Blackburn Skua was it that bad?

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I would suggest your comparisons of RN operations to those that occurred in the Pacific by the USN is not a valid comparison, The mission profiles were fundamentally different, as were the conditions under which the two navies were operating......

I don't see where I was saying 'British carriers weren't in the think of it' or what that is supposed to mean, even. British carrier doctrine very logically was that carriers would not approach within range of large landmasses containing numerous high performance fighters. This was actually not totally different in the Pacific. USN carriers didn't operate within single engine fighter range of large landmasses either until 1944, when they had become more numerous than any navy's carrier force in 1939-43. The definitions of effective and numerous single engine fighters and their range obviously varied. Axis fighters were typically very short ranged, and the ETO/MTO contained relatively few small 'islands' with limited numbers of fighters* nor any enemy carriers, which the Pacific did contain. That was different, but the basic idea that a TF's of a few carriers could not approach large land masses with lots of fighter bases was pretty universal. And this was the basis of British carrier doctrine and the concept of a/c like the Skua and Fulmar. An additional component of that concept was the pre-war idea that even unescorted bombers would be difficult to detect and intercept, so a single purpose single seat fighter wasn't so worthwhile. This proved wrong in WWII. Radar could enable higher performance singles to intercept unescorted bombers, and the carrier fighthers might also sometimes have to engage land based singles.

In Med operations the Regia Aeronautica coordinated its operations notoriously poorly with Italy's naval needs, so British carriers had some extra scope of operation even fairly near land. But when German a/c arrived that became much less so. Only in pretty extreme cases would RN carriers operate within range of Bf109 bases, then only barely. For example in the Pedestal Convoy to Matla in Aug '42, desperate situation, an RN carrier TF came close enough to Malta to encounter effective escort by Bf109's and the results were hits on one of the British carriers. But even in those operations, the 109's and Italian fighters were usually operating right at the edge of their effective radius. Any closer would have been foolish for the carriers, just based on numbers of a/c on each side. But in those situations, a/c like the Sea Hurricane and Martlet were by far preferable (though Fulmars particpated in those operations, Skua's were gone). The single engine two seat low performance scout/fighter a/c was just the wrong concept.

*though there were examples especially v the Vichy French where, actual island or not, there were small isolated detachments of French fighters with which one or few carriers worth of fighters could reasonably contend. Same with the Torch operation in Morocco, small enough French air contigent for the entire carrier force of US Atlantic fleet to deal with, but using a relatively high performance single seat carrier fighter. Something like a Fulmar was the wrong concept of a/c for that sort of operation.

Joe

[freebird]

Originally Posted by JoeB

The concept of a/c like the Skua and Fulmar was overtaken by events. It was a basically mistaken concept by the time of WWII. I don't see the reason to deny this obvious fact, just to support the 'underdog' a/c all the time. Carrier operation in early WWII had to avoid, or just skirt as shallowly as possible, the range envelope of single engine fighters based on large land masses. That was actually true in the Pacific too, not just in Europe, untill carriers became vastly more numerous later in the war. Only small island bases with limited complements of fighters, and limited means to protect or disperse the a/c on the ground, could be attacked by carriers at reasonable risk until the much larger carrier forces of 1944.

Are you suggesting that the carriers carry ONLY fighters for defence? Unless you are, then the carrier has to have some attack/bomber aircraft. Of the available aircraft in 1940 the Skua makes the most sense on a small carrier, until the arrival of Sea Hurris as a better multi-role aircraft. The Skua can make bombing (or dive) attacks, yet can be used as fleet defence in a pinch, unlike the FAA's TBs, Swordfish or Albacore. It's easy for the USN, with a capacty of 80 or 90 aircraft, you could carry 24 Dauntless, 24 Devastator & 36 F-4 (or such) But with the RN's very limited carrier capacity multi-role aircraft make much more sense.

