# Wildcat during the Battle of Britain



## pinehilljoe (Aug 29, 2020)

I know the F4F production missed the time frame of the Battle Britain by 6 to 12 months for operational squadrons. But how would the F4F-3 Wildcat/Martlet 1 have fared alongside the Hurricane I and Spitfire II during the Battle?


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 29, 2020)

Against the German bombers, not too badly. Against the Bf109, about as well as the P-36.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 29, 2020)

About good/bad as Hurricane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> how would the *F4F-3 Wildcat/Martlet 1* have fared



Slightly different airplanes. 

However both would have four .50 cal guns firing at 600rpm (at best) with a MV of about 2500fps. There is *NO *incendiary ammunition in the summer of 1940.

Marlet I has the Wright Cyclone R-1820 engine with two speed single stage supercharger with 1000hp at 13,500ft (?) in high gear. There is no extra boost or WEP or anything else authorized and in fact that 1000hp is at 2500rpm which is the take-off max rpm. 

F4F-3 WIldcat has the P&W R-1830 engine with two stage multi speed supercharger which was good for 1000hp at 19,000ft or so. 

Martlet I might be down to 880-900hp by the time it got to 19,000ft??
This is with no RAM.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 29, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Against the German bombers, not too badly. Against the Bf109, about as well as the P-36.



The Wildcat wouldn't climb fast enough to reach them and be fast enough to catch them, as posted above the .50's don't have a reliable feed mechanism and jam under G, they don't have effective AP, no incendiary, no HE, just a barely good enough daytime tracer and low velocity cup and core ball ammunition.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2020)

Depends on where you put them. Remember, the Battle of Britain wasn't just fought over the south coast of England. German bombing raids over the north and far west of the UK often went unescorted by fighters and never with Bf 109s because of their range. I'm pretty certain an F4F could tackle a Bf 110 escort. Fighter Command needed fighters and what it did with them counted. The two Defiant squadrons had mild success (more enemy fighters shot down by Defiants than Definats shot down by enemy fighters - and that's taking into account over claiming and post war research), but their reputation got them taken out of the battle because of losses suffered in the month of August. They would have been better served in the north of England and Scotland where, perhaps their reputation might not have fared as badly as it did, simply because there were no single-seat fighter escorts. The same with any aircraft that couldn't match the Bf 109, and the numbers they were deployed in. Having weaker fighters in the north and west could free up the better fighters for the south.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Aug 29, 2020)

First enemy plane shot down by a Martlet, yea, any F4F at all, was a Ju-88 over Scotland in December 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 29, 2020)

R Leonard said:


> First enemy plane shot down by a Martlet, yea, any F4F at all, was a Ju-88 over Scotland in December 1940.



The Finns had success with the Brewster Buffalo too but no one is suggesting that they were an effective front line fighter, on any front.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 29, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Depends on where you put them.



Wouldn't matter were you put them, A&AEE rated their speed at 290mph and climb under 2,000fpm, they would be as useless as P40's in the BoB. Over England, as long as they stay above 200mph and 15,000ft the Luftwaffe bombers would almost be immune to attack.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 29, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm pretty certain an F4F could tackle a Bf 110 escort



Going off the spec's, the Bf 110 cruising speed is approx 15mph higher than the Martlet's max speed, the Bf's could bounce the Martlet's all day using superior speed and height.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 29, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Going off the spec's, the Bf 110 cruising speed is approx 15mph higher than the Martlet's max speed, the Bf's could bounce the Martlet's all day using superior speed and height.


None of the Bf110's cruising speeds (even at 20,000 feet) were faster than the F4F/Martlet's max.
Be sure you're looking at the early Bf110 and not the G series.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Wouldn't matter were you put them, A&AEE rated their speed at 290mph and climb under 2,000fpm, they would be as useless as P40's in the BoB. Over England, as long as they stay above 200mph and 15,000ft the Luftwaffe bombers would almost be immune to attack.



So, if you were planning on defending your country against attack and you had F4Fs, would you just leave them on the ground and just give up? No! You'd use them and the most sensible way of doing that would be getting them in a situation where their assets could be put to use. The RAF had Gladiators, Defiants and Blenheims tackling the Luftwaffe. They used whatever they could to defend the country. The Royal Navy used the Roc! If the Wildcats were there, they'd use them and find an advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Going off the spec's, the Bf 110 cruising speed is approx 15mph higher than the Martlet's max speed, the Bf's could bounce the Martlet's all day using superior speed and height.



Yet Wildcats were considered inferior to the A6M but plenty of A6Ms were shot down by pilots flying Wildcats. Heck, even Defiants and Gladiators shot Bf 109s down. The world is full of paradoxes...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 30, 2020)

The low speed and climb would be very large issues -- but to the point Shortround continually tries to get across, the 1940 .5-inch Browning situation is not the same as the 1945 situation:

Cherry-picked from various A&AEE trials:

_The gunnery installation of the Grumman aircraft received from the U.S.A. was not in a fit state to go straight to Fighter Squadrons. ... Certain features which are criticised in this report are not peculiar to the Grumman and may also be found in other American aircraft being supplied now or in the future. This applies particularly to .5” gun mountings and the STIA sight. Moreover, in view of the unreliable performance of the .5” Browning gun in its present form, it is essential that wherever it is installed, manual or pneumatic recocking gear should be fitted._

---

_From these trials it is concluded that the functioning of the Colt .5” (export type) gun, at high altitude or even at a temperature of only -11°C is unreliable. As these guns are unreliable even at low altitudes and the Grumman gun heating system is quite ineffective, this conclusion is not surprising._

---

_An immediate and comprehensive series of ground trials with the export type .5” gun is required. Judging by its performance during the trials in the Grumman aircraft at this Establishment, it is not a fit or suitable weapon for Service use in its present state. If the gun is to be used in quantity, it is considered vital that modifications should be introduced as soon as possible, as was necessary with the original .303” Browning, to ensure that the .5” gun functioning is brought up to the same standard and reliability as this gun has now attained._

---

_I would like to record here a conversation I had at Boscombe Down with Commander Boone of the American Navy who was present for a time during the ground trials of the Grumman aircraft at the butts. He apparently knew in America they had had very similar troubles with these guns and remarked that no doubt we had experienced the guns jumping off their mountings etc. We also inquired if any trials had been done with the Brewster aircraft as it was known that the .5” guns in the fuselage would not lift the ammunition in the ammunition box if any G was experienced while the aircraft was manoeuvring. _

_He went on to say that they had to take every precaution during their firing trials and any high altitude firing together with violent manoeuvring of the aircraft was not allowed on the grounds of safety. Consequently their trials consisted of steady dives at ground targets and it was only within the last few months that they were beginning to find out their installation troubles._

_Their instructions to their Aircraft Firms with regard to installing the guns had been based on ground trials and subsequently the effect of G on the gun and ammunition has been overlooked._

_From the above conversation it would appear that we may be in for a pack of trouble in some of the aircraft coming from America ..._

Captain Adams, R.D.Arm.1(a)
4 Nov 40

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 30, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> So, if you were planning on defending your country against attack and you had F4Fs, would you just leave them on the ground and just give up?



Lucky for the British they had Hurricanes and Spitfires, if they used F4F's the pilots would do nothing more than watch the Luftwaffe bombers flying above them.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 30, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yet Wildcats were considered inferior to the A6M but plenty of A6Ms were shot down by pilots flying Wildcats. Heck, even Defiants and Gladiators shot Bf 109s down. The world is full of paradoxes...



Your argument is silly, the air war over England was fought at high altitudes, over 20,000 on average and many over 30,000ft, even the Hurricane struggled at times.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> None of the Bf110's cruising speeds (even at 20,000 feet) were faster than the F4F/Martlet's max.
> Be sure you're looking at the early Bf110 and not the G series.



My error, just looked at the BoB site and it lists the 110 cruising speed at 250mph and top speed 350mph and time to 20,000ft of 9.2 minutes, the Martlet's top speed is 290mph and time to 20,000ft of 12.5 minutes, you are never going to catch a 110 if he doesn't want to be.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 30, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The Finns had success with the Brewster Buffalo too but no one is suggesting that they were an effective front line fighter, on any front.


The Finns and their Buffaloes were fighting a lot of uncompetitive Soviet aircraft, like the I-15 biplane. I would not want to use either the Buffalo or early Wildcat to intercept Ju-88, Do-17 or He-111 escorted by Bf-109. Both fighters are too slow, too underarmed. Against the plodding Ju-87 and Do-18 ASR they’d be fine, not sure about the Bf-110.

If Britain has Martlets in summer 1940 I’d want them all allocated to the FAA, not RAF Fighter Command. They’d be a good replacement for the Sea Gladiator and (in the fighter role) the Skua. Early FAA Martlet introduction may also kibosh the two-seat fighter plans. Once folding wings and better engines are available, surviving Martlets can be retrofitted. And, if Martlets are somehow available in quantity to Britain in summer 1940 we can assume Grumman has been churning them out since mid 1939, so Britain can consider *licensing production* at CC&F instead of Hurricanes.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 30, 2020)

It would probably do OK outside the range of single engine fighters and its range would be useful, but it is another "type" and one that couldn't be rotated in and out of Kent.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 30, 2020)

The RAF had the two best fighters in the world available to take on the Luftwaffe during the BoB, anything else would have ended in defeat, end of story.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 30, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The RAF had the two best fighters in the world available to take on the Luftwaffe during the BoB, anything else would have ended in defeat, end of story.


If the RAF has them and the FAA won’t take them, I’d say ship the Martlets to Malaya and India to serve (in 1941-42) alongside the Mohawks and Buffaloes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> If the RAF has them and the FAA won’t take them, I’d say ship the Martlets to Malaya and India to serve (in 1941-42) alongside the Mohawks and Buffaloes.



I think you hit it right on the nose. The best use for the Wildcats would be with the FAA who no doubt would take as many as they could get their hands on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 30, 2020)

Glider said:


> I think you hit it right on the nose. The best use for the Wildcats would be with the FAA who no doubt would take as many as they could get their hands on.


Let’s just hope they don’t waste them as disposable fighters on Cam ships, but instead get them onto carriers. Many a Battle of Britain veteran Hurricane met this fate.







HMS Audacity, the first CVE definitely deserves a flight of Martlets.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 30, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Your argument is silly, the air war over England was fought at high altitudes, over 20,000 on average and many over 30,000ft, even the Hurricane struggled at times.



That's not the altitude at which bombers flew.
They came at an average of about 4,500m/15,000ft, or low level. Many of the most effective attacks during this August period of the BoB were low level.
Many interceptions took place at 9,000-10,000 feet, according to Combat Reports.

The problem for the 'Wildcat', apart from the RAF deciding that it was unsuitable for operations in NW Europe, was the escorts which flew much higher.

Here's a nice picture taken from a Do 17 of 9./KG76 over Kenley, capturing a No 64 Squadron Spitfire in its blast pen.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Aug 30, 2020)

stona said:


> That's not the altitude at which bombers flew.
> They came at an average of about 4,500m/15,000ft, or low level. Many of the most effective attacks during this August period of the BoB were low level.
> Many interceptions took place at 9,000-10,000 feet, according to Combat Reports.
> 
> ...


always like seeing that shot !


----------



## stona (Aug 30, 2020)

rochie said:


> always like seeing that shot !



It's a great series of photos. I think my favourite is the very first, taken through the pilot's windscreen as the aircraft approach Beachy Head. They are clearly lower than the cliffs! It's not technically a very good photograph, but it makes you realise how low they flew in an effort to avoid detection.

There's also a fantastically clear photograph taken of Burgess Hill, as the Dorniers turned to follow the railway line to Kenley. This one is just a very good photograph and is my third favourite, after the one I posted above. For anyone familiar with Burgess Hill, the image is taken close to the town centre and shows Cyprus Road.


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Let’s just hope they don’t waste them as disposable fighters on Cam ships, but instead get them onto carriers. Many a Battle of Britain veteran Hurricane met this fate.
> 
> View attachment 593239
> 
> ...


Interestingly pre war the RN had identified a couple of liners that would be suitable for conversion into light carriers. However they came under a different department who wouldn't release them, as they believed that they were more useful as troop transports. As a result it was decided that the RN could convert merchant ships but only if they were already under the control of the RN.
Hence the delay as first the RN had to identify the ships, then prepare the plans and fin the dockyard availability to make the conversion. The Audacity was of course a captured German ship and the British converted carriers tended to be ex Armed Merchant Cruisers

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Aug 30, 2020)

As things change and develop the FAA was still using the (much different) Martlet over Norway in 1945 coping with Me 109Gs. However the 1940 Martlet was a very different beast.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 30, 2020)

Glider said:


> Interestingly pre war the RN had identified a couple of liners that would be suitable for conversion into light carriers. However they came under a different department who wouldn't release them, as they believed that they were more useful as troop transports. As a result it was decided that the RN could convert merchant ships but only if they were already under the control of the RN.


If the hangar is omitted, like with Audacity I don’t see why they can’t be both CVE troop/merchant ship. Circling back to the Battle of Britain, did the Air Ministry and War Office transfer FAA fighter pilots to RAF Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons? That would be quite the performance upgrade from one’s Skua or Sea Gladiator.

The Japanese army, not wanting to rely on the IJN decided to make their own IJA escort carriers, focused on ASW. Imagine the British army deciding to do the same. Similar the the IJA carrier‘s Kokusai Ki-76, the British Army Air Corp operated the Taylorcraft Auster. Of course, like the Martlet in the Battle of Britain, we must fiddle with the timeline as both the Army Air Corp and the Auster did not exist until 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> If the hangar is omitted, like with Audacity I don’t see why they can’t be both CVE troop/merchant ship. Circling back to the Battle of Britain, did the Air Ministry and War Office transfer FAA fighter pilots to RAF Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons? That would be quite the performance upgrade from one’s Skua or Sea Gladiator.



The RN did have a number of merchant conversions such as the Audacity and they were either converted grain carriers or tankers as they could still carry a large proportion of their original cargo as well as operate as carriers. They were sometimes known as the Empire class's.

Personally the idea of being based on a merchant carrier that was still carrying x thousands of tons of fuel wouldn't make for a good nights sleep.

The the Fleet Air Arm pilots in the BOB a number flew with the RAF in the BOB but not many as there were so few FAA pilots at the time


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 30, 2020)

stona said:


> That's not the altitude at which bombers flew.
> They came at an average of about 4,500m/15,000ft, or low level. Many of the most effective attacks during this August period of the BoB were low level.
> Many interceptions took place at 9,000-10,000 feet, according to Combat Reports.
> 
> ...




In With Wings like Eagles, Michael Korda wrote that the radar at the time could not accurately determine altitude. Dowding assumed the Germans would fly at the same level as British bombers in 1940, or about 10,000 feet.


----------



## stona (Aug 30, 2020)

Korda is not entirely right.

Radar in 1940 could determine altitude reasonably accurately. If you find a good image of the _receiving_ towers of a Chain Home station you will see the two dipole antennae at different heights (215' and 95'),which were used to do exactly that. In ideal conditions the terrain should be flat for a mile in front of the antennae (for technical reasons I'm not going into here). The system was calibrated for each station with a large number of calibration flights. Chain Home could certainly measure altitude.
Again, for technical reasons, detection at high angles above 8 degrees could be problematic and required an experienced operator to be exact. Fortunately most detections occurred at ranges where this was not an issue.








Once across the coast the Observer Corps used basic instruments and trigonometry to determine and report altitude.

Dowding never assumed anything. RAF Intelligence compiled reports on the structure of German formations, including the altitude of the bombers, disposition of escorts etc. throughout the Battle. I know because I have read some of them!

Edit: Here is an RAF report on Luftwaffe tactics from this very day, 31 August, 80 years ago.

_“The Germans resumed heavy fighter escorts, formations of up to 100 Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Messerschmitt Bf 110 being reported. When both these types of fighters are escorting bombers, it is general for the Bf 110 to be level with or just above the bombers at 15,000 ft with Messerschmitt Bf 109 stepped up behind to 20,000 ft. In another case thirty Dornier Do 17 were in vics of ten line astern stepped up from 15,000 to 15,500 ft with forty Bf 110 level with the last vic and on the right, left and behind it, and a considerable number of Messerschmitt Bf 109s at 25,000 ft behind them.”_

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 30, 2020)

Glider said:


> The the Fleet Air Arm pilots in the BOB a number flew with the RAF in the BOB but not many as there were so few FAA pilots at the time


With so few carriers by summer 1940 (HMS Courageous sunk Sept 1939, Glorious sunk June 1940, Illustrious about to commission) there should be some FAA fighter pilots available for temporary transfer. With the four Illustrious class soon to enter service, BoB combat experience would have been useful when the FAA enters the Mediterranean war. 

During the BoB HMS Eagle and Hermes were in the Indian Ocean, Ark Royal was at Gilbraltar and Furious was conducting air strikes against Norway.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 30, 2020)

stona said:


> Korda is not entirely right.
> 
> Radar in 1940 could determine altitude reasonably accurately. If you find a good image of the _receiving_ towers of a Chain Home station you will see the two dipole antennae at different heights (215' and 95'),which were used to do exactly that. In ideal conditions the terrain should be flat for a mile in front of the antennae (for technical reasons I'm not going into here). The system was calibrated for each station with a large number of calibration flights. Chain Home could certainly measure altitude.
> Again, for technical reasons, detection at high angles above 8 degrees could be problematic and required an experienced operator to be exact. Fortunately most detections occurred at ranges where this was not an issue.
> ...


Have you read anything about what German intelligence knew about Chain Home?


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 30, 2020)

stona said:


> Here's a nice picture taken from a Do 17 of 9./KG76 over Kenley, capturing a No 64 Squadron Spitfire in its blast pen.



The Do 17's were at low level to suppress the bases defenses and to cause a diversion, they were loaded with time delayed 50Kg bombs, the main raids came in at 12,000-15,000ft. It doesn't matter if the Do 17's were at low level, a Wildcat would still never catch them.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 30, 2020)

rochie said:


> always like seeing that shot !



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Dornier_Do_17_bombers_over_the_Channel_1940.jpg

I like this one, this is the actual Do 17's over the channel if the reports are true.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 30, 2020)

stona said:


> Many interceptions took place at 9,000-10,000 feet, according to Combat Reports.



And just as many over, reading combat reports Hurricanes and Spitfires orbited at 20,000ft and many Spitfire squadrons went higher, no F4F Gladiator or Defiant could fill that roll.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 30, 2020)

stona said:


> That's not the altitude at which bombers flew.
> They came at an average of about 4,500m/15,000ft, or low level. Many of the most effective attacks during this August period of the BoB were low level.
> Many interceptions took place at 9,000-10,000 feet, according to Combat Reports.
> 
> ...


That Dornier pilot was in need of the Do 17 Z-10 Kauz’s four mg and two 20 mm cannon nose armament.








PAT303 said:


> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Dornier_Do_17_bombers_over_the_Channel_1940.jpg
> 
> I like this one, this is the actual Do 17's over the channel if the reports are true.


Betty says, that’s not low, this is low Mitsubishi G4M - Wikipedia


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> That Dornier pilot was in need of the Do 17 Z-10 Kauz’s four mg and two 20 mm cannon nose armament.
> 
> View attachment 593308
> 
> ...



AB,

That needs to be captioned with "you think thats low, hold my beer" in Japanese!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Once folding wings and better engines are available, surviving Martlets can be retrofitted. And, if Martlets are somehow available in quantity to Britain in summer 1940 we can assume Grumman has been churning them out since mid 1939, so Britain can consider *licensing production* at CC&F instead of Hurricanes.



The Martlet I had the best version of the R-1820 Cyclone available until about the start of 1943. In was one generation newer than the engines in the British Buffaloes. It still wasn't quite good enough. To change to the R-1830 Twin Wasp (WIldcat engine) requires changing just about everything forward of the firewall (and perhaps a few things behind?). basically more trouble than it is worth. 

Grumman built only a handful of Martlets/Wildcats in the first 1/2 of 1940. There is a bit of confusion caused by roll out dates, acceptance dates and delivery dates. Plus a few of the very early airframes were siphoned off for experimental projects. But basically deliveries started in July of 1940 (1 plane) but jumped considerably in Aug-Sept (32 and 29 planes) so the British got the ex french G-36s (Martlets) and got them into action in the fall of 1940 leading to the Ju-88 shoot down on Dec 25th 1940. To get into the BoB Grumman could have started production as late as March 1940 for this scenario. 

CC&F got a contract for 40 Hurricane Is in Nov of 1938. First plane was flown in Jan 1940. 20 had been delivered to England by the start of the BoB. 
I am afraid bumping the Grumman Wildcat time line by even 6 months doesn't allow CC&F enough time to become a Wildcat supplier. 

BTW, Blackburn did all the work of converting the French G-36As to Martlets (fitting the .50 guns instead of the French 7.5mm guns, fitting new throttles and some instruments/warning placards, oxygen system, etc) Blackburn continued to be the conversion shop for all Grumman aircraft to see service in the RN during the war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 30, 2020)

Glider said:


> The best use for the Wildcats would be with the FAA who no doubt would take as many as they could get their hands on.



And this is the reality of it.



PAT303 said:


> no F4F Gladiator or Defiant could fill that roll.



(With salad or eggs? ) There was no way the RAF was going to equip with the F4F. None whatsoever and why would it need to? The hypothetical is that if it had them it would use them, not leave them on the ground, regardless of their weaknesses in performance. It's pretty obvious. As I have repeatedly pointed out, regardless of their performance, Fighter Command would be foolish to leave them on the ground. YOUR argument is silly in that if they had them they wouldn't use them. Dowding believed he didn't have enough squadrons - using Gladiators, Defiants, Blenheims was an option they couldn't ignore.

It's worth noting that the Curtiss Hawk 75, or Mohawk first arrived in Britain in July 1940. It took nearly a year before they were introduced into service with the SAAF after being shipped to Mombasa from Britain. Theoretically there was the possibility that they could have been used in action as they were ex French examples but were immediately issued to Maintenance Units to undergo fitting of British equipment (and a re-arrangement of the throttle assembly!), at which point they were kept in reserve.

The FAA needed Martlets and ordered them because of the lack of a modern single-seat fighter on its carrier decks. The Firebrand, which it was placing its single-seat fighter hopes was a couple of years away (or so it believed) and the Martlet and Sea Hurricane were stop-gaps, particularly since its efforts to get the Sea Spitfire pre-war bore no fruit.


----------



## slaterat (Aug 31, 2020)

I suppose if they had access to a couple hundred Martlet Is, the RAF would of used them, but that was not the case. The Martlet 1, Hawk 75, Brewster Buffalo ect were all lacking in crucial areas of performance, firepower or protection in the summer of 1940.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 31, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> YOUR argument is silly in that if they had them they wouldn't use them.



And use them for what exactly, they couldn't catch anything, even then they did they would only get one pass and as SR pointed out if any G was applied in the fight the guns would jam. To answer the original question as to what effect would the F4F have in the BoB, none.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 31, 2020)

slaterat said:


> protection in the summer of 1940.



The Martlet's had a full protection kit installed as per RAF/FAA doctrine.


----------



## stona (Aug 31, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> The hypothetical is that if it had them it would use them, not leave them on the ground, regardless of their weaknesses in performance. It's pretty obvious. As I have repeatedly pointed out, regardless of their performance, Fighter Command would be foolish to leave them on the ground. .



But even in a hypothetical scenario, I doubt you would have seen them in 11 or 12 Group, maybe based in the west of 10 Group, out of harm's way. They would have either not been committed at the sharp end, most likely given the British assessment of the type, as it existed in 1940, or suffered a fate similar to the Defiant.

Dowding did feel he had too few squadrons, he had done since before the war, but once the fighting started aircraft numbers were never the real issue, it was pilots.
There were only three weeks between that ending on 6 July and that ending on 2 November in which the British suffered a net loss of S/E fighters. The same cannot be said for *operational* pilots. It can't even be said for pilots, period.
In this period the British produced 1,047 Hurricanes and 620 Spitfires a combined total of 1,667 S/E fighters. In 18 weeks the British almost matched the entire year's output of Bf 109s in Germany, 1,719.

Blenheim fighters took no meaningful part in the BoB, except to be mistaken for German aircraft and shot down by 'friendly' fire. No.1(RCAF) Squadron managed to shoot some Coastal Command Blenheims down on its debut in the BoB, which caused a diplomatic incident. This was not the only occasion something similar happened.

Defiants were eventually found out and sent to Scotland.

The Whirlwind was kept well away from the action and/or close to the Westland factory.

The Gladiator was not considered a front line fighter.

*Fighter Command *didn't need a second rate foreign fighter with all the supply and logistical issues that entailed as it fought the Battle of Britain.

Edit: As of 10 July 1940 Fighter Command comprised 56 squadrons of which 6 were Blenheim and 2 Defiant. There were no Gladiator squadrons. The other 48 squadrons were all Spitfire or Hurricane units.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 31, 2020)

Glider said:


> The best use for the Wildcats would be with the FAA who no doubt would take as many as they could get their hands on.


One challenge is carrier compatibility, as the non-folding Wildcat can't fit down the lifts of HMS Ark Royal, Illustrious, Victorious, Formidable or Hermes. With HMS Glorious and Courageous gone and some years before HMS Indomitable, Implacable, Indefatigable and the CVEs enter service, the FAA Martlets can only serve on HMS Furious, Eagle (forward lift only) and Argus. 

When the FAA received non-folding Martlets in 1941/2 the Air Ministry ordered retrofit kits from Grumman and converted them to folding wing models. But that won't be an option until well past the BoB.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> One challenge is carrier compatibility, as the non-folding Wildcat can't fit down the lifts of HMS Ark Royal, Illustrious, Victorious, Formidable or Hermes. With HMS Glorious and Courageous gone and some years before HMS Indomitable, Implacable, Indefatigable and the CVEs enter service, the FAA Martlets can only serve on HMS Furious, Eagle (forward lift only) and Argus.
> 
> When the FAA received non-folding Martlets in 1941/2 the Air Ministry ordered retrofit kits from Grumman and converted them to folding wing models. But that won't be an option until well past the BoB.



Use a deck park. It was common practice from the mid war period and used on the Audacity. Admittedly it was a nuisance but it was done and given the option of depending on the (almost total lack) of alternatives, I would suggest it was an effort worth making.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 31, 2020)

stona said:


> I doubt you would have seen them in 11 or 12 Group, maybe based in the west of 10 Group, out of harm's way.



I think I said exactly that a few posts back. I agree with everything you say on this, but again, whether the Blenheim Gladiator or Defiant were suitable or how they were used is beside the point - they were employed because the heads of Fighter Command felt there weren't enough fighters. I feel like I'm repeating myself now...


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 31, 2020)

Send all the RAF Martlets to Malaya, especially in Sept 1940 after Japan invades FIC and is now bristling right across the Gulf of Thailand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 31, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I think I said exactly that a few posts back. I agree with everything you say on this, but again, whether the Blenheim Gladiator or Defiant were suitable or how they were used is beside the point - they were employed because the heads of Fighter Command felt there weren't enough fighters. I feel like I'm repeating myself now...



With the exception of the Defiants, and we know how that went, first as early as 19 July, the other two were not really used. Blenheims of No 219 Squadron did get involved on 15th August (the Luftwaffe's Black Thursday) when they chased some of Luftflotte 5's Ju 88s out to sea, but they were too slow to catch them.

I disagree that Dowding would have taken anything just to make up the numbers of fighters. He was struggling for pilots as it was. In September both he and Park were adamant that they did not want more squadrons, i.e. more aircraft, they wanted more pilots to maintain numbers in those they already had. That I think is where our opinions differ.

If he said of the Whirlwind, _"I cannot put them anywhere in the South because I cannot carry any passengers in that part of the world"_, told Beaverbrook that he thought careful consideration should be given to the question _"whether it is worthwhile persevering with the type at all"_ and eventually wrote that he recommended that _"we cut our losses and do not persevere with the Whirlwind as a service fighter type"_, why on earth would he welcome a second rate foreign fighter to make up numbers?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 31, 2020)

stona said:


> I disagree that Dowding would have taken anything just to make up the numbers of fighters. He was struggling for pilots as it was. In September both he and Park were adamant that they did not want more squadrons, i.e. more aircraft, they wanted more pilots to maintain numbers in those they already had. That I think is where our opinions differ.


That's my impression too. RAF Fighter Command pilots were flying three or four sorties a day. That suggests there is a massive pilot shortage, not a need for more aircraft.

