RN Skua in Norway....WoW! (2007 story continues)

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

20 years

Posts: 4,561

Not sure if anyone has posted on this yet, but check out Aeroplane this month - a complete Skua found in a Fjord.....sans engine but otherwise it looks superb!

http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/news/Skua_found_in_Norway_news_122230.html

Hopefully a Stirling is next.....

TT

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,508

Hopefully a Stirling is next.....TT

You'll have to look further east for that ;)

Member for

17 years 4 months

Posts: 586

Will the museum at Bodo be involved with this one? I know they have been collecting parts and have something like 70% of a Skua with plans to "build" one for display.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 1,988

It seems that the fjord Skua is to be restored by the Bodo museum when it is raised.

However I hope nevertheless that this might help in some way with the restoration of the example at the FAAM - weren't they lacking drawings for the centre section - perhaps there can be some reverse engineering

Perhaps the HLF might allocate some funds to permit them to restore both the Skua and the Barracuda...............:rolleyes:

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 1,114

Yes indeed, the one bit that Skua restorers have been missing so far is the section of fuselage immediately aft of the wing, and the centre section - no longer, if this one can be raised. The chaps from Bodo are being bullish about it, and if anyone can do it, they can (along with seasoned Skua divers like Oyvind Lamo). There were no factory drawings in existence, and precious few photographs of this area, particularly the internals.

The condition of this machine is quite remarkable. The serial is a mystery for some reason, but we know that it was Lt Commander John Casson's aircraft during the disastrous raid on the Scharnhorst on the 13th June 1940. Casson ditched on the surface of the fjord after the Skua was damaged by repeated attacks by a Messerschmitt Bf109, and the aircraft sank before it could be recovered. A full account of this raid, based on a reappraisal of evidence and the testimony of those who were there, will appear in 'the other magazine' next month. The engine is missing, but this is fairly common with Skuas, as the tubular steel structure that held the engine on the firewall tended to give way quite easily - the prototype had a shorter nose, but about 9" was added to improve longitudinal stability and the tubular structure was the easiest thing to extend, but it did make it less robust.

I don't know about L2940, but there were rumours that a partial reconstruction was being considered, but in such a way that retained the originality of the remaining wreckage which is, after all, much as Major Partridge and Lieutnant Bostock left it after setting the main tanks on fire and walking off towards Grotli 67 years ago.

It's nice that the 'Screwball' is getting a bit of a reappraisal recently. It may not have been the best aircraft, but it did far more than might have been expected of it, and was better than many give it credit for.

Member for

20 years 3 months

Posts: 1,494

Skua found

This is a really significant find. Great news. I'm surprised that it has'nt had more coverage!!??

I hope it can be recovered, and the team at Bodo can restore it, and also provide enough information and spare parts from their collection to enable the FAAM example to be completed too.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 8,195

This is a really significant find. Great news. I'm surprised that it has'nt had more coverage!!??

It's not a postwar P-51D. :rolleyes: Unlike Hollywood scientologist fodder, it's 'only' the wreckage of a highly significant early W.W.II RN FAA type; Real history comes a poor second to popular, easily accessible pap.

I hope it can be recovered, and the team at Bodo can restore it, and also provide enough information and spare parts from their collection to enable the FAAM example to be completed too.

Certainly second that.

Member for

20 years

Posts: 3,902

Whilst this discovery is fascinating and exciting to us, historic aircraft cognicenti, I think you would be hard-pressed to make a compelling case that it was ever significant!

A Skua did shoot down the first allied kill of the war, and Skuas also sank the Konigsberg which was tied up in Bergen harbour. Apart from that, not much really.

More interesting than a P51? Without a doubt, and certainly a significant find.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,183

Oh MANURE!

I've been trying to avoid buying this month's copies until I get this damn essay finished... you lot are a baaaaaaaad influence! :mad:

Adrian

Member for

20 years

Posts: 4,561

Sorry Adrian - I thought it was so amazing I had to post (surprised no one beat me to it!)

Now get back to work!