Originally Posted by JoeB

But, the actual nature of carrier ops, even avoiding large forces of landbased singles, and with the introduction of radar, proved that the Skua/Fulmar type two seater was not optimal, but rather a higher performance single like the Sea Hurricane or Wildcat (Martlet). The Skua in particular had serious issues intercepting even various bomber types though it sometimes succeeed.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the carrier have ONLY Skua's, obviously some SeaHurri's or Martlets would be needed as well. If the Hermes was being sent out with Force Z to attack Japanese shipping, probably the best mix would be Sea Hurri and some Swordfish, but if only Skuas were available, then better than nothing.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by JoeB

I'm mystified by the claim that a few of them would have saved the POW and Repulse; those were numerous bombers coming in at varied altitudes, challenging intercepts for a Skua. Even a Hermes worth of higher performance planes, say Wildcats, would have inflicted heavier losses on the attacking a/c but probably not saved the ships.

Absolutely disagree with you here. There was no problem of "varied altitudes", as ONLY the torpedo attacks (at sea level obviously) were of any great danger. Both ships were earlier hit by both 250 & 500 lb bombs, with no critical damage. The Repulse evaded 3 TB attacks, (by combing), and only on the 4th attack did the Japanese get a hit, by making TB runs from 3 directions at once. As she was hit, there were only a few IJN aircraft left, if they had missed it would be too late to return for another attack. The Japanese were able to set up these attacks with almost complete impunity, due to the lack of fighters & the RN's weak AA. Had the British had Hurricanes the Japanese would almost certainly have broken off the attack. The Skua may not have shot down many Japanese bombers, but they could certainly disrupt the TB attacks, it's pretty hard to hold straight & level as someone is pumping lead into your tail.

Originally Posted by JoeB

Lexington's larger complement of F4F's shredded an unescorted attack by Japanese Type 1's (Betty) v Lexington in 1942 near Rabaul (where Butch O'Hare won the Medal of Honor), but that was a much smaller force of level bombers only, the attacking 4th Air Group had no torpedoes at Rabaul, and near misses and near suicide crashes were scored as it was.
Joe

And almost ANY bombing hit is bad news against a US carrier, wheas it would be little problem for the BB's & BC's. (Hermes may have been hit, but the other 2 ships would likely survive) It is also easier for the bombers to attack from altitude. The British fighters would ONLY have to prevent the TB's from making a multi-directional TB attack which the ships couldn't comb.

[parsifal]

Joe


You raise the very valid point that British carriers would not generally operate within range of land based fighters. true enough, though it is by no means a universal rule. British carriers often operated within range of Axis fighters, be they German or Italian. And for precisely the reasons you bring sorward, ie the range that such actions occurred, the socalled second rate British Naval Fighters were able to give far better than they received, simply because the fighters they were engaging could not hang around, and as a result could not engage in either the numbers, nor could they press home tactical advantages they might otherwise enjoy.

But it was not the poor performance of the British fighters that determined whether or not carriers, or ships could operate for extended periods in Axis airspace. it was numbers, or more correctly the lack of them. British carriers were far too few, and their CAGs far too small to be abale to stan up to Axis land based air and duke it out with them. This would have been just as true if they had been equipped with first rate fighters, as the fighters they actually were given.

And even though the second string fighters given to the Royal Navy appeared to be a tactical handicap, this was more illusory than real. Because of the small numbers, and because these older, leess effective types were at least available, pushing the Skuas, Sea Glads and Fulmars into the fray at least allowed fighter defence to be available, and at no cost to the high performance fighters (Spit and Hurricanes so urgently needed elsehere at that time. If Britain had poured resources into fileding 1st line fighters for her carriers, she would have gone to war with no carrier based fighters, and a large block of 1st line land based fighters would have been diverted away from fighter command

[tomo pauk]

For the sake of discussion, would it be better if Fairey produced Sea Hurricanes instead of same number of Fulmars and Fireflies? They used same engines (until Fireflies reciived Griffons) , so land-based Hurricanes would be produced as they were historically.