If the Martlets are provided at no cost, give them to the FAA, crate them up and send them to Malaya, or leave them in North America until they they be converted to folding wing variants. If they're not free or heavily discounted, decline the aircraft and ask for more ex-USN destroyers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 31, 2020)

If somebody had worked out how to make pilots on a production line that would have been vastly more useful than a handful of aircraft that didn't fit into the RAF service and supply system.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 31, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> If somebody had worked out how to make pilots on a production line that would have been vastly more useful than a handful of aircraft that didn't fit into the RAF service and supply system.


Quality control issues.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 31, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> If somebody had worked out how to make pilots on a production line that would have been vastly more useful than a handful of aircraft that didn't fit into the RAF service and supply system.


Well in a way they did, but its harder to increase pilot "production" than aircraft production.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 31, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> That's my impression too. RAF Fighter Command pilots were flying three or four sorties a day. That suggests there is a massive pilot shortage, not a need for more aircraft.



The sortie rate didn't have much to do with lack of pilots. Fighter Command squadrons were generally resourced at operational levels. If a particular squadron suffered unsustainable losses, it was withdrawn to a rear area to re-equip with both machines and pilots. For example, despite the high numbers of sorties, most squadrons still divided alert duties between the flights. Such an approach would be impractical if the squadrons were under-resourced for operational pilots.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 31, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> If somebody had worked out how to make pilots on a production line that would have been vastly more useful


Message to returning WW1 soldiers; Shag and repeat. 1919-1920 our nascent pilots are hatched. 1935, flight training. 1939, Spitfire.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 1, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> That's my impression too. RAF Fighter Command pilots were flying three or four sorties a day. That suggests there is a massive pilot shortage, not a need for more aircraft.



I don't know about a massive shortage, but there was a shortage. Once the stabilisation system was introduced following the 7 September conference at Bentley Priory a number of Class C squadrons was created. These only retained three* operational* pilots and were essentially non-operational training units. Evill, Dowding's Senior Air Staff Officer and right hand man, hoped that each C Class squadron would produce five operational pilots every week.

At that meeting, Park told Sholto-Douglas directly that it was better to have twenty one squadrons with twenty one operational pilots each in 11 Group than to have a larger number of understrength squadrons. In the end he had to settle for a minimum of sixteen operational pilots in an A Class squadron.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 1, 2020)

If not the Wildcat, what US aircraft would Britain welcome in the BoB? Curtiss P-40?


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 1, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> If not the Wildcat, what US aircraft would Britain welcome in the BoB? Curtiss P-40?



Depends they have to be able to operate off the standard grass runways and be able to climb fast. I think either AV8Bs or F35s as long as they have cannon as an ASRAAM missile would be a bit overkill.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 1, 2020)

stona said:


> I don't know about a massive shortage, but there was a shortage. Once the stabilisation system was introduced following the 7 September conference at Bentley Priory a number of Class C squadrons was created. These only retained three* operational* pilots and were essentially non-operational training units. Evill, Dowding's Senior Air Staff Officer and right hand man, hoped that each C Class squadron would produce five operational pilots every week.
> 
> At that meeting, Park told Sholto-Douglas directly that it was better to have twenty one squadrons with twenty one operational pilots each in 11 Group than to have a larger number of understrength squadrons. In the end he had to settle for a minimum of sixteen operational pilots in an A Class squadron.


For Park a squadron had to mean something. If a squadron only had 12 pilots and 12 serviceable planes in the morning, by the time it had been scrambled 3 times what would be left for a fourth call?


----------



## stona (Sep 1, 2020)

pbehn said:


> If a squadron only had 12 pilots and 12 serviceable planes in the morning, by the time it had been scrambled 3 times what would be left for a fourth call?



Not much. By late August there were many occasions on which under strength squadrons were dispatched to patrol or to intercept the second or third raids of the day.
Aircraft were rarely an issue, the issue was maintaining sufficient operational pilots. Park wanted at least 21 per squadron in 11 Group, but on 7 September had to settle for 16. Before the war this number was 26.

For example, yesterday, 80 years ago, at 17.30 five raids totalling 100+ were plotted moving across the Channel. Five squadrons were scrambled, Nos. 79 (which could only field 7 Hurricanes), 54 (9 Spitfires), 85 (10 Hurricanes), 222 (10 Spitfires) and 603. Only No 603 could manage a full 12 aircraft (in fact 13 took off).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 1, 2020)

stona said:


> Not much. By late August there were many occasions on which under strength squadrons were dispatched to patrol or to intercept the second or third raids of the day.
> Aircraft were rarely an issue, the issue was maintaining sufficient operational pilots. Park wanted at least 21 per squadron in 11 Group, but on 7 September had to settle for 16. Before the war this number was 26.
> 
> For example, yesterday, 80 years ago, at 17.30 five raids totalling 100+ were plotted moving across the Channel. Five squadrons were scrambled, Nos. 79 (which could only field 7 Hurricanes), 54 (9 Spitfires), 85 (10 Hurricanes), 222 (10 Spitfires) and 603. Only No 603 could manage a full 12 aircraft (in fact 13 took off).


That was what I was alluding to. A group of 7 or smaller is vulnerable to being completely wiped out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 1, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Depends they have to be able to operate off the standard grass runways and be able to climb fast. I think either AV8Bs or F35s as long as they have cannon as an ASRAAM missile would be a bit overkill.


Might not be overkill if those ME-262’s have license built J-79 engines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> If not the Wildcat, what US aircraft would Britain welcome in the BoB? Curtiss P-40?



From Joe Baugher's web site.

"The first of the French-ordered H81-A1s flew on June 6, 1940, and a few were actually completed with French markings. However, before any of their H81-A1s could be delivered, France had surrendered. Britain agreed to take over the entirety of the French order, and gave the H81-A1 the name Tomahawk I in RAF service. RAF serials were AH741/AH840 and AH841/AH880.

In September of 1940, the USAAC agreed to defer deliveries of their P-40s so that the Tomahawk Is could be supplied to Britain as soon as possible. The first Tomahawk Is reached England in September of 1940. The two 0.5-inch machine guns in the nose were retained, but they were supplemented by four wing-mounted 0.303-inch Browning machine guns in place of the 7.5-mm FN-Brownings originally specified by the French. Such was the urgency of their delivery to Britain that many of the 140 machines still had French instruments and bore cockpit lettering in French when they arrived."

The First US P-40 was delivered in April of 1940 and the 200th American production aircraft was delivered Oct 16th 1940. These P-40s had a single .30 cal gun in each wing(plus the two cowl .50 cal guns) , no armor, no self sealing fuel tanks. 
Please remember that the Allison engine was far from trouble free in the summer/fall of 1940 and Allison had to rework quite a number of engines with new crankshafts and crankcases to get them up to the desired engine life at the orginal rated power. Until reworked the engines were limited to 2770 rpm and a lower boost limit. 
There seems to be no mention of what kind of engines the ex french Hawk H81-A1s got.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 1, 2020)

The French H81A-1s were fitted with the V-1710-C15 engine (aka V-1710-33). I believe the ex-French AC that were taken over by the RAF were known as the Tomahawk I. Tomahawk I pilot's notes still listed the same engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Sep 2, 2020)

Going back to the original question of the post, Wildcats in the BoB, I am of the opinion that Martlets are too slow on the level and the climb to replace Hurricanes in the BoB. When it comes to Wildcats with the two stage , two speed P&W Twin Wasp, The F4F-4 , burdened by folding wings and the 6x.50s is too slow on the climb. However the earlier F4F-3 has almost the exact same performance as a rotol equipped Hurricane Mk 1 and provided that the four wing mouinted .50s work well, would be an adequate replacement for the Hurricane. There could be other problems like operating on grass airfields, ease of repair ect, and the F4F-3, could be lacking in armor and self sealing tanks.( not sure on when this was introduced on the F4F-3), but overall it should do the job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 2, 2020)

The Wildcat had a fairly robust maingear, so a grass field shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 2, 2020)

slaterat said:


> Going back to the original question of the post, Wildcats in the BoB, I am of the opinion that Martlets are too slow on the level and the climb to replace Hurricanes in the BoB. When it comes to Wildcats with the two stage , two speed P&W Twin Wasp, The F4F-4 , burdened by folding wings and the 6x.50s is too slow on the climb. However the earlier F4F-3 has almost the exact same performance as a rotol equipped Hurricane Mk 1 and provided that the four wing mouinted .50s work well, would be an adequate replacement for the Hurricane. There could be other problems like operating on grass airfields, ease of repair ect, and the F4F-3, could be lacking in armor and self sealing tanks.( not sure on when this was introduced on the F4F-3), but overall it should do the job.



Getting 4x 50cals in wing installations to work well in the late summer of 1940 is a pretty big assumption. It also complicates the RAF's logistic chain.




GrauGeist said:


> The Wildcat had a fairly robust maingear, so a grass field shouldn't be an issue.



I suspect the narrow track of the undercarriage would the key issue.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 2, 2020)

The F4F-3 with the 2 stage P&W was faster over the entire altitude range and climbed better than the BoB Hurricane with a constant speed prop according to tests. US Navy pilots at Coral Sea thought they gave up nothing in speed and climb to a Zero but were far less maneuverable. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig and the Martlet with a single stage engine would run out of breath at higher altitudes but the early F4F-3 performed well, Eric Brown called its initial climb rate of 3,300 fpm “sensational”.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 2, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I suspect the narrow track of the undercarriage would the key issue.


No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.



Might need a new tail wheel, iirc it was a small solid rubber wheel. Probably not brilliant on grass.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 2, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Might need a new tail wheel, iirc it was a small solid rubber wheel. Probably not brilliant on grass.


The F4F-3 operated well enough from rough fields in the PTO (like Guadalcanal during the Cactus Airforce days) as did the F2A, which had a similar tailwheel.
The Finns operated the B-239 (F2A-1) from some fairly primitive airfields, too.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.



I don't disagree. It's just that you said the F4F had a robust maingear (which is correct) but the strength of the undercarriage wouldn't be the key challenge. I'm not saying the F4F would be any worse than the Spitfire or Me109 in this regard, simply pointing it out as a potential challenge.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The F4F-3 operated well enough from rough fields in the PTO (like Guadalcanal during the Cactus Airforce days) as did the F2A, which had a similar tailwheel.
> The Finns operated the B-239 (F2A-1) from some fairly primitive airfields, too.



The tailwheels on the F2A-3s and F4Fs at Midway wore out very quickly...there was something of a shortage, leading to aircraft being rendered unserviceable.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 2, 2020)

The coral on the Atolls and Islands in the PTO was a constant challenge for aircraft and vehicles.
Aside from rapid wear on tires, it choked air filters, permeated grease joints and on aircraft, the propwash sand-blasted perspex/glass and scoured paint.

Europe (while having it's own difficulties) was not as harsh as the Pacific or North Africa in that respect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 2, 2020)

pinsog said:


> The F4F-3 with the 2 stage P&W was faster over the entire altitude range and climbed better than the BoB Hurricane with a constant speed prop according to tests. US Navy pilots at Coral Sea thought they gave up nothing in speed and climb to a Zero but were far less maneuverable. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig and the Martlet with a single stage engine would run out of breath at higher altitudes but the early F4F-3 performed well, Eric Brown called its initial climb rate of 3,300 fpm “sensational”.



When did the F4F-3 enter service?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2020)

The F4F did have a problem with the landing gear, not that it broke but it had a lot of travel (12.5in) and was somewhat soft, good for absorbing the shock of a carrier landing, not so good when taxiing and turning in crosswinds. About half the travel was used up just sitting at normal atitude but F4Fs were known to hit their wing tips on occasion while taxing in bad conditions.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2020)

wuzak said:


> When did the F4F-3 enter service?


Unfortunately F4F dates are rather confusing. Like 1st production F4F-3 example #1844 making it's first flight in Feb 1940, But the USN ordered the 3rd and 4th production aircraft to equipped with Wright R-1820 engines in April and they don't fly until June of 1940. Some how (?????) the 2nd production plane #1845 first flies in July of 1940 (problems with engine delivery?) By Dec of 1940 the USN has accepted 22 F4F-3s and the first plane/s go to VF-41 in Norfolk VA. depending on source 103-106 F4F/Martlets are completed by Dec 31st 1940. 
By May of 1941 4 USN squadrons have received F4F-3s or F4F-3As, not sure if they all had full compliments. 

AS of Oct 31st 1940 81 Martlets had been "delivered" to the Fleet Air Arm but I have no idea if that is in England or at the Grumman factory.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 2, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> AS of Oct 31st 1940 81 Martlets had been "delivered" to the Fleet Air Arm but I have no idea if that is in England or at the Grumman factory.



They would be the Martlet I with the R-1820, and not the equivalent of the F4F-3 (Martlet II?)?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2020)

Yes.


----------



## slaterat (Sep 3, 2020)

pinsog said:


> The F4F-3 with the 2 stage P&W was faster over the entire altitude range and climbed better than the BoB Hurricane with a constant speed prop according to tests. US Navy pilots at Coral Sea thought they gave up nothing in speed and climb to a Zero but were far less maneuverable. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig and the Martlet with a single stage engine would run out of breath at higher altitudes but the early F4F-3 performed well, Eric Brown called its initial climb rate of 3,300 fpm “sensational”.



1.You need to read that whole report. The engine conked out after the speed tests and had to be replaced for the climbing tests. Might not have been in the best shape.

2 The revised PEC boosts the Hurricanes speed a bit, up to 324 mph.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg

3 That test was flown at 6.25 lbs boost. The Hurricane Mk 1 was cleared for 12 lbs in the spring of 1940. That gives the Hurri Mk 1, 325 mph from 10 k to 18k

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-level.jpg

Once you add some armor and self sealing tanks to the Wildcat the climb rate goes down.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.



Whether the F4F's undercarriage would be a problem operating from grass can't be said for sure, unless someone did some trials. What can be said is that the track at 6' 5" is almost identical to a Bf 109 (2062mm) and Spitfire (can't find the figure, but it was slightly narrower than the Bf 109). Unlike the other two the F4F was designed for the forces involved in carrier landing, particularly sideways forces which the other two could not tolerate. Despite that fact that the F4F's ground handling was often described as 'tricky' and that the struts were prone to collapse (in deck landings), I doubt that it would be a problem. The F4F also had a tailwheel lock.

The issue of the Bf 109 was nothing to do with its track, but its geometry. Both the Bf 109 and Spitfire were designed to operate from grass aerodromes and problems arose, or were exacerbated, when they had to operate from made runways. Neither started life with a tailwheel lock.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 3, 2020)

slaterat said:


> 1.You need to read that whole report. The engine conked out after the speed tests and had to be replaced for the climbing tests. Might not have been in the best shape.
> 
> 2 The revised PEC boosts the Hurricanes speed a bit, up to 324 mph.
> 
> ...







ThIs is from the test I posted, notice the Wildcat had armor plate (155 pounds) full fuel and oil protection and still does 336 mph at 22,000 feet. That would have been extremely competitive in the BoB. 109’s trying to bunt (shove stick forward and diving away) wouldn’t work on a Wildcat. That would be a nasty surprise for a German pilot used to doing that to Spitfires and Hurricanes.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 3, 2020)

If your 1941 era Wildcat was available in 1939 and squadron service aircraft hit those numbers you still have the issue posted back on page 1 reply no. 14, the guns didn't work and neither did the ammunition.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 3, 2020)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 593724
> ThIs is from the test I posted, notice the Wildcat had armor plate (155 pounds) full fuel and oil protection and still does 336 mph at 22,000 feet. That would have been extremely competitive in the BoB. 109’s trying to bunt (shove stick forward and diving away) wouldn’t work on a Wildcat. That would be a nasty surprise for a German pilot used to doing that to Spitfires and Hurricanes.


That may be from the specifications, and not from an actual test.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 3, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> So, if you were planning on defending your country against attack and you had F4Fs, would you just leave them on the ground and just give up? No! You'd use them and the most sensible way of doing that would be getting them in a situation where their assets could be put to use. The RAF had Gladiators, Defiants and Blenheims tackling the Luftwaffe. They used whatever they could to defend the country. The Royal Navy used the Roc! If the Wildcats were there, they'd use them and find an advantage.


Yes, but the Gladiator actually had a much better rate of climb than the Hurricane, making it at least a viable interceptor away from the ME109s.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 3, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> ....The Japanese army, not wanting to rely on the IJN decided to make their own IJA escort carriers, focused on ASW. Imagine the British army deciding to do the same. Similar the the IJA carrier‘s Kokusai Ki-76, the British Army Air Corp operated the Taylorcraft Auster. Of course, like the Martlet in the Battle of Britain, we must fiddle with the timeline as both the Army Air Corp and the Auster did not exist until 1942.....]


 IIRC, de Havilland offered the Leopard Moth as a STOL ASW aircraft to operate from MACs, but the Admiralty decided the really pressing need was fighters (Hurricanes) to take on the FW200s.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 3, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> If not the Wildcat, what US aircraft would Britain welcome in the BoB? Curtiss P-40?


Well, only the Curtiss P-36 would be available in any numbers (provided the French and US were persuaded to let the RAF grab an order), or the Seversky P-35. You could have got the first turbocharged Republic P-43s by September 1940, but those were without armour or self-sealing tanks, and whilst they had good altitude performance the rate of climb and firepower were not exactly sparkling. The unarmoured P-35 would not have stood the comparison with the Hurri I, but the P-36 might have done well.
The P-36 was already proven in France, and the RAF actually thought quite highly of the Hawk 75-A2 they tested against a Spitfire. The A3 version had reasonable altitude performance and was fast enough to catch the German bombers, and could be armed with six .303s quite easily. The A4 was faster still but had the troublesome Cyclone engine. The P-36 also offered an advantage in that escaping French pilots with Hawk 75 experience could be given P-36s and be operational almost immediately, boosting the number of pilots available.
But by the time the Brits got the French order the Battle was over, and it was decided to send them overseas where their air-cooled engines were a distinct advantage. They provided sterling service for the SAAF in East Africa and the RAF in Burma, being used up to 1943 in the latter theatre. IHO, had there not been enough Hurricanes and Spitfires, the next best available choice would have been the Curtiss P-36.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Wildcat had a fairly robust maingear, so a grass field shouldn't be an issue.



The F4Fs did we’ll operating from Henderson Field

thanks for the posts to date. When you post a question you get broad answers, another reason I like this forum.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 3, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> That may be from the specifications, and not from an actual test.



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf

This is the full report showing the specs of the actual F4F-3 used in the test. It was armed, armored and had self sealing tanks


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2020)

What is posted is


ThomasP said:


> The French H81A-1s were fitted with the V-1710-C15 engine (aka V-1710-33). I believe the ex-French AC that were taken over by the RAF were known as the Tomahawk I. Tomahawk I pilot's notes still listed the same engine.



Allison was having trouble getting the V-1710-33 through the 150 hour type test, I think it took a total of 5 engines and some redesign of the test stand (different motor mounts for one thing). However such was the urgency of the time that Allison was allowed to produce and deliver engines with the understanding that all engines (at least US ones) would be brought up to the "_final" _standard of the engine that passed the 150hr test at Allison's expense. I believe that up to 228 engines were affected. 

There was no change in designation for these early engines. The early test stand engine mount was too rigid and some of the engines failed due to fatigue cracks. There were also some other problems in early service use. Allison did get the engine sorted out, all 228 engines were "modernized" and brought up to the final configuration (which included a stronger crankcase).
What is unknown is if any of the "commercial" (French/British engines) built in the summer of 1940 had any of the older parts (unmodernized) and if the British simply ran them at full power anyway and accepted shorter service life. The British did use the increased valve clearance which helped considerably with the backfire problems. There were some other problems that continued into and through 1941. for example The British fitted larger generators than the US did and in service the generator drive mechanism tended to fail under the greater load. 
The AVG was supposed to get a batch of uprated generator drives for example but it is unknown if they actually received them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2020)

pinsog said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf
> 
> This is the full report showing the specs of the actual F4F-3 used in the test. It was armed, armored and had self sealing tanks




and on page 5 at the top line 113A it says.

"The performance is *estimated* to be as follows"

Bolding by me. 

I am also wondering (unless it is a typo) how the overloaded fighter (3rd column) is 10mph faster than than "normal" fighter at 22,000ft when it was 2mph slower at 19,000ft. 

and was 537lbs heavier. (full fuel tanks/oil and ammo)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 3, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> If your 1941 era Wildcat was available in 1939 and squadron service aircraft hit those numbers you still have the issue posted back on page 1 reply no. 14, the guns didn't work and neither did the ammunition.


I didn’t start the thread, but IF the F4F-3 was ready in squadron numbers for the BoB I would probably request that Grumman fix the guns before delivery. I’m a practical guy that way. OR the British could have requested 8 303’s be mounted instead, which would save a couple hundred pounds in weight meaning it climbed even better.
“The ammo didn’t work”? I’m aware that a 2500 FPS ball ammo 50 round isn’t as good as a 2900 FPS armor piercing incendiary round, I would like to point out that when a 2500 FPS 800 grain bullet hits an aircraft wing, starts tumbling and strikes the fuel tank sideways it is going to leave a 1/2 inch by 3 inch hole and will also exit out the other side. If the tank is anywhere near full it will probably burst at the seams. While setting an aircraft on fire is obviously preferable, bursting the fuel tank so the poor guy runs out of fuel ends up in the channel seems like a good result as well.
If we remove the tail hook and flotation equipment we save 50 pounds. If we replace the 4 50’s with 8 303’s then we save another 250 pounds or so. 300 pounds total weight savings would be a pretty serious upgrade in performance as far as climb.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> and on page 5 at the top line 113A it says.
> 
> "The performance is *estimated* to be as follows"
> 
> ...


Interesting. I had already figured the lower speed for the lighter plane was a typo.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Interesting. I had already figured the lower speed for the lighter plane was a typo.


Except that the heavier plane is 1-2mph slower at all listed lower altitudes. 

Please see the test above this report on the site which gives actual test results from 4 different aircraft including No 1848. 
Top speed was 331mph after taking off at 7300lbs. how much fuel was burned getting to 21,000ft? 

I would also note that as of Dec 1940 there were only about 22 F4F-3s built. There seems to have been a shortage of engines, otherwise why would the US Navy (and Marines) accept 65 F4F-3A with single stage superchargers in 1941? BTW this was the engine used in the Martlet II. 1000hp at 14,500ft in high gear. British data sheet claims 317mph at 14,000ft. 

You need a considerable time shift to get F4F-3s with two stage engines in numbers for the BoB. You need 3-6 months just to get a few squadrons of Martlet Is and IIs.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Except that the heavier plane is 1-2mph slower at all listed lower altitudes.
> 
> Please see the test above this report on the site which gives actual test results from 4 different aircraft including No 1848.
> Top speed was 331mph after taking off at 7300lbs. how much fuel was burned getting to 21,000ft?
> ...


The original thread starter says he understands the Wildcat was a year too late for the BoB but how would it have done if it was there. I agree 100% that the Wildcat wasn’t going to make the BoB as well. I also know of the engine shortage and why they used the single stage engines. If we are going to assume it was there for the battle we can assume it had the 2 stage engine it was designed for in the first place. I’m fine with 331 mph as the top speed from a different test as well.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 3, 2020)

The Wildcat wasn't a year too late, it was active as the Martlet (French G-36A) during the end of the BoB, assigned to FAA's No. 804 Squadron based at RNAS Skaebrae.

They received the G-36As in October, but that is still within the recognized time period of the battle.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 4, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> But by the time the Brits got the French order the Battle was over, and it was decided to send them overseas where their air-cooled engines were a distinct advantage.



The RAF received the first ex-Armee de l'Air Hawk 75s in July 1940, while the battle was raging. The reason behind them not being used is they were delivered to Maintenance Units for the fitting of British equipment and the reversing of the throttle arrangement - the French, for reasons only known to themselves did not operate their power levers in the traditional 'Balls-to-the-wall" fashion, pulling the lever toward the pilot to increase power and so forth. The completed examples were kept in reserve but none took part in any operations -after trials by the They were shipped to North Africa in early 1941. 

Trials with the A & AEE revealed that the Hawk 75 was nice to fly with docile stall characteristics and more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire and Hurricane but could not match the latter's performance. Following these trials, no effort was made to induct them following modifications into home based RAF units.

Unlike the Martlets that were originally from the French order on the Grumman production line and modified by the manufacturer to British specs, including two .50 cal machine guns in each wing, also changing the direction of the throttles (!) , the first arriving with Scottish Aviation at Prestwick in August 1940 and the last of the first order toward the end of September. The next batch were sunk aboard the freighter SS Ruperra.

The first French example (G.36A, which became Martlet I) made its first flight on 10 May 1940, the day of the invasion and the French and British Purchasing Commissions worked fast to get Grumman to convert the order to British hands.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 4, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I didn’t start the thread, but IF the F4F-3 was ready in squadron numbers for the BoB I would probably request that Grumman fix the guns before delivery. I’m a practical guy that way.



Curtis couldn't get them to work in the P40 and North American couldn't get them to work in the P51 as late as 1943 yet Grumman would have them sorted in 1940 loaded with tracer and API that took until 1942 and 1944 to develop?.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 4, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Curtis couldn't get them to work in the P40 and North American couldn't get them to work in the P51 as late as 1943 yet Grumman would have them sorted in 1940 loaded with tracer and API that took until 1942 and 1944 to develop?.


Did you read what I typed? I said make Grumman fix the guns OR replace them with 8 303’s.

I also said. “ I’m aware that a 2500 FPS ball ammo 50 round isn’t as good as a 2900 FPS armor piercing incendiary round, I would like to point out that when a 2500 FPS 800 grain bullet hits an aircraft wing, starts tumbling and strikes the fuel tank sideways it is going to leave a 1/2 inch by 3 inch hole and will also exit out the other side. If the tank is anywhere near full it will probably burst at the seams. While setting an aircraft on fire is obviously preferable, bursting the fuel tank so the poor guy runs out of fuel ends up in the channel seems like a good result as well.”

I said nothing about invention 50 API Incendiary bullets 2-3 years earlier. While far from perfect, I can assure you that a 750-800 grain 50 caliber ball round at 2500 FPS will do a lot of damage to fuel tanks, engines and pilots.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 4, 2020)

pinsog said:


> While far from perfect, I can assure you that a 750-800 grain 50 caliber ball round at 2500 FPS will do a lot of damage to fuel tanks, engines and pilots.



They didn't actually, the .50 cals didn't show any advantage over the .303's when tested against aircraft targets, a 2 second burst will see approx 160 ball, AP and incendiary .303's guided by tracer towards the target, the .50's will give you about 34 cup and core ball rounds, but only if you fly straight and level.



pinsog said:


> Did you read what I typed? I said make Grumman fix the guns OR replace them with 8 303’s.



And while you are retrofitting guns to Wildcats Spitfires and Hurricanes aren't getting constant speed props, armour kits or 20 other more important things. Adding Wildcats to the British arsenal adds nothing to the course.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 4, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> They didn't actually, the .50 cals didn't show any advantage over the .303's when tested against aircraft targets, a 2 second burst will see approx 160 ball, AP and incendiary .303's guided by tracer towards the target, the .50's will give you about 34 cup and core ball rounds, but only if you fly straight and level.
> 
> 
> 
> And while you are retrofitting guns to Wildcats Spitfires and Hurricanes aren't getting constant speed props, armour kits or 20 other more important things. Adding Wildcats to the British arsenal adds nothing to the course.


I mean have them fitted with 303’s from Grumman before they are delivered, if Grumman can’t get the 50’s to work In testing, have them install 303’s instead. 
The 50 vs 303 vs 20mm has been beaten to death on here, but I think focusing all guns into a tight pattern and then teaching the pilots how to shoot would actually be more important than what caliber weapon they are using. An 8 gun Hurricane with all guns focused at 200 yards flown by US Navy Commander John Thach accurately hosing the all glass cockpit of an HE111 from a high side beam attack would do better than an untrained pilot missing with anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2020)

It is not up to Grumman to fix the guns, it depends on what is the problem. Just as it is not up to Grumman to fix engine problems or faulty propeller operation. 

The guns are government furnished equipment, or in the case of export planes (commercial sales) they are customer furnished equipment. 

