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.
Which was the more successful single engine dive bomber, the SBD, the JU-87 or D3A?
- Thread starter SaparotRob
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,857
- Feb 27, 2020
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,857
- Feb 27, 2020
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Last edited:
The Skua was 225mph with a 500lb bomb. As a fighter it was a bit faster (~5mph) but also it's maximum speed was achieved at low altitude (~7000ft) and since most naval aircombat was at low altitude, the speed differential between it and the fighters you've mentioned was somewhat less than the specs indicate. The CR42, for example, made it's maximum speed at 20k ft, where it would never encounter a Skua. Graf Zepplin would not have entered service until after the Skua had been withdrawn from the fighter role. The Skua was successful as a fleet defender and it's aerial kills attest to that, but it would have also made short work of the Graf Zepplin, as a dive bomber.
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 Norway) 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.
Last edited:
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,857
- Feb 27, 2020
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Again, in 1942 most of the front gun kill claims for the SBD turned out to be unverifiable via IJN records where in 1940 the Skua had a very high rate of verified front gun kills.
Last edited:
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,857
- Feb 27, 2020
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.
Sightly less but yes. Do I deny It?
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.
Would you be so kind to tell me where?
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.
Overclaiming in big air combats aren't anything new.
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
You'd think someone in IJN procurement would have looked at this dog's breakfast of hangar layout and think, hmm.... "let's fold the wings on our divebomber like those British have been doing since 1938."
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Last edited:
(1) Yet a handful of Skuas shot down 7 x He111s on 27 and 28 April 1940. None of the DB's being discussed can compete with a Zero or Me109.
(2) in 1942 the SBD did much worse than the Skua against smaller and more fragile aircraft. There's just nothing in the historical record that would lead you to conclude that the SBD was better at front gun kills, yet you continue to assert that it was.
(3) The percentage of hits would be so low as to make that pointless and would only use up the limited ammo supply.
(4) I've repeatedly pointed out that the Skua shot down a rather large number (in comparison to total Skuas in service) of Luftwaffe aircraft.
(5) I don't think that either the SBD or JU87 was a comparable carrier based DB, if only because they lacked folding wings and the JU87C never actually operated off a carrier.
(6) Overclaiming is not the issue The Issue is that the Skua was more successful, according to Axis records, with it's front guns than the SBD.
Last edited:
The Skua only had 890hp on TO. We have to remember that it entered service nearly 3 years before the SBD-2 and it paid a weight penalty for having folding wings. Actual maximum bomb load was a 500lb bomb bomb and several underwing bombs to maximum of ~700lb. SBDs operating off most RN carriers would have been limited to a 500lb bomb load because of the slower speed and shorter flight decks of RN carriers. Even at Midway, about 1/2 the SBDs launched with 700lbs of bombs or less. The Skua is actually quite compact.
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
The SBD has a non-folding wing span of 41ft 7in against 46ft 2in for the Skua, but folded, the Skua width is only 15ft 6in. The Skua is 3ft 5in longer than an SBD but this is inconsequential due to the SBD's lack of folding wings.
Shortround6
Major General
The problem is with what? There aren't a lot of options
Perseus XII as used in the Skua
830hp for take-off
905hp at 6,500ft.
Weight about 1100lbs
Taurus II
1060hp for take-off
1,110hp at 4000ft
Weight 1300lbs
Pegasus with single speed supercharger.
XC
920 hp for take-off
830 hp at 5,250ft
XX
835hp take-off
925hp at 10,000ft a bit over 1100lbs
The two speed Pegasus offers a bit more
1,050hp for take-off
965hp at 13,000ft in high gear.
None of these is really going to turn the Skua into a competitive fighter.
You also have all but one Skua delivered by the end of 1939 and the Taurus does not really become a viable engine until the fall of 1940,if then.
from Wiki " and after some Beauforts were lost in mysterious circumstances, a Court of Enquiry in June 1940 concluded that the Taurus engines were still unreliable and both operational squadrons were grounded until the engines could be modified"
- Thread starter
- #138
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I regret not having added the Skua to this thread but this is why thread drift is great.
I have limited knowledge of aviation history. This is a subject that bores most of the people I know. Sometimes I like talking airplanes. Even some ridiculous scenarios in which the "Way Back Machine" is required.
I was thinking about the Dauntless and how would it compare to the other "big names". Because my readings have been skimpy, I was barely aware of the Skua. I thought it was just some goofy, quickly retired fighter. So please carry on guys. I'll go back to sitting quietly while the grownups talk.
I have limited knowledge of aviation history. This is a subject that bores most of the people I know. Sometimes I like talking airplanes. Even some ridiculous scenarios in which the "Way Back Machine" is required.
I was thinking about the Dauntless and how would it compare to the other "big names". Because my readings have been skimpy, I was barely aware of the Skua. I thought it was just some goofy, quickly retired fighter. So please carry on guys. I'll go back to sitting quietly while the grownups talk.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It's true that the Skua downed a number of Luftwaffe aircraft, but how many were Skua versus Bf109 or Fw190 confrontations?
And last time I checked, this thread was about Dive-Bombers, not which one had better guns or paint jobs or whatever.
How many Aircraft Carriers did the Skua sink? How many Cruisers? Destroyers?
Oh wait, it shot down a bunch of German bombers...brilliant.
And last time I checked, this thread was about Dive-Bombers, not which one had better guns or paint jobs or whatever.
How many Aircraft Carriers did the Skua sink? How many Cruisers? Destroyers?
Oh wait, it shot down a bunch of German bombers...brilliant.