[fastmongrel]

Did Hawkers or any other manufacturer ever build a folding wing Sea Hurricane or was it not thought worth the effort spending development money on an aircraft that was going to be replaced pretty soon by better aircraft.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by JoeB

The concept of a/c like the Skua and Fulmar was overtaken by events. It was a basically mistaken concept by the time of WWII. I don't see the reason to deny this obvious fact, just to support the 'underdog' a/c all the time.
Joe

You don't supply any data or theories to support this "obvious fact"? The fact that carrier doctrine was to avoid engagement with land based fighters does not invalidate the concept.

Further, you refer to "the concept of a/c like the Skua and Fulmar", and yet these are two different types of aircraft.
And even if true it's pretty hard to predict " obsolete concept by the time of WWII" when the Skua was designed in 1934.

So lets take these 3 aircraft separately:

1.) The Skua. This was a perfectly good aircraft. For an aircraft introduced in 1937 it's hardly a surprise that it was obsolete by 1941. It was NOT designed as fighter/recon as you seem to imply, it was designed as a Dive bomber, with a secondary capability as a fighter. It performed quite well as a DB, and was adequate as an emergency fighter, provided that it didn't engage enemy first line fighters. It was withdrawn from FAA service in 1941.

Let's look at a hypothetical RN carrier complement of 36 aircraft in late '39 or early '40. Neither the Sea Hurri or Martlet are available yet, the RN fighters would be Sea Gladiators. If the carrier had:

12 Sea Gladiators
12 Sea Skua
12 Swordfish

It would be able to launch an airstrike of 24 aircraft, and had 12 fighters for protection, with an additional 12 Skuas to assist in the defence in an emergency (capable against slower aircraft like the SM 81 or Ju 87)

Since neither the Sea Glad or Swordfish had the range of the Skua, it would also be useful as a scout/recon for the carrier.

In answer to the original question - "Was the Skua that bad?" No.
It was equal or better in performance than the comparable US aircraft in service in 1937 - 1940, the Northrop BT-1 or the Douglas TBD-1

[freebird]

The Fulmar: Unlike the Skua which was a DB with some limited fighter capability, the Fulmar was just a plain fighter, and it was indeed a failure.

It was introduced only a half year before the Sa Hurri on RN carriers, and although it had a better range, it had less than half the ceiling, much slower climb rate, could only carry a 250 lb bomb, and was about80 (!) mph slower (yikes!)

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

For the sake of discussion, would it be better if Fairey produced Sea Hurricanes instead of same number of Fulmars? They used same engines, so land-based Hurricanes would be produced as they were historically.

In answer to your question, probably not. The Fulmar started coming off the assembly line in 1940, and the British were desparate for any aircraft available, and as soon as possible. So to delay for perhaps 3 - 6 months to re-tool would not be a good idea. The aircraft were still useful later on as night fighters, where the second crewman could operate the radar, and many Fulmars were converted to NF. In 1940 the RN still needed aircraft to replace the Sea Glads, and since no Hurris could be spared until after the BoB (1941), that's why the Fulmar was put on board carriers in summer 1940

Otherwise I would have switched from producing Fulmars to Fireflys at the earliest possible date.

[tomo pauk]

Firebird,
If I understand you correctly, it was easier for Fairey to build a new type of fighter, then to produce Sea Hurricanes? What type of retooling would be needed if we completely erase Fulmar from Faireys history? And then: why on earth would you want Fireflies, and what those had to offer when compared to Martlets, Sea Hurries, Seafires or Corsairs?

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

Firebird,
If I understand you correctly, it was easier for Fairey to build a new type of fighter, then to produce Sea Hurricanes? What type of retooling would be needed if we completely erase Fulmar from Faireys history? And then: why on earth would you want Fireflies, and what those had to offer when compared to Martlets, Sea Hurries, Seafires or Corsairs?