The .50 cal ammo used in 1940 used 750 grain projectiles. While undoubtedly destructive if they hit the rate of fire for four .50 cal wing guns in 1940 was 40 rounds per second _at best_. 
The ,303 ammo used 174-175 grain ammo (for ball mmo) but the eight ,303 guns had a rate of fire of 160 rounds per second _at best. _weight of metal per second is in favor of the ,50 cal guns by about 8%. Hardly a decisive advantage. The ,303 guns actually fire a bit less weight of projectile because the tracer and incendiary bullets are a bit lighter. 
in 1940 there were no .50 cal incendiary rounds, BoB eight gun fighters had one or two guns loaded exclusively with incendiaries depending on ammo supply. One gun was generally loaded with tracer and two guns had AP bullets. During the BoB 3 guns could be loaded with ball depending on supply, later in the war ball disappeared as did tracer (for fighters) and AP and incendiary became the standard bullets. 

The Martlet/F4F doesn't bring any significant increase in firepower to the battle. we are talking + or -10% or under depending on how we rate the different bullets. This does not take into account gun problems or installation problems (heaters, feed rollers, long belt feeds, etc).

The Martlet I, II and F4F-3A all perform a bit worse than the Hurricane I. The F4F-3 does have a slight speed advantage (perhaps 15mph) at certain altitudes. It has a lower ceiling? or perhaps about equal. 

Even if used it is hard to see any difference in combat effectiveness over the Hurricane I at the time of the BoB and it is easy to see several potential problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> , a* 2 second burst* will see approx 160 ball, AP and incendiary .303's guided by tracer towards the target, the .50's will give you about 34 cup and core ball rounds, if you fly straight and level.



1 second burst.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2020)

pinsog said:


> The 50 vs 303 vs 20mm has been beaten to death on here, but I think focusing all guns into a tight pattern and then teaching the pilots how to shoot would actually be more important than what caliber weapon they are using.



You are quite right on the last part. 

The point about beating up on the 1940 .50 cal is that it was not the .50 cal of 1942-44. So any impressions or facts or anecdotes about how well the .50 cal did in the Pacific or North Africa (or 4 gun Mustangs in 1944) has to take into account the lower rate of fire and lower powered ammo. The later ammo was about 25% more powerful at the muzzle. Not that the 2500fps load was a pipsqueak but the later ammo did hit somewhat harder and was a bit easier to aim (required a bit less lead). 
The fact that four of the later guns could fire around 56 bullets per second certainly didn't hurt. A reason the British asked for six guns on the later Martlets? to get the anticipated rate of fire up to 60rps for six guns?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 4, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not up to Grumman to fix the guns, it depends on what is the problem. Just as it is not up to Grumman to fix engine problems or faulty propeller operation.
> 
> The guns are government furnished equipment, or in the case of export planes (commercial sales) they are customer furnished equipment.
> 
> ...


By “fix the guns” I mean it is Grumman's job to take a gun that fires on the ground without jamming and make it fire in the wing of a fighter without jamming. I don’t mean it’s their job to increase rate of fire etc


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 4, 2020)

pinsog said:


> By “fix the guns” I mean it is Grumman's job to take a gun that fires on the ground without jamming and make it fire in the wing of a fighter without jamming. I don’t mean it’s their job to increase rate of fire etc



Alas, that's the entire problem with the timeline. The USN and USAAF didn't comprehend the problems with wing-mounted 50cals until the issue became apparent during combat after December 1941. How can Grumman resolve an issue that they don't know exists? Unless the UK obtains Martlets, puts them into combat, identifies the wing gun problem and THEN Grumman dives in to try and solve it. Either way the timeline doesn't line up to get an operational Martlet variant in RAF squadron service in time for the BoB.


----------



## Gen. MacArthur (Sep 4, 2020)

Well overall I think that the F4F would have done decent against bombers. Against a bf 109E-4 it would stand no chance, unless the wildcat could bounce the 109. However, the British didn't need the F4F. The hurricane filled that role as a bomber destroyer.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2020)

one of the things they did to "fix" the .50 cal was to change the cam track on the bolt and the feed lever to roughly double the amount of force the feed pawls exerted on the belt to pull it into the gun.

Picture of a .30 cal gun as it shows the cam track pretty well.





feed cover.




On part 1a the upper end in the drawing rides in the track on the bolt. 
This may have been done when they increased the rate of fire, i don't know. 

People are now used to the airframe maker being the "prime" contractor and being responsible for a weapons "system". One reason that system of purchase came into being was the government got tired of being the prime contractor and all the finger pointing that went on between the airframe makers, the weapons makers, the engine makers and so on when the GFE showed up at the airframe makers plants and either didn't fit or didn't work the way the government wanted and none of the contractors would take the blame. This also became more important when development times for an aircraft or program grew in years and the same officer/s that started with a program were long gone when the finished product went into service. Look at the F-35 program now, started back in 1993 (or before) 22 years from start of program to first service use. 
However that was not case in WW II. The airframe maker put the guns, engines, props and other parts the government supplied into the airframe, whose fault it was when it didn't work well is certainly subject to question. 

I will note however that I don't believe ANY U.S. fighter/aircraft carried more than 200rpg of .50 cal ammo from the 1920s until 1938/39 so US experience with trying to move long heavy belts of ammo was rather limited. Many of the 1930s aircraft may not have carried max ammo even on gunnery training missions. 

The guns are not trying to move the entire belt at one time but just a layer of belt in the ammo box/tray. But longer ammo belts are going to cause problems at some point. 
Also please note that the Navy was using a lower number of rounds per gun as a "normal" load and the full over 400 round capacity per gun on the four gun fighters was considered "overload." At least until the shooting started for the US

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 4, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Alas, that's the entire problem with the timeline. The USN and USAAF didn't comprehend the problems with wing-mounted 50cals until the issue became apparent during combat after December 1941. How can Grumman resolve an issue that they don't know exists? Unless the UK obtains Martlets, puts them into combat, identifies the wing gun problem and THEN Grumman dives in to try and solve it. Either way the timeline doesn't line up to get an operational Martlet variant in RAF squadron service in time for the BoB.


Because the entire timeline has been moved by the original question at the beginning of the post. “I know it couldn’t have made it but how would the Wildcat have done in the BoB?” If it showed up with no guns it probably wouldn’t have done well. I’m just going along with the original question. If you took the F4F-3 number 1848 with the 2 stage P&W top speed of 330 mph at around 21,000 feet, it should have done fine. Remove 50+ pounds of naval gear, spec it with 8 303 machine guns from the factory saving another 250 pounds or more and it should do fine. It was tough, maneuverable, somewhat faster than a Hurricane and not affected by negative G.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 4, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> People are now used to the airframe maker being the "prime" contractor and being responsible for a weapons "system". One reason that system of purchase came into being was the government got tired of being the prime contractor and all the finger pointing that went on between the airframe makers, the weapons makers, the engine makers and so on when the GFE showed up at the airframe makers plants and either didn't fit or didn't work the way the government wanted and none of the contractors would take the blame. This also became more important when development times for an aircraft or program grew in years and the same officer/s that started with a program were long gone when the finished product went into service. Look at the F-35 program now, started back in 1993 (or before) 22 years from start of program to first service use.


This is also the case in the oil industry. The government is always the customer in some respects because it will be the government that has to answer for a few million gallons of oil spilled. But where do the government get the experts to speak with the contractors experts, who don't actually want to tell them what they have invested millions or billions of research into. A gun in a wing has to work, whether that means changes to the gun, to the wing, to the feeding system or lubrication and heating system depends on "stuff" and an engineering solution must be found, whether some bod from the government helps or hinders is debatable.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 5, 2020)

pinsog said:


> If you took the F4F-3 number 1848 with the 2 stage P&W top speed of 330 mph at around 21,000 feet,



Your posting the speed of one aircraft, the British took 5 in squadron service aircraft and took the average speed across the 5, all the other data have found has the F4F-3 max speed under 320mph.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2020)

I find it interesting how everyone is putting a great deal of effort into proving the Market/Wilcat was a pile of crap.

Yes, the early F4F mark maxed at 331 mph, but the A6M2 had a max. speed of 331mph at 14,900 and the Bf109E had a max. speed of 290mph at sea level and 348mph at 14,500 feet.

So if the early F4F's virtues are based on it's max. of 331mph, then we should also put the early A6M under the same scrutiny, right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 5, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I find it interesting how everyone is putting a great deal of effort into proving the Market/Wilcat was a pile of crap.



People are comparing the F4F to the Spitfire and Hurricane as used in the BoB as per the original question, in that situation it wouldn't fair well, doesn't mean it's a pile of crap and no one said anything of the sort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 5, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, the early F4F mark maxed at 331 mph, but the A6M2 had a max. speed of 331mph at 14,900 and the Bf109E had a max. speed of 290mph at sea level and 348mph at 14,500 feet.



The Wildcat and A6M2 would struggle in the BoB, your not getting the F4 up to altitude in time and it's guns don't work, Likewise the A6M2 would find fighting Mk I-II Spitfires over England a magnitude harder than clapped out MkV's over Darwin. The BoB was a medium to high altitude fight, Zero's Wildcats P40's etc etc aren't going to cut it, simple.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Sep 5, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Because the entire timeline has been moved by the original question at the beginning of the post. “I know it couldn’t have made it but how would the Wildcat have done in the BoB?” If it showed up with no guns it probably wouldn’t have done well. I’m just going along with the original question. If you took the F4F-3 number 1848 with the 2 stage P&W top speed of 330 mph at around 21,000 feet, it should have done fine. Remove 50+ pounds of naval gear, spec it with 8 303 machine guns from the factory saving another 250 pounds or more and it should do fine. It was tough, maneuverable, somewhat faster than a Hurricane and not affected by negative G.



When you compare both aircraft with 100 oct fuel, the Hurricane is faster all the way to 18, 000 ft, after that the Wildcat(1848) has a speed advantage. At most altitudes these aircraft are within 10 mph of each other.

The Hurricane has a faster climb than 1848( carrying 4 x.50s), being 2 minutes faster to 20, 000 ft ( 8 mins to 10 minutes).

I am not sure how much the the difference in the gun package is, the guns , boxes and ammo for the 8 x .303 weigh in at 405 lbs., the one report on the F4F-3 mentions " fixed gun installation (4 x .50)" as 524.5 lbs, but I am not sure what that includes.

Overall I agree with you, in terms of combat capability these two aircraft are pretty close.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The Wildcat and A6M2 would struggle in the BoB, your not getting the F4 up to altitude in time and it's guns don't work, Likewise the A6M2 would find fighting Mk I-II Spitfires over England a magnitude harder than clapped out MkV's over Darwin. The BoB was a medium to high altitude fight, Zero's Wildcats P40's etc etc aren't going to cut it, simple.


It's not that "simple".

Not all raids into England were high altitude. Plenty of photographs from Do17 crews showing the bomber over their target in the hundreds of feet, not thousands.
With Great Britain strapped for fighters, the Martlet would have been a boost to interception numbers.
And I beg to differ regarding the A6M being at a disadvantage in the Bob - when the Fw190 debuted, it was a terror down low, where it's speed an maneuverability were unmatched.
There was no rule saying all combat had to be over 15,000 feet - it was at all altitudes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Not all raids into England were high altitude. Plenty of photographs from Do17 crews showing the bomber over their target in the hundreds of feet, not thousands.



Fighters need excess performance to allow them to change their height or direction to combat incoming raids, the F4F didn't have it, it's that simple. As far as the Do17 raids, as already discussed they were diversionary raids to keep the defending fighters on the ground so the main raid that came in at 15,000ft had a clear run. Spitfire pilots, as per combat reports often increased their height to try and get level or above the 109's because the Luftwaffe always used top cover.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> And I beg to differ regarding the A6M being at a disadvantage in the Bob - when the Fw190 debuted, it was a terror down low, where it's speed an maneuverability were unmatched.



The A6M2's will be facing brand new Spitfires used in an integrated air defence system, that is totally different to what they faced over Darwin. The FW190 was a terror because the RAF got the MkV instead of the MkIII, and that's not taking anything away from the 190, it was a brilliant aircraft below 20,000ft.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2020)

How many times does it have it be said the Spits wouldn't have any problems with the Zero in the BOB, for the simple reason that only a handful existed at the time. They were more akin to pre production prototypes and production of the Zero if I remember correctly, was only ordered whilst the BOB was underway in July/August 1940 which is a long way from full production let alone introduction into service.

Its worth noting that the Japanese Air Attaché in London considered the Spitfire to be the perfect interceptor of the time and he had full knowledge of the Me109.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 6, 2020)

Does anyone know the altitudes for the raids during the BoB? I've read accounts of Ju-88s flying at tree top level. Its hard to imagine He-111s flying above 10,000ft and hitting a target as small an airfield or radar station with accuracy.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 6, 2020)

Generally between 10,000 ft. and 20,000 ft., with most between 13,000 feet and 17,000 feet.

This was the bomber formations, naturally the escorts could be a lot higher.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 6, 2020)

Greyman said:


> This was the bomber formations, naturally the escorts could be a lot higher.



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-stephen-30nov40.jpg
This is one of many combat reports of Spits and 109's tangling above 30,000ft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I find it interesting how everyone is putting a great deal of effort into proving the Market/Wilcat was a pile of crap.
> 
> Yes, the early F4F mark maxed at 331 mph, but the A6M2 had a max. speed of 331mph at 14,900 and the Bf109E had a max. speed of 290mph at sea level and 348mph at 14,500 feet.
> 
> So if the early F4F's virtues are based on it's max. of 331mph, then we should also put the early A6M under the same scrutiny, right?


Hardly fair. The Martlet/Wildcat in the "what if" is a carrier capable aircraft and being carrier capable in that era incurred penalties. Things were moving quickly, a Hurricane Mk1 from 1938 was rubbish compared to exactly the same plane in 1940 with new wings, prop, fuel and armour. The Hurricane and F4F have one thing in common, their replacements were being discussed/designed/prepared long before the war started.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 6, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Does anyone know the altitudes for the raids during the BoB? I've read accounts of Ju-88s flying at tree top level. Its hard to imagine He-111s flying above 10,000ft and hitting a target as small an airfield or radar station with accuracy.



Early raids by level bomber formations were around 10,000 ft at the end of the daylight raids they were 18,000 to 20,000 ft. Small formations of Ju88s could be as high as 24,000 ft

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## H_K (Sep 6, 2020)

slaterat said:


> When you compare both aircraft with 100 oct fuel, the Hurricane is faster all the way to 18, 000 ft, after that the Wildcat(1848) has a speed advantage. At most altitudes these aircraft are within 10 mph of each other.
> 
> The Hurricane has a faster climb than 1848( carrying 4 x.50s), being 2 minutes faster to 20, 000 ft ( 8 mins to 10 minutes).
> 
> I am not sure how much the the difference in the gun package is, the guns , boxes and ammo for the 8 x .303 weigh in at 405 lbs., the one report on the F4F-3 mentions " fixed gun installation (4 x .50)" as 524.5 lbs



What about a Wildcat with 2x .50 and 2x .303 firing incendiary bullets?

Seems like that would be a good mix and lighter than 4x .50 (~375lbs vs 524lbs, a 150lb gain or ~2% gross weight reduction). I would rate 2x .50 about the same as 6x .303s firing ball/AP rounds (less weight of fire, ~2.15lb/sec vs ~3lb/sec, but more penetration/structural damage), with the 2x 0.303s providing the same incendiary effect as a Hurricane (that was missing on US aircraft).


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2020)

H_K said:


> I would rate 2x .50 about the same as 6x .303s firing ball/AP rounds when it comes to weight of fire and penetration/structural damage,


one .50 cal bullet weighed 48.6 grams so 10 per second (600rpm) =486 grams per second for one gun
AP/Ball of the .303 was 11.27 grams so 20 per second (1200rpm =225.4 grams per second for one gun, 450 grams per second for two guns.

Incendiary and tracer is a bit lighter. Yes the .50 has better penetration/structural damage, but 50% better? Please remember that the 1940 .50 cal ammo was only about 60fps faster than the .303 ammo. It had 82% of the energy of the .50 cal M2 rounds used in 1941/42 and later.


----------



## H_K (Sep 6, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes the .50 has better penetration/structural damage, but 50% better?



Well the gap is half that actually.

6x .303s has 38% more weight-of-fire than 2x .50s (the latter firing at 600 rpm). But the 0.50 has better ballistics, so retains energy better, with the difference in velocity-squared being ~10% at 150 yds. So the net gap should be only ~25%.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 7, 2020)

H_K said:


> the latter firing at 600 rpm)



In service they were between 450 and 550 rpm until the M2 was adopted.


----------



## H_K (Sep 7, 2020)

I thought that the .50 cal until 1940 was 450rpm synchronized and 600rpm unsynchronized?


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 7, 2020)

H_K said:


> I thought that the .50 cal until 1940 was 450rpm synchronized and 600rpm unsynchronized?



When pulling G the guns on one side slowed down, the ones on the other sped up, until they all jammed, in reality they topped out around 500-550.


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2020)

"Does anyone know the altitudes for the raids during the BoB? I've read accounts of Ju-88s flying at tree top level. Its hard to imagine He-111s flying above 10,000ft and hitting a target as small an airfield or radar station with accuracy."

For the bombers, typically 4,000 - 5,000m, though this increased by about 1,000m in the face of British fighter opposition and a large increase in the number of barrels protecting London after that became the target (from 92 to 200 in the three days after 7 September).

For the huge assault on London today, 80 years ago, the bombers were ordered to fly slightly higher for the first time, probably to enable a faster withdrawal.

_"...between 5,000 and 6,500 metres. By using vertical separation, the length of formations is to be kept down as much as possible. The return flight shall be carried out in a shallow dive, so that the English coast is passed at about 4,000 metres altitude."_

Escort formations would fly both at a similar level to the bombers and much higher, as evidenced in British intelligence reports.

On 15th September Nos 72 and 92 Squadrons had managed to make 26,000 feet when they intercepted elements of JG 53, giving them a vital 3,000 feet advantage. The only thing not typical today was the height that those two Spitfire squadrons had reached. Because Park and de Broke had anticipated that London was the target today they had been scrambled early to their patrol line.

Some of the most effective raids were carried out at lower or really low level. The bomb carrying Bf 109s and Bf 110s of Epgr. 210 specialised in such attacks and other units also operated at low level. Several airfields were attacked by low flying Do 17s in August 1940.

At this time the fighters rarely flew as high as 30,000 feet. I notice that the linked report in post #123 is from 30 November, some time after the Battle of Britain period.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 7, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> People are comparing the F4F to the Spitfire and Hurricane as used in the BoB as per the original question....


Indeed. To each their role. Try replacing the Wildcats at Midway with June 1942’s non-folding, short-ranged and weak-kneed Seafire Mk.IIc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Indeed. To each their role. Try replacing the Wildcats at Midway with June 1942’s non-folding, short-ranged and weak-kneed Seafire Mk.IIc.


A good point well made

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Indeed. To each their role. Try replacing the Wildcats at Midway with June 1942’s non-folding, short-ranged and weak-kneed Seafire Mk.IIc.


Or at Guadalcanal

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 7, 2020)

stona said:


> I notice that the linked report in post #123 is from 30 November, some time after the Battle of Britain period.



There are plenty of combat reports from the BoB of fighting over 20,000ft, be as picky as you want the F4F isn't going to cut it.



Admiral Beez said:


> Indeed. To each their role. Try replacing the Wildcats at Midway with June 1942’s non-folding, short-ranged and weak-kneed Seafire Mk.IIc.



Absolutely, use ground based fighters on the ground, carrier based fighters on carriers, it's not rocket science.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Absolutely, use ground based fighters on the ground, carrier based fighters on carriers, it's not rocket science.


These discussions always seem to ignore the obvious development during the war. From 1000BHP in 1940 to 2000BHP plus in 1944 is 200BHP per year by leaps and increments, very easy to be left behind. A carrier going from UK to the far east for a tour would always return with obsolete aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 7, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> In service they were between 450 and 550 rpm until the M2 was adopted.



That is why I keep putting in "_at best_" in my posts 
the .303 Browning was supposed to fire at 1200rpm. if a few fired at 1100rpm it doesn't seem to have attracted much notice.
the cowl guns on the Tomahawks (and P-39s the British got) were noted for rarely exceeding 500rpm. I am not sure about the wing guns, your numbers could be correct even for the wing guns, long belts were noted as slowing the guns down (even without "G" forces). But in 1940/early 41 the only wing .50s the British got were in the Martlets and Buffaloes.
The P-40D/E doesn't show up until the middle or fall of 1941 and those _should_ have had M2 guns. Doesn't mean they performed at book performance either to start with.

The Hispano may have actually fired faster than the .50 cal Browning in 1940, while it fired (drums and jams).
But helps explain why the British were not jumping through hoops to either get more .50 cal guns or try to field small numbers of planes armed with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 8, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> There are plenty of combat reports from the BoB of fighting over 20,000ft, be as picky as you want the F4F isn't going to cut it.
> .



I've been writing a concise day by day account of the Battle elsewhere since July and this is simply not the case. I don't even know how many combat reports, squadron diary entries, ORBs, intelligence reports, etc. I have read over the last two months. It's one of the few upsides of having your livelihood removed by the corona-bollocks. Yes, escorts were sometimes engaged at such altitudes, particularly in the current period, but the bomber formations, which were the primary targets did not usually arrive at such altitudes.
On 7th September, when the bombers were stacked up to 6,500 m (near enough 21,000 feet) this increased altitude was noticed and remarked upon. The Luftwaffe did this to reduce the length of the formations, this reason was *explicitly* stated in Goering's orders for the day.

_"By using vertical separation, the length of formations is to be kept down as much as possible." _

The increase in altitude was pertinent because this very morning, before leaving for a conference at Bentley Priory, Park had sent a directive to his controllers. On one occasion the previous day just seven of the eighteen squadrons dispatched had made successful interceptions. It had come to his notice that some Sector controllers were ordering their squadrons to altitudes a couple of thousand feet above that ordered by their Group controllers. In fear of being ‘bounced’ the squadron leaders were also adding a few thousand feet. As a result, the intercepting fighters were running directly into the escorting fighters, provoking exactly the fighter v fighter combat that Park was keen to avoid. The real targets, the bombers, were getting through, unmolested, below and only being intercepted after they had bombed, which was unacceptable. Just as Park was ordering his controllers to ensure that their fighters were to be vectored to raids at an altitude where they could intercept the bombers, some of the bombers started to fly slightly higher.

On 1 October Kesselring and Sperrle withdrew all the Luftwaffe's twin engine medium bombers from daylight action, unless they could operate with the protection of cloud, and hence, by definition, not in large formations. It was from this period that much smaller formations of Bf 109s and Bf 110s raided at much, much higher altitudes. The German aircraft commonly arrived as high as 30,000 feet. You may have seen October referred to as 'Messerschmitt month' in some British sources and this is why. *A Combat Report from late November has nothing to do with the tactics used by the Luftwaffe in July, August and September and that is not being 'picky'.*


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 8, 2020)

stona said:


> I've been writing a concise day by day account of the Battle elsewhere since July and this is simply not the case



http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bennions-28-7-40.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/berry-31-8-40.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/McMullen-15oct40.jpg
Took me 30 seconds to find these four accounts


----------



## stona (Sep 8, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bennions-28-7-40.jpg
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/berry-31-8-40.jpg
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/McMullen-15oct40.jpg
> Took me 30 seconds to find these four accounts



Escorts, not bombers.

Meeting Bf 109s at a) 22,000 feet, b) something above 20,000 feet, C) something well below 22,000 feet (lack of oxygen) and d) 20,000 feet is not unusual. It was the exact situation Park was keen to avoid when attacking large formations, if you read my post.

Nowhere did I say that the escorts were not stacked up above the bombers. On Battle of Britain day some of the escorts came in over Dungeness at 24,000 feet according to the Observer Corps. So what? They were not the principal targets.

Also on 15 September, Feldwebel Hermann Neuhoff from III./JG 53 wrote that his orders were to, “Assemble at 6,000 metres over Cap Gris Nez, where you will rendezvous with the bombers". The bombers crossed the Channel at 5,000 m, which is absolutely typical.

You won't find a large bomber formation approaching the English coast above 6,500 metres between July and October 1940. The VAST majority came across at about 5,000 metres

You seem to be under the impression that I think the Wildcat, as it existed in 1940, would have been useful to Fighter Command. It would not and if you read back you will see why I think that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Sep 10, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> I know the F4F production missed the time frame of the Battle Britain by 6 to 12 months for operational squadrons. But how would the F4F-3 Wildcat/Martlet 1 have fared alongside the Hurricane I and Spitfire II during the Battle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soaringtractor (Sep 10, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Wouldn't matter were you put them, A&AEE rated their speed at 290mph and climb under 2,000fpm, they would be as useless as P40's in the BoB. Over England, as long as they stay above 200mph and 15,000ft the Luftwaffe bombers would almost be immune to attack.


P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!! Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!! The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!! I keep hearing the Brits were "disappointed in the Mustangs lack of service ceiling with the Allison !!! BULLSHIT !!!! They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!! And the Mustang was faster, climbed Faster, as had just as high if not higher than the P40 !!!! IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!! Them facts of history....again raising hell with the Brits BULLSHIT stories !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!! Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!! The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!! I keep hearing the Brits were "disappointed in the Mustangs lack of service ceiling with the Allison !!! BULLSHIT !!!! They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!! And the Mustang was faster, climbed Faster, as had just as high if not higher than the P40 !!!! IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!! Them facts of history....again raising hell with the Brits BULLSHIT stories !!!


You are really funny when you turn your mind to it. The Mustang Mk I was a great aircraft but used by the British for army cooperation and armed recon, for obvious reasons.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!! Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!! The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!! I keep hearing the Brits were "disappointed in the Mustangs lack of service ceiling with the Allison !!! BULLSHIT !!!! They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!! And the Mustang was faster, climbed Faster, as had just as high if not higher than the P40 !!!! IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!! Them facts of history....again raising hell with the Brits BULLSHIT stories !!!



You need to tone it down. You can get your point across without being disrespectful. I already gave you a warning once. This is the last.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!!



Best *American* fighter of the time. and which P-40 in 1940?? the long nose C-15 powered ones or the paper P-40D/E? which didn't fly until the summer of 1941.

P-40 was the best American fighter *in production*. 



soaringtractor said:


> The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!!



Yep, and the Mustang prototype used a rare engine (one of four made) just like the P-40D/E was going to use, not the engine used in the P-40B/C. 



soaringtractor said:


> They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!!



See above. They would not get production P-40s and Mustangs using the same engine for over a year after the contracts were signed. 



soaringtractor said:


> IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!!



No but it did have the two speed Hooker modified single stage supercharger which wound up powering the P-40F. 
However the British were *not* blind dumb and stupid, they were ordering what could be produced at the time period in question. They had ordered 320 Allison powered Mustangs *4 months* *BEFORE *the deal was signed with Packard to make any Merlins at all. Allison produced an awful lot more engines in 1941-42 than Packard did so there was a choice of planes with Allison engines or NO planes, regardless of actual perfromance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 10, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!!



No, the 2 stage engine was not available at the time, but it was under development. The Merlin XX and 45 appeared in the latter half of 1940, improving the Merlin's altitude performance, which was already better than the V-1710's.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 11, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!!



Yes, the P-40 was useless in the BoB.

Any plane is better than no plane - in the case of the P-40 it was no plane for the majority of the BoB, and a handful for the last few weeks.


Deliveries of the P-40 (no letter) began in June 1940. Only 200 of these were delivered by September, when production of the P-40 was deferred to speed up deliveries of the Tomahawk I .

The P-40B had its first flight in March 1941.
The first flight of a P-40C, which were built to complete the initial P-40 order, was in April 1941.

The French order H-81A's (equivalent to P-40), were diverted to the UK, the first arriving in September 1940. These were deemed not combat worthy, lacking armour and self sealing tanks. These were the Tomahawk Is.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2020)

As noted in other places, the first 228 Allison V-1710C-15 engines for the US were built and operated under restrictions and were later rebuilt by Allison. The British might have operated them without restrictions but the P-40 of 1940 was not the P-40 of 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 11, 2020)

I think it's easy to say that apart from the P36* no US fighter aircraft was ready for the Battle of Britain. However the USA didn't need to fight they were not at war and not under any immediate threat of invasion. Had the Atlantic been 21 miles wide rather than 2100 miles I am sure a Spitfire or 109 equivalent would have been defending the USA.

