exactly the most accurate weapon (goes up to 1.5km at the 40km max range)

They are fine when launched en mass against a long line of ships sailing in line - even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut - but too expensive to use on regular basis. You need to be within 5km to regularly hit a single battleship sized target. Which isn't really different from RN torpedoes.

Give me a f'n break, what an utter crock. That's one of the most delusional posts I've ever seen on this board and that is really saying something.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

going back to "kit" the British and Japanese have a real disparity in light cruisers.

They both have a bunch of WW I left overs (although the Japanese built many of theirs in the 20s.)
British built a bunch of 6in armed cruisers (22 before 1940) after they build their quota of 8in cruisers, Japanese build 4 and then swap the turrets to twin 8in leaving them with NO light cruisers with 6in guns that use turrets/enclosed gun houses until 1942.

A lot depends on the British war losses in this hypothetical but the Japanese are at a real disadvantage in in the cruiser catagory. Unlike the Americans, all British cruisers have at least some torpedoes early in the war so again, the British are not a plug in replacement for the Americans. Different weapons, different doctrine, different tactics.

BTW just about all British cruisers newer than the E class (1921-22) have four twin 4in AA guns by the time WW II starts. Only the Japanese heavy cruisers have four twin heavy AA guns. (slow firing 5in). All of their light cruisers had crap for heavy AA. Kind of even things up a bit for the British, won't stop the IJN aircraft but the British have better AA to go against the Japanese planes while the Japanese have crap AA to go against the British aircraft. Both are worse than American AA even before proximity fuses.

The Japanese CL's had plenty of type 93 torpedoes, were well armed, and did very well in combat. This is a reach.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Its also worth remembering that a good number of the early RN light cruisers were being rearmed as AA cruisers with multiple 4in AA guns and modern LAA. A much better use for them than trying to pretend that they could still operate on the front line going toe to toe with other warships. In the Pacific where aircraft were so important this would only have increased their value.
In this role they performed well. IIRC, the RN vessel that was credited with the most aircraft kills during the war, was one of those converted light cruisers.

The Japanese CLs carried the type 93s which contrary to recent claims were quite lethal out to 20,000+ yards

 

[ThomasP]

re the number of fighters on the RN carriers

After about the time of the Ark Royal was entering service and through the early-war period the standard 'strike group' for the RN fleet carriers was nominally 36x airframes (2x-4x Sqn of either Swordfish or Albacore) - though the RN played mix-and-match for the specific operations. The minimum operational strike Sqn usually had 9x-12x airframes. The actual numbers of airframes onboard at any given time often do not reflect this due to the mix-and-match mentioned above and a chronic shortage (at east until mid-42?) of airframes.

The nominal fighter complement for the Ark Royal was planned to be 24x airframes (2x Sqn of Fulmar as of 1940-41) but I do not know if she ever carried that many operationally.

So maybe think of what the operations in the ATL PRTO would be in order to estimate what the number of strike and fighter airframes could be or would probably be.

Just because the RN reduced the number of fighters and increased the number of strike/ASW aircraft when operating far out in the Atlantic on escort duties, or at night in the MTO when striking Taranto, does not mean they would have used the same ratios on operations in the PRTO.

PS The SeaHurricane was given the ability to use the 45 Impgal DTs at some time in late-'41 or early-'42. This brought the effective range and endurance upto the ~level of the Fulmar on internal fuel only - ie 4 hrs endurance as CAP with reserve for combat.

 

[EwenS]

Nowadays it takes Britain six years to build a Type 45 destroyer. I'm not sure what to think about the tradition. Jackie Fisher, whose revolutionary battleship HMS Dreadnought was completed in about a year (laid down Oct 1905, commissioned Dec 1906) must be turning in his grave at the decline of the RN.

Edit - it took twelve years for postwar Britain from keel laying to commissioning for HMS Ark Royal (R09), so I suppose six years for a destroyer is about on par.

You clearly don't understand just what happened with the build of Ark Royal.