Fireflies were actually more useful than their limited peformance might suggest. For a start they were a very effective carrier borne night fighter, and because they carried two crew could operate in conditions of poor weather far more effectively than single man aircraft.....compared to the RN, USN night and poor weather operating abilities were very limited, and this could be decisive in the poor conditions of the far northern atlantic (not a single American carrier operation ever took place on the northern route to Russia whereas the RN provided carrier based air cover on a regular basis to the Murmansk convoys). They also had a very useful strike capability, and were far more survivable than any other strike aircraft. With a crew of two, they were able to find targets very accurately in these poor visibility conditions


Now, with regard to your theory about Sea Hurricanes in place of Fulmars, Hurricanes only became availble to the FAA after they were obsolete in the RAF. Ther was absolutely zero chance of even a single Hurricane being available for carrier operations until well into 1941. Moreover the ability to operate such high performance aircraft on and off carriers was not realized as possible until after the emrgency landings and takeoffs during the Norwegian campaign and also during the Malta re-supply operations. Even then it took some time to realize that SE fighters could operate and navigate effectively. Until well into 1941 normal procedure required the Hurricanes being flown to Malta being guided to the destination by the two seat Fulmars (if at all possible). Britain was slow to realize that in normal weather conditions single seat types could operate over water. Although I hasten to add that the Brits still found their two man aircraft useful in the often soupy conditions they were forced to operate in...RN aircraft demonstrated many times their superior ability to operate in poor weather conditions and at night, something facilitated by the two crew configuration....

It was only after the RN started to "americanise" its carrier doctrines that single seat aircraft became useful. This meant that night operations and poor weather operation capability was abandone in favour of the massed daylight strike approach being used to great effect in the Pacific. However it also meant a loss of flexibility and capability, as the ability to operate at night and in poor weather, such as the RN demonstrated in its great victories at Taranto and against the Bismarck was greatly reduced after 1942, after the RN started to adopt the "mass production" pilot training techniques of the USN

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Fireflies were actually more useful than their limited peformance might suggest. For a start they were a very effective carrier borne night fighter, and because they carried two crew could operate in conditions of poor weather far more effectively than single man aircraft.....compared to the RN, USN night and poor weather operating abilities were very limited, and this could be decisive in the poor conditions of the far northern atlantic (not a single American carrier operation ever took place on the northern route to Russia whereas the RN provided carrier based air cover on a regular basis to the Murmansk convoys).

Could you please post some facts about
a) night kills of Fulmars & Fireflies
b) succesful poor weather attacks conducted by same two planes

They also had a very useful strike capability, and were far more survivable than any other strike aircraft.

Corsair's and Hellcat's pilots would disagree with such asumption, along with 10 other type's pilots.

With a crew of two, they were able to find targets very accurately in these poor visibility conditions.

Fair enough. But if their targets were planes, their low performance would handycap them, and crews of ships AAA would have less trouble with them, than with aforementoned US planes, among other.

Now, with regard to your theory about Sea Hurricanes in place of Fulmars, Hurricanes only became availble to the FAA after they were obsolete in the RAF. Ther was absolutely zero chance of even a single Hurricane being available for carrier operations until well into 1941.

Says who?
With Blackburn, Fairey, Boulton Paul & Gloster NOT making Roc, Sea Gladiator and Fulmar, but instead Hurricanes/Sea Hurricanes, FAA suddenly has more planes than it could actually use. Not to mention that Yougoslavia & Belgium received Hurricanes in 1939/40.
Moreover the ability to operate such high performance aircraft on and off carriers was not realized as possible until after the emrgency landings and takeoffs during the Norwegian campaign and also during the Malta re-supply operations. Even then it took some time to realize that SE fighters could operate and navigate effectively.

Who was to blame? Brass or planes?

Until well into 1941 normal procedure required the Hurricanes being flown to Malta being guided to the destination by the two seat Fulmars (if at all possible). Britain was slow to realize that in normal weather conditions single seat types could operate over water.

