Why wasn't the Skua used like the Stuka?

[sctvguy1]

The only dive bomber that the British had, I think, couldn't it have been
used by the RAF as a dive bomber instead of the Fairey Battle? It would
have been a better choice on the Meuse bridges than the poor old Battle.
Why wasn't this plane used to better advantage?

[Michele]

Post by sctvguy1
The only dive bomber that the British had, I think, couldn't it have been
used by the RAF as a dive bomber instead of the Fairey Battle? It would
have been a better choice on the Meuse bridges than the poor old Battle.
Why wasn't this plane used to better advantage?

First, it was a naval carrier-based aircraft serving with the FAA. It
was thought that dive-bombing would be needed against ship targets.

Theoretically, the RAF might have had these in service too. But no, they
would not have been a better choice at Sedan. What the Stuka, Battle and
Skua had in common was that they could only do their job if enemy
fighters were either absent or forced away by friendly fighters. What
happened over those bridges was that the Luftwaffe fighter arm
outnumbered and overwhelmed the AASF's Hurricane escort and slaughtered
the Battles; if you replaced the Battles with Skuas, the same would happen.

Note BTW that of the three aircraft mentioned above, the Skua was the
slowest.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by sctvguy1
The only dive bomber that the British had, I think, couldn't it have been
used by the RAF as a dive bomber instead of the Fairey Battle?

Only RN (Fleet Air Arm) squadrons were equipped with Skuas
(three squadrons on two carriers in 1939.) Before the Dunkirk
evacuation was ordered, the RN had no role in the Battle of France
(and was pretty busy elsewhere.)

Skua crews were trained mainly to attack ships and Skuas were
replaced in 1941 by the (faster) Fairey Fulmar.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by sctvguy1
The only dive bomber that the British had, I think, couldn't it have been
used by the RAF as a dive bomber instead of the Fairey Battle? It would
have been a better choice on the Meuse bridges than the poor old Battle.
Why wasn't this plane used to better advantage?

The Skua was RN, production began in October 1938 and
ended in January 1940, all up 190 produced. Used as a
fighter and dive bomber by the RN. Performance 225 mph
at 6,000 feet, range up to 720 nautical miles, one 500 pound
bomb.

Battle performance 241 mph at 13,000 feet, range 1,050
statute miles, normal load four 250 pound bombs, external
racks could carry another 500 pounds. The wing cells in
the Battle could release their bombs safely in an 85 degree
dive. Production started in May 1937, the bomber version
officially finished production in April 1940, the trainer and
target tug versions in November and December 1940,
1,734 built as bombers.

So the performance was in favour of the Battle as were the
numbers.

Hawker Henley, first prototype first flight 10 March 1937,
272 mph at 17,500 feet, range 950 miles, up to 750 pounds
of bombs, development then delayed as the RAF gave up
on the dive bomber idea. Became a target tug, 198 built
October 1938 to March 1940, plus another 2 in September.

It seems a combination of abandonment of the light bomber idea,
abandonment of the dive bomber idea, mainly due to their need for
constant speed propellers and the need for Hurricanes all came
together as reasons for cancellation. The Henley used a number
of Hurricane components.

Gloster report building 10 Henleys in 1938, 171 in 1939 and
19 in 1940. Their Hurricane production was 32 in 1939 and
1,211 in 1940.

The Henley is touted as a more survivable type than the Battle
but the reality is over France in 1940 even the Mosquito
would have been in trouble given the Luftwaffe's overall
superiority.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.