Originally planned as part of the 1940 Supplementary Programme as a modified Implacable class she was finally ordered in March 1942. In Sept 1942 it was expected that she would complete in March 1946. Then in late 1942 it was decided that she would be built to the Audacious design. Finally laid down in May 1943 her wartime construction was delayed by other projects that the yard had on that were deemed to be of a higher priority at the time. For example in 1944 the light carrier Venerable had priority, while in 1945 the already delayed 1942 Battle class destroyers (CL had 4 under construction which they completed in 1945/46) were given priority once their directors became available. By March 1945 her estimated completion date had slipped to May 1947.

By late 1945 the Admiralty realised that the design needed updated and therefore all work, other than maintenance of the hull, stopped. Add to that, her builders, Cammell Laird on Merseyside, were, like all the merchant shipbuilders, chomping at the bit to get back to badly needed and highly profitable merchant ship construction that was needed to carry British exports and earn much needed hard foreign currency. At least she survived the late 1945 round of cancellations. Her sister the original Eagle building from Dec 1943 and which was only 26% complete with nearly £2m spent was cancelled in Dec 1945 and broken up on the slip at Vickers Tyne, so saving the Govt of the day £5.5m. (that allowed Audacious, building at Harland & Wolff in Belfast to be renamed Eagle before launch in 1946).

It was about 1949 before work began again in any meaningful way and to a modified design. These design changes continued after her launch in May 1950 and her construction often had to await new equipment becoming available. These design changes included new radars, a side lift, steam catapults (developed from 1946 and first trialled in 1951), angled flight deck (developed from 1951 and trialled in 1952) and mirror landing system (developed from 1951 and first trialled in 1952). When completed in Feb 1955 she was the first carrier in the world to incorporate all of those last 3 items that revolutionised carrier aviation in the 1950s (individually they had appeared in carriers from late 1951. She was followed by USS Forrestal and HMAS Melboune in Oct 1955).

Trying to compare build times for WW1 or even WW2 era ships with today is like comparing a Ford Model T with a Tesla in terms of complexity. Having said that many build times today are dictated by the annual budgets of the Govts ordering them, who like to stretch that spending out over longer & longer periods. No shipbuilder is going to race to build a ship to have it sitting in the yard waiting on a Govt to give them the next installment of the payment.

 

[EwenS]

How quick could they get a single seat Fulmar with clipped wings into action?

There isn't much wing to clip before you start having to modify the ailerons.

 

[Shortround6]

Hurricane has half the range and endurance of a Fulmar (and I mean the real world, two seat Fulmar)

True but what is the range/endurance of the clipped wing, single seat Fulmar?
And how soon can you get it?

Fulmar had a 342 sq ft wing, it is going to need a lot clipping to change the speed much. You don't need to clip it for carrier stowage.
Both planes use the same engine (basically)
The Hurricane is the fastest answer to get a better performing carrier fighter in the same catagory as the Wildcat.
Hurricane carried 116 US gallons of fuel, Wildcat carried 144-147.

Give the Hurricane the Merlin XX engines instead of Merlin IIIs used in around 800 Sea Hurricanes.

 

[EwenS]

re the number of fighters on the RN carriers

After about the time of the Ark Royal was entering service and through the early-war period the standard 'strike group' for the RN fleet carriers was nominally 36x airframes (2x-4x Sqn of either Swordfish or Albacore) - though the RN played mix-and-match for the specific operations. The minimum operational strike Sqn usually had 9x-12x airframes. The actual numbers of airframes onboard at any given time often do not reflect this due to the mix-and-match mentioned above and a chronic shortage (at east until mid-42?) of airframes.

The nominal fighter complement for the Ark Royal was planned to be 24x airframes (2x Sqn of Fulmar as of 1940-41) but I do not know if she ever carried that many operationally.

So maybe think of what the operations in the ATL PRTO would be in order to estimate what the number of strike and fighter airframes could be or would probably be.

Just because the RN reduced the number of fighters and increased the number of strike/ASW aircraft when operating far out in the Atlantic on escort duties, or at night in the MTO when striking Taranto, does not mean they would have used the same ratios on operations in the PRTO.

PS The SeaHurricane was given the ability to use the 45 Impgal DTs at some time in late-'41 or early-'42. This brought the effective range and endurance upto the ~level of the Fulmar on internal fuel only - ie 4 hrs endurance as CAP with reserve for combat.