So we should again blame brass, not hi-performance planes.

Although I hasten to add that the Brits still found their two man aircraft useful in the often soupy conditions they were forced to operate in...RN aircraft demonstrated many times their superior ability to operate in poor weather conditions and at night, something facilitated by the two crew configuration....
It was only after the RN started to "americanise" its carrier doctrines that single seat aircraft became useful. This meant that night operations and poor weather operation capability was abandone in favour of the massed daylight strike approach being used to great effect in the Pacific. However it also meant a loss of flexibility and capability, as the ability to operate at night and in poor weather, such as the RN demonstrated in its great victories at Taranto and against the Bismarck was greatly reduced after 1942, after the RN started to adopt the "mass production" pilot training techniques of the USN

Now what Swordfish achievements have to do with FAA purchasing hi-performance fighters early enough?

.

[parsifal]

Could you please post some facts about
a) night kills of Fulmars & Fireflies
b) succesful poor weather attacks conducted by same two planes

Certainly

Fireflies were in a totally different class of aircraft to either the hellcat or the Corsair. They had the capacity to carry up to 2000 lbs of offensive stores to a range of 1300 miles, which is more than 3 times the effective range of either US aircraft. As standard they were fitted with ASH air to surface radar that allowed strikes to be undertaken whilst flying "blind" and this indeed was the way these aircraft were flown in their strikes against the Tirpitz and against the Carolines and off the Japanese Home Islands

The Firefly NF MksI and II installed AI MkX airborne radar for night fighting. A total of 177 were built for this purpose, with a further 37 converted to the purpose. . I have no records for the numbers of enemy night time intruders shot down by these aircraft, but the RN relied on them completely for their night time defences. They were used to shoot down night launched V-1s in the blitz


The Firefly's notable feats include the part it played in the attacks against the German battleship Tirpitz, and on Japanese oil refineries in Sumatra. Fleet Air Arm Fireflies also saw action during the Korean War, operating from carriers against Communist ground targets.


The first operational sortie of the Fairey Firefly was in July 1944, when 1770 squadron flew from HMS Indefatigable and took part in the Barracuda led dive bombing attacks against the German battleship Tirpitz lying at anchor in Kaa Fjord, Northern Norway. In January 1945, the same squadron was involved in the first major action by the Fleet Air Arm against the Japanese, when the oil refineries in Sumatra were set ablaze with rockets.


Night-fighter Fireflies were first issued to 746 Squadron, Night Fighter Interception Unit, in May 1943. Based at Ford, the NFIU flew alongside the RAF's FIU, developing night-fighter tactics. Flying from RAF Coltishall during late 1944, NFIU Fireflies undertook night patrols to counter V1 flying bombs air-launched over the North Sea by Luftwaffe He111s.

In June 1945 Fireflies of 1771 Squadron, operating from HMS Implacable, took part in attacks in the Carolinas, while in July 1772 squadron aircraft, from HMS Indefatigable, were flying strikes against shipping and ground targets in the Japanese home islands, becoming the first FAA aircraft to fly over the Japanese mainland. On 24 July, 1945 aircraft from 1772 Squadron became the first British aircraft to fly over Tokyo. undertaken in the night hours.

Corsair's and Hellcat's pilots would disagree with such asumption, along with 10 other type's pilots.

Im sure they would, however Corsairs and Hellcat pilots were not night trained to the same degree as the RN, were not fitted with ASH radar, and lacked the range to be effective in the strike role, except perhaps for direct strikes in Ground support and the like

Says who?
With Blackburn, Fairey, Boulton Paul & Gloster NOT making Roc, Sea Gladiator and Fulmar, but instead Hurricanes/Sea Hurricanes, FAA suddenly has more planes than it could actually use. Not to mention that Yougoslavia & Belgium received Hurricanes in 1939/40.