* I have often wondered was there any more development left in the P36.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2020)

There was a development of the P-36. It was called the P-40 

Development of the R-1820 Cyclone and R-1830 Twin Wasp had temporarily stalled, without competing for the two stage engines going into the F4Fs there was no improvement in power to be had. 
The state of the art in air cooling was such that the Allison powered P-36 had over 20% less drag than the twin wasp P-36. You were going to need an awfully good cowl to make up that difference. 
And in 1940/41 (once Allison production got going) every P-36 built would be a P-40 not built.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> * I have often wondered was there any more development left in the P36.


That’s a whole other discussion that has been beaten to death a few times. I believe the P36/Hawk 75 could have served in the BoB and served well in the Pacific until the end of 1942 with the simple addition of a 2 speed P&W 1830. The US tested a single P36 with an 1830 rated for 950hp at 17,000 feet and it did 317 mph, 30 mph faster than the standard P36. A 2 speed P&W would have had 1200 hp up to 4900 ft giving it around 15 mph more speed at that altitude. 6 303’s and some seat back armor (I think the French H75’s already had armor behind the seat but that is yet another discussion) and I think it would have done as well as the Hurricane in the BoB. I know the P40 was faster, but it just gained too much weight killing its climb rate and I believe the extra weight out front badly affected maneuverability.
This is on of the few things Shortround and I disagree on.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 11, 2020)

It might be worth remembering that the RAF shortfall was pilots not airframes. The Martlet would bring nothing useful to the BoB however one examines the possibilities. There was much of merit in the Martlet and it continued to serve over Norway to the end of the war but the BoB would not have need of Martlets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

yulzari said:


> It might be worth remembering that the RAF shortfall was pilots not airframes. The Martlet would bring nothing useful to the BoB however one examines the possibilities. There was much of merit in the Martlet and it continued to serve over Norway to the end of the war but the BoB would not have need of Martlets.


I agree that pilots were the problem, but the question was “how would the martlet/Wildcat do?” Not “was the martlet/Wildcat needed?”

How would a Wildcat have done? Depends on how it was setup. Let’s set it up like it should have been. F4F-3 with 2 stage P&W 1830. This is a 330 mph fighter give or take a few mph. Remove tail hook and flotation equipment saving 50 pounds. Remove 4 50’s at 75 pounds a piece, that’s 300 pounds, remove 450 rounds per gun of 50 ammo, total of 1800 rounds at 50 pounds per 200 rounds is another 450 pounds. Replace with 8 303’s and 500 rounds per gun comes to I think 467 pounds for a Hurricane. Fill gas tank half full, 75 gallons instead of 145, saves another 420 pounds. You have removed 1220 pounds total and put back 467 pounds, total savings is 753 pounds. That should aid climb just a little bit. So now you have a plane that is just a little faster than a Hurricane, should probably climb just as well, can out turn an ME109 or Spitfire, can ‘bunt’ (shove stick forward to dive without rolling on its back) without the engine quitting, radial engine, tough etc. it would have done just fine. Was it needed? No. But it would have done fine.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

The British didn’t need another fighter, the 2 they had were just fine. All they really needed was to focus all machine guns on both fighters to a single point, say 200 yards and then give every single pilot a 2 week gunnery course with US Navy Commander John Thach.

Well trained pilots in 8 gun Hurricanes with all guns bore sighted to a single point doing high side 90 degree deflection runs on glass cockpit HE111’s, JU88’s and DO17’s would have ended the BoB VERY VERY quickly.


----------



## stona (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> All they really needed was to focus all machine guns on both fighters to a single point, say 200 yards and then give every single pilot a 2 week gunnery course with US Navy Commander John Thach.
> .



Unfortunately the tactical situation in the BoB fighting, in which a couple of squadrons of British fighters might confront 20 or 30 bombers escorted by 150 fighters, very often above them, was rather different to that faced by US pilots in the Pacific.

Try a Thach weave when you are outnumbered by five or ten to one. I was just reading of an incident in which No 74 Squadron found itself in a scrap with 60 Bf 109s! All Malan's eminently sensible guidance for air combat went out the window as each man tried to save himself.

There was a reason that the eight guns on RAF fighters were synchronised in the way that they were. There was a reason that many pilots lacked gunnery training. None of your 'solutions' are really relevant to the Battle of Britain at all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 11, 2020)

If we are allowed models of Wildcat that didn't exist in July 1940 then I am going to equip my RAF for the Battle with Spitfire MkIXs. Whadda ya mean that's crazy, why is a 1942 Wildcat with 1942 guns not crazy.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

stona said:


> Unfortunately the tactical situation in the BoB fighting, in which a couple of squadrons of British fighters might confront 20 or 30 bombers escorted by 150 fighters, very often above them, was rather different to that faced by US pilots in the Pacific.
> 
> Try a Thach weave when you are outnumbered by five or ten to one. I was just reading of an incident in which No 74 Squadron found itself in a scrap with 60 Bf 109s! All Malan's eminently sensible guidance for air combat went out the window as each man tried to save himself.
> 
> There was a reason that the eight guns on RAF fighters were synchronised in the way that they were. There was a reason that many pilots lacked gunnery training. None of your 'solutions' are really relevant to the Battle of Britain at all.


I said nothing about the Thach weave, i was talking about John Thach’s idea and training for attacking bombers. You climb above and ahead of them off to one side, turn toward them, open fire in a 90 degree deflection shot. The fighter has the entire upper wing, engines and full length of the fuselage as a target, the gunners on the enemy planes, IF any of them can bear, have a 90 degree deflection shot head on at a small fighter, virtually impossible.

If every raid had been like the case you describe there would never have been an interception by the British.

The reason the British used the spread pattern was because they didn’t teach gunnery. Seriously, have you ever shot a gun? Do you own any? Being able to actually hit the target is sort of the main point when using a gun whether your bird hunting, deer hunting, target shooting, shooting at a soldier with a pistol or rifle, a tank shooting at a tank, a battleship shooting at a battleship or a plane shooting at a plane. Sending up a guy in a plane and saying “oh by the way, you’ll see enemy planes today, that button there makes the guns go pow pow pow” is not the best way to win. Every year when I go deer hunting, my son and I go somewhere and shoot our rifles to make sure they are still sighted in. The British didn’t do gunnery training for probably a couple of reasons 1. They didn’t have time 2. Some idiot who probably never flew didn’t think you could hit anything anyway.

How can you think teaching the pilots to be able to lead and hit a target is an idea that wouldn’t help???


----------



## stona (Sep 11, 2020)

British fighters were often climbing to meet the bombers. I can give you any number of examples.

The British did teach gunnery, but there were serious shortcomings in the training that persisted into 1941.

Really you are comparing apples with pairs. When was the USN confronted by 800 enemy aircraft, more than 500 (517 if you need an exact figure) of which were fighters?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> If we are allowed models of Wildcat that didn't exist in July 1940 then I am going to equip my RAF for the Battle with Spitfire MkIXs. Whadda ya mean that's crazy, why is a 1942 Wildcat with 1942 guns not crazy.


I’m just answering the original question of the thread. The very first Wildcat F4F-3 had the 2 stage P&W engine. If you read the post I said “replace the 4 50’s with 8 303’s”. If you don’t like the original post then don’t comment. I also said in an earlier post that I know the F4F Wildcat couldn’t have made it to the BoB. I also said they didn’t need it, the Spitfire and Hurricane were just fine, they needed gunnery training and all the guns bore sighted to the same spot. The Hurricane with its guns concentrated into 2 tight banks of 4 guns each would have been especially devastating to a bomber if all guns were bore sighted to one spot and flown by a guy that could shoot like John Thach. Can you imagine 40 John Thach’s flying Hurricanes with the guns all set at 200 yards in a single squadron making a head on pass at a group of HE111’s? The Germans would have run out of bombers pretty quick


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> If you don’t like the original post then don’t comment



I think you need to calm down a bit. You don't get to decide when I can post and what I can post about. If you want to post fantasic rubbish then so can I.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

stona said:


> British fighters were often climbing to meet the bombers. I can give you any number of examples.
> 
> The British did teach gunnery, but there were serious shortcomings in the training that persisted into 1941.
> 
> Really you are comparing apples with pairs. When was the USN confronted by 800 enemy aircraft, more than 500 (517 if you need an exact figure) of which were fighters?


It doesn’t matter if it’s 1 on 1, 2 on 1, 5 on 1 or 10 on 1 if you can’t hit the target. You don’t shoot do you. You don’t own a gun do you. 1 on 1 a Hurricane jumps an HE111, Hurricane guns are pointed in 8 different directions and the pilot has never pulled the trigger before. What do you think will happen? The HE111 will most likely get away. The Hurricane pilot has a good chance of getting shot down because he has to get within 50 yards to hit the bloody thing and then he only has 1 or 2 guns that will even hit it at the same time. Contrast that with John Thach, same Hurricane, all 8 guns bore sighted at 200 yards doing a high side 90 degree deflection shot and hosing the all glass cockpit with an extremely accurate burst. 1 HE111 and it’s crew aren’t going home and John has plenty of ammo left for his next target

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> I think you need to calm down a bit. You don't get to decide when I can post and what I can post about. If you want to post fantasic rubbish then so can I.


I’m not upset, the entire thread is about whether the Wildcat would do ok in the BoB. That is the title of the thread. It is the question that I answered. We are 8 pages into that discussion. You can post whatever you like, I don’t care, but it seems a little silly to me to tell me that what I post is rubbish 8 pages into the discussion when all I am doing is answering the original question. I literally said early on that “I know it couldn’t have made it but if it did..”. The original F4F-3, the very very first one built had a 2 stage engine, it was a 330 mph fighter, give or take, at 19,000-21,000 feet. If you removed the hook and flotation gear, exchanged the 4 50’s for 8 303’s and filled the tank half full you would lose about 750 pounds. It probably wouldn’t be over a couple mph faster but rate of climb would be much better and the British actually have 303 ammo. That is answering the original question with my take on it. If you want to answer that with how a Harrier would do with Sidewinder missiles then be my guest, as I said I was just answering the original question.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Can you imagine 40 John Thach’s flying Hurricanes with the guns all set at 200 yards in a single squadron making a head on pass at a group of HE111’s? The Germans would have run out of bombers pretty quick


How does a deflection shot work in a head on pass? All this training meant they didn't need a gyro stabilised gun sight I presume?


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> It doesn’t matter if it’s 1 on 1, 2 on 1, 5 on 1 or 10 on 1 if you can’t hit the target. You don’t shoot do you. You don’t own a gun do you. 1 on 1 a Hurricane jumps an HE111, Hurricane guns are pointed in 8 different directions and the pilot has never pulled the trigger before. What do you think will happen? The HE111 will most likely get away. The Hurricane pilot has a good chance of getting shot down because he has to get within 50 yards to hit the bloody thing and then he only has 1 or 2 guns that will even hit it at the same time. Contrast that with John Thach, same Hurricane, all 8 guns bore sighted at 200 yards doing a high side 90 degree deflection shot and hosing the all glass cockpit with an extremely accurate burst. 1 HE111 and it’s crew aren’t going home and John has plenty of ammo left for his next target



The problem is the engagements were seldom, if ever, one-on-one. Engagement ratios DO matter. Lining up a perfect shot on a He111 becomes a lot more difficult if you're looking over your shoulder because the Staffel of escorting Me109s is lining up behind you. I'm afraid you're oversimplifying things and ignoring critical issues that impacted the tactical environment and the pilots' ability, and time, to aim accurately.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> How does a deflection shot work in a head on pass? All this training meant they didn't need a gyro stabilised gun sight I presume?





pbehn said:


> How does a deflection shot work in a head on pass? All this training meant they didn't need a gyro stabilised gun sight I presume?


Come on pbehn, you’ve been on this site forever, don’t resort to a silly argumentative post like that. John Thach was a gunnery expert, he could do a head on pass or a 90 degree deflection shot. So now that that is cleared up, what do you think would happen if John Thach made a head on pass on an HE111? What do you think would happen if John Thach made a 90 degree deflection pass at an HE111? (In an 8 gun Hurricane with all guns boresited to 200 yards)


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> It doesn’t matter if it’s 1 on 1, 2 on 1, 5 on 1 or 10 on 1 if you can’t hit the target. You don’t shoot do you. You don’t own a gun do you. 1 on 1 a Hurricane jumps an HE111, Hurricane guns are pointed in 8 different directions and the pilot has never pulled the trigger before. What do you think will happen? The HE111 will most likely get away. The Hurricane pilot has a good chance of getting shot down because he has to get within 50 yards to hit the bloody thing and then he only has 1 or 2 guns that will even hit it at the same time. Contrast that with John Thach, same Hurricane, all 8 guns bore sighted at 200 yards doing a high side 90 degree deflection shot and hosing the all glass cockpit with an extremely accurate burst. 1 HE111 and it’s crew aren’t going home and John has plenty of ammo left for his next target



What was John Thatch doing in the summer of 1940? 
He certainly hadn't honed his skills in combat yet, and wouldn't for another 2 years. (Maybe I am wrong, and if I am, I apologize)
I vote we just teleport 1942 era George Beurling back with his Malta Spitfire. Just take the stupid Volkes filter off first

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> The problem is the engagements were seldom, if ever, one-on-one. Engagement ratios DO matter. Lining up a perfect shot on a He111 becomes a lot more difficult if you're looking over your shoulder because the Staffel of escorting Me109s is lining up behind you. I'm afraid you're oversimplifying things and ignoring critical issues that impacted the tactical environment and the pilots' ability, and time, to aim accurately.


Wow. Ok.
By a vote here, how many people think hitting the enemy plane with bullets is important in actually shooting him down?
How many people have read John Thach’s idea on how to attack a bomber and shoot it down without getting shot down yourself by defensive guns?
Those of you that don’t believe training pilots to shoot accurately so they can actually hit the enemy plane, how many of you guys hunt, shoot or actually own guns?
At Midway, John Thach and 2 other Wildcats supposedly engaged around 20 Zeroes at low level. Thach knocked down 3. He didn’t have time to take a long steady aim, he fired head on shots of opportunity, BUT he hit them and knocked them down. How? He had practiced! It’s like shooting skeet.

If we go skeet shooting I take 10 guys who have 2 weeks training in shooting skeet and you have 10 guys that have never fired a gun, who will have the higher score? Works the same way in air to air gunnery

if a gaggle of 109’s is attacking you, you turn and fight. If a Hurricane passes in front of you with a 109 on his tail, wouldn’t it be nice if you were trained in deflection shooting so you could actually hit him and knock him of the other Hurricanes tail? When you do make a pass at a bomber wouldn’t it be great to be able to actually hit them with a good solid concentrated burst instead of just spraying the sky in the general direction?


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Come on pbehn, you’ve been on this site forever, don’t resort to a silly argumentative post like that. John Thach was a gunnery expert, he could do a head on pass or a 90 degree deflection shot. So now that that is cleared up, what do you think would happen if John Thach made a head on pass on an HE111? What do you think would happen if John Thach made a 90 degree deflection pass at an HE111? (In an 8 gun Hurricane with all guns boresited to 200 yards)


It is you that is being deliberately argumentative. If your guns are harmonised at 200 yards and you make a head on pass travelling at 300MPH towards a bomber at 200 MPH. How do you get out of the way at a closing speed of 500MPH? Do you think the British didn't do head on passes? Many/most WW2 aces were good shots with a shotgun. The British learned that more training was needed and aids to shooting were needed before the US entered the war. Not everyone can shoot a shotgun and hit a moving target. Training and a gyro gunsight helped more to do what some could do naturally.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Wow. Ok.
> By a vote here, how many people think hitting the enemy plane with bullets is important in actually shooting him down?
> How many people have read John Thach’s idea on how to attack a bomber and shoot it down without getting shot down yourself by defensive guns?
> Those of you that don’t believe training pilots to shoot accurately so they can actually hit the enemy plane, how many of you guys hunt, shoot or actually own guns?
> ...



I'm not arguing that RAF training in shooting was lacking in 1940, or that better training may well have increased the number of kills. However, you cannot ignore the tactical environment because it has a direct impact on the ability of the fighter to get into a shooting position. The USN experience was vastly different from that of the RAF and, IMHO, distilling the complexity of air combat into an unrealistic 1-v-1 engagement ignores a whole range of factors that also impact the fight. 

For example, the RAF was struggling to replace fighter pilot losses. The training scheme was cut to beyond the realistic minimum just to maintain the frontline strength. The additional training you're proposing, while eminently sensible, would considerably extend the time it took to get new pilots to squadrons. Senior RAF leaders believed that the strategic risk of not maintaining the defensive frontline was more important than the tactical risk of pilots not being as well trained in gunnery as they might have been under ideal circumstances.

It's also worth noting that the USN had 2 extra years to prepare for its first combats, and US observers were able to report on modern combat experience gained from the Battle of Britain. The RAF lacked that luxury and its leaders had to make decisions with the strategic objective in mind. I have a hard time faulting them for those decisions.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not arguing that RAF training in shooting was lacking in 1940, or that better training may well have increased the number of kills. However, you cannot ignore the tactical environment because it has a direct impact on the ability of the fighter to get into a shooting position. The USN experience was vastly different from that of the RAF and, IMHO, distilling the complexity of air combat into an unrealistic 1-v-1 engagement ignores a whole range of factors that also impact the fight.
> 
> For example, the RAF was struggling to replace fighter pilot losses. The training scheme was cut to beyond the realistic minimum just to maintain the frontline strength. The additional training you're proposing, while eminently sensible, would considerably extend the time it took to get new pilots to squadrons. Senior RAF leaders believed that the strategic risk of not maintaining the defensive frontline was more important than the tactical risk of pilots not being as well trained in gunnery as they might have been under ideal circumstances.
> 
> It's also worth noting that the USN had 2 extra years to prepare for its first combats, and US observers were able to report on modern combat experience gained from the Battle of Britain. The RAF lacked that luxury and its leaders had to make decisions with the strategic objective in mind. I have a hard time faulting them for those decisions.


I never said it was “possible” to do it. I said it is what was “needed”. The Germans “needed” 4 engine heavy bombers with better defense, but it wasn’t “possible”. The British “needed” their pilots to have gunnery training, I mean ANY gunnery training would have been better than “oh by the way, that button makes the guns shoot, bombers are that way, hope you get one”. I agree that after the battle has started is a poor time to start gunnery training, but even pre-war, from what I have read on here, the British mostly taught formation flying. There is a place for that as well but the pre-war pilots should have already been well trained in air to air gunnery but they weren’t so there wasn’t even a core group of pre-war gunnery experts to call on, it was all on the job training.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It is you that is being deliberately argumentative. If your guns are harmonised at 200 yards and you make a head on pass travelling at 300MPH towards a bomber at 200 MPH. How do you get out of the way at a closing speed of 500MPH? Do you think the British didn't do head on passes? Many/most WW2 aces were good shots with a shotgun. The British learned that more training was needed and aids to shooting were needed before the US entered the war. Not everyone can shoot a shotgun and hit a moving target. Training and a gyro gunsight helped more to do what some could do naturally.



Yes, actually I doubt very many if any new pilots made head on passes especially when they had 0 gunnery training. They talked about pilots opening fire at 1000 yards or more because they had 0 training. The Wildcat has a standard reflector site like all early war fighters. Training training training training is how you teach a pilot to shoot and hit another plane. Gunnery training should have started pre-war. EVERY fighter pilot should have had at least a couple of days of basic air to air gunnery before being committed to the fight. Train a squadron in the rear and the rotate it to the front. At least set up a twin engine British bomber on an airfield and let the pilots each sit in the seat of a plane 200-300 yards away from different angles so he knows what 200-300 yards should look like. To do anything less is criminally stupid. (There were a lot of criminally stupid ideas going on with every country involved, I’m by no means singling out Britain. American torpedos come to mind)


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Yes, actually I doubt very many if any new pilots made head on passes especially when they had 0 gunnery training. They talked about pilots opening fire at 1000 yards or more because they had 0 training. The Wildcat has a standard reflector site like all early war fighters. Training training training training is how you teach a pilot to shoot and hit another plane. Gunnery training should have started pre-war. EVERY fighter pilot should have had at least a couple of days of basic air to air gunnery before being committed to the fight. Train a squadron in the rear and the rotate it to the front. At least set up a twin engine British bomber on an airfield and let the pilots each sit in the seat of a plane 200-300 yards away from different angles so he knows what 200-300 yards should look like. To do anything less is criminally stupid. (There were a lot of criminally stupid ideas going on with every country involved, I’m by no means singling out Britain. American torpedos come to mind)



Can you please source the statement about zero gunnery training? Certainly during the 1930s the RAF had an annual air-to-air gunnery competition with a trophy for the best squadron. Squadrons also participated in annual armament camps. Thus it would seem that, even with the rapid expansion in the 1930s, there would be a cadre of RAF fighter pilots with at least some gunnery skills.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Can you please source the statement about zero gunnery training? Certainly during the 1930s the RAF had an annual air-to-air gunnery competition with a trophy for the best squadron. Squadrons also participated in annual armament camps. Thus it would seem that, even with the rapid expansion in the 1930s, there would be a cadre of RAF fighter pilots with at least some gunnery skills.


I actually can’t. It was on here somewhere. I have also read about the new guys opening fire at 1,000 yards or more during the BoB. I don’t know if anyone else’s gunnery training was any better except for the US Navy. I recall reading that before Midway John Thach spent about a week with his pilots repeatedly taking them up and shooting at a target sleeve over and over with Thach coaching them until all of them were able to get a good score on the target sleeve.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

The Royal Air Force established a gunnery training station at RAF Sutton Bridge in 1926. Is that pre-war enough for you?


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Yes, actually I doubt very many if any new pilots made head on passes especially when they had 0 gunnery training. They talked about pilots opening fire at 1000 yards or more because they had 0 training. The Wildcat has a standard reflector site like all early war fighters. Training training training training is how you teach a pilot to shoot and hit another plane. Gunnery training should have started pre-war. EVERY fighter pilot should have had at least a couple of days of basic air to air gunnery before being committed to the fight. Train a squadron in the rear and the rotate it to the front. At least set up a twin engine British bomber on an airfield and let the pilots each sit in the seat of a plane 200-300 yards away from different angles so he knows what 200-300 yards should look like. To do anything less is criminally stupid. (There were a lot of criminally stupid ideas going on with every country involved, I’m by no means singling out Britain. American torpedos come to mind)


As I understand it the people opening up at 1000 yards had had training, that was the problem. The Germans had training too, obviously better than the British and they had twice as many fighters, it makes you wonder why they didn't win in a week, doesn't it?


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2020)

Before August 1940, in other words those pilots trained for the BOB there were 25 hours of flight time dedicated to gunnery training.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The Royal Air Force established a gunnery training station at RAF Sutton Bridge in 1926. Is that pre-war enough for you?


If they actually used it and the pilots could shoot then why did the RAF used the spread pattern with the guns on the Spitfire and Hurricane? 

If your trying to kill ducks, pheasants or crows and your a good shot with a shotgun why would you use an improved cylinder instead of a full choke? Full choke puts more lead on the target, more likely to have a clean kill, no reason not to use it if you can actually hit something.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Glider said:


> Before August 1940, in other words those pilots trained for the BOB there were 25 hours of flight time dedicated to gunnery training.


That is some good info. Why, if the pilots were trained and able to shoot accurately, would the RAF use a spread pattern on the Spitfire and Hurricane? Anyone who actually shoots and can hit would want everything aimed at one point.


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> If they actually used it and the pilots could shoot then why did the RAF used the spread pattern with the guns on the Spitfire and Hurricane?



Because pre war / early war when bombers didn't have armour or self sealing tanks any hit from a 303 was to be taken seriously, so increasing the chances of hitting the aircraft had some logic. When protection increased then the need to concentrate the fire became far more important.

Most nations exaggerated the effectiveness of their weapons remembering again that in 1939/40 8 x LMG was far more than the average fighter carried

edit - 25 hours was a decent amount for a pilot in training and probably more than most countries, however it would be wrong to assume that 25 hours was sufficient. Do you know of any nation where the experienced pilots considered those out of training to be good at anything, including shooting?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Glider said:


> Because pre war / early war when bombers didn't have armour or self sealing tanks any hit from a 303 was to be taken seriously, so increasing the chances of hitting the aircraft had some logic. When protection increased then the need to concentrate the fire became far more important.
> 
> Most nations exaggerated the effectiveness of their weapons remembering again that in 1939/40 8 x LMG was far more than the average fighter carried


I agree that for the time, 8 lmg was about as good as it got, but if you can shoot and only 2 of your 8 guns will actually strike a twin engine sized aircraft at 200-300 yards, then why carry 8? If you can shoot, then all 8 should be concentrated, if you only need 2 to take down a plane then remove the other 6 like the KI43.

As I have said, I am not picking on the British, I recall reading that Richard Bong said he had little gunnery training and had to get close to hit them. He went on leave got some gunnery training and said he was a lot better shot after that and would have gotten more kills if he would have had gunnery training at the beginning


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> If they actually used it and the pilots could shoot then why did the RAF used the spread pattern with the guns on the Spitfire and Hurricane?


Because shooting at stressed skin monoplanes from other stressed skin monoplanes going over 300mph was brand spanking new in 1939/40.
And 8x.303 was considered to be ENORMOUS fire power in the days leading up to the war, when the standard fighter armament was usually still 2 synchronized light machine guns. As it turned out, the 8 machine guns was only barely adequate.
Perhaps the RAF should have followed the pre-war American example, and just ordered some Bell Airacuda's for bomber interception? My point being, that nobody really knew how the next war would play out.

Edit: This post was a little slow on the draw, sorry

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Because shooting at stressed skin monoplanes from other stressed skin monoplanes going over 300mph was brand spanking new in 1939/40.
> And 8x.303 was considered to be ENORMOUS fire power in the days leading up to the war, when the standard fighter armament was usually still 2 synchronized light machine guns. As it turned out, the 8 machine guns was only barely adequate.
> Perhaps the RAF should have followed the pre-war American example, and just ordered some Bell Airacuda's for bomber interception?
> 
> Edit: This post was a little slow on the draw, sorry


Enormous firepower only counts if it hits the target. If you are the greatest air to air marksman on planet earth, but only 2 of the 8 guns on your Hurricane will hit a 2 engine bomber at 200-300 yards because of the spread pattern then your just hauling around extra weight, and your actual real firepower is no better than a KI43, a P36 or an ME109 who ran out of cannon ammo.

Or, they weren’t trained to shoot and the spread pattern had to used so they could hit something. Can’t be both, has to be one or the other.


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2020)

Look at it this way. If you think that 2 x LMG was sufficient to seriously damage the enemy, then carrying 8 x LMG allows you to spread them out and cover four times the amount of sky. Your chances of hitting are significantly better as are your chances of surviving for another day. 

We all know that 2 x LMG wasn't sufficient so they had to group them together when the targets became more robust.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Enormous firepower only counts if it hits the target. If you are the greatest air to air marksman on planet earth, but only 2 of the 8 guns on your Hurricane will hit a 2 engine bomber at 200-300 yards because of the spread pattern then your just hauling around extra weight, and your actual real firepower is no better than a KI43, a P36 or an ME109 who ran out of cannon ammo.
> 
> Or, they weren’t trained to shoot and the spread pattern had to used so they could hit something. Can’t be both, has to be one or the other.


I have no idea what the discussion is, pilots could and did change the harmonisation of their guns, but the "spread pattern" depends on how the guns are used. If you harmonise all guns at 200 yards then they are almost useless at 400 + yards aren't they? The reason why a shot gun isn't a rifle is because very, very few marksmen can hit a bird with a single bullet so a shotgun puts out a cloud of shot of which one or two hit the bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Glider said:


> Look at it this way. If you think that 2 x LMG was sufficient to seriously damage the enemy, then carrying 8 x LMG allows you to spread them out and cover four times the amount of sky. Your chances of hitting are significantly better as are your chances of surviving for another day.
> 
> We all know that 2 x LMG wasn't sufficient so they had to group them together when the targets became more robust.


You just made my point for me. IF you are trained to shoot and have practiced then you should be able to take a P36 and put a good percentage of bullets into a towed target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30’s. If you can put a good percent of bullets into a target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30’s then you should be able to climb into an 8 gun Hurricane with all guns bore sighted to 200 or so yards and completely shred the target sleeve. There would be no need for the 8 guns and spread pattern if you can shoot.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I have no idea what the discussion is, pilots could and did change the harmonisation of their guns, but the "spread pattern" depends on how the guns are used. If you harmonise all guns at 200 yards then they are almost useless at 400 + yards aren't they? The reason why a shot gun isn't a rifle is because very, very few marksmen can hit a bird with a single bullet so a shotgun puts out a cloud of shot of which one or two hit the bird.