Ark Royal began the war with 18 Skuas which were briefly augmented by 5/6 Rocs in mid-1940 before they were replaced in turn with more Skuas. Having begun the war with 4 squadrons of Swordfish (total 42 aircraft), the number she carried almost immediately began to fall as one squadron was pulled to help create an air group for Furious which was giving up her training role to become an operational carrier again following the loss of Courageous. By late 1940 the number of Swordfish had settled around the 30 mark in 3 squadrons.

Ark left for the Med in Oct 1940 with an air group that contained 800 squadron (12 Skuas) and 808 squadron (12 Fulmars). In April 1941 800 was swapped for 807 with another 12 Fulmars. Replacement airframes were available for her. There is a note in J D Brown's "Carrier Operations in World War 2" that her fighter complement from then until her sinking varied between 19 & 27 Fulmars. The highest figure probably relates to an additional 5 Fulmars embarked in June 1941 that acted as guides for Hurricanes being delivered to Malta in Operation Splice. Fulmar II began arriving in April 1941 but it was Jul/Aug 1941 before they completely replaced the earlier Fulmar I.

Illustrious left Britain for Gibraltar and the Med in late Aug 1940, after working up, with 806 squadron (15 Fulmars) and 2 squadrons with 9 Swordfish each. For Taranto she also embarked a couple of Sea Gladiators from Eagle.

Formidable left for the eastern Med via the Cape in Jan 1941. At that point her air group consisted of 803 squadron (12 Fulmars) and 826 & 829 (total 21 Albacores). From March to May 1941 her fighters were augmented by more Fulmars from detachments from 805 and 806 (ex Illustrious) squadrons that were then shore based in Egypt. Those added up to 8 more Fulmars to her air group. On 6 May for example she had 19 Fulmars, 6 Albacores and 6 Swordfish aboard.

Post Bismarck, once her air group was sorted out, Victorious carried 809 (12 Fulmar) plus 21 Albacores.

On completion in October 1941 Indomitable's air group consisted of 800 squadron (12 Fulmars), 880 (9 Sea Hurricanes Ib) plus 24 Albacores of 827 & 831 squadrons. That reflected her larger hangar capacity and larger forward lift allowing the Sea Hurricanes to be struck down into the hangar.

The air group composition on these ships then varied significantly during 1942 & 1943 as new aircraft (Martlet II/IV & Seafire Ib/IIc) entered service to augment / replace Fulmars & SEa Hurricanes, available numbers of each type varied, and operational needs changed in relation to specific operations (Op Pedestal for example). It was the very end of 1943 and into 1944 before the air groups began to settle down again. In 1942 the biggest problem the FAA had was getting hold of enough fighters, let alone enough of the types it would realy have liked. Delays to home produced types selected in Jan 1940 (Firefly & Firebrand). Spitfires for conversion to Seafires only became available in late 1941, entering squadron service in mid-1942. Martlet II deliveries (late 1941 with squadrons beginning to get them in Jan 1942) had been delayed waiting on Grumman to develop the folding wings and were relatively few in number (90). Martlet IV lend lease deliveries were delayed until Aug/Sept 1942 due to USN demand. So there was little choice but to soldier on with Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes.

 

[Shortround6]

The Japanese CL's had plenty of type 93 torpedoes, were well armed, and did very well in combat. This is a reach.

Not so much, In a day light combat at longer ranges the RN light cruisers will have more guns (even 8 beats 6 guns) fire just a bit faster and have better directors/fire control.
At night at closer ranges the Advantage goes away somewhat (Japanese better vision comes in. search radar is not gunnery radar).
The Japanese light cruisers were depending on their torpedoes. But most of the Japanese light cruisers (Sendai class and earlier) had 4 twin launchers.
The Leanders had two quad launchers The newer light cruisers had two triples. Any old D class Cruisers used 4 triples but used older torpedoes than the new cruisers.
I will repeat, aside from the Omaha's and a few Atlanta's the US cruisers had no torpedoes. British cruiser commanders are going to have a different mind set than US cruiser commanders.
British MK IX** torpedoes began to be issued in 1939.

