Admiral Beez
Major
Indeed, the dreadful Brewster Bermuda (Buccaneer).
Good point on the LN.401. It's one of the few cases of a naval dive bomber serving in the front lines of home defence alongside the army.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Indeed, the dreadful Brewster Bermuda (Buccaneer).Wasn't there a Brewster dive bomber?
In any case, it seemed more to be inadequately developed, as opposed to intrinsically bad. It's also pretty inarguable that its crews, from Aeronavale's AB2 and AB4 fought bravely.
What was the hitting power of the Skua MGs and the one for the SBD?The Skua had 4 x .303BMGs with 600rpg for ~30 secs firing time @1200rpm/gun. The SBD had 2 x .5in BMGs with 180RPG and ~20 secs firing time due to the need for synchronizing gear to fire through the props. There's no doubt that the Skua shot down more aircraft, including many TE Luftwaffe bombers in 1940 than the SBD did in 1942. Under 10K ft the Skua, as fighter, was ~10mph slower than the SBD.
SBD had two, not one MG. And the SBD had twin .50 cal, a much more powerful gun than the .303 of the Skua. I don't think a Skua shot down any fighters, whereas the SBD racked up a few.What was the hitting power of the Skua MGs and the one for the SBD?
Sorry about the misunderdtanding, when I said "the one for the SBD" I was refering to the hitting power of the two MGs of the SBD, not saying that it has only one MG.SBD had two, not one MG.
I was thinking that at first, but was thrown off by the pluralization of the "Skua MGs"Sorry about the misunderdtanding, when I said "the one for the SBD" I was refering to the hitting power of the two MGs of the SBD, not saying that it has only one MG.
I was thinking that at first, but was thrown off by the pluralization of the "Skua MGs"
What single seat fighters would the 225 mph Skua have a chance against? It has similar forward armament of the A5M, Ki-27, Fiat CR.42 and Fiat G.50, but is much slower than all four. Had Graf Zeppelin entered service, its originally (pre Bf 109T) intended fighter Arado Ar 197 would have been bested by the Skua.
What was the hitting power of the Skua MGs and the one for the SBD?
More secs firing won't be enough if the bullets are light weight. Beside that, the Skua MGs were scattered in the wings while those of the SBD were concentrated in the nose (albeit shooting through the propeller) with a narrower firing cone.
There were examples enough in BoB of Luftwaffe bombers returning to their bases (or crossing The Channel) to be repaired and fight another day after been shot up by 8 MGs fighters to doubt that the Skua would had been successful intercepting those bombers... if the Skua could climb to their height quick enough to get in a favourable shooting position.
The Luftwaffe lost the BofB to .303in gunned fighters, and while the Skua had fewer guns it had nearly twice the ammo/gun than a Spitfire or Hurricane.
The Skua's 4 x .303 BMGs could fire 80 Rounds Per Second, where the twin synchronized guns of the SBD would be hard pressed to fire 15 RPS, so you've got 80 x .303 versus ~15 x .5in.
Sorry, but the Skua wins and it could fire longer. I gave you the verified front gun kills achieved by the Skua in an earlier post, and the Skua and Gladiator with a similar armament shot down a lot of aircraft. Heck the A5M with twin .303s scored a lot of kills.
(1)Both Hurricane & Spitfire have twice the guns of the Skua and enough speed to do multiple shooting passes. And that wasn't a warranty for a kill.
(2)What is the point of having many rounds to shoot if you can't shoot them at the enemy? As you say in your previous post, Skua lacked speed and combat ceiling. In BoB, at most it could hope to shoot at low flying Do 17 and Bf 110 in a single frontal or beam pass
(3)It is not only the number of bullets shoot at a target. It matters also the cinetic energy, the weight of the bullets and the concentration of the impacts.
(4)I don't deny that the Skua wasn't capable of achiving aerial victories. But against what? He 111 flying low and bomb laden. That wasn't the usual Luftwaffe attacks in BoB.
(5)And don't forget that we are talking about dive bombing and aerial capability was mentioned only as a bonus for the SBD against the Ju 87, not as real deal.
(1) So now you switch the comparison to a Hurricane or Spitfire rather than an SBD/JU87.
(2) The SBD would have the same problem and the SBD has a poorer power to weight ratio and higher wing loading.
(3) Yes and 80 x .303 is better than ~15 by .5in, especially as the high volume of .303 rounds is much more likely to degrade defensive fire more quickly.
(4) Yes, you seem to be denying it. HE111 kills predominated because they were most often encountered.
(5) Yes, and the Skua is a very competent divebomber and it has the rather large advantage of having folding wings.
And the first one. The IJN didn't introduce a dive bomber with folding wings until the Aichi B7A of summer 1944. The USN tried to get a folding wing divebomber with the rubbish Chesapeake and Buccaneer, before finally introducing the Helldiver in early 1943.Yes, and the Skua is a very competent divebomber and it has the rather large advantage of having folding wings.
Forget the guns, for its intended role the SBD has the advantage carrying more than twice the bomb load of the Skua. Let the fighters do their job and the dive bombers do theirs. Asking the Skua to be a fighter was nuts.The Skua's 4 x .303 BMGs could fire 80 Rounds Per Second, where the twin synchronized guns of the SBD would be hard pressed to fire 15 RPS, so you've got 80 x .303 versus ~15 x .5in. Sorry, but the Skua wins and it could fire longer.
(1)I don't switch any comparison. I only tell as a measure that downing a LW bomber in BoB wasn't easy for 8 gun pure fighters, so much less for a 4 gun DB. Impossible? Not at all. Harder? For sure. Not to mention the bomber escort.
(2)Sightly less but yes. Do I deny It?
(3) And a longer, slower shooting pass is more likely to get you hit. The 0.50 would able you to shoot outside defensive fire range.
(4)Would you be so kind to tell me where?
(5) Do I denied It was a decent carrierborne DB early un the war? Was the first carrierborne aircraft to sunk a mayor surface unit. But sincerely, it wasn't as capable as the SBD (ok, more modern design) or the Ju 87 (even the C series). And the thread is about Ju 87/SBD/D3A.
Is the Skua underrated? Perhaps, IIRC it is kind of said in other thread.
(6) Overclaiming in big air combats aren't anything new.
Forget the guns, for its intended role the SBD has the advantage carrying more than twice the bomb load of the Skua. Let the fighters do their job and the dive bombers do theirs. Asking the Skua to be a fighter was nuts.
Give the Skua the Albacore's single forward .303 and its 1,100 hp Taurus engine, and increase the bomb load to a single 1,000 lb or one centreline 500 lb plus a 250 lb bomb under each wing. Look at the sheer size of the Skua (35.5 ft long, 41 ft wingspan) - this beast should carry more than a 500 lb. bomb.
View attachment 597428
View attachment 597429
Not for its weight. It's significantly longer and wider than the SBD, but a 1,000 lbs. lighter.The Skua is actually quite compact.
Not for its weight. It's significantly longer and wider than the SBD, but a 1,000 lbs. lighter.
I like the Skua. It should have been up-engined when possible and continued in use until the Fulmar was bomb capable.
I like the Skua. It should have been up-engined when possible and continued in use until the Fulmar was bomb capable