There were any number of reasons as to why the hurricane could not enter naval service before it did. These included:

1) a refusal of the RAF to relase the type whilst it was still needed for front line fighter duties. To an extent this was justified, as hiving off land based fighters for fleet defence when other types were in production and fulfiling the task adequately anyway, would reduce the available numbers to the land based forces for no real benefit except an increease in the performance of the fighters that was uneccessary.
2) A failure to appreciate by the RN that single seter aircraft could operate from carriers (to an extent this was justified given the early war doctrines of the FAA up to 1942
in the
3) Additional developmental work would be needed to strengthen the airframe, and navalise the basic airframe of the Hurricane, as the british found out when they rushed the Spitfire into service some time later, with inadequate development work done on the type


Now what Swordfish achievements have to do with FAA purchasing hi-performance fighters early enough?

None really, except that the total domination of the central basin up to 1941 would not have been achieved, because the carriers carying the stringbags would not have been able to enter those waters when they did (due to a lack of fighter cover) . they would have been stuck in port, waiting for the high performance fighters that you mentioned, which in any case would have been strictly day fighters only, and unable to strafe enemy airfields in the same way as Fulmars because of a lack of night capability and range basically.

[Shortround6]

Actually, the MK II Fulmar was as fast or faster than a MK I Hurricane at sea level. Couldn't climb for crap though

Had 80% more range and carried almost 50% more ammo.

For a good expanation of the Skua's history (good and bad) see. It aslo describes the duties of the second crewman.

Blackburn Skua

Please note the Skua was basicly out of production by the start of 1940.

The Skua was a high performance aircraft when it was purchased (the order for 150 being placed in July of 1936). Even if you changed the factroy to make Hurricanes in 1938 you would still need the Merlins to fit in them.

[tomo pauk]

Parsifal,
I've asked you to provide some data about succeses of Fulmar/Firefly during poor weather, yet you provided none of that. Of course, the most interesting part is how many V-1s were shoot down by Firefly.

Now even if we agree that Fulmar with radar was a great thing, it falls behind contemporaries when we talk about plain & simple tasks Corsair & Hellcat performed daily. Even as night fighters they could compere with Fulmar NF. And if Corsair's range is not enough, then just how enough is enough?

As for (Sea) Hurricanes (for the n-th time): RAF, we don't your Hurricanes. We would build our own instead, since Fairey will not build Fulmars. They use the same engines and MGs after all.

(about conection between Swordfishes & h-perf fighters)
None really, except that the total domination of the central basin up to 1941 would not have been achieved, because the carriers carying the stringbags would not have been able to enter those waters when they did (due to a lack of fighter cover) . they would have been stuck in port, waiting for the high performance fighters that you mentioned, which in any case would have been strictly day fighters only, and unable to strafe enemy airfields in the same way as Fulmars because of a lack of night capability and range basically.

Okay.
For the 1st part, Sea Hurricanes would be available since Fairey would build them. So everything would be the same.
For the 2nd part, we still lack hard data about real successes Fulmars made, and it proves nothing about Fulmars day-fighting apabilities.

And please, could you verify this:

They [Fireflies] had the capacity to carry up to 2000 lbs of offensive stores to a range of 1300 miles, which is more than 3 times the effective range of either US aircraft.

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

...

Please note the Skua was basicly out of production by the start of 1940.

The Skua was a high performance aircraft when it was purchased (the order for 150 being placed in July of 1936). Even if you changed the factroy to make Hurricanes in 1938 you would still need the Merlins to fit in them.

I have no problem with Skua dive bomber, as one might find out in my 1st post in this thread. Actually, I'd build them even more, until something better is not available.
However, I see no point in Roc, Sea Gladiator, Fulmar, Firefly. That's why I've proposed Hercules-engined, no-rear-MGs Skua to be fleet fighter. Also, Fairey would build Sea Hurricanes instead of Fulmars in my scenario.