11,000yds at 41 kts
15,000yds at 35 kts.

How often did the Japanese actually fire at over 15,000 yds?

 

[EwenS]

True but what is the range/endurance of the clipped wing, single seat Fulmar?
And how soon can you get it?

Fulmar had a 342 sq ft wing, it is going to need a lot clipping to change the speed much. You don't need to clip it for carrier stowage.
Both planes use the same engine (basically)
The Hurricane is the fastest answer to get a better performing carrier fighter in the same catagory as the Wildcat.
Hurricane carried 116 US gallons of fuel, Wildcat carried 144-147.

Give the Hurricane the Merlin XX engines instead of Merlin IIIs used in around 800 Sea Hurricanes.

The Sea Hurricane Ib arrived in squadron service in mid-1941.

It was May 1942 before Hurricane IIc airframes with the Merlin XX were made available for conversion to Sea Hurricane IIc. They reached the squadrons just in time for Operation Torch at the same time as the Seafire Ib/IIc was making its operational debut.

There was the slightly ridiculous situation from late 1941 of RN carriers equipped with Sea Hurricane Ib escorting / delivering brand new Hurricane II to places like nothern Russia and Java.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A personal view I admit is that anyone who thinks that a Fulmar can even think of going up against a Zero, in combat is smoking something. Its worth pointing out that the RN preferred the Buffalo to the Fulmar.

indeed, FAA 805 squadron flew the Buffalo from land bases. Though, I believe the FAA tested and rejected the Buffalo as a carrier fighter, shown here on trials.

Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA

Hi all, Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA, how would that work for the Royal Navy. Given the large numbers of Hurricanes coming off production lines in Britain and Canada in 1941, and the realisation they are no longer able to face of the Germans, apart from sending loads to Russia, how...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[EwenS]

indeed, FAA 805 squadron flew the Buffalo from land bases. Though, I believe the FAA tested and rejected the Buffalo as a carrier fighter, shown here on trials.

Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA

Hi all, Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA, how would that work for the Royal Navy. Given the large numbers of Hurricanes coming off production lines in Britain and Canada in 1941, and the realisation they are no longer able to face of the Germans, apart from sending loads to Russia, how...

ww2aircraft.net

805 was flying whatever it could lay its hands on in 1941!

Formed on 15 Nov 1940 it and its aircraft (Fulmars) were shipped to Takoradi where the aircraft were assembled on top of the ship's hold covers, lightered ashore and flown across Africa to Egypt arriving in Egypt between 13 Dec 1940 and 23 Jan 1941. In Jan 1941 its main equipment was the Fulmar plus a "few" Buffalos. In March it also received some Sea Gladiators and in May, 3 ex-RAF Hurricanes. In Jun/July it re-equipped totally with Martlet III which had come from an order intended for Greece. During that 7 month period it operated from a number of bases in the Canal Zone and had a detachment on Crete (until it ran out of aircraft) as well as sending detachments to various carriers.

Hobbs in "Taranto" notes that 805's Buffalos had "incessant engine problems and were soon discarded".

These Buffalos were part of an order for Belgium of which 33 (of 40 ordered) were diverted to Britain in July 1940 with most being passed to the FAA. They lacked reflector gun sights and self sealing fuel tanks. At least 13 ended up in Egypt, with 12 of those passing through 805 squadron's hands at some point during the first 6 months of 1941. There is a photo of 3 together, with a Gladiator in the background.

 

[don4331]

Give me a f'n break, what an utter crock. That's one of the most delusional posts I've ever seen on this board and that is really saying something.

What is so delusional?

The wander of a torpedo is a function of the ability of engineers to design and have mass produced a control system that can both detect the variance and accurately correct for it. Guns, e.g. IJN 20cm Type 2 guns have a dispersion pattern of up to 360m @ 20km (180m left/right) through air as a medium. For a torpedo to have up to 500m wander @ 20km given the denser medium of water and complexity of the control system is entirely understandable.