If harmonized at 200 yards, the pattern would be the width of the guns in the wing at 400. (Draw a symmetrical X, one end is guns in the wing, the center is 200 yards, other end of the X is 400 yards. Obviously wing flex etc would assist in opening the pattern up more)

Yes a shotgun fires a pattern but the choke controls the size of the pattern. Full choke is a tight pattern, cylinder bore is a very open pattern. On large tough birds at distance you want a full choke for a tight dense pattern on the target. Poorer shots need a more open pattern

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> You just made my point for me. IF you are trained to shoot and have practiced then you should be able to take a P36 and put a good percentage of bullets into a towed target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30’s. If you can put a good percent of bullets into a target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30’s then you should be able to climb into an 8 gun Hurricane with all guns bore sighted to 200 or so yards and completely shred the target sleeve. There would be no need for the 8 guns and spread pattern if you can shoot.


The LW werent sending over target sleeves in 1940.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The LW werent sending over target sleeves in 1940.


Seriously? How are they supposed to practice, shooting down real airplanes?

You don’t own a gun do you.

I practice before deer season on paper targets. I don’t practice on live deer before I go deer hunting. I practice on clay skeet before I go bird hunting, I don’t shoot live birds to practice for shooting live birds. The police and the army shoot paper targets to practice for people, they don’t shoot real people to practice shooting real people. Air forces practice gunnery on target sleeves, they don’t actually shoot each other down in peacetime


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> If harmonized at 200 yards, the pattern would be the width of the guns in the wing at 400. (Draw a symmetrical X, one end is guns in the wing, the center is 200 yards, other end of the X is 400 yards. Obviously wing flex etc would assist in opening the pattern up more)
> 
> Yes a shotgun fires a pattern but the choke controls the size of the pattern. Full choke is a tight pattern, cylinder bore is a very open pattern. On large tough birds at distance you want a full choke for a tight dense pattern on the target. Poorer shots need a more open pattern


At 400 yards zero bullets are hitting where you are aiming, are they? and at 600 yards they are more than the width of an aircraft apart. aren't they? The spread of bullets was based on what was needed for an average pilot to take down a bomber with a 2 second burst, as far as I understand it, exactly as you have described with the choke required for less experienced shooters and bigger birds. In fact although RAF pilots complained their rifle calibre ammunition didn't take down bombers effectively, many who made it back to France didn't take off again, same for the crews.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Seriously? How are they supposed to practice, shooting down real airplanes?
> 
> You don’t own a gun do you.
> 
> I practice before deer season on paper targets. I don’t practice on live deer before I go deer hunting. I practice on clay skeet before I go bird hunting, I don’t shoot live birds to practice for shooting live birds. The police and the army shoot paper targets to practice for people, they don’t shoot real people to practice shooting real people. Air forces practice gunnery on target sleeves, they don’t actually shoot each other down in peacetime


Is the game changer in the discussion whether I have shot a deer or not? Do you practice with anything that shoots back and does 350MPH?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> At 400 yards zero bullets are hitting where you are aiming, are they? and at 600 yards they are more than the width of an aircraft apart. aren't they? The spread of bullets was based on what was needed for an average pilot to take down a bomber with a 2 second burst, as far as I understand it, exactly as you have described with the choke required for less experienced shooters and bigger birds. In fact although RAF pilots complained their rifle calibre ammunition didn't take down bombers effectively, many who made it back to France didn't take off again, same for the crews.


They didn’t take down bombers because the spread pattern would not let all of the guns hit the target. If you are a good shot and only 2 guns would hit the target out of 8 then why carry 8 guns? If you are a poor shot with no training then the 8 gun spread pattern makes sense.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Is the game changer in the discussion whether I have shot a deer or not? Do you practice with anything that shoots back and does 350MPH?


No, your not grasping basic firearm principles. Shooting a deer requires some practice. The farther he is, or if he is running, the more practice is required to do it. 

Shooting a tank with another tank requires practice. Tanker gunners must qualify just like police and soldiers must qualify.

Shooting a flying bird requires practice. The farther out and faster they fly the more practice is required.

Air to air gunnery requires practice. Shooting a towed target sleeve over and over until you can get a good percentage of bullets on target is the best practice you can get short of shooting at the real thing.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> No, your not grasping basic firearm principles. Shooting a deer requires some practice. The farther he is, or if he is running, the more practice is required to do it.
> 
> Shooting a tank with another tank requires practice. Tanker gunners must qualify just like police and soldiers must qualify.
> 
> ...


You are very persuasive, now remind me again why the P-51s armament was increased from 4 to 6 x 0.5"mgs and the P-47 had 8 x 0,5mgs. With such highly trained marksmen they surely just needed 2 to take down s/e fighters as opposed to armoured bombers? And why did they need that gyro gunsight thingey?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> They didn’t take down bombers because the spread pattern would not let all of the guns hit the target.



I don't think anyone is arguing against the virtues of proper gun harmonization. It is obviously the most effective way to destroy an aircraft with wing mounted guns. History proves that, however, in 1939, the RAF didnt have the luxury of hindsight. They configured the guns the way it was assumed they would be most effective, in a future war. 
They obviously SHOULD have harmonized the guns at 2-3 hundred yards, just like they SHOULD have had more specific gunnery training. But they went to war with what they had, and adjusted their efforts to reflect the new reality. The obsolete "vic" formation comes to mind as well

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> At 400 yards zero bullets are hitting where you are aiming, are they? and at 600 yards they are more than the width of an aircraft apart. aren't they? The spread of bullets was based on what was needed for an average pilot to take down a bomber with a 2 second burst, as far as I understand it, exactly as you have described with the choke required for less experienced shooters and bigger birds. In fact although RAF pilots complained their rifle calibre ammunition didn't take down bombers effectively, many who made it back to France didn't take off again, same for the crews.


I re-read this. I think there might be a mis-understanding here. Early in the war the RAF had a ‘spread pattern’ that they used where they didn’t focus all of the guns on a fighter at a specific range. they literally pointed each of them in a different direction. (This is hard to explain by typing. I hope someone posts a pic of what I’m talking about). It wasn’t that they focused all 8 at 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 yards, they would point them all over the place (poor description on my part). For instance an HE111 straight and level a Spitfire straight and level 200 yards behind it, both parked on a runway, only maybe 2 or 3 of the Spitfires guns would hit the HE111. Do you see the problem? Instead of having all 8 hit in say a 3 foot circle at that distance (not sure that was even possible as a machine gun shoots a large group, unlike a rifle) So instead of a Spitfire or Hurricane saddling up behind an HE111 and putting to sight on the left engine and then pumping 160 rounds a seconds into that 1 engine, he might only be able to get 1 gun to bear on that engine. Does that make more sense?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I re-read this. I think there might be a mis-understanding here. Early in the war the RAF had a ‘spread pattern’ that they used where they didn’t focus all of the guns on a fighter at a specific range. they literally pointed each of them in a different direction. (This is hard to explain by typing. I hope someone posts a pic of what I’m talking about). It wasn’t that they focused all 8 at 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 yards, they would point them all over the place (poor description on my part). For instance an HE111 straight and level a Spitfire straight and level 200 yards behind it, both parked on a runway, only maybe 2 or 3 of the Spitfires guns would hit the HE111. Do you see the problem? Instead of having all 8 hit in say a 3 foot circle at that distance (not sure that was even possible as a machine gun shoots a large group, unlike a rifle) So instead of a Spitfire or Hurricane saddling up behind an HE111 and putting to sight on the left engine and then pumping 160 rounds a seconds into that 1 engine, he might only be able to get 1 gun to bear on that engine. Does that make more sense?



It was assumed that the speeds modern aircraft would overtake each other were going to be fantastic. Spreading the fire out from 8 guns was supposed to give the intercepting aircraft a greater chance of hitting the target at ever decreasing ranges until it was overtaken. In a stern chase

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing against the virtues of proper gun harmonization. It is obviously the most effective way to destroy an aircraft with wing mounted guns. History proves that, however, in 1939, the RAF didnt have the luxury of hindsight. They configured the guns the way it was assumed they would be most effective, in a future war.
> They obviously SHOULD have harmonized the guns at 2-3 hundred yards, just like they SHOULD have had more specific gunnery training. But they went to war with what they had, and adjusted their efforts to reflect the new reality. The obsolete "vic" formation comes to mind as well


Actually they were and were also arguing against gunnery training. I agree with everything you just typed. I agree they went with what they had as did everyone else. The US sure could have done better as well, as I said above Richard Bong said he wasn’t a very good shot either and did much better after he got some training later on


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I re-read this. I think there might be a mis-understanding here. Early in the war the RAF had a ‘spread pattern’ that they used where they didn’t focus all of the guns on a fighter at a specific range. they literally pointed each of them in a different direction. (This is hard to explain by typing. I hope someone posts a pic of what I’m talking about). It wasn’t that they focused all 8 at 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 yards, they would point them all over the place (poor description on my part). For instance an HE111 straight and level a Spitfire straight and level 200 yards behind it, both parked on a runway, only maybe 2 or 3 of the Spitfires guns would hit the HE111. Do you see the problem? Instead of having all 8 hit in say a 3 foot circle at that distance (not sure that was even possible as a machine gun shoots a large group, unlike a rifle) So instead of a Spitfire or Hurricane saddling up behind an HE111 and putting to sight on the left engine and then pumping 160 rounds a seconds into that 1 engine, he might only be able to get 1 gun to bear on that engine. Does that make more sense?


I have seen the diagrame so I know what you are discussing and that is my point. It is a strange argument to say the RAF didnt shoot down either bombers or fighters, because they obviously did. You will not get a bomber to explode in flames with rifle calibre bullets unless you are lucky. The fact is the L/W gave up because they were losing too many fighters and bombers, at the end down to 200 serviceable bombers. You can argue that the RAF could have done things better and they would agree, but you simply cannot argue that they weren't shooting down bombers and fighters, they were at a rate the LW couldn't sustain.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> You are very persuasive, now remind me again why the P-51s armament was increased from 4 to 6 x 0.5"mgs and the P-47 had 8 x 0,5mgs. With such highly trained marksmen they surely just needed 2 to take down s/e fighters as opposed to armoured bombers? And why did they need that gyro gunsight thingey?


Gyro gunsight, technology always helps right along with training. Try shooting an open sighted rifle at 200 yards, then try the same thing with a scope, then try it with a big scope. With open sights the front sight might cover half the target, with a good scope I can shoot 2 1/4 inch groups at 400 yards and 1 hole groups at 100. New technology is always welcome. More guns, quicker kill in a shorter time. I think the British setup of 8 303’s was about as good as it got in the time period as long as they were all focused in a tight pattern at whatever range you choose. As I said several times above, an 8 gun Hurricane with, lets say any air to air marksman, would cause horrifying results inside a German bomber.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I have seen the diagrame so I know what you are discussing and that is my point. It is a strange argument to say the RAF didnt shoot down either bombers or fighters, because they obviously did. You will not get a bomber to explode in flames with rifle calibre bullets unless you are lucky. The fact is the L/W gave up because they were losing too many fighters and bombers, at the end down to 200 serviceable bombers. You can argue that the RAF could have done things better and they would agree, but you simply cannot argue that they weren't shooting down bombers and fighters, they were at a rate the LW couldn't sustain.


I never said they didn’t shoot down any. Obviously they knocked down several, what I said was, if they were all well trained at air to air gunnery (obviously not everyone can be John Thach) the BoB would have been much shorter because they would have knocked down more German fighters and bombers at a quicker pace.

I agree that obviously they could have done better, obviously so could the USA (the torpedo thing again, nothing to compete with the Spitfire, 109 or Zero at the beginning...etc etc)


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> 8 gun Hurricane with, lets say any air to air marksman, would cause horrifying results inside a German bomber



What about a TWELVE gun hurricane, against unarmoured Japanese bombers? 
Totally off topic I know, I just remember reading a Japanese report regarding the Hurricane Mk.IIB in the Burma theater. They were not impressed by the aircraft, but certainly respected the swarm of angry bees streaming out the front of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Gyro gunsight, technology always helps right along with training. Try shooting an open sighted rifle at 200 yards, then try the same thing with a scope, then try it with a big scope. With open sights the front sight might cover half the target, with a good scope I can shoot 2 1/4 inch groups at 400 yards and 1 hole groups at 100. New technology is always welcome. More guns, quicker kill in a shorter time. I think the British setup of 8 303’s was about as good as it got in the time period as long as they were all focused in a tight pattern at whatever range you choose. As I said several times above, an 8 gun Hurricane with, lets say any air to air marksman, would cause horrifying results inside a German bomber.


And they did, didn't they? I think I already said that by the time the L/W stopped they were down to 200 serviceable bombers? Some pilots didn't like the Spitfire solely because of its gun set up, if you harmonise them at 200 yards you have a pepperpot.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> What about a TWELVE gun hurricane, against unarmoured Japanese bombers?
> Totally off topic I know, I just remember reading a Japanese report regarding the Hurricane Mk.IIB in the Burma theater. They were not impressed by the aircraft, but certainly respected the swarm of angry bees streaming out the front of it.


Agreed. If you could catch unescorted bombers with that thing, all 12 guns bore sighted at 200-300 yards, that is 14,400 rounds per minute, 240 per second. The only bomber that would be safe is one it can’t catch.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> if they were all well trained at air to air gunnery (obviously not everyone can be John Thach)


As I had asked earlier, what was John Thach doing in the Summer of 1940? Maybe I am assuming here, but his gunnery prowess was tempered in combat. He may have been a pre-war instructor, but I highly doubt you could have dropped him into a Hurricane in 1940 without the same huge learning curve everyone else in the BoB experienced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> And they did, didn't they? I think I already said that by the time the L/W stopped they were down to 200 serviceable bombers? Some pilots didn't like the Spitfire solely because of its gun set up, if you harmonise them at 200 yards you have a pepperpot.


Your right, the Spitfire didn’t have the best gun setup, it’s why I specifically used the Hurricane. The British won, they did the best with what they had, I’m just saying that they didn’t need a different fighter or even a bigger better gun, but they would have won sooner and with fewer losses themselves if they had only done air to air gunnery training and concentrated their guns.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

Most, if not all of what he was instructing overwhelmed F4F pilots in 1942 was the result of 6 months direct combat, and 2 years of observing the advancements in the European theater. A LOT changed between 1940 and 1942

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> As I had asked earlier, what was John Thach doing in the Summer of 1940? Maybe I am assuming here, but his gunnery prowess was tempered in combat. He may have been a pre-war instructor, but I highly doubt you could have dropped him into a Hurricane in 1940 without the same huge learning curve everyone else in the BoB experienced.


I don’t know what he was doing in 1940. He was a pre war pilot and already 35 years old. I think he taught gunnery before the war and was already a crack shot but I’m open to correction. He may have just been one of those gifted people that can do something like that really well. How well would he have done? No way to tell. How many of the greatest pilots that ever lived were the first guys shot down on their first flight by some moron who could barely fly, or done lucky rear gunner....we will never know.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Agreed. If you could catch unescorted bombers with that thing, all 12 guns bore sighted at 200-300 yards, that is 14,400 rounds per minute, 240 per second. The only bomber that would be safe is one it can’t catch.


But not more effective than a hurricane Mk2 with 4 x 20mm cannon.


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Your right, the Spitfire didn’t have the best gun setup, it’s why I specifically used the Hurricane. The British won, they did the best with what they had, I’m just saying that they didn’t need a different fighter or even a bigger better gun, but they would have won sooner and with fewer losses themselves if they had only done air to air gunnery training and concentrated their guns.



Lets keep this simple.

1) *They did do air to air gunnery,* probably as much as any other nation
2) In 1939 increasing the spread of shot increased the number of the enemy hit, and the number of aircraft shot down as the targets were easier to shoot down
3) As protection increased they needed to concentrate the fire and did

4) Most importantly air to air gunnery is very difficult

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Glider said:


> Lets keep this simple.
> 
> 1) *They did do air to air gunnery,* probably as much as any other nation
> 2) In 1939 increasing the spread of shot increased the number of the enemy hit, and the number of aircraft shot down as the targets were easier to shoot down
> ...


1. Ok. Maybe your right but I have read that a lot of the new guys were opening fire at ranges of 1000 yards, that doesn’t sound like much training. As I said earlier, Richard Bong said he didn’t get much gunnery training either so I’m not singling out Britain. 
2. If you can put a good percentage of bullets into a target sleeve with 1 synchronized gun while training then spreading the 8 gun pattern out doesn’t make sense. If you can’t hit the target sleeve then you need more training. “What was your percentage on the towed sleeve new pilot?” “It was xyz sir” “Well that percentage sucks, do it again”. Isn’t that what they do with a foot soldier with a rifle? Bang. “Missed, do it again. Your going to be here until you can qualify”. It’s how I got to be a good shot and how my son got to be even better than me. Repetition until you get it right.
3. Even unarmored planes are difficult to bring down if you can’t hit them.
4. Of course air to air gunnery is difficult. Flying a plane, maneuvering and navigating is difficult as well. You do it over and over until you get it right. Yes it costs money but war is an expensive game, it is cheaper if your good at it than if your not.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> 1. Ok. Maybe your right but I have read that a lot of the new guys were opening fire at ranges of 1000 yards, that doesn’t sound like much training. As I said earlier, Richard Bong said he didn’t get much gunnery training either so I’m not singling out Britain.
> 2. If you can put a good percentage of bullets into a target sleeve with 1 synchronized gun while training then spreading the 8 gun pattern out doesn’t make sense. If you can’t hit the target sleeve then you need more training. “What was your percentage on the towed sleeve new pilot?” “It was xyz sir” “Well that percentage sucks, do it again”. Isn’t that what they do with a foot soldier with a rifle? Bang. “Missed, do it again. Your going to be here until you can qualify”. It’s how I got to be a good shot and how my son got to be even better than me. Repetition until you get it right.
> 3. Even unarmored planes are difficult to bring down if you can’t hit them.
> 4. Of course air to air gunnery is difficult. Flying a plane, maneuvering and navigating is difficult as well. You do it over and over until you get it right. Yes it costs money but war is an expensive game, it is cheaper if your good at it than if your not.


So why didn't the LW win. they had twice as many fighters and the RAF couldn't hit a barn door? It is a question you must answer. One must conclude that the LW was much, much worse because they had more planes but gave up.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 11, 2020)

Dowding ordered Fighter Command to switch from the 'Horizontal Pattern' (Dowding Spread) to the 'Concentrated Pattern' (point harmonisation) in February 1940.

Much is made of the 'Dowding Spread' but it had little to no effect on the Battle of Britain (the Hurricane units in France never adopted the Dowding Spread in the first place).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> So why didn't the LW win. they had twice as many fighters and the RAF couldn't hit a barn door? It is a question you must answer. One must conclude that the LW was much, much worse because they had more planes but gave up.


Again. I didn’t say they didn’t shoot down anyone, I said they would shoot down more if trained.

if you had to bet on 1 of 2 guys, who would break the most skeet. Would you put your money on the guy who had never fired a gun in his life or the guy that had 2 weeks of training with an expert on shooting skeet? It’s that simple.

If they shot down 10 bombers a day with virtually no training, how would they do if they all had 2 solid weeks of air to air gunnery training by a recognized expert in air to air gunnery training? I have not said they didn’t shoot anything down, I have said repeatedly that they would have shot down more in a shorter time with fewer losses if they had good training. Train train train train. It’s what pro athletes do, it’s what the Roman legions did (training was bloodless war, war was bloody training), it’s what Olympic Athletes do, it’s what chess players do. Seriously, are you really good at something? Did you do it over and over and over again until you got good? That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying a trained person is better than an untrained person. An untrained person might do it but a well trained person will do it better


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Again. I didn’t say they didn’t shoot down anyone, I said they would shoot down more if trained.
> 
> if you had to bet on 1 of 2 guys, who would break the most skeet. Would you put your money on the guy who had never fired a gun in his life or the guy that had 2 weeks of training with an expert on shooting skeet? It’s that simple.
> 
> If they shot down 10 bombers a day with virtually no training, how would they do if they all had 2 solid weeks of air to air gunnery training by a recognized expert in air to air gunnery training? I have not said they didn’t shoot anything down, I have said repeatedly that they would have shot down more in a shorter time with fewer losses if they had good training. Train train train train. It’s what pro athletes do, it’s what the Roman legions did (training was bloodless war, war was bloody training), it’s what Olympic Athletes do, it’s what chess players do. Seriously, are you really good at something? Did you do it over and over and over again until you got good? That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying a trained person is better than an untrained person. An untrained person might do it but a well trained person will do it better


It was a war, of course everyone would love all pilots to have 200 hours on Spitfires or Hurricanes and 25 or however many hours you want on gunnery training but that isn't war. In a war you wear down the enemy. At the fall of France the RAF had 500 single engine fighters and pilots, to expand that and replace losses you have to massively expand training for the long term but cut training in the short term. If the RAF only sent pilots into the BoB that completely satisfied all requirements the few that did would be very easy to beat by the LW. The sad fact is that many pilots were there as a distraction to allow those who knew what they were doing to do what they had to do. Its a similar situation with US bomber formations being there, just to be there as bait, to draw the LW into the conflict.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> *I don’t know what he was doing in 1940*. He was a pre war pilot and already 35 years old. I think he taught gunnery before the war and was already a crack shot but I’m open to correction. He may have just been one of those gifted people that can do something like that really well. How well would he have done? No way to tell. How many of the greatest pilots that ever lived were the first guys shot down on their first flight by some moron who could barely fly, or done lucky rear gunner....we will never know.



Thach spent the 1930s serving as a test pilot and instructor and establishing a reputation as an expert in aerial gunnery.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It was a war, of course everyone would love all pilots to have 200 hours on Spitfires or Hurricanes and 25 or however many hours you want on gunnery training but that isn't war. In a war you wear down the enemy. At the fall of France the RAF had 500 single engine fighters and pilots, to expand that and replace losses you have to massively expand training for the long term but cut training in the short term. If the RAF only sent pilots into the BoB that completely satisfied all requirements the few that did would be very easy to beat by the LW. The sad fact is that many pilots were there as a distraction to allow those who knew what they were doing to do what they had to do. Its a similar situation with US bomber formations being there, just to be there as bait, to draw the LW into the conflict.


How about extensive gunnery training for the pilots in reserve then rotate them to the front and train the group they relieve? Essentially that was what John Thach did at Pearl Harbor before Midway with a group of pilots that I believe joined him as a single group on Yorktown for Midway. The Yorktown pilots did well even though they did end up losing their ship.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> How about extensive gunnery training for the pilots in reserve then rotate them to the front and train the group they relieve? Essentially that was what John Thach did at Pearl Harbor before Midway with a group of pilots that I believe joined him as a single group on Yorktown for Midway. The Yorktown pilots did well even though they did end up losing their ship.


What "reserve" 200 were lost in France. Between Pearl Harbor and Midway how many pilots did the USA lose? How long after the battle of Britain was that? How much had the USA already expanded its training programmes after Sept 3rd 1939?


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I said nothing about the Thach weave, i was talking about John Thach’s idea and training for attacking bombers. *You climb above and ahead of them off to one side, turn toward them, open fire in a 90 degree deflection shot. The fighter has the entire upper wing, engines and full length of the fuselage as a target, the gunners on the enemy planes,* IF any of them can bear, have a 90 degree deflection shot head on at a small fighter, virtually impossible.
> 
> If every raid had been like the case you describe there would never have been an interception by the British.
> 
> ...



The bolder portion above was still being done when I last flew the Eagle back in 2008. Only guns the bomber has now are tail guns, which is what we were avoiding. The first time I actually did this type of pass I had already been flying the Eagle for over 5 years, and the pass was against a P-3. Gunsight footage is of no use other than to record whether you got hits or not (of no use in aiming). In my opinion this is an easy shot as we were taught it academically only. I guess since we were practicing against maneuvering targets a non-maneuvering one should be easy.

I agree with Pinsog on convergence however I do so without the reasoning behind the spread set up. Just seems to be contrary to reason.

I have only shot skeet once in the last decade. I didn’t hit s—t the first five shots. I went with another fighter guy so he takes about five minutes explaining the sight picture referencing the Eagle gunsight (he was a F-15 / 22 guy). Next round I hit more than I missed. Good instruction is invaluable.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> The bolder portion above was still being done when I last flew the Eagle back in 2008. Only guns the bomber has now are tail guns, which is what we were avoiding. The first time I actually did this type of pass I had already been flying the Eagle for over 5 years, and the pass was against a P-3. Gunsight footage is of no use other than to record whether you got hits or not (of no use in aiming). In my opinion this is an easy shot as we were taught it academically only. I guess since we were practicing against maneuvering targets a non-maneuvering one should be easy.
> 
> I agree with Pinsog on convergence however I do so without the reasoning behind the spread set up. Just seems to be contrary to reason.
> 
> ...


RAF pilots in 1940 often remarked how keen the LW were to let them have their favourite and most effective attack on German bombers, often giving a friendly wave and tipping their caps at an amusing and jaunty angle in anticipation of a fine display of marksmanship. NOT.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> What "reserve" 200 were lost in France. Between Pearl Harbor and Midway how many pilots did the USA lose? How long after the battle of Britain was that? How much had the USA already expanded its training programmes after Sept 3rd 1939?


I’ve typed it several times already, the USA apparently wasn’t doing much if any better, Richard Bong, our highest scoring ace said he had little or no gunnery training and he said he did much better after he got gunnery training sometime later in the war. He said we would have got more kills early on if he had gunnery trading at the beginning. Did you get that? It’s about the 3rd or fourth time I’ve said it. Apparently the US Navy was one of the few groups that was really really teaching air to air gunnery.

The RAF did not have their entire force right on the channel, they had groups they held back. Train 20 guys every day for a week and swap them out with 20 guys at the front, train them. It’s only a few but every pilot with better training could make a difference. 1 pilot with good gunnery training shoots down a 109 that he would have missed. That 109 doesn’t shoot down another pilot that lives long enough to get gunnery training and he does the same thing. Anyway, I get massive expansion causing training issues, the USA had the same problem, should have been addressed here as well. We had more resources and were not nearly as hard pressed as Britain and an extra week or 2 of gunnery training shouldn’t have been an issue but yet we apparently dropped the ball as well.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> RAF pilots in 1940 often remarked how keen the LW were to let them have their favourite and most effective attack on German bombers, often giving a friendly wave and tipping their caps at an amusing and jaunty angle in anticipation of a fine display of marksmanship. NOT.


You do realize that this remark is directed at an actual retired F15 fighter pilot? I mean he is the real thing, not some armchair dude like me. Ignore me if you want but you should probably listen to a “been there done that” fighter pilot. The USA spent millions of dollars showing this guy how to do it .


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> The USA spent millions of dollars showing this guy how to do it



Based on lessons learned by Boelcke in 1915 
Sorry, its friday night, and I am WELL into the whisky's

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2020)

John Thach in 1940 had been a Navy pilot for 10 years, a lot of them as a gunnery instructor. Few other American pilots were going to have his experience. But 10 years was not needed, at least for some pilots.
Edward (Butch) O'Hare was assigned to Thach's squadron in 1940 and Thach saw something in him and made him his wingman. 

In combat Thach several encounter with Japanese aircraft. At Midway he lead a 6 plane group of F4Fs escorting 12 SBDs. they were attacked by 15-20 Japanese fighters. Thach claimed 3 and a wingman claimed one for the loss of one F4F. After Midway Thach was assigned to teach combat tactics. 
O'Hare claimed 5 twin engine bombers in one fight on Feb 20th 1942. Post war this was reduced to 3 but he had hit and damaged at least two more. His wingman's guns had jammed leaving O'Hare to do all the shooting and that took 4 passes at the formation of bombers. 

eight of VF-3s sixteen pilots had been awarded the Gunnery "E" award (excellence) by the end of 1940. Other US squadrons may have had a much more dismal record. It might depend on the emphasis their commander placed on what kind of training. US training may have dropped quite a bit after Pearl Harbor. O'Hare was an Annapolis graduate and had served on Battleships for two years before becoming an aviator in 1939. Over two years flying in a very good squadron before seeing combat. Not typical of most other AIr Forces or even US forces in 1943-44.

