It did, FAA pilots were seconded to fighter squadrons.
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.
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.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?
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.
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?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?
It's more effective than having the Roc in the air as well. The only kills by Rocs were from the ground.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.
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
It's more effective than having the Roc in the air as well. The only kills by Rocs were from the ground.
Perhaps the Ju-88 crew was rendered helpless by laughter?Be fair, the Roc got one air-to-air kill, a Ju-88 off the coast of Belgium on 28 May 1940.
Exactly.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.
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.It might have something to do with the fact that the FAA has shit aircrafts and not enough of them as is.