TT

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 8,195

Whilst this discovery is fascinating and exciting to us, historic aircraft cognicenti, I think you would be hard-pressed to make a compelling case that it was ever significant!

A Skua did shoot down the first allied kill of the war, and Skuas also sank the Konigsberg which was tied up in Bergen harbour. Apart from that, not much really.


Ironically, your post illustrates exactly why the Skua discovery is important. Unlike the scads of potboilers churned out on the Mustang, Spitfire et al, as well as more worthy books too, there's never to my knowledge been a book on the Skua to date. Much of what people 'know' about the Skua and Roc (if they actually think they know anything) is wrong.

Perhaps you'd like to read one of the two forthcoming books on the type? Unlike the postwar P-51D I compared it to, it did actually achieve something in wartime. The Skua, thanks to mistakes and poor tactical understanding was an inadequate aircraft, but it was the best the RN had at the time, and it was in the front line when needed, unlike the mass produced superior types that arrived after the war.

It seems we like to downgrade and ignore the early war period, because it was messy, embarrassing, and we had inadequate equipment, and basically, we kept losing. A little recognition of those who stemmed the totalitarian tide in the early days so we could regroup and come back to win, should hardly be a big ask. The fact that the RN had an effective dive bomber in 1939 which was the first type to sink a ship of the Koln's power in wartime is by any measure a great achievement. Most British bombs of the period didn't even go off! Just because the British and Commonwealth forces threw away the dive-bombers leaving the USN to go it alone is no reason to degenerate that achievement - quite the contrary, IMHO.

A little rhetorical question to think about. Is someone 'braver' when they fly an inadequate aircraft against overwhelming odds with no armour protection and a couple of .303 machine guns than a pilot flying a 6 x .50 equipped P-51D against under-trained Luftwaffe pilots, while our hero is part of the overwhelming odds?

For me, all the men were brave, but some faced a tougher job than others. Endlessly focussing on the perfected types and campaigns neglects the real lessons of history.

We are publishing Matt Willis' book on the Skua and Roc, later this year, and coincidentally, Peter C Smith, perhaps the authority on the dive bomber has just published his excellent work. A quick than you to Peter for being prepared to co-operate with us on a book that is, to a limited degree, in competition with his work. Perhaps those of us that are interested in real in-depth history know we need to stick together?

Peter's Skua book.

http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/Skuajac.jpg

Our Skua book

http://mmpbooks.biz/books/small_covers/Skua.jpg

(I've linked to Peter's website, and I have no connection to him apart from the above mentioned. I've not mentioned or linked to my publishing company, for those concerned with 'blatent advertising' issues. ;) )

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 1,114

JDK's post thoroughly seconded. Once the history of those aircraft is properly known, it is difficult to argue with their significance in all kinds of ways. I won't try to put the case here, Peter's book does it admirably and I hope my book will help deal with some of the myths as well. I wonder how many people know that several FAA 'aces' started their scores when flying Skuas and there was even one ace who scored all his victories on this aircraft - not bad for what was basically designed as a dive bomber. And some credit Skuas and Rocs with saving the BEF just before the Dunkirk evacuation!!

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 169

Can I please recommend the book "ARK ROYAL:Sailing into Glory" by Mike Rossiter, for insights into the Fleet Skua operations:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ark-Royal-Sailing-into-Glory/dp/0593055519

There is much to learn about the Skua and the way the Fleet Arm operated them with great bravery, an aircraft 'rejected by the RAF'; therre is more about the Fulmar too, and Swordfish operations in the Med.

On special offer at the moment at Tesco in paper-back form!

SoG

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 8,195

Can I please recommend the book "ARK ROYAL:Sailing into Glory" by Mike Rossiter, for insights into the Fleet Skua operations:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ark-Royal-Sailing-into-Glory/dp/0593055519

There is much to learn about the Skua and the way the Fleet Arm operated them with great bravery, an aircraft 'rejected by the RAF'; therre is more about the Fulmar too, and Swordfish operations in the Med.