Good shooting can be taught, but not to all pilots, some people are just never going to get it, but on the other hand teaching it and staying proficient at it cannot be done (for most people) in a two week "camp" once a year. Some pilots may remember from the year before and build on their knowledge, others are going to take days just to get to where they left off the year before. Perhaps the British trained twice a year? more often? correction welcome. 

I would also appreciate some clarification on British training in 1939-40. Did the new pilots get 25 hours of air to air gunnery training or did they get 25 hours total time in a Hurricane or Spitfire (or some of each?) before being posted to an operational squadron. Those are two rather different things. 

As I understand it, most, if not all, British eight gun fighters had shifted away from the wide spread pattern in the spring of 1940, there is a bit of a discrepancy between first order/s and squadrons acknowledging the work was completed but a Squadron using the spread pattern in Aug of 1940 would be an extreme rarity and out of date by 3-4 months. 
There may also have been two different distances used for the convergence pattern. 250 and 350 yrds?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> You do realize that this remark is directed at an actual retired F15 fighter pilot? I mean he is the real thing, not some armchair dude like me. Ignore me if you want but you should probably listen to a “been there done that” fighter pilot. The USA spent millions of dollars showing this guy how to do it .


I am fully aware of Biffs service history, the post was actually directed at you and the fanciful notion that when you are outnumbered by 2 to 1 you get to do what you want, when you want.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

I stand corrected on the 8 gun spread/dispersion pattern. Apparently it had already been corrected by the BoB. Thank you Greyman and Shortround. Thanks SR and Milosh for fleshing out John Thach a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I am fully aware of Biffs service history, the post was actually directed at you and the fanciful notion that when you are outnumbered by 2 to 1 you get to do what you want, when you want.


Wow. It just doesn’t end. Ok. Yet another example of how being trained in air to air gunnery can help even when your outnumbered. I’m pretty sure when John Thach was pinned down at Midway there was only him and 2 others vs the 20 zeroes. One pilot was shot down before they started the Thach Weave so that left Thach and 2 guys vs 20 Zeroes, I don’t remember where the othe 2 Wildcats were. As they started the Weave they were constantly getting bounced by Zeros and just turning into each other. All Thach could do was get in snap shots at Zeros when they popped up in front of him. He was an expert, conserved ammo, fired short accurate bursts and managed to shoot down 3 Zeros. He was outnumbered, down on the deck in a plane that had 0 cards to play against his opponent. Yet with excellent shooting he knocked down 3, didn’t run out of ammo and brought the 2 pilots home that started the weave with him. That is what a well trained person can do in an out numbered situation. At least the the BoB the Hurricane had a few advantages over a 109. It turned MUCH better in the horizontal, had a good supply of ammo had a good rate of climb but maybe not quite as good as a 109, I think they were really close on climb but I’m not sure. So, if they could shoot then they have a better chance than if they can’t.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> John Thach in 1940 had been a Navy pilot for 10 years, a lot of them as a gunnery instructor



And as such he would probably have been at least an above average pilot in the BoB, but the theory he was practicing since 1930 in an F4B would be quickly replaced by the realities of modern combat. 
Basic fighter fundamentals were known since the "Dicta Boelcke", but air warfare changed substantially in the late 30's.
My point being that Thach's instruction in 1942 was probably heavily based off lessons learned the hard way from Dec.1941 on, with observations from Europe since 1939 as well.
You drop 1942 Thach into the BoB, he would have been an asset. 1940 Thach would have to learn the hard way, just like Tuck and Malan

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I am fully aware of Biffs service history, the post was actually directed at you and the fanciful notion that when you are outnumbered by 2 to 1 you get to do what you want, when you want.



Since you apparently still disagree with the simple notion that pilots that can hit enemy planes with their weapons is an asset: 

Could you please explain to everyone how not having a clue about air to air gunnery is the way to win a battle? I mean I only have 43 years experience with firearms and you’ve never picked one up but apparently but you have seen some on TV so you must know it all. Please enlighten us.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 11, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I am fully aware of Biffs service history, the post was actually directed at you and the fanciful notion that when you are outnumbered by 2 to 1 you get to do what you want, when you want.



Pbehn,

You are correct regards uncontested set ups vice contested. The last few seconds of the pass is what delivers results, how you get there is of less importance. I imagine during the BoB the set ups (intercepts) varied, and you took what you could get.

SR,

Excellent update on Thach and O’Hare. American Airlines concourse in Chicago has a fixed wing F4F on display with O’Hares name on it. He was another bright star that went out to quickly.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> And as such he would probably have been at least an above average pilot in the BoB, but the theory he was practicing since 1930 in an F4B would be quickly replaced by the realities of modern combat.
> Basic fighter fundamentals were known since the "Dicta Boelcke", but air warfare changed substantially in the late 30's.
> My point being that Thach's instruction in 1942 was probably heavily based off lessons learned the hard way from Dec.1941 on, with observations from Europe since 1939 as well.
> You drop 1942 Thach into the BoB, he would have been an asset. 1940 Thach would have to learn the hard way, just like Tuck and Malan


A man that has lets say 5 years teaching others to shoot a towed target sleeve with say a P36 or a an F3F Grumman biplane has the skills needed to do the same with a Hurricane or F4F or a Corsair or an FW190. A man that is competent with a rifle is generally competent with any of them, maybe a few minutes to get acquainted with something a little different. A man that can fly a Spitfire can fly a Thunderbolt or an FW190. The difference between the performance in a 1936 fighter and a 1940 Hurricane was less than a 1940 Hurricane and a 1945 Spitfire or Thunderbolt or Corsair so Thach’s inherit gunnery skills would be just fine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> The difference between the performance in a 1936 fighter and a 1940 Hurricane was less than a 1940 Hurricane and a 1945 Spitfire


The difference between a 1936 fighter and a 1940 Hurricane was less than the difference between a 1940 Hurricane and a 1941 Hurricane. 
Well, debatable, but things moved fast once war were declared. A front line fighter in 1940 could have been a fabric biplane, whilst a front line fighter in 1945 could have been a swept wing jet. 
Where am I going with this? who knows. 
Whisky, sorry


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The difference between a 1936 fighter and a 1940 Hurricane was less than the difference between a 1940 Hurricane and a 1941 Hurricane.
> Well, debatable, but things moved fast once war were declared. A front line fighter in 1940 could have been a fabric biplane, whilst a front line fighter in 1945 could have been a swept wing jet.
> Where am I going with this? who knows.
> Whisky, sorry


Enjoy your drink. May I ask what brand you are indulging in? What country are you enjoying your drink in?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2020)

Somewhere on this site (and grabbed from the internet) is a picture of a Brewster Buffalo standing on it's nose after a bad landing on a Carrier. The Pilot was one John Thach. He may not have been perfect but in 10 years how many carrier landings had he made using how many different airplanes? How many firing passes at stationary targets on the ground and how many passes at towed target sleeves. He was also a man who went home tried to analyze mistakes or think up different approaches. It is said he worked out the weave maneuver on the kitchen table using match sticks to help him visualize the different planes positions at different times in the weave and the possible positions of the attackers. he did this after the outbreak of WW II in Europe as he was trying to figure out the best tactics to keep his men alive if they did get into a shooting war given the equipment they had at the time (F3Fs and Buffaloes). 

The US Navy had very few engagements between Dec 7th and Midway in which to "hone" skills. They often went weeks or even several months between contacts with the Japanese in the first 6 months of WW II. They either were pretty much prepared in training or they weren't. A BoB pilot might see more engagements in a month than a US pilot saw in 6 months in 1942.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> My point being that Thach's instruction in 1942 was probably heavily based off lessons learned the hard way from Dec.1941 on, with observations from Europe since 1939 as well.



Observations from europe yes,
lessons learned the hard way? not so much. O'Hare's medal of honor engagement was Feb 20th 1942, How many times did the US Navy pilots mix it up with japanese fighters between Dc 7th and Feb 20th? 
BTW Thach was also on CAP at the same time on the other side of the task force. The CAP claimed two Mavis flying boats and 9 Betty bombers not counting the ones shot down/up by O'Hare. 
Perhaps someone can find a more detailed account but it seems to have been around 5 hours from radar picking up the first Mavis to O'Hare starting his attack runs (and he starting shooting with bombers about 9 miles from the task force, not a lot of time for careful set ups). Not much time to discuss what worked and what didn't in the ready room.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 11, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Somewhere on this site (and grabbed from the internet) is a picture of a Brewster Buffalo standing on it's nose after a bad landing on a Carrier.


 I believe the picture you are talking about is from March, 1940.



pinsog said:


> Enjoy your drink. May I ask what brand you are indulging in? What country are you enjoying your drink in?



Just some inexpensive, but solid Canadian Whisky. Alberta Premium to be exact
Ill sign off before I embarrass myself more. Good night all!


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 11, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The difference between a 1936 fighter and a 1940 Hurricane was less than the difference between a 1940 Hurricane and a 1941 Hurricane.
> Well, debatable, but things moved fast once war were declared. A front line fighter in 1940 could have been a fabric biplane, whilst a front line fighter in 1945 could have been a swept wing jet.
> Where am I going with this? who knows.
> Whisky, sorry


I believe it’s called “whiskey SOUR”.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2020)

Thach may have been one of the few people who believed Chennault's report on the Zero coming out of China.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 11, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Thach may have been one of the few people who believed Chennault's report on the Zero coming out of China.


I know after he did his “beam defense maneuver/Thach weave” on the kitchen table, he got some army P39’s to attack him and I think Butch O’Hare to test it out. It worked. Even though the P39’s were much faster at low altitude, they couldn’t get a shot at Thach or his wingman without getting shot themselves.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 12, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I actually can’t. It was on here somewhere. I have also read about the new guys opening fire at 1,000 yards or more during the BoB



I've read this numerous times in pilot notes, they had no actual gunnery training, just how the sight worked, there are many video's and photo's of pilots opening fire at ridiculously long range, this He111 is 500 yards out and the deflection angle has those bullets going way behind.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 12, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Some pilots didn't like the Spitfire solely because of its gun set up, if you harmonise them at 200 yards you have a pepperpot.



The P47 had it's guns out wide also, never heard any complaints about it.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 12, 2020)

pbehn said:


> So why didn't the LW win. they had twice as many fighters and the RAF couldn't hit a barn door? It is a question you must answer. One must conclude that the LW was much, much worse because they had more planes but gave up.



If you read pilot accounts the replacements could barely fly let alone hit anything, I've read one report where a young boy arrived with only 6hrs flight time in the 109, both sides were really struggling at the end.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2020)

The pilot pool for the Luftwaffe was stretched so thin, that they even had Gefreiters flying the Me262 during the last months of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2020)

pinsog said:


> It doesn’t matter if it’s 1 on 1, 2 on 1, 5 on 1 or 10 on 1 if you can’t hit the target. You don’t shoot do you. You don’t own a gun do you. 1 on 1 a Hurricane jumps an HE111, Hurricane guns are pointed in 8 different directions and the pilot has never pulled the trigger before. What do you think will happen? The HE111 will most likely get away. The Hurricane pilot has a good chance of getting shot down because he has to get within 50 yards to hit the bloody thing and then he only has 1 or 2 guns that will even hit it at the same time. Contrast that with John Thach, same Hurricane, all 8 guns bore sighted at 200 yards doing a high side 90 degree deflection shot and hosing the all glass cockpit with an extremely accurate burst. 1 HE111 and it’s crew aren’t going home and John has plenty of ammo left for his next target



There is not a single thing correct in that post, except that I don't own a gun. I used to, and I was taught to shoot by the British Army.

You need to look at how a Hurricane's guns were actually set up.

You might also explain how the Germans lost 1,187* aircraft during the Battle of Britain, the vast majority shot down by British fighters which, according to you, couldn't hit anything.

*Figures vary, that's from The Battle of Britain - Then and Now.

Sgt Tony Pickering experienced one of the principal shortcomings of his Hurricane at first hand and it had nothing to do with the guns, in which he had every confidence..

_“I came across a lone Ju 88 somewhere over Kent, heading back to sea. I thought that it would be no problem to catch up the Hun, press the gun button and that would be it. Suddenly he just pulled away from me, just left me standing, had at least an extra 50 mph on me, and that was the last I saw of him. The Hurricane just wasn’t fast enough. We even used to bend the throttle levers in flight, trying to squeeze a bit more boost out of the Merlin. A Spitfire would have caught that Ju 88.”_

It could be a lot worse, you could have been flying a Bf 109 with just half a Spitfire or Hurricane's armament. There were still a lot of E-1s flying in the BoB. Ulrich Steinhilper got all excited writing to his mother on *13 September*, as the BoB reached a decision.

_"Yesterday we received two aircraft which are fitted with the cannons in the wings. I'm taking one, and the 'Chief' is taking the other."_

Eight rifle calibre machine guns was considered exceptionally heavy armament when introduced in the 1930s, and was still double that of some contemporary fighters in 1940. The reasons for its adoption are well documented and I'm not reproducing them here. It was not done on a whim. The reasons for their set up are also well documented, thoroughly researched and tried. I'm not going into that here either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 12, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The P47 had it's guns out wide also, never heard any complaints about it.


The P47 could afford to spray the air. Its guns needed fewer hits to bring down an opponent, due to much greater impact energy at typical ranges and a rate of fire not far below the .303.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 12, 2020)

pinsog said:


> One pilot was shot down before they started the Thach Weave so that left Thach and 2 guys vs 20 Zeroes, I don’t remember where the othe 2 Wildcats were.


They were doing their own weave over the TBDs. They eventually got corralled by the CAP and stripped off from the Devastators.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 12, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I've read this numerous times in pilot notes, they had no actual gunnery training, just how the sight worked, there are many video's and photo's of pilots opening fire at ridiculously long range, this He111 is 500 yards out and the deflection angle has those bullets going way behind.


According to some old WWII training materials I have, gunners started out with a week on the skeet range before they ever touched a machine gun. You'd think that no matter how rushed a fighter pilot's training was, they'd find time to spend at least a half hour a day for a few days on the skeet range. Does wonders for your angular velocity compensation. (At least it does for others. Ever since my lenses were changed in cataract surgery, I've been no threat to the pigeons!)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2020)

pinsog said:


> 1. Ok. Maybe your right but I have read that a lot of the new guys were opening fire at ranges of 1000 yards, that doesn’t sound like much training. As I said earlier, Richard Bong said he didn’t get much gunnery training either so I’m not singling out Britain.


Which is why post August 1940 the RAF took the gunnery instruction out of service training and moved it to OCU training which was extended to include this additional task. It was replaced with more aircraft recognition and general observation (which I am certain about) which probably (as this bit I cannot be certain about) included estimating distances as that is an observation skill.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Sep 12, 2020)

We went over harmonisation in a previous thread R.A.F. main fighters gun convergence

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2020)

Glider said:


> Which is why post August 1940 the RAF took the gunnery instruction out of service training and moved it to OCU training which was extended to include this additional task.



Yes, but the unpalatable fact remained that most pilots in ALL combatant air forces couldn't hit the metaphorical cow's arse with a banjo in air fighting. It's why the ones that could amassed large scores while those that couldn't either did not, while becoming competent enough to survive, or served as targets for the first group.

It was only the introduction of the gyro gun sights which improved this situation significantly, because it did the sums that most pilots simply could not.

All this stuff I am reading about ninety degree deflection shots at bomber cockpits is pure fantasy. It would be virtually impossible when only the better pilots could hit the bomber at all. It is significant that when the British looked at the wrecks of the aircraft they had shot down during the BoB, almost all had been hit from directly astern or very close to it, i.e. with close to zero angle off and no deflection.

On 7 September S/Ldr Kellet led the Poles of 303 Squadron into an attack on part of the huge formation of 348 bombers and 617 fighters advancing on London, described later as 

_"...a tidal wave of aircraft, towering above them, rank upon rank, more than a mile and a half high, covering the sky like some vast irresistible migration.”_

Kellet later wrote that,

_“We gave them all we’d got opening fire at 450 yards and only breaking away when we could see the enemy completely filling the gunsight. That means we finished the attack at point blank range. We went in practically in one straight line, all of us blazing away.”_

Did they hit any of the bombers? Who knows, in the confusion it was difficult to tell. S/Ldr ‘Sandy’ Johnstone of No 602 Squadron recalling separate events on the same day gives us this impression.

_“All we could see was row upon row of German raiders, all heading for London. I have never seen so many aircraft in the air all at the same time. The escorting fighters saw us at once and came down like a ton of bricks, when the squadron split up and the sky became a seething cauldron of aeroplanes, swooping and swerving in and out of the vapour trails and tracer smoke. A Hurricane on fire spun out of control ahead of me while, above to my right, a 110 flashed across my vision and disappeared into the fog of battle before I could draw a bead on it. Everyone was shouting and the earphones became filled with a meaningless cacophony of jumbled noises. Everything became a maelstrom of jumbled impression – a Dornier spinning with part of its port mainplane missing; black streaks of tracer ahead, when I instinctively put my arm up to shield my face; taking a breather when the haze absorbed me for a minute…”_

And this is the recollection you will see repeated time and time again. F/O Frank Brinden thought that the reality of air combat made anything other than squadron tactics pretty irrelevant. He had flown as part of the Duxford Wing.

_"The constraints of Bader's ponderous formation was a disaster in my opinion, a retrograde step. Nothing was achieved by arriving en masse because the Wing disintegrated almost immediately battle was joined...these observations on tactics are, of course, in retrospect but I do recall at the time feeling some unease or dissatisfaction at 19 Squadron's inability to do better."_

Welcome to the real world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 12, 2020)

stona said:


> You might also explain how the Germans lost 1,187*



Isn't there a quote somewhere saying there was about 230 aircraft destroyed by only 17 pilots?, the hit ratio for both sides was under 2% also, I'll have to find the references for both.


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Isn't there a quote somewhere saying there was about 230 aircraft destroyed by only 17 pilots?, the hit ratio for both sides was under 2% also, I'll have to find the references for both.



The figure I've seen quoted is 221 aircraft destroyed credited to the 17 top scoring pilots of the Battle of Britain pilots, so very similar indeed.

Between July and November 1940 only 900 of the 2,937 pilots credited with at least one operational sortie in a fighter claimed at all. Roughly 70% of pilots were just making up numbers.

These numbers are not unusual. The Luftwaffe was very similar and I would bet that the fighters of the various US air forces were too, particularly in the first years of their war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2020)

yulzari said:


> We went over harmonisation in a previous thread R.A.F. main fighters gun convergence


Thank you. 2 others pointed out that they addressed the harmonization issue just before the battle


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2020)

stona said:


> There is not a single thing correct in that post, except that I don't own a gun. I used to, and I was taught to shoot by the British Army.
> 
> You need to look at how a Hurricane's guns were actually set up.
> 
> ...


I said in several previous posts that 8 303’s was about as good as it good for the time, especially in the Hurricane where they were grouped in 2 tight groups of 4 guns each. If bore sighted to a single point, that would be devastating to an aircraft. Others have pointed out the spread pattern was abandoned before the battle started. JU88’s were fast, no surprise at times a Hurricane couldn’t catch them.
What rifle did you train with in the army, FN FAL?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2020)

stona said:


> The figure I've seen quoted is 221 aircraft destroyed credited to the 17 top scoring pilots of the Battle of Britain pilots, so very similar indeed.
> 
> Between July and November 1940 only 900 of the 2,937 pilots credited with at least one operational sortie in a fighter claimed at all. Roughly 70% of pilots were just making up numbers.
> 
> These numbers are not unusual. The Luftwaffe was very similar and I would bet that the fighters of the various US air forces were too, particularly in the first years of their war.


As I said before, Richard Bong said he received little or no gunnery training at the beginning and did much better after he got gunnery training during a break at some point in the war. He said he would have got more kills early on if he had gotten this training at the beginning. Claimed he wasn’t a good shot. As I have said several times, this was not just a British issue


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2020)

stona said:


> Yes, but the unpalatable fact remained that most pilots in ALL combatant air forces couldn't hit the metaphorical cow's arse with a banjo in air fighting. It's why the ones that could amassed large scores while those that couldn't either did not, while becoming competent enough to survive, or served as targets for the first group.
> 
> It was only the introduction of the gyro gun sights which improved this situation significantly, because it did the sums that most pilots simply could not.
> 
> ...


You train pilots to be able to do deflection shots when they can. Air to air gunnery training involves many many many different setups. The easiest is of course from 6 o’clock. You start there, when this plane fills this sight at the point then he is at this distance and you start shooting. Then you move on to more difficult shots such as head on passes, low deflection shooting from 7 and 8 o’clock positions and finally full deflection shooting. Does this mean the enemy will line up and allow you to do it? No. But in the middle of a furball if you find yourself high and in front of a formation, you have the choice of making a 90 degree pass at a bomber or fighter and some reasonable chance of scoring hits.

You said you the British army taught you to shoot. I assume you shot at large bullseye type targets at 100, 200 maybe out to 500 yards, is that somewhat accurate? Do enemy soldiers show up on the battlefield wearing bullseye targets and standing still at 100, 200 and 500 yards? Of course not. Just because bombers don’t fly perfectly straight and escorts try to interfere doesn’t mean that they should have taught deflection shooting.


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2020)

The point is that almost no WW2 era pilots could make deflection shots.

Time and time again they showed that they under estimated angle off by large margins, guessed the speed of the enemy and under estimated range.

They were not very good at the sort of exercises in the attached manual and the only way to learn was to survive for long enough to do it for real. Unfortunately many fell victim to the few who had learned (like Marseille), or were good enough pilots to find a simpler solution (like Hartmann or Bader) before they had a chance.

It is as true for rifle training as it is for air combat that it does not simulate real fighting. In the case of rifle training it teaches you how to use and maintain the weapon and, probably more importantly, how to aim _every _shot. The targets are obviously not running about any more than towed drones are behaving anything like a real enemy aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> If you read pilot accounts the replacements could barely fly let alone hit anything, I've read one report where a young boy arrived with only 6hrs flight time in the 109, both sides were really struggling at the end.


 Precisely my point, pilots had so few hours they couldn't keep themselves alive for one or two missions, the finer points of deflection shooting were the least of the issue.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

Duplicate


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The P47 had it's guns out wide also, never heard any complaints about it.


The P-47 was similar to a Hurricane, all the guns close together. The thin Spitfire wing meant the guns were spread out with one just outside the prop arc, two close together and one more towards the end of the wing. Pepper pot was a pilots description. The concentration of fire on a Hurricane was one of many reasons 
it was considered a better "bomber destroyer".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Since you apparently still disagree with the simple notion that pilots that can hit enemy planes with their weapons is an asset:
> 
> Could you please explain to everyone how not having a clue about air to air gunnery is the way to win a battle? I mean I only have 43 years experience with firearms and you’ve never picked one up but apparently but you have seen some on TV so you must know it all. Please enlighten us.


I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with are these points Imperfect training doesn't mean no training. Poor marksmanship does not mean the RAF didn't hit anything. Training people to shoot who cant fly well enough to keep themselves alive is a waste of time. The notion that RAF pilots in the BoB did not know that hitting the crew, engines and fuel tanks was important, is fanciful to the point of insulting. The best means of attack maybe a beam attack, just work out the maths of a fighter at 300 MPH trying to hit a bomber at 200MPH at 90 degrees, if you do it right bingo, if you screw up the fraction of a second you have to hit then it is back to square one. The LW were more experienced in escorting than the RAF were in attacking bombers in 1940, they knew what "bandits" wanted to do and positioned themselves to stop it. BTW I would have thought the first issue to be confronted was to get your planes in the air, where were Thatch and his gunnery experts at Pearl Harbor, where was the radar warning and trained equipped forces, surely the most important thing is to actually take off, in 1941, a year and a half after the Battle of Britain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 12, 2020)

stona said:


> Between July and November 1940 only 900 of the 2,937 pilots credited with at least one operational sortie in a fighter claimed at all. Roughly 70% of pilots were just making up numbers.



So while I'm very much in the camp of concentrating the fire I do see the point of the spread layout, It's also why I don't see how the center line gun layout such as the 109F or P38 is an advantage, unless you have crack air gunnery skills having a very narrow cone of fire only increases the chances of missing.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> So while I'm very much in the camp of concentrating the fire I do see the point of the spread layout, It's also why I don't see how the center line gun layout such as the 109F or P38 is an advantage, unless you have crack air gunnery skills having a very narrow cone of fire only increases the chances of missing.


It is a definite advantage in hitting the target, the stream of bullets are always on the same axis as the gunsight. The problem is it is hard to get more than 2 rifle calibre guns to do it and they have a lower rate of fire than any wing mounted gun.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 12, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The notion that RAF pilots in the BoB did not know that hitting the crew, engines and fuel tanks is fanciful to the point of insulting.



I think we all need to take a moment to remember what it was like in 1940's Britain, you had boys, and they were boys, that most likely had never traveled out of their own district or village going to fight, these were boys that grew up on their family farm or worked in the family butchery that had never seen an airplane let alone fly one, most of them had probably never kissed a girl or felt the love of a women. These boys, absolute hero's to the last in every sense of the word suddenly found themselves in a Spitfire or Hurricane doing 300 mph at 20,000ft over the channel trying to hit a similar boy in a Bf 109 who was likewise doing the same, any notion that they were aiming at anything other than the big black blob rapidly filling their windscreen is fanciful. They would all know where the important area's are on enemy aircraft, knowing and doing are two very different things. Sometimes threads become heated like this one, to bad soaringtractor got banned, he was hilarious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I think we all need to take a moment to remember what it was like in 1940's Britain, you had boys, and they were boys, that most likely had never traveled out of their own district or village going to fight, these were boys that grew up on their family farm or worked in the family butchery that had never seen an airplane let alone fly one, most of them had probably never kissed a girl or felt the love of a women. These boys, absolute hero's to the last in every sense of the word suddenly found themselves in a Spitfire or Hurricane doing 300 mph at 20,000ft over the channel trying to hit a similar boy in a Bf 109 who was likewise doing the same, any notion that they were aiming at anything other than the big black blob rapidly filling their windscreen is fanciful. They would all know where the important area's are on enemy aircraft, knowing and doing are two very different things. Sometimes threads become heated like this one, to bad soaringtractor got banned, he was hilarious.


It was actually a change in warfare. Pilots were like infantry, they were in lethal hand to hand combat. They needed a high degree of courage, and many physical skills of coordination ,balance, spatial awareness but also a very good basic education, like choosing which 1000 university graduates you would send into a knife fight today. Pre WW2 how many people had even driven a car let alone knew how they worked?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 12, 2020)

Just back to the idea that about the F4F in the Battle of Britain.

In October 1940, the British had received 81 Martlets, presumably all Martlet Is, because the first production Martlet II (with 2 speed single stage R-1830) had its first flight earlier that month. And many (all?) of the Martlet Is were from the French order that the British took over.

Martlet Is don't have the performance to be effective in the BoB, and there certainly wasn't enough of them.

The first production F4F-3 had its first flight in February 1940. The second production F4F-3 in July 1940. It would seem that there was a hold up in deliveries of the 2 stage R-1830.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2020)

pbehn said:


> . BTW I would have thought the first issue to be confronted was to get your planes in the air, *where were Thatch and his gunnery experts at Pearl Harbor*, where was the radar warning and trained equipped forces



They were in San Diego, 2600 miles away. yep, the Americans screwed up the early warning, but whatever mistakes the Americans made ( many) doesn't mean the British get a pass for mistakes they made. 



wuzak said:


> The first production F4F-3 had its first flight in February 1940. The second production F4F-3 in July 1940. It would seem that there was a hold up in deliveries of the 2 stage R-1830.



You are right, to go further as of Dec 31st 1940 there were only 22 F4F-3s delivered, I believe without self sealing tanks or much in the way of armor. 
Early F4F-3s had -76 engines, later planes got -86 engines. 

Production of Grumman fighters in 1941 was a whopping 323 aircraft, 107 of them were F4F-3s, 65 were F4F-3As (same engine as Martlet II) and 5 were F4F-4s, the rest were Martlets of some sort or origin. Actually this number doesn't add up to some other numbers but the number of F4F-3s available in 1941 is not all that great.

Getting to a hypothetical of a large number of F4F-3s in July/Aug of 1940 you also need the later .50 cal guns. 