Torpedoes are great weapons, but precision guided when using mechanical gyros, they are not.

p.s. You can find wander information for most of IJN WWII torpedoes on the Navweaps site

p.p.s. Note: I didn't include errors in speed/course of target or current in my statement on torpedo accuracy,

 

[EwenS]

It is noteworthy that from the Nimrod of 1931, Camm's first carrier fighter, it took almost a quarter century before Hawker would field a folding wing fighter, and that the postwar Sea Fury.

To be fair, there was the folding wing Hawker Osprey.

View attachment 742066

Hawker Osprey

www.baesystems.com

Not for want of trying. But it was due to a mix of things.

1. Few new fighter competitions in the 1930s & early 1940s. After the Nimrod & Osprey, the next fighter competition was that which produced the Skua, then the Fulmar and then we come to N.8/38 & N.9/38 and their successors.
2. A preference by the RAF to use noted suppliers of naval aircraft like Fairey & Blackburn
3. When it did tender it wasn't selected to go forward.
4. By the latter part of the decade its involvement with the Hurricane and its successor the Typhoon were seen as the company's priority by the Powers that Be.

Hawker tendered for:-
O.27/34 but that was won by Blackburn with the Skua
N.5/38 (2 seat fighter for FAA) and N.6/38 (turret fighter for the FAA) but both Specs went nowhere.
N.8/39 (2 seat front gun fighter for the FAA) and N.9/39 (2 seat turret fighter for the FAA). Everyones initial designs were rejected and there was a change of requirements at the end of 1939 and, after a second round of tendering in Dec 1939/Jan 1940, Fairey was selected to to develop the Firefly & Blackburn to work on further development of a proposal that eventually became the Firebrand.
N.11/40 Hawker tendered a project, P.1009, for a folding wing version of the Typhoon but Blackburn won with Firebrand.

The next time that the RN arranged a fighter competition their requirements under Spec N.7/43 were pooled with those of the RAF in Spec F.2/43 that eventually led to the Sea Fury.

All these requirements called for aircraft with folding wings.

The problem is that most of the details of these projects that Hawker was involved with have either disappeared altogether or remain buried in what will now be the BAe Systems archives somewhere awaiting some keen author to delve into them.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

What is so delusional?

The wander of a torpedo is a function of the ability of engineers to design and have mass produced a control system that can both detect the variance and accurately correct for it. Guns, e.g. IJN 20cm Type 2 guns have a dispersion pattern of up to 360m @ 20km (180m left/right) through air as a medium. For a torpedo to have up to 500m wander @ 20km given the denser medium of water and complexity of the control system is entirely understandable.

Torpedoes are great weapons, but precision guided when using mechanical gyros, they are not.

p.s. You can find wander information for most of IJN WWII torpedoes on the Navweaps site

p.p.s. Note: I didn't include errors in speed/course of target or current in my statement on torpedo accuracy,

I'm sorry that was a little bit extreme of a comment on my part.

Of course standard WW2 weapons were not precision guided (this was an era of preliminary exploration of precision guidance, but wire-guided etc. torpedoes were certainly not standard) and I'm sure 'wander' was a thing. My objection was to the notion that the Type 93 or any other IJN torpedoes were particularly worse in this regard than anyone else's, mainly because the operational history of them indicates they were extremely effective. I think the assertion that they would be "equivalent" to the RN torpedoes is baseless, and very much a reach, but I shouldn't have made any assumption as to why you would say that.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

View attachment 742158


There isn't much wing to clip before you start having to modify the ailerons.

Yeah that's a good point - unlike the Spitfire the ailerons go all the way to the tip. But I think the 46' wingspan and probably also the length of the aircraft were two major impediments to this being a much more successful fighter. If you could manage to clip the wings a bit (which might not necessarily impede deck handling and takeoff / landing traits if you saved some weight by eliminating the navigator) down to about 40' span like most of the other earlier carrier fighters, you might have a much more viable design.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

True but what is the range/endurance of the clipped wing, single seat Fulmar?
And how soon can you get it?

Fulmar had a 342 sq ft wing, it is going to need a lot clipping to change the speed much. You don't need to clip it for carrier stowage.
Both planes use the same engine (basically)
The Hurricane is the fastest answer to get a better performing carrier fighter in the same catagory as the Wildcat.
Hurricane carried 116 US gallons of fuel, Wildcat carried 144-147.

