Why didn't the RN and FAA contribute more to the Battle of Britain?

From what i've read the RN and FAA mainly contributed pilots. Why did they not send any aircraft to help bolster and alleviate the pressure off of the RAF?
 
It did, FAA pilots were seconded to fighter squadrons.

Yes, but rather than individual pilots going to a range of different squadrons, why not a complete FAA squadron equipped (by the RAF) with Hurricanes, be plugged into the RAF Defence system. They would fight together, and have hands-on experience with the aircraft before rejoining a carrier to fly Sea-Hurricanes! Seems a no-brainer to me, why didn't the FAA insist on it?
 
A lot of the strike squadrons were earmarked for anti-invasion duties. Also the FAA fighters were mainly designed for medium/low altitude interception and the FAA didn't have many active fighter squadrons. I suspect the FAA was worried that the RAF would try to integrate them permanently into the RAF.
 
A lot of the strike squadrons were earmarked for anti-invasion duties. Also the FAA fighters were mainly designed for medium/low altitude interception and the FAA didn't have many active fighter squadrons. I suspect the FAA was worried that the RAF would try to integrate them permanently into the RAF.

... Again. As they had been under RAF auspices (and neglect) until quite recently.
 
Yes, but rather than individual pilots going to a range of different squadrons, why not a complete FAA squadron equipped (by the RAF) with Hurricanes, be plugged into the RAF Defence system. They would fight together, and have hands-on experience with the aircraft before rejoining a carrier to fly Sea-Hurricanes! Seems a no-brainer to me, why didn't the FAA insist on it?
IIRC one or two complete FAA fighter squadrons did serve with Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. Again, IIRC, they were assigned to the defence of Scapa Flow. Therefore, in spite of not taking a direct part in the battle they did allow another squadron or two to of Spitfires and Hurricanes to be assigned to 11 Group.

That was a significant proportion of the FAA's fighter strength because it only had 6 fighter squadrons on 1st July 1940 (Nos. 800, 801, 803, 804, 806 and 808). A seventh fighter squadron (No. 807) would form in August 1940.

The FAA had a total of 22 squadrons on 1st July 1940, which increased to 25 on 1st September 1940 because 3 new squadrons were formed in August.

FAA Squadrons May 1939 to September 1940.png


The numbers 800-809 were reserved for fighter squadrons. The numbers from 810 were for strike squadrons, which AFAIK during the Battle and Britain would have been TSR (Swordfish) or TBD (Albacore).

I had to take these notes out of the comments column because it was too long:
811 NAS ceased to exist when HMS Courageous was sunk and was not reformed until July 1941
822 NAS ceased to exist when HMS Courageous was sunk and was not reformed until October 1941​
 
Last edited:
I have two sources that state that both 804 and 808 Squadrons FAA fought during the Battle of Britain. 804 Squadron are stated as starting the battle flying Gloster Sea Gladiators and converting to Grumman Martlets before the battle ended. 808 Squadron were flying the Fairey Fulmar. IIRC there are report of various Skuas engaging enemy bombers and a couple of Rocs being used as static ground AA guns at FAA Air Stations.
 
I have two sources that state that both 804 and 808 Squadrons FAA fought during the Battle of Britain. 804 Squadron are stated as starting the battle flying Gloster Sea Gladiators and converting to Grumman Martlets before the battle ended. 808 Squadron were flying the Fairey Fulmar. IIRC there are report of various Skuas engaging enemy bombers and a couple of Rocs being used as static ground AA guns at FAA Air Stations.

804 got the first kill ever for a Martlet/Wildcat when one got a Ju-88 over Scapa Flow in December 1940.
 
Rocs being used as static ground AA guns at FAA Air Stations.
How would that exactly work? I'm assuming they are using the gunners turret, but with the way the aircraft is positioned wouldn't that be less effective then say 4 .303 MG's mounted on a 360 degree swivel mount, simply due to the Roc being a taildragging aircraft and the limited firing arc of the tail guns?
 
Having one parked on the flight line with a gunner in it, is better in defence than having one on the flightline without a gunner. Your target is coming to you so you are not palying catch up in a slower aircraft. All in all a win win situation. Setting up the powered turret in it's own would simply take too long and here you simply hitch a tow tractor to it and haul it to another part of the field.
 
How would that exactly work? I'm assuming they are using the gunners turret, but with the way the aircraft is positioned wouldn't that be less effective then say 4 .303 MG's mounted on a 360 degree swivel mount, simply due to the Roc being a taildragging aircraft and the limited firing arc of the tail guns?

I have wondered that myself. Also how did the turret get its power it was hydraulic iirc.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
IIRC one or two complete FAA fighter squadrons did serve with Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. Again, IIRC, they were assigned to the defence of Scapa Flow. Therefore, in spite of not taking a direct part in the battle they did allow another squadron or two to of Spitfires and Hurricanes to be assigned to 11 Group.

That was a significant proportion of the FAA's fighter strength because it only had 6 fighter squadrons on 1st July 1940 (Nos. 800, 801, 803, 804, 806 and 808). A seventh fighter squadron (No. 807) would form in August 1940.

The FAA had a total of 22 squadrons on 1st July 1940, which increased to 25 on 1st September 1940 because 3 new squadrons were formed in August.

View attachment 470749

The numbers 800-809 were reserved for fighter squadrons. The numbers from 810 were for strike squadrons, which AFAIK during the Battle and Britain would have been TSR (Swordfish) or TBD (Albacore).

I had to take these notes out of the comments column because it was too long:
811 NAS ceased to exist when HMS Courageous was sunk and was not reformed until July 1941
822 NAS ceased to exist when HMS Courageous was sunk and was not reformed until October 1941​

I have to ask - and this is not meant as a dig - do you have spreadsheets for almost all military questions? The amount of data at your fingertips is astounding, even for someone like me who lives by Excel.

A personal thanks for the effort you must have put in, and for the clarity of presentation.
 
As to the question about the FAA assets, one should also remember that at the height of the Seelöwe scare, the Ark Royal, with its aircraft, was attempting to relieve Vichy France from its possessions at Dakar. This tells a lot about how really worried the British were by mid-September, and also that those FAA aircraft couldn't be present in the English skies.

The question also asks about the Royal Navy. Of course the Royal Navy made a contribution to the Battle of Britain, and some naval power proponents maintain that it was the main contribution: the Royal Navy made sure, by existing, that it was an air campaign, and that had the Germans won that, they would still have had to rely on their air force to defeat the British naval power.
"I do not say the French cannot come, I only say they cannot come by sea".
 

MatthewB

Banned
Of course the Royal Navy made a contribution to the Battle of Britain, and some naval power proponents maintain that it was the main contribution: the Royal Navy made sure, by existing, that it was an air campaign, and that had the Germans won that, they would still have had to rely on their air force to defeat the British naval power.
Exactly.
It might have something to do with the fact that the FAA has shit aircrafts and not enough of them as is.
Minus the Bf-109, the FAA has the right aircraft to tackle the Luftwaffe. The Fulmar entered service in May 1940, and its more than capable of taking on the Bf-110 long range fighter and any medium bombers. Skuas vs. Stukas? The former wins. And invasion barges vs. Skuas, Fulmars, Swordfish and Albacore? Won't be fun for the Germans.

But your latter point is correct, there aren't enough FAA aircraft. And by summer 1940 with both Courageous and Glorious lost, there aren't enough carriers.
 
Top