Earlier a proposal was made for lighting the F4F-3 which had one rather iffy proposal. 
It was suggested to only fill the tanks with 75 gallons of fuel, While the f4F-3 with protected tanks would hold 147 gallons there is a problem.
1. these are US gallons, You are down to about 62.5 Imp gallons which is going to mean very low endurance indeed compared to a Hurricane or Spitfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 13, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> too bad soaringtractor got banned, he was hilarious.



Agree!!! 



wuzak said:


> In October 1940, the British had received 81 Martlets, presumably all Martlet Is, because the first production Martlet II (with 2 speed single stage R-1830) had its first flight earlier that month. And many (all?) of the Martlet Is were from the French order that the British took over.



Yup, all French, converted for use by the British on the Grumman production line. Had to have their throttles reversed and fitting of British equipment and armament. The FAA ordered them through the British and French Purchasing Commissions in the USA, who instructed that the order go to Britain. The FAA ordered these aircraft as stop gaps. There's no way that the RAF would have ordered them, being a carrier based fighter, but if it had them, it wouldn't have left them doing nothing; the likelihood is that they would have been sent to the Far East, or North Africa or such like.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Pre WW2 how many people had even driven a car let alone knew how they worked?


In the US and to a lesser extent, Canada, Australia and Germany, *many.* In the rest of the world, not so many. The US generation that fought WWII grew up between wars driving and tinkering on cars, trucks, tractors, and for some, even airplanes. The vast expanse of the country demanded mechanical transportation, and the thin population density precluded profitably serving everywhere by rail. And nationalized rail, a la Europe, forget it!
You could call it "mechanical advantage". Even destitute poor folk like the Joads in _Grapes of Wrath _could find a way to acquire an ancient Model T Ford (converted to a pickup truck) in which to make their exodus to California, stopping along the way to grind the valves and fashion new head gaskets out of scrounged materials. This fostered a level of mechanical and operational experience and ingenuity on a broad scale that manifested itself in Construction Battalions, engine rooms, aircraft and tank maintenance shops, and a ready adaptability to aerial, mechanized, and naval warfare on a scale unmatched in the world.
There, chest thumping accomplished. Ready to receive counterfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muskeg13 (Sep 13, 2020)

Not only was there more of a native mechanical advantage borne of more auto use and having to make things work, outside of the few major cities, most boys began shooting at a very early age. Growing up in the sparse times of the Great Depression, every shot counted, so basic marksmanship skills were expected.

Someone mentioned Dick Bong, America's Ace of Aces several posts back. Bong grew up on a midwestern farm working with farm equipment and was proficient in small arms shooting. However, rifle shooting and deflection shots in a high speed P-38 were something else. Bong admitted his aerial marksmanship was subpar, but made up for it with his flight skills. When asked how he managed so many kills while claiming to be a bad shot, he explained that he flew his P-38 right at opponents until his nose was almost in their cockpits before he let loose, giving no chance for misses.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

muskeg13 said:


> Not only was there an innate mechanical advantage borne of having to make things work, outside of the few major cities, most boys began shooting at a very early age. Growing up in the sparse times of the Great Depression, every shot counted, so basic marksmanship skills were expected.


And a lot of that skill was from shooting birds. Excellent prep for aerial gunnery and pulling lead on a moving target. Have you ever seen the training they had for aerial gunners? A stake body truck with a shooting platform on the back that drove around a circular track with skeet houses every fifty yards or so with their launchers aimed at different angles, and the student gunner popping pigeons with a semiautomatic shotgun. After that, they get to do it again with another truck mounting a power turret with a .30 cal shooting special short range ammo.
I think fighter pilots could have used a little of that too. Teaching "gunnery by eye" rather than gunnery by tables and calculations. It's got to become reflexive so it's less taxing on an already overloaded nugget brain.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Sep 13, 2020)

One aspect of the turret fighter thinking was that a gunner firing from a 'relatively' stable platform over a longer firing period was far more likely to land his rounds onto a bomber than a fighter pilot jockeying between pointing the aeroplane around the sky whilst attempting to point it accurately at a point in the sky which would have the target fly into it all whilst he is travelling at 300 mph and the bomber flying in a different direction (all in 3 axes) at 200 mph. Had the bombers not come from France with fighter escorts and not Germany without it could well have been useful. It was when used as night fighters. Defiants had a good track record when they actually got within visual range. 

However, I do not want to divert this thread into a turret fighter thread. Just to contrast the singe seat fighter aiming task with a dedicated gunner task.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 13, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> They were in San Diego, 2600 miles away. yep, the Americans screwed up the early warning, but whatever mistakes the Americans made ( many) doesn't mean the British get a pass for mistakes they made.



It's not a question of the Brits getting a pass. My frustration is the rather binary approach that some are taking regarding this sub-thread discussion. Some very bald statements about RAF pilots having "zero" air gunnery training, coupled with continued use of spread gun alignment into the BoB are patently untrue. The RAF did train in air-to-air gunnery in the 1930s and re-emphasized it starting in August 1940. There was a period where ab initio pilots coming through the flying training system lacked basic air gunnery skills but this was primarily due to the greater strategic need to keep front-line fighter squadrons at full strength, even if the new arrivals had to learn on-the-job.

It must also be remembered that, from May 1940 onwards, the RAF found itself in a position that nobody (repeat NOBODY) expected, with Britain's key ally, France, having surrendered and German fighter aircraft operating from airfields within reach of the UK. I suspect the hiatus in air gunnery training aligns quite well with the period May-September 1940 when the RAF desperately needed pilots, resulting in the drastic cuts made to the training schedule.

It's been suggested that RAF squadrons in rear areas weren't doing anything to improve gunnery skills. I have no idea whether that's a valid criticism or not, although it seems pretty clear that all of those units were put in the rear to integrate new pilots, re-equip and train ready to go back into the front lines. It would therefore seem obvious that squadron and flight commanders would take time to train new pilots in the skills they needed to survive and contribute to the squadron's effectiveness. That has to include, in some measure, air-to-air gunnery. To suggest that operationally experienced leaders directly tasked with recuperating their squadron would simply let new pilots go into combat without any sharing of operational experience is nonsense, as many contemporary testimonies and unit record books attest.

Thach was one of the supreme fighter tacticians of his age. However, he had the benefit of time to train his squadron in gunnery techniques that proved valuable and relevant. Others, who suggested that modern fighter engagements with closing speeds in excess of 600 mph would make accurate aiming impossible, were patently wrong. However, the inaccuracy of that perspective became abundantly clear very early in the fighting. By the BoB, the RAF was harmonizing its guns on a single point. Yes, some pilots opened fire at overly-long ranges but we'd need to understand the tactical situation to see whether that was valid. If you're tasked to bring down the bombers but are about to be hit by the escorting enemy fighters, some pilots may have thought it better to have a quick squirt at range in hopes of hitting something rather than trying to close to a better range and risk being shot down by the escorts. I'm not going to second-guess those kind of split-second tactical decisions. Not every squadron commander was a Thach...even within the USN. 

Was RAF gunnery training non-existent? Patently not. Did individual squadron commanders strive to enhance the operational effectiveness of their units, to include gunnery training? Yes. Could RAF gunnery training have been improved? Possibly. However, the strategic and operational situation in the summer of 1940 led to cuts in training hours because, at the time, people didn't know how long the BoB would last. Reducing training may seem callous to some while, to others it was "stupid". From what I've seen, Dowding and Park had a very clear understanding of how to conduct defensive fighter operations and the operational and strategic imperatives. 

This whole sub-thread discussion reminds me of the 3 parameters of capability deliver (fast, good and cheap), with the recognition that you can only ever have 2 of those 3 factors. Ideally, in the summer of 1940, the RAF would have emphasized good training but the strategic situation demanded the provision of new pilots quickly. To get good pilots fast is hard, and the training system was already at breaking point.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 13, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In the US and to a lesser extent, Canada, Australia and Germany, *many.* In the rest of the world, not so many. The US generation that fought WWII grew up between wars driving and tinkering on cars, trucks, tractors, and for some, even airplanes. The vast expanse of the country demanded mechanical transportation, and the thin population density precluded profitably serving everywhere by rail. And nationalized rail, a la Europe, forget it!
> You could call it "mechanical advantage". Even destitute poor folk like the Joads in _Grapes of Wrath _could find a way to acquire an ancient Model T Ford (converted to a pickup truck) in which to make their exodus to California, stopping along the way to grind the valves and fashion new head gaskets out of scrounged materials. This fostered a level of mechanical and operational experience and ingenuity on a broad scale that manifested itself in Construction Battalions, engine rooms, aircraft and tank maintenance shops, and a ready adaptability to aerial, mechanized, and naval warfare on a scale unmatched in the world.
> There, chest thumping accomplished. Ready to receive counterfire.



So many things to pick apart in this post. 

Firstly, I just don't buy the extent of this delta between America and the rest of the developed world regarding technical proficiency and awareness. The British Army in 1940 was the most mechanised army in the world, certainly far more so than Germany's. Such technical knowledge was not simply trained "on the job" by the British military. You need to bear in mind that, certainly for the UK, a great many men were already employed in technical trades in the 1930s, some of which were a legacy from the First World War. For example, the RAF in late-1918 comprised about 300,000 men and more than 22,000 aircraft, having started with less than 5 squadrons' worth in 1914. A great many ex-servicemen were technically-proficient and went back into technical jobs during the inter-war years (and went on to raise sons who expected to work in technical positions). During WW2, the RAF grew in size to almost 1,000,000 men. You simply can't reach that scale by taking a country bumpkin who can barely read and trying to teach him about internal combustion engines. 

For all your criticism of rail, it was still the primary cross-country means of transportation in America. Also, there were no (none, ZERO) entirely nationalized rail services in Europe (or the UK) in the 1930s. The closest was France where the state owned 51% of the main rail company. 

IMHO the key advantages the US had over countries in Europe was the size of its population, under-utilized land, and the latent production capacity that still existed following the Great Depression which combined to enable massive growth on a scale that individual European nations simply couldn't match.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Sep 13, 2020)

stona said:


> You might also explain how the Germans lost 1,187* aircraft during the Battle of Britain



My copy of BoBTaN gives 1887 German losses in the summary table at the back of the book, but the table is inaccurate. If you go through the day-by-day listings the total comes to 1990 losses, and there were quite a few other losses that never found their way into the official loss-lists, as we know from Ultra intercepts, contemporary records (eg diaries) and the reports of the RAF crash-investigation teams. 

It's clear that Luftwaffe units could get replacement planes without reporting their losses, whereas the RAF could not, though that would have changed had Park got his way. At a conference during the BoB he suggested that squadrons be allowed to get replacement a/c directly from the Maintenance Units - in other words the same system that obtained in the Luftwaffe - but his proposal was rejected.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 13, 2020)

MycroftHolmes said:


> My copy of BoBTaN gives 1887 German losses in the summary table at the back of the book,



So does mine (p707), that is a typo on my part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> For all your criticism of rail, it was still the primary cross-country means of transportation in America.


Not contesting that point; it was the backbone of long distance transportation. It just didn't (and couldn't) reach into every small farming and light industry community, necessitating development and growth of a trucking industry. Ironically, this has in the long run led to the decline of railroads in the US.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 13, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> They were in San Diego, 2600 miles away. yep, the Americans screwed up the early warning, but whatever mistakes the Americans made ( many) doesn't mean the British get a pass for mistakes they made.
> 
> .


In terms of the discussion, what is a "mistake". To replace pilot losses at the height of the BoB with pilots who have 200 hours on type and 25 hours of gunnery training you need to start expanding your training schools long before war is declared and send many front line pilots and planes into those schools? Did "Thatch" instigate such a programme or anyone else in the USA? The Battle of Britain was a battle of attrition. The aim of the LW was to destroy the RAF and the aim of the RAF was to destroy so many LW bombers and crews that they gave up. The whole "thing" for the LW was to destroy RAF fighters with pilots quicker than they could be replaced, if you take out the experienced and elite then the new to theatre combatants are easy meat, this is the same in all theatres of warfare. I can accept any discussion of poor training, or lack of training or lack of focus on marksmanship and poor marksmanship. What I cannot accept is that there was no training, that no one cared about lack of training or poor marksmanship and I will not accept that the RAF hit nothing. The "helpful" suggestion that RAF pilots in the BoB should be told to aim for the engines, fuel, or crew compartment is an insult to the intelligence, some of them were aces and they were actually winning in the battle from its start to its end. There is no doubt that the US had an excellent pilot training programme in place by 1943 but its pilots were finishing their training in UK and they had to postpone their Bombing strategy for a long time to achieve it. In the adoration of Thatch I am surprised this wasn't mentioned. Similarly with such brilliant training and marksmanship in US forces they would surely have swept the LW out of Africa in weeks? Why didnt they? I am a great admirer of John S Thatch and all he did, until someone tries to portray everyone else in the world at the time as an imbecile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2020)

The US may have had a similar problem to the British. O'Hare in the spring of 1942 had four years of Naval collage, two years service on a battleship, flight training and almost two years as a pilot with VF-3. And yet he was a section leader or flight leader, not a squadron leader. 
The US Navy pilots of the first half of 1942 were mostly long service career pilots/officers. It is not surprising they did very well in combat even in theri first battles. However the US (especially the army) was rapidly expanding and there may have been a dip in the quality later in 1942 and into 1943. Thach was pulled as squadron commander to be an instructor right after Midway. He was not the only one. 

The huge expansion of the RAF in late 30s meant that very few squadrons (if any) had a high proportion of high time pilots and as soon as they seemed to get a squadron up to snuff (even before the shooting started) a number of pilots would get transferred to a new squadron to provide a cadre while low time pilots replaced them. This is pretty much standard for any organization under going a large rapid expansion. SO yes it is unfair to compare average BoB pilots to the US Navy pilots of early 1942. 

In defence of the US the US did not pursue such idiotic schemes as the turret fighter and the "No allowance" armament schemes. Perhaps the british were devoting a large amount of time and effort into gunnery training, but in 1937-1940 it sure seems like they were also spending a lot of time and effort on schemes that would minimise the need for good gunnery training. 

Perhaps the RAF could handle doing both at the same time, perhaps not. However with such divergent views there may have been several 'camps' officers could fall into which _might_ have affected the overall training programs. 

The US units showing up in Britain at the end of 1942 and during 1943 were also part of huge expansion and not the long term pilots of early 1942. It is little wonder that they needed a fair amount of polishing before being used in combat. Air to air gunnery is only part of the equation, teamwork and combat tactics also need work. 

I personally think that trying to aim at cockpits is rather foolish as they are a rather small target. The only possible advantage is that it might force the pilot doing so to get in closer than he would otherwise and if he misses on a twin engine plane the bomb bay is right behind, the wing roots are full of fuel tanks, the engine nacelles are only a little further out and often the wing just outboard engines have fuel or oil tanks (the Bf 110 had the radiators just outboard of the engines) giving a rather large area of vulnerable parts. 
The German bombers were hardly bullet proof in any case. The sheet metal on the fuselage and wings isn't going to offer any better protection than the canopy material.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 13, 2020)

In retrospect a turret fighter is foolish but no one knew the war that would be fought, against unescorted bombers it may have worked. It is all very well to discuss when US pilots started operations in 1942 and into 1943, that is two to three years after the time we were talking about 1940 and the Battle of Britain, there was an age in conflict passed between the BoB and the US formal entry into the war, the war was going on and the USA could spend 18 months training and preparing and not losing any of its best to anything other than accidents.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2020)

The US in 1940-42 was in some ways where the British were in the late 30s.

Roosevelt called for a 50,000 plane airforce in the summer of 1940. Of course some (most) of the factories to build those planes had to be built first (much like many of the British Shadow factories had to be built) and the camps/bases needed to train the aircrew needed to be built so it was going to take a while. 

Navy on the other hand, was small and needed to build carriers. Their expansion may have been smaller/slower than the armies. Heck the Navy didn't even get coastal patrol with land based aircraft until they swapped a Boeing flying boat factory to the Army air force for B-29 production for the authority to operate land based bombers/anti sub planes.



Point of bringing up the turret fighter was that a career minded junior officer may have had to pick which camp he was in in order to fast track his promotion, or at least pretend to join a camp if his commanding officer was firmly in one camp. In any case, such a division of effort of training/tactics/thinking is not likely to produce a coherent RAF training program. At least in some periods of time. Some officers may have thought the turret fighter was a really bad idea at the time and tried to train their pilots for conventional combat. ( How many Hawker Demon Turret fighters used as trainers in the late 30s?). I have read about squadrons going to 'annual' gunnery camps in the 30s. I believe it was in Flight magazine but they are off line so cannot check. Once a year is not enough although other air forces may have done similar things. Budgets were small in the 1930s and England was not blessed with large areas of land/sea where live fire ranges could be placed near most air fields in peace time. Likewise British weather was not conducive to year round training in peace time. 

Why was Thach in San Diego at the time of Pearl Harbor?
Because the weather there was much more favorable for training than the weather in North west Washington. The Saratoga (parent carrier) had been under going a refit in the Bremerton Naval yard over 1000 miles away by air. The Saratoga steamed from Bremerton to San Diego to pick up her squadrons of aircraft. 
The US purse strings had been loosened considerably in the summer of 1940.

The British had a lot of hurdles to overcome. Many were just circumstances/timing. Only a few were self inflicted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 14, 2020)

I think that there is a misunderstanding of how British pilot training was conducted during this period.
Pilots went through the elementary and service training schools where they learnt to fly. Subsequently they went to OTUs where they flew front line aircraft.
At the end of this a pilot would have learnt how to fly and fight in formation, have learnt the various numbered attacks and may even have fired his guns at a drogue being towed in a straight line at not much more than half the speed of a German bomber.
*His training was completed at his squadron.* Pilots did not emerge from the OTU's as operational, combat ready pilots. The problem, by the time of the Battle of Britain was that this 'on the job' training had become impossible. All the experienced pilots were needed for fighting and the dispersal of squadrons away from the Sector stations made it impossible. These newly qualified pilots could not be sent on operations with any realistic chance of survival. It is one of the reasons why the stabilisation system was introduced. The Class C squadrons, particularly in 13 Group but also in 10 and even 12 Groups, became effectively non-operational training squadrons, many with as few as three operational pilots, where the sector training flights could be undertaken in relatively safe skies.
It was deemed impractical to open more OTU's in September 1940 because such units themselves put a strain and demand on Fighter Command's limited resources. They required front line aircraft, ground crew and support, and suitably experienced pilots to serve as instructors. It is no coincidence that several OTU's were opened at the conclusion of the BoB in November to train fighter pilots, at the same time the stabilisation system was abandoned.

Rather like a limited overs cricket match, there is no point in saving your best bowlers for the 'death' overs if you are beaten before you get to them. Fighter Command had first to come up with ways of mitigating the pilot shortage (going downhill as slowly as possible) and survive the Battle, before it could instigate the policies which would ensure a long term supply of pilots to win the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 14, 2020)

Pursuant to the original question, in a time altered, revisionist history, I think some properly equipt 2 stage R-1830 powered F4F-3's would have been well received by the RAF during the BoB, but only if the aircraft came with a full complement of ground crew and pilots to operate them. 
BUT, if we can now magically transport 1941/42 era aircraft back in time, I don't think the Wildcat/Martlet would be high on anyone's list.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots. 

If there's any American aircraft available in 1939 that would be useful during the BoB it is the Consolidated PBY Catalina. The German's Seenotdienst (sea rescue service) and their Dornier Do 24 and other seaplanes were able to rescue many downed LW pilots. The RAF could use more PBYs to save more RAF pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> In terms of the discussion, what is a "mistake". To replace pilot losses at the height of the BoB with pilots who have 200 hours on type and 25 hours of gunnery training you need to start expanding your training schools long before war is declared and send many front line pilots and planes into those schools? Did "Thatch" instigate such a programme or anyone else in the USA? The Battle of Britain was a battle of attrition. The aim of the LW was to destroy the RAF and the aim of the RAF was to destroy so many LW bombers and crews that they gave up. The whole "thing" for the LW was to destroy RAF fighters with pilots quicker than they could be replaced, if you take out the experienced and elite then the new to theatre combatants are easy meat, this is the same in all theatres of warfare. I can accept any discussion of poor training, or lack of training or lack of focus on marksmanship and poor marksmanship. What I cannot accept is that there was no training, that no one cared about lack of training or poor marksmanship and I will not accept that the RAF hit nothing. The "helpful" suggestion that RAF pilots in the BoB should be told to aim for the engines, fuel, or crew compartment is an insult to the intelligence, some of them were aces and they were actually winning in the battle from its start to its end. There is no doubt that the US had an excellent pilot training programme in place by 1943 but its pilots were finishing their training in UK and they had to postpone their Bombing strategy for a long time to achieve it. In the adoration of Thatch I am surprised this wasn't mentioned. Similarly with such brilliant training and marksmanship in US forces they would surely have swept the LW out of Africa in weeks? Why didnt they? I am a great admirer of John S Thatch and all he did, until someone tries to portray everyone else in the world at the time as an imbecile.


Read post 282, it’s a well written post on how they actually trained, apparently they didn’t get gunnery training. I have read, in the last 40 years, pilots saying the very first time they fired their guns was at a German. I have also read of one pilot who said he got to shoot at his own shadow on the ocean one time before combat and that was it for gunnery training.

READ THIS CAREFULLY: I have repeatedly said on this thread that no one else in the world to my knowledge was doing much better on gunnery training except the US Navy. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the Japanese Navy was thoroughly teaching gunnery skills but I have no evidence). I have also repeatedly said the USAAF was certainly not doing a good job early in the war, Richard Bong said his gunnery training and gunnery skills were awful and the only way for him to hit someone was to get so close he couldn’t miss. That is about the 5th time I have said that the USAAF was doing no better than Britain. Please read that paragraph again.

I never said that British pilots didn’t know to aim for the engine, fuel tank or cockpit, I never said that. A 5 year old would know to aim for those parts. I did say imagine the effect an 8 gun Hurricane would have on the all glass cockpit of an HE111 from an accurate beam attack or head on attack, but again, anyone older than 5 that isn’t a drooling moron would understand that, being able to do it is another matter. How do these pilots aim for a specific part of an aircraft when they are opening fire from 1,000 yards away?

Not being able to shoot and hit a target has nothing to do with being an imbecile, it simply has to do with training. (Although some people are naturals and some people never get it). The only imbeciles in this situation were the world leaders that caused it in the first place! These poor 18-22 year old kids flying planes on both sides should have been chasing girls. All training isn’t equal either. As Shortround pointed out, yes the RAF had training pre-war but was it once a year for a day or 2? Twice a year? You don’t get proficient at anything doing it once or twice a year, especially something as complicated as air to air gunnery.

I also said the British didn’t need a different plane, the 2 they had were fine. They didn’t need different guns, 8 303’s especially the way the Hurricane guns were mounted, were about as good as anything in the world. What they needed was air to air gunnery training. I stand by that statement. Excellent gunnery from each individual pilot would have made a drastic difference. Was it possible to get everyone on Thach’s level? Absolutely not. Could they have done better than they did? Absolutely yes they could have. The USAAF could have done better than they did as well and in my opinion had less of an excuse than Britain did. Could Britain have taught 90 degree deflection shooting to the masses? Very very doubtful. They should have at least set up a twin engine bomber on an airfield with a hurricane propped up behind it at 200-250 yards and said “here is what he should look like in your sights when you open fire” and set up a couple more at 500 and 1000 yards and said “this is too far away”.

Did they shoot down German fighters and bombers? Of course they did. Did they win? Of course they did. Would they have done better with even some very basic air to air gunnery training? Of course they would. If you are not instructed on what your doing wrong then you’ll never get better. I have helped several people shooting skeet. They shoot and shoot and shoot and they miss and miss and miss. Then you give them a few pointers and they start hitting. A few more pointers and they hit more.

Were these boys brave? YES Were they stupid? NO Did they need more gunnery training? YES Was it possible to do it under the conditions and time constraints at the time? Not to the level a person would want, but I believe they could have done better than they did. Was the USAAF in the same boat for the first couple of years? YES

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots.
> 
> If there's any American aircraft available in 1939 that would be useful during the BoB it is the Consolidated PBY Catalina. The German's Seenotdienst (sea rescue service) and their Dornier Do 24 and other seaplanes were able to rescue many downed LW pilots. The RAF could use more PBYs to save more RAF pilots.



I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 14, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.


Go Grumman! Hey, I’m from Long Island.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots.


The P-36 (Hawk) was quite capable and served France well against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of France.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.


Good point, the few Geese did well with the RAF and RCAF. I'd also say the Grumman Gosling (Widgeon) would be useful too.









SaparotRob said:


> Go Grumman! Hey, I’m from Long Island.


With the Martlet, Hellcat and Tarpon (Avenger) the British FAA did very well by Grumman.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 14, 2020)

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Admiral!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Couldn’t have said it better myself, Admiral!


I forgot the first Grumman fighter to serve under the British Commonwealth, the Canadian-produced G-23 Goblin.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I forgot the first Grumman fighter to serve under the British Commonwealth, the Canadian-produced G-23 Goblin.


A superb aircraft indeed! Perhaps the finest naval aircraft of its type.
Now I have to Wiki it to see what it is.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 14, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots.
> 
> If there's any American aircraft available in 1939 that would be useful during the BoB it is the Consolidated PBY Catalina. The German's Seenotdienst (sea rescue service) and their Dornier Do 24 and other seaplanes were able to rescue many downed LW pilots. The RAF could use more PBYs to save more RAF pilots.



They had the Walrus which eventually served in this role. What they didn't have was a properly organised Air Sea Rescue organisation.

The British also targeted and shot down German float planes of the Seenotdienst, usually He 59s, despite them being clearly marked (white with red crosses) and their crews being registered with ICRC in Geneva. This was on the grounds that they were serving as reconnaissance aircraft for the Luftwaffe, a charge always denied by the Germans and one which has little evidence to support it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2020)

And the Seenotdienst crews took great effort to rescue Allied and Axis pilots (and mariners) alike.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 14, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> And the Seenotdienst crews took great effort to rescue Allied and Axis pilots (and mariners) alike.


As long as one's not Jewish, for the RAF pilots it's better to be captured by the Germans than by the Japanese. 

Best to be captured by the Italians, you can take their aircraft and fly home.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 14, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.


Actually, given "the chops of the channel" the PBY is ideal for the job. It can handle rough water better than the short coupled amphibians and has two major advantages:
1) It has a bow mooring station that can be used for fishing people out of the water, keeping them away from the props.
2) The pylon mounted high wing gets the props out of the way of rescue operations.
Neither the Goose or Widgeon has these advantages, in fact the aft mounted access door makes maneuvering around a life raft without getting close to the props awkward, to say the least. Have you ever taxied a plane on the water? It's a *different* experience!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2020)

Even though the He59 was a floatplane, unlike the Bv138 and Do24, it was still an effective air-sea rescue type and handled the rough waters of the Channel well.

The Seenotdienst crews also did not check to see a person's credentials before fishing survivors out if the water, they were rescued regardless: sailors of the Royal Navy, Italian Navy, any pilot of any nation and even fishermen in distress were all rescued along with Luftwaffe & Kreigsmarine personnel.


----------



## stona (Sep 14, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> And the Seenotdienst crews took great effort to rescue Allied and Axis pilots (and mariners) alike.



Fighter Command issued the order ignore the red crosses and to shoot down/force down the ASR aircraft on 14th July. It was already being done by Fighter Command pilots on their own initiative. On the 29th the Air Ministry pronounced that the aircraft were 'being employed for the purposes which the HM Government cannot regard as being consistent with the privileges generally accorded to the Red Cross'. and that any of them flying in operational areas would do so 'at their own risk and peril'.

Among the papers discovered when an He 59 was forced down on 9th July was a log belonging to another Red Cross aircraft (D-AGUI).

_"30/4/40 Verbal orders 19.50 hrs, search for Englishmen shot down about 10Km west of Stavanger. Weather perfect. Visibility 50 Km, wind 130 degrees, 25 Km. Start at 19.52 hrs. At 20.15 hrs oil spots in Grid Ref.3125. Sighted man drifting in rubber dinghy, beside him a man swimming. We landed beside them 22.00 hrs. Sea strength 2. The dinghy drifted between the floats and was made fast. Both Englishmen hauled into machine. The first, who was in the dinghy, was slightly wounded on his chin - protested that he did not need First Aid. We made him fast to the 'Tragbahn'. The second was already drowned. Artificial respiration in the machine had no effect...It turned out later that the rescued Englishman was a Staffelfuhrer, with the rank of Major, the other who had been unable to get into the dinghy was his observer."_

The rescued man was Squadron Leader KC Doran, his crew both perished, Sgt. R H J Batsrick and P/O F M N Searle. Their Blenheim IV, L9242 of No. 110 Squadron, had been shot down during bombing operations in the Stavanger area. Doran owed his life to the Germans.