On special offer at the moment at Tesco in paper-back form!

SoG


Thanks for the tip. I'll have to see if I can find a Tescos... :D

Another problen the RN FAA struggled against was they never got the publicity that the RAF did, due to (I suspect) a degree of RN stiff upper lip, and straightforward logistical issues - their battles were often a long way from home, and as their aircraft were so often inadequate, there weren't too many cheering tales for the puff-writers. But that makes the guts shown by these ill-equipped, under-recognised yet desperately needed airmen and crews even more admirable.

Another relevant book is the latest Osprey (No.75) 'Royal Navy Aces of W.W.2' by Andrew Thomas. Andrew's put together an excellent work, I'm impressed. It's telling, though, that for a British company it took 74 other books before the RN's 'finest' got a look in... Of course, I was forgetting. 'they didn't do much'. :rolleyes:

Member for

20 years

Posts: 3,902

A valient defence from JDK, but I still keep tripping up over the word 'significant' . I think this word requires that the subject should make a difference, actually shape major events in a meaningful manner, and have sufficient nature to warrant special notice.

The bravery and merit of the crews is beyond question, but their steed was a bit of a dud. Maybe after I have read these forthcoming tomes, I will revise my opinion.

' Blackburn Skua, Austin Seven of the Skies! '

Nah, doesn't do it for me..:;)

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 169

Phew, propstrike, you are robust with your definition of 'significant'; let us accede that the Skua was not a signifacant type, but they sank the Koningsburg as you said, and:

"...they had scored a notable first: The first sinking of a major warship in wartime by aerial bombing. For all the men and machines RAF Bomber Command lost trying to sink units of the German fleet in the first months of the war it is ironic that such a victory should be achieved for the loss of a single aircraft and crew using a method (dive bombing) that was derided by the RAF establishment."

( http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/sinking_of_the_konigsberg.htm )

SoG

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 2,982

A valient defence from JDK, but I still keep tripping up over the word 'significant' .
It depends, as ever, where you pin the description in history. With the benefit of hindsight I do not think that the Skua was one of the most significant combat aircraft of WWII. There are many more suited to that tag. However, at the time of its front line service I think it it was a very significant aircraft indeed, despite its shortcomings, the best we had for the role in any numbers.

Member for

19 years 7 months

Posts: 1,772

[QUOTE=JDK;1124110].......................................
It seems we like to downgrade and ignore the early war period, because it was messy, embarrassing, and we had inadequate equipment, and basically, we kept losing. A little recognition of those who stemmed the totalitarian tide in the early days so we could regroup and come back to win, should hardly be a big ask. .....................

I totally agree James. Indeed there are other examples re machines of that era. When years ago the ex Charles Church Battle was worked on at Duxford, it was after a while relegated to external storage with a tarp over the then unglazed cockpit area. I think it also got some storm damage to the U/C. It was eventually obtained by the Brussels collection. There may have been some ownership / hangarage space or payment issues I'm unaware of, but it seems a shame the IWM didn't obtain that machine. Maybe the owner at that time didn't make it available - but if they did and the IWM didn't want it then that's another story. It was no less significant say than the WW1 era DH9 they've more recently obtained via a valuable exchange.

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 1,114

I've been thinking about this issue of 'significance' and how it relates to the Skua, but having popped away for a think and come back, I see others have beaten me to it.

Quite apart from the sinking of the Konigsberg (which is significant on any measure), the Skua taught the FAA immense amounts about fighting a war in the land, sea and air in terms of fleet protection, close air support, combat air patrol over land and sea forces, and fighter direction at sea.

Because the Norwegian campaign was ultimately a failure, the successes within that campaign tend to go unnoticed. The Skua was the only allied aircraft which could provide close support to the troops on the ground until RAf fighters could finally operate from airstrips - and even then the first attempt saw all the Gladiators u/s in just over a day. With the alternatives to the RN at the time - basically the Sea Gladiator - standing patrols over the ground forces simply would not have been possible. And in the landings at Narvik, the Skua's ability to provide close support from a carrier helped in the success of the first allied landings against a heavily defended shore. In addition, the Skua's loiter and high diving speed meant it could provide meaningful CAP over the fleet in a way no other aircraft available at the time could have done. Rear Admiral Jameson remarked after the war that the Skuas 'had saved the Ark Royal many times'.