Give the Hurricane the Merlin XX engines instead of Merlin IIIs used in around 800 Sea Hurricanes.

Might help but even without Naval gear Hurricanes had a pretty dismal record against both Ki-43 and A6M

 

[EwenS]

Both are worse than American AA even before proximity fuses.

Lets be careful about the effectiveness of US AA fire in the early part of the war as it is usually overstated and studies later in the war caused massive downward revisions of the claims made for it especially 5" claims before the arrival of proximity fuzes in early 1943.

The US went to war in Dec 1941 with most of its ships equipped with 5"/25 or 5"/38 guns in single or twin mounts and a few quad 1.1" mounts on larger vessels and single 0.5" MG.

The 20mm Oerlikon was only selected in Nov 1940, production started in June 1941 and only 379 had been produced by Pearl Harbor with another 30,000+ following in 1942, out of an eventual total of nearly 125,000. So they were only beginning to appear in the Fleet in Dec 1941. It was 1943 before this weapon received a gyro gunsight.

The pilot of the twin 40mm Bofors Mk 1 wasn't produced until Jan 1942 with the first fit in an operational ship in July 1942 (destroyer Coghlan DD-606). But only 503 were produced in 1942 (nearly half in Nov-Dec) from a wartime total of 9,325.

The pilot of the quad 40mm Bofors Mk 2 was produced in April 1942. Only 212 were produced in 1942.

Just by way of example look at the carrier Enterprise. She began the war with 8x5"/38 in single mounts, 2 quad 1.1" and 24x 0.5" MG. By Midway the 0.5" were gone to be replaced by 32 single 20mm. The quad 1.1" were replaced with quad Bofors in Nov 1942 and the Oerlikons increased to 46. Compare that with her end of war outfit after her May-Sept 1945 refit when she had the 8x5"/38 plus 11 quad and 5 twin Bofors and 16 twin 20mm.

And as for directors, the latest Mark 37 was installed in very few ships in the Pacific in 1942. Older types proved little more effective than RN systems. And ships manoevering at high speeds simply increased the inaccuracy of their AA fire. 5" fire was found to have little more than a harrasing effect beyond 12,000 yards. Fuzes proved unreliable when attempting to counter dive bombers.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not for want of trying. But it was due to a mix of things.

1. Few new fighter competitions in the 1930s & early 1940s. After the Nimrod & Osprey, the next fighter competition was that which produced the Skua, then the Fulmar and then we come to N.8/38 & N.9/38 and their successors.
2. A preference by the RAF to use noted suppliers of naval aircraft like Fairey & Blackburn
3. When it did tender it wasn't selected to go forward.
4. By the latter part of the decade its involvement with the Hurricane and its successor the Typhoon were seen as the company's priority by the Powers that Be.

Hawker tendered for:-
O.27/34 but that was won by Blackburn with the Skua
N.5/38 (2 seat fighter for FAA) and N.6/38 (turret fighter for the FAA) but both Specs went nowhere.
N.8/39 (2 seat front gun fighter for the FAA) and N.9/39 (2 seat turret fighter for the FAA). Everyones initial designs were rejected and there was a change of requirements at the end of 1939 and, after a second round of tendering in Dec 1939/Jan 1940, Fairey was selected to to develop the Firefly & Blackburn to work on further development of a proposal that eventually became the Firebrand.
N.11/40 Hawker tendered a project, P.1009, for a folding wing version of the Typhoon but Blackburn won with Firebrand.

The next time that the RN arranged a fighter competition their requirements under Spec N.7/43 were pooled with those of the RAF in Spec F.2/43 that eventually led to the Sea Fury.

All these requirements called for aircraft with folding wings.

The problem is that most of the details of these projects that Hawker was involved with have either disappeared altogether or remain buried in what will now be the BAe Systems archives somewhere awaiting some keen author to delve into them.

were there any say maybe obscure cancelled designs I never heard of which could have been developed into a better carrier strike aircraft (and just... aircraft) than a Skua but with better speed and range than an Albacore or a Swordfish? Could you put a Miles M.20 on a carrier or is it too fragile?