Anyone got the Crowood Dauntless book?

[Dave Fleming]

From memory, Peter Smith gives the serials of which UK SBDs were allocated to the RAF and which to the Royal Navy - would any kind person be able to pass on that info?

[Terry McGrady]

From memory, Peter Smith gives the serials of which UK SBDs were allocated to the RAF and which to the Royal Navy - would any kind person be able to pass on that info?

Here we go Dave

Bu Aer Serial RN Serial Delivered to

36022 JS 997 RN rejected

36023 JS 998 RN To RAF rejected

36456 JS 999 RN rejected

54191 JT 923 RN To RAF rejected.

54192 JT 924 RN rejected

54193 JT 925 RN To RAF rejected

54194 JT 926 RN To RAF rejected

54195 JT 927 RN rejected

54196 JT 928 RN rejected

Regards

Terry

Edited February 29, 2012 by Terry McGrady

[Seahawk]

Sturtivant's FAA Aircraft 1939-1945 lists 9 Dauntless in serial ranges JS997-999 and JT923-928. JT924-926 are listed as "To RAF". There's a photo of wrecked Dauntless DB.1 JT923 coded EL0B of Eastleigh Station Flight in an old SAM: it crashed on 20 Jun 46. Sturtivant also lists JS998 as EL0C between Mar 45 and July 46.

It's difficult to square Sturtivant's data with Smith's. For example Smith has JT928 as "RN rejected", yet Sturtivant has it serving with RAE and 787 Sq Wittering, ending up at Gosport in Mar 46.

[Test Graham]

In this sense, surely "rejected" means considered unsuitable/inappropriate for widescale adoption for future front-line combat roles, not totally unacceptable for any use whatsoever. The USN did not permit the delivery of any SBDs to the UK until after it had been withdrawn from the USN carrier fleet, nor was it willing to allow the release of any of its successor the SB2C.

[Seahawk]

In this sense, surely "rejected" means considered unsuitable/inappropriate for widescale adoption for future front-line combat roles, not totally unacceptable for any use whatsoever. The USN did not permit the delivery of any SBDs to the UK until after it had been withdrawn from the USN carrier fleet, nor was it willing to allow the release of any of its successor the SB2C.

I expect you're right. But, since the unanimous UK view was that the Dauntless as a type was unsuitable for frontline combat (Eric Brown was seriously unimpressed), putting "rejected" against each individual airframe isn't too helpful: makes them sound like storage unit fodder like Seamews and Bermudas.

There are also discrepancies in the allocation of individual airframes, affecting the answer to Dave's question.

[Paul Bradley]

Phil Butler's Air Arsenal North America (Midland Counties) lists SBD-5 airframes BuAer 36022, 36023 and 36456 as JS997-99, and BuAer 54191 to 196 as JT923 to 928. He further states "A further allocation of fourteen aircraft...was cancelled and the serial numbers JT929 to JT962 which had been reserved for further aircraft, to a total of 43, were not used."

He has a photo of Dauntless DB.1 JS997 (not 887...) in British markings at Boscombe Down in December 1943.

Hope this helps.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Paul Bradley

[Dave Fleming]

I expect you're right. But, since the unanimous UK view was that the Dauntless as a type was unsuitable for frontline combat (Eric Brown was seriously unimpressed), putting "rejected" against each individual airframe isn't too helpful: makes them sound like storage unit fodder like Seamews and Bermudas.

I think you have to take into account Peter Smith's views on dive bombers, and in particular the RAF's apparent dislike of them. (He usually says the RN was quite keen on them). From memory, the wording of that section of the book is quite strident (I remember a phrase along the lines of 'inspite their proven accuracy'). I also get the impression he doesn't see eye to eye with Eric Brown's views on the matter as well.

The usual story of 5 to the RN, 4 to the RAF is what piqued my curiosity - very little indication of the 'RAF' making any use of them (I suspect they went to the RAE & possibly AAEE rather than the RAF per se) where as the RN obviously used a few as hacks (Even one Smith claims was an 'RAF' airframe)

[Procopius]

the wording of that section of the book is quite strident

A recurring theme in a number of his books, alas.

[Seahawk]

I also get the impression he doesn't see eye to eye with Eric Brown's views on the matter as well.

And yet Brown wasn't anti dive-bomber per se. Even less was he RAF. Purely from memory here, he was impressed by the Ju 87 as a divebomber and was reasonably complimentary about the Vengeance. IIRC he came to the Dauntless with all its post-Midway mystique and found a surprisingly pedestrian aircraft: his conclusion was "a success in spite of itself" or similar.

[Dave Fleming]

And yet Brown wasn't anti dive-bomber per se. Even less was he RAF. Purely from memory here, he was impressed by the Ju 87 as a divebomber and was reasonably complimentary about the Vengeance. IIRC he came to the Dauntless with all its post-Midway mystique and found a surprisingly pedestrian aircraft: his conclusion was "a success in spite of itself" or similar.

He hated the SB2C though!

[Test Graham]

By 1945, the Dauntless was a pretty pedestrian aircraft with a low-powered engine. However, you don't have to be flashy to be successful. It was the final step in a long development line, with the unnecessary bits removed. Blackburn worked to a similar requirement, just a little bit earlier and a little less power, and came up with the Skua.

Many disliked the SB2C, for what seems to have been good reason. Peter Smith seems to have found almost the only exception: although faced with the choice of Albacore or Barracuda, one can understand why the Helldiver might have seemed acceptable for the FAA. The 2000hp engine must have felt very desirable.

I do feel that the Admiralty would have done better to drop the Firefly and placed more effort on putting the freed Griffons into the Barra. But then if the Admiralty hadn't insisted on the high wing for a picture window in the first place, many of its problems would never have been.

[Nick Millman]

I think you have to take into account Peter Smith's views on dive bombers, and in particular the RAF's apparent dislike of them. (He usually says the RN was quite keen on them). From memory, the wording of that section of the book is quite strident (I remember a phrase along the lines of 'inspite their proven accuracy'). I also get the impression he doesn't see eye to eye with Eric Brown's views on the matter as well.

The usual story of 5 to the RN, 4 to the RAF is what piqued my curiosity - very little indication of the 'RAF' making any use of them (I suspect they went to the RAE & possibly AAEE rather than the RAF per se) where as the RN obviously used a few as hacks (Even one Smith claims was an 'RAF' airframe)

No record of any Dauntless at A&AEE according to Tim Mason's tome.

[Dave Fleming]

No record of any Dauntless at A&AEE according to Tim Mason's tome.

Thanks, my copy is 300 miles and two countries away at the moment!!

Trying to think if I've ever seen a photo of a UK Dauntless without 'Royal Navy' on it.