And this is to say nothing of the dive bombing ability. The Skua was the only aircraft in the allied armoury that could provide highly accurate strikes on warships, transport ships, infrastructure and in one case, a Wehrmacht HQ. On several occasions, the Skuas succeeded where Bomber Command simply was not able to bomb small targets accurately enough. Long after the withdrawal, Skua squadrons kept up tip-and-run attacks on targets such as fuel storage tanks, merchant shipping and communications. Maybe not war winning stuff in itself, but it provided the knowledge of how this kind of war should be prosecuted. It also convinced the Admiralty that dive bombing was a worthwhile capability to maintain. I would venture to suggest that without the Skua paving the way, there would have been no Operation Tungsten.

It's difficult to assess an aircraft's significance but in the case of the FAA at the beginning of the war, the Skua allowed the FAA to do things that it could not do with any other aircraft. Sure, it had serious flaws, and much of its success was due to the skill and bravery of the crews, but had the Skua been cancelled in 1938 (as the Air Materiel Department wanted), I doubt the FAA would have become anything like the useful force it later emerged to be, and carrier fighters would have been restricted to keeping shadowers away from the battleships.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 8,195

A valient defence from JDK, but I still keep tripping up over the word 'significant' . I think this word requires that the subject should make a difference, actually shape major events in a meaningful manner, and have sufficient nature to warrant special notice.

I think we can demonstrate all that. Certainly the Kriegsmarine were 'reshaped' during the Norwegian encounter! For more, I refer to the Hon Member XN923.

And I appreciate the debate and others weighing in with views, nice one. As to my slight 'cheat' of the post war P-51D; the type was 'significant' as Air National Guard equipment and American loan kit to other forces. In that niche, important. Everything has a role to play somewhere. Even failures.

Incidentally, any aircraft cannot claim 'significance' in itself. At the end of the day, it's 'just' a tool, like a more advanced lever. It's what's done with it, and what it's capable of and the people that achieve the results that count; our fascination with whizzy things biases us to the technical aspects IMHO.

The bravery and merit of the crews is beyond question, but their steed was a bit of a dud. Maybe after I have read these forthcoming tomes, I will revise my opinion.

' Blackburn Skua, Austin Seven of the Skies! '

Nah, doesn't do it for me..:;)


Let's see. I'm always happy to debate with someone open to new ideas.

As to the Austin 7 comparison, it'll do. As a car, the Austin was perfectly adequate. As a dive-bomber, in 1939 - 1940, the Skua was the best the British had in service. In both cases there were vastly superior items around, but if you had a journey to make of an enemy ship to sink, you used what you had. ;) Given the RN had no alternative, and achieved significant enemy casualties with it, I'd suggest it passes the test.

Finally, the specific Skua is an actual combat veteran, rather than a Mustang with ANG and stateside service only to its name, or a Spitfire XVI with nothing but MUs on its card; both of which are more popular, yet are essentially just trading on their bretheren's reputation.

Cheers,

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 1,114

Too right... we can confuse success with significance after all. I'd say the Skua had more significance than the Seafire in terms of what it meant to the RN at the time of its service. And anyway, the Skua was a Swiss Army Knife, the Seafire a Stiletto. It's easy to look at the raw performance figures and the in-service dates and write the Skua off as a footnote. But it was far more successful in battle than, say, the Battle - in addition to being the tool that shaped the wartime FAA fighter squadrons.

As individual aircraft go, there were only 190 Skuas - a fair proportion of them saw considerable combat use. As the serial of Casson's Skua isn't known, we don't know about any of the other missions it flew, but its place on the raid against the Scharnhorst in June 1940 (in fact, leading that raid) means it is a significant find in warbird terms.