*With the benefit of hindsight*, it is difficult to find a justification for the British decision.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 14, 2020)

stona said:


> They had the Walrus which eventually served in this role. What they didn't have was a properly organised Air Sea Rescue organisation.
> 
> The British also targeted and shot down German float planes of the Seenotdienst, usually He 59s, despite them being clearly marked (white with red crosses) and their crews being registered with ICRC in Geneva. This was on the grounds that they were serving as reconnaissance aircraft for the Luftwaffe, a charge always denied by the Germans and one which has little evidence to support it.



I think the claims of the LW rescue planes also being recce planes came about from the coastal convoy sailors. They said that a rescue plane would regularly fly over a convoy and bombers would turn up ten minutes later.


XBe02Drvr said:


> Actually, given "the chops of the channel" the PBY is ideal for the job. It can handle rough water better than the short coupled amphibians and has two major advantages:
> 1) It has a bow mooring station that can be used for fishing people out of the water, keeping them away from the props.
> 2) The pylon mounted high wing gets the props out of the way of rescue operations.
> Neither the Goose or Widgeon has these advantages, in fact the aft mounted access door makes maneuvering around a life raft without getting close to the props awkward, to say the least. Have you ever taxied a plane on the water? It's a *different* experience!



Not sure I would like to put such a big bird down in the Channel. You have minefields, wrecks and big sandbanks like Godwin Sands and Sandettie Bank. At high water you should be fine but at low water you might have 80 feet under the keel or you might have 8 inches. There's something like 4000 wrecks on Godwin and 2000 on Sandettie. Also from North Foreland to Dungeness you have to dodge the big guns taking pot shots at you from France.

A big flying boat can take I believe up to 2 miles to get off the water, more if it doesn't have the wind to fly into. That will take some nerve if you are in the middle of the Channel and you have to lumber towards France to take off.

Never seen a Flying boat take off let alone piloted one but I have sailed the Channel and there's a reason why little boats are better.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 14, 2020)

stona said:


> They had the Walrus which eventually served in this role. What they didn't have was a properly organised Air Sea Rescue organisation.
> 
> The British also targeted and shot down German float planes of the Seenotdienst usually He 59s, despite them being clearly marked (white with red crosses) and their crews being registered with ICRC in Geneva. This was on the grounds that they were serving as reconnaissance aircraft for the Luftwaffe, a charge always denied by the Germans and one which has little evidence to support it.



There's no provision in the rules of war for a fighting service to operate an air-sea rescue service without interference from their opponents.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 14, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> A big flying boat can take I believe up to 2 miles to get off the water, more if it doesn't have the wind to fly into.


Big is a relative term. A Catalina isn't a Sunderland or DoX. If the Sunderland is a battleship, the PBY is a destroyer, the Goose a minesweeper and the Widgeon a PT boat.
A PBY rigged up for photogrammetry and magnetic mapping used to stop in occasionally at our local airport and suck our 100 octane tanks dry. That thing could stay up for twelve hours at a time, flying endless grid patterns photo mapping or trailing a magnetometer "bomb" on a long cable. (Borring!)
Once it had a landing gear actuator failure and landed on a nearby lake, so we drove our fuel truck over and put 500 gallons in it. The lake is about 3/4 mile long with hills at both ends, but the Cat had no trouble getting out, except for getting fined $10K for landing on a drinking water reservoir. Expensive tank of gas.
PBYs used snatch downed pilots out of lagoons and off coral reefs in WWII, often under fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> There's no provision in the rules of war for a fighting service to operate an air-sea rescue service without interference from their opponents.


The Seenotdienst aircraft were white, with civil registries and red cross insignia - they were clearly marked and their mission was to rescue, which they were fully outfitted for.

Attacking them under the auspices that they are military targets would then include medic/corpsman, medical evacuation vehicles/trains, field hospitals and hospital ships, right?


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey GrauGeist,

Unfortunately no.

re Air-Sea Rescue Aircraft and the Geneva Convention

from Geneva Convention 1929

Article 7
___The protection to which medical formations and establishments are entitled shall cease if they are made use of to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

Article 18
*___Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected by the belligerents, while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.**
___They shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 38, together with their national colours, on their lower, upper and lateral surfaces. They shall be provided with any other markings or means of identification that may be agreed upon between the belligerents upon the outbreak or during the course of hostilities.
___Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy-occupied territory are prohibited.
___Medical aircraft shall obey every summons to land. In the event of a landing thus imposed, the aircraft with its occupants may continue its flight after examination, if any.
___In the event of an involuntary landing in enemy or enemy-occupied territory, the wounded and sick, as well as the crew of the aircraft shall be prisoners of war. The medical personnel shall be treated according to Article 24 and the Articles following.

(My note: There was an attempt (before and during the 1929 Convention) to expand and provide more detailed protections for medical aircraft and aircraft searching for wounded or downed aircraft crew in need of rescue, but no significant changes were made. Although I am sure that the information is out there somewhere, I could not find a record of the suggested changes or discussions.)

from Geneva Convention 1949

[Excerpt from Article 36]

Paragraph 1 - Definition and Protection
___Medical aircraft have the same role under the 1949 Convention as in the past: flying alone or in convoys, they may be used both for the evacuation of the wounded and sick, and for transporting medical personnel and material. Like any other means of transport, they may be the property of the army, or of voluntary aid societies, or have been requisitioned.
*___As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.**
___The nature of the protection accorded remains the same: the aircraft, like medical transport on land, are placed on the same footing as mobile medical units.

(My note: There is still no protection included in the Geneva Convention for the search and rescue aircraft, only for the personnel on board after it is shot down. The protections afforded the occupants are as for other military or civilian aircrew, medical personnel, wounded, etc.)
*My bold.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> There's no provision in the rules of war for a fighting service to operate an air-sea rescue service without interference from their opponents.



The aircraft were painted white with red crosses and were unarmed. Their crews were registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva. The Germans believed that these aircraft * were afforded the same protection as ambulances or, in the words of the ICRC 'medical transports'.*

It's why the British had to issue statements to the effect that the Germans were contravening the customary rules, what we now call customary international humanitarian law, by using the aircraft for hostile purposes (reconnaissance) in order to justify attacking them.

We can argue legal semantics, but this was really a moral question. With hindsight the attacks on these aircraft, which were persistent and frequent, are difficult to justify morally, even if the are legally justified (which is borderline).

Some Fighter Command pilots knew this instinctively. Here is an account of one of the actions on 29 July which I wrote elsewhere.

At 15.05 four Hurricanes of No. 111 Squadron attacked 2 ASR He 59s of Boulogne. One of Seenotflug Kdo 3 was shot down wounding two of the crew and killing the other two. A second He 59 landed to rescue the surviving crew and was itself attacked by the Hurricanes, sustaining 60% damage and wounding two of its crew. Some pilots did have reservations about attacking these aircraft. 111 Squadron’s intelligence report states that at least two pilots noticed the prominent red crosses and did not attack. The first was shot down by Sgt Robinson who _‘only noticed black swastika on red roundel on fin’_, but P/O Wilson _‘circled the enemy a/c as he perceived a red cross on the fin, a large red cross on the fuselage, and another red cross, position of which he did not note’_. The second aircraft was _‘riddled’_ with bullets from _‘800 yards, closing to point blank range’_ by F/O Ferris. His colleague on the other hand saw the markings. _‘P/O Fisher, after a short burst held his fire, as he saw a Red Cross marked on fuselage of enemy aircraft’_.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

Double post


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 15, 2020)

T
 ThomasP
fascinating I learned something today. 

So a rescue plane would have to file a flight plan with the opposing force and be prepared to land at any time for inspection. 

What is the status of an enemy picked up by the rescue plane. If he is sent to a POW camp then is the rescue plane acting as a combat plane.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey Stona,

Except for the parts in ( ), [ ], the *s, and the words "My bold.", all of the above was copied and pasted from the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Search and rescue aircraft, regardless of how they are painted, were not and are still not considered *Medical Aircraft*. To be considered *Medical Aircraft* they *must be used exclusively for transport of wounded and/or medical personnel and/or medical supplies*.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 15, 2020)

Captured airmen, submariners etc... were of great importance in the hands of a cunning Information Officer.
So, their rescue was not just a matter of humanity or to avoid to have an enemy fighting again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Stona,
> 
> Except for the parts in ( ), [ ], the *s, and the words My bold., all of the above was copied and pasted from the Geneva Convention of 1949.
> 
> Search and rescue aircraft, regardless of how they are painted, were not and are still not considered *Medical Aircraft*. To be considered *Medical Aircraft* they *must be used exclusively for transport of wounded and/or medical personnel and/or medical supplies*.



I've edited my post to make my point clearer.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey Stona,

Sorry, we were posting at the same time so I did not catch your post before I sent my post.

Please note, however that an aircraft acting as search and rescue removes that aircraft from the *exclusive* *medical aircraft* definition, rendering it a legal target - even today.

If you are saying that the pilots that attacked the He 59s in your example above should not have done so, I personally agree, but it is not illegal by the Geneva Convention.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey fastmongrel,

re: "So a rescue plane . . ."

Let's say you have a bunch of wounded on an island somewhere in the Pacific, and you want to evacuate them to a rear area where they can receive medical treatment. You would contact the enemy and inform them of the event, complete with when, where, number of aircraft, number of flights, route, etc. so that the enemy knows that they should be on the lookout for the medical aircraft (properly marked with red cross on white background) in the areas and at the times specified. You may then proceed and by ~international law the enemy should not attack your medical aircraft. If, however, you also use your transport aircraft to pick up and transport able-bodied combatants (such as rescued but unwounded pilots and aircrew) and the enemy discovered this, you would be in violation of the Geneva Convention rules and the enemy could legally shoot your transports down.

In the case of the German search and rescue He 59 aircraft mentioned above, in theory if the British had been told of a specific location where a believed-to-be wounded German pilot had crashed, and the Germans had made the required arrangements(?), the the RAF pilots would have been breaking the law (I think) when they attacked the rescue aircraft. But telling the enemy that you will have properly marked aircraft operating in non-specific areas at non-specific times, sometimes picking up wounded and sometimes picking up able-bodied aircrew, does not meet the standards of the law - unless both sides agree to it.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

The Germans may have tried to escort them later. I know of at least one instance where an He 59 was encountered in the company of three Bf 110s. How an aircraft like the Bf 110 was supposed to protect an aircraft like the He 59 flying at not much more than 100 mph is another question.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey fastmongrel,

re: "What is the status of an enemy picked up by the rescue plane. If he is sent to a POW camp then is the rescue plane acting as a combat plane."

I suspect that the kind of situation in your question is at least part of the reason why the international law concerning what we are talking about is not more black and white, and why they decided that to qualify as a medical aircraft it *must be used exclusively for transport of wounded and/or medical personnel and/or medical supplies*. If the enemy was wounded I think it would be OK. Otherwise, I do not know for sure, but I think it would break the *exclusively* part.

As far as status goes, if the rescuing aircraft belonged to a combatant then the rescued enemy would be treated as any other prisoner of war by the rules of the Geneva Convention. If the rescuing aircraft belonged to a neutral country, the rules are more complicated, but I think the rescued would have to be held captive (interned) in the neutral country until after the war.

I do however have a 4 part version of the Geneva Convention of 1949 with commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross stating their
understanding of the application of the rules of war as of 1952, particularly as to "THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF WOUNDED, SICK AND . . ."

Just saw what XBe02Drvr posted while I was waiting for the pdfs to upload, much less wordy than what I typed above.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 15, 2020)

It seems logical that any craft operating to further the objectives of the enemy would be a legitimate target. Retrieving a fighter pilot to fight again sounds to me like furthering the enemy's war effort. Said pilot is a war asset. War is hell and total war isn't pretty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It seems logical that any craft operating to further the objectives of the enemy would be a legitimate target. Retrieving a fighter pilot to fight again sounds to me like furthering the enemy's war effort. Said pilot is a war asset. War is hell and total war isn't pretty.




The issue was that the ASR aircraft were clearly marked in accordance with international law. They were unarmed and the crews were registered with the International Red Cross in Geneva. The British knew all of this after the very first He 59 was forced down on 9 July. The only 'weapon' on board was a signal flare pistol. 

The crew of that aircraft believed that a mistake had been made by the British, and their interrogation reports show that they were keen explain their organisation so that future mistakes might be avoided. There was no mistake, the British targeted these aircraft, despite the reluctance of some of their own pilots. 

We must be careful how we judge events with the benefit of hindsight, but the decision to go after these aircraft, which incidentally rescued British airmen too, was marginal at best. Personally, I do not consider it one of the best decisions taken during the Battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 15, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If the Sunderland is a battleship, the PBY is a destroyer, the Goose a minesweeper and the Widgeon a PT boat.



Big Destroyer 🤣 probably best to say if a Sunderland is a battleship then a PBY would be a heavy cruiser

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey Stona,

While I agree that it was poor form for the RAF to attack the German ASR aircraft, there is no "clearly marked in accordance with international law" for ASR aircraft defined in the Geneva Convention. *Search and rescue aircraft, regardless of how they are painted, were not and are still not considered Medical Aircraft.* I do not know why the Germans thought it would apply, unless there was some sort of hoped for gentlemen's agreement between the Germans and the British?


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 15, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> While I agree that it was poor form for the RAF to attack the German ASR aircraft,



How is it different to bombing unarmed civilians in London?, Germany attacked Poland Belgium France Britain and killed innocent people by the thousands doing it. If I was a fighter pilot in WW2 I would have attacked and do my best to destroy any and every Luftwaffe and Japanese aircraft I found.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> How is it different to bombing unarmed civilians in London?, Germany attacked Poland Belgium France Britain and killed innocent people by the thousands doing it. If I was a fighter pilot in WW2 I would have attacked and do my best to destroy any and every Luftwaffe and Japanese aircraft I found.



Because by shooting down those aircraft and killing their crews you are also condemning some of your own men to death.

I already gave an example of a survivor from a Blenheim who would otherwise have perished, and there were many more who were picked up to become PoWs, but alive to survive the war and return to their families.

It's why, with the benefit of hindsight and knowing that the aircraft were not being used for reconnaissance, I think that the British made a poor decision.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> I do not know why the Germans thought it would apply, unless there was some sort of hoped for gentlemen's agreement between the Germans and the British?



It is quite clear from the interrogation reports that the Seenotdienst expected that the British would respect these aircraft and not shoot them down. The first crews captured quite obviously believed that a terrible mistake had been made in their cases and that the British could not possibly have intended to shoot/force them down. The Germans considered them non-combatant, whatever the legal niceties of the laws of war.
Whether that was technically correct or not is not the point. It was a moral question, and it was one of the first instances from a British perspective when moral standards slipped. They had a long way to fall on all sides.

In 1940 I would have shot them down too, but today it looks like a poor decision.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey PAT303,

I would say that it is not any different, and that the deliberate targeting of civilians (regardless of whether by the Germans, US, UK, Russia, Japan, etc) is also poor form, and should be considered a war crime. It is considered a war crime today, regardless of whether you are a signatory to the Geneva Convention or not. But in WWII it was not illegal for a country to, say bomb civilians from 20-30,000 ft, if they had not signed the clauses in the Geneva Convention that prohibited such a thing. Mind you, Germany had (I think) signed those clauses.

Interestingly, the US and UK were (I think) the only 2 major WWII combatants that did not sign the post-WWI clause prohibiting bombing of cities(civilians) from the air (although in the late-1930s, Japan who had originally signed, unsigned some clauses concerning targeting civilians - this was also considered legal at the time). This was for the UK, I think, an aspect of a view toward the potential "Terror Bombing" campaign planned against Germany in event of war, from before the war started. Incidentally, the US was on board with bombing German and Japanese cities(civilians) before they entered the war. Fire bombing of Japanese cities had been a part of War Plan Orange since ~1933, and a part of the strategy against the Germans since the talks with the UK in 1940.

The US also did not sign the clause prohibiting unrestricted submarine warfare, hence the immediate order for said against the Japanese.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey Stona,

As I said above I agree that the RAF pilots should not have attacked the He 59 ASR aircraft, and I think that if I were in that position and was the same person I am now, I would not do so even if ordered. But I do not think we can say that the moral point is all that matters relative to our view of this.

The Hague and Geneva Conventions originated for the very reason that we are discussing in this post (apologies to pinehilljoe for the continued thread wander). The idea was to put forward rules that encouraged the combatants to treat the enemy prisoners and civilian bystanders of either country as you would want your own to be treated. In theory, if both sides had trusted each other not to abuse the privilege, the German ASR efforts would probably have been applauded by the UK - maybe there would even have been a competition between the 2 countries as to how many downed crews each side could rescue. But this would require both sides to restrain and their more vicious natures. It can be done, and has been done at times in the past. But I have to ask myself a question - would the RAF pilots have attacked the He 59s if there was a clause in the Geneva Convention covering ASR aircraft with proper markings going about their Convention defined job of rescuing downed air crews? Assuming the pilots were made aware of such, hopefully they would not attack. Laws do 2 things, one is to discourage you from doing something bad, the other is to give you permission to do something good - and not get in trouble for it. Sorry if I am getting preachy.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> This was for the UK, I think, an aspect of a view toward the potential "Terror Bombing" campaign planned against Germany in event of war, from before the war started. .



That is a huge over simplification. Morale bombing as it was called, was always a consideration in the Trenchardist bombing policies developed in the inter-war years, but there was always a tension between that and the plans actually developed for implementation on the outbreak of war.

None of the Western Air Plans included anything that could be interpreted as morale or terror bombing. When Bomber Command began to implement these plans, attacking German naval ports, aircraft were banned from bombing ships tied up at docksides in order to avoid possible casualties close to the docks.

Once again, it took some time for the gloves to come off and moral standards to slip. Bombs had fallen on Berlin, supposedly aimed at specific targets, but the first raid authorised with a city as a target was that on Mannheim on the night of 16/17 December 1940. This really was morale bombing, carried out in retaliation for the heavy bombing of Coventry and Southampton.

Until 9 September, after the Luftwaffe began the Blitz on London, Bomber Command pilots were under orders to bring their bombs back if they failed to identify their primary target.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Need to go to bed now (it is 0749 here) as I work second shift. TTYL


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 15, 2020)

There is a reason why many medics and stretcher bearers *of both sides* in WWI took off their red cross markings. A patch of white with a red cross provided a good aiming point for a sniper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> There is a reason why many medics and stretcher bearers *of both sides* in WWI took off their red cross markings. A patch of white with a red cross provided a good aiming point for a sniper.



That has not changed. We had medivac birds come back full of holes despite clearly being marked with a red cross.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 15, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not contesting that point; it was the backbone of long distance transportation. It just didn't (and couldn't) reach into every small farming and light industry community, necessitating development and growth of a trucking industry. Ironically, this has in the long run led to the decline of railroads in the US.



That, and the fact that railroads had to pay property taxes on their rights of way and for all the maintenance of the roads. The trucking industry didn’t and still doesn’t

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Sep 15, 2020)

stona said:


> It is quite clear from the interrogation reports that the Seenotdienst expected that the British would respect these aircraft and not shoot them down. The first crews captured quite obviously believed that a terrible mistake had been made in their cases and that the British could not possibly have intended to shoot/force them down. The Germans considered them non-combatant, whatever the legal niceties of the laws of war.
> Whether that was technically correct or not is not the point. It was a moral question, and it was one of the first instances from a British perspective when moral standards slipped. They had a long way to fall on all sides.
> 
> In 1940 I would have shot them down too, but today it looks like a poor decision.



Hi

I do wonder why the Germans thought painting an aircraft white and putting a red cross on it protected the aircraft? It appears not to have protected hospital ships from the Luftwaffe before the BoB, for example HMNS Paris off Dunkirk on 2 June 1940, when Stukas (probably, from reports of the time) bombed and sunk it, or earlier on 21 May 1940 in Dieppe harbour when HMNS Maid of Kent was bombed and burnt out. In the latter case not only was the ship fully marked it had an additional awning over the deck with a big red cross, the dock area was also marked with a big red cross as it was where the hospital trains stopped to unload casualties. Indeed a photograph of the burnt out ship with a burnt out hospital train beside it was published at the time. Another hospital ship, the 'Brighton', was also hit but it was sunk a couple of days later by the Luftwaffe off Dieppe.

Did the Seenotdienst crews know the 'official' Luftwaffe policy on the protection of the red cross?

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 15, 2020)

Duplicate


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 15, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Did the Seenotdienst crews know the 'official' Luftwaffe policy on the protection of the red cross?


The Seenotdienst program was started in 1933, and was crewed with civilians and military from the start (and continued through 1945).
It was the world's first dedicated sea rescue program that included fast rescue boats as well as aircraft stocked with medical supplies, equipment to revive hypothermia victims and crew trained in medical aid.
Britain and the U.S. modeled their sea rescue programs after it, too.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> In theory, if both sides had trusted each other not to abuse the privilege, the German ASR efforts would probably have been applauded by the UK



There was, sadly, no chance of that. The Air Ministry made it clear in its justification for the attacks, and it did feel a need to justify them, whatever the niceties of law, that the aircraft were being attacked because they were acting as reconnaissance aircraft. This would deny them any form of protection under any circumstances and any interpretation of the rules of war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Did the Seenotdienst crews know the 'official' Luftwaffe policy on the protection of the red cross?
> 
> Mike



It doesn't really matter. That type of tit for tat reasoning always leads both sides rapidly down a moral slope, as was historically the case.

You can read my posts on the Anglo-American combined bombing offensive to see that I have always been a strong supporter of it and the reasons it was undertaken. However, I also acknowledge that it lost the Allies a moral high ground which they had previously occupied. The two views are not mutually exclusive.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 15, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> That, and the fact that railroads had to pay property taxes on their rights of way and for all the maintenance of the roads. The trucking industry didn’t and still doesn’t


In the early days, when railroads were growing, at what seemed to their eager would-be customers, a snail's pace, they were often granted large parcels of land out of which to fashion a right of way and adjoining lots which they could then sell to finance construction. This got them built more quickly, but then the "robber barons" came along and turned them into monstrous monopolies that needed reining in. At that point, their granted lands began to look to the common folk like ill gotten gains that should be benefitting the public treasury, and taxation was one lever of restraint on the robber barons that they didn't have the political clout to avoid.
Enter the petroleum industry. As the network of paved roads began to grow, they could see an expanding market at the expense of the then coal burning railroads, and heavily promoted "freedom of the open road", the auto and trucking industries, and the strategic importance of them. The infant trucking industry profited from "fostering" as the railroads had in their time, and were taxed on their equipment value, not their road usage, nor the RoW value of the roads they used.
My next door neighbor is a trucker, and he pays a hefty motor vehicle tax and registration in several states annually, and pro rata in other states he drives through, plus road tax in the states he's registered in. He does get a break, if you can call it that, in that the road taxes he and other truckers pay are less than the actual cost of repairs and maintenance that trucking inflicts on the roads. (Highway Council statistics)
Let's get back to Wildcats and BoB.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 15, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In the early days, when railroads were growing, at what seemed to their eager would-be customers, a snail's pace, they were often granted large parcels of land out of which to fashion a right of way and adjoining lots which they could then sell to finance construction. This got them built more quickly, but then the "robber barons" came along and turned them into monstrous monopolies that needed reining in. At that point, their granted lands began to look to the common folk like ill gotten gains that should be benefitting the public treasury, and taxation was one lever of restraint on the robber barons that they didn't have the political clout to avoid.
> Enter the petroleum industry. As the network of paved roads began to grow, they could see an expanding market at the expense of the then coal burning railroads, and heavily promoted "freedom of the open road", the auto and trucking industries, and the strategic importance of them. The infant trucking industry profited from "fostering" as the railroads had in their time, and were taxed on their equipment value, not their road usage, nor the RoW value of the roads they used.
> My next door neighbor is a trucker, and he pays a hefty motor vehicle tax and registration in several states annually, and pro rata in other states he drives through, plus road tax in the states he's registered in. He does get a break, if you can call it that, in that the road taxes he and other truckers pay are less than the actual cost of repairs and maintenance that trucking inflicts on the roads. (Highway Council statistics)
> Let's get back to Wildcats and BoB.


RoW. Finally, an acronym I I know! G-D bless the Railroads.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 15, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> I do wonder why the Germans thought painting an aircraft white and putting a red cross on it protected the aircraft?



A Japanese submarine sunk an Australian hospital ship that was not only painted white with red crosses but was continuously lit to identify it as such, https://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/centaur.htm the Japanese also had no problem murdering medical staff.
Sister Vivian Bullwinkel | The Australian War Memorial


----------



## RagTag (Sep 15, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Hey GrauGeist,
> 
> Unfortunately no.
> 
> ...


I am curious, I have a reference in regard to this, that the 1929 Convention also stated "Aircraft used as a means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material. In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing and dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited." 

That seems that ASR He 59's being identified as medical by their painting were thus were used in a prohibited way in the forward zones, and thus subject to loss of protection, allowing if not necessarily justifying their shootdown. That then comes from the finding of reconnaissance notes of convoy sightings in captured aircraft, which provided the justifications. However, that does not erase the moral dilemma of shooting down an aircraft that possibly has rescued one of your fellow pilots. The assumption that all Red Cross marked He 59's were nefarious was over broad. A more general prohibition of them from being in visual proximity of shipping would have been the more just policy to enforce by the RAF. But that might have been a problem with survival times in the Channel waters?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey RagTag,

re: "A more general prohibition of them from being in visual proximity of shipping would have been the more just policy to enforce by the RAF."

A good idea (seriously), but I can not think of any practical way that such a prohibition could be enforced. The aircrew they were rescuing in the period we are talking about (for the most part) were downed in the English Channel and North Sea adjacent to the Channel. RN ships and boats (I am not sure how much merchant shipping) routinely operated in those waters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

Hey PAT303,

The following in no way justifies the Japanese attack on AHS Centaur, but it should be kept in mind.

At the start of the war the Japanese behaved very much in line with the Geneva Convention, particularly relative to the sick and wounded. They marked their hospital ships to the standards of the Geneva Convention, and used them only for medical purposes (in the same way as the Allies) and sometimes transport of evacuated civilians (in the same way as the allies). The US submarines and air forces routinely attacked them anyway, from the start of the war, with the only reason for no Japanese hospital ships being sunk during 1942 being that the US submarine torpedoes performed badly.

One such attack occurred on 25 April 1943, when the USS Runner fired 6 torpedoes from about 700 yds, at the HS Buenos Aries Maru during broad daylight. The HS Buenos Aries Maru was a Japanese hospital ship, registered and marked properly (there are official records of the registration in October 1942 and photos of the ship in the harbour a few days prior to the attack) and carrying only medical personnel, sick and wounded. At least one torpedo hit the ship but fortunately only partially exploded, causing minor hull damage and wounding a few crew.

HS Buenos Aries Maru was again attacked on 17 August 1943 during broad daylight, this time by an unidentified type of aircraft carrying US markings, while en-route to Rabaul carrying medical supplies and medical personnel. Fortunately the aircraft missed the ship.

HS Buenos Aries Maru was again attacked on 22 November 1943, again in broad daylight, again properly marked (again there is a pictures of the ship shortly before leaving the harbour at Rabaul) but by a patrolling Liberator this time. This time the ship was not so lucky, being hit by a bomb which opened the hull to the sea. The ship sank in about 50 minutes. The personnel on board were 1129 wounded and sick, 63 medical staff, 72 ships crew, and a small number of unarmed troops (~16) being sent home. The Liberator hung around for a while and made a couple of passes while machine gunning the survivors in the water, fortunately with little or no effect. Most of the ~1280 personnel aboard were rescued, with only 158 listed as dead or missing.

The US official investigation summary statement said that "at the time of the bombing the identity of the hospital ship was not evident until after the attack was made". As to the machine gunning of the survivors in the water and life boats, the official statement was that "at the time their identity was unknown". (I assume that this means the Liberator did not take the time to identify the ship properly before attacking.)

In all, there were at least 23 attacks by the US forces on Japanese Hospital Ships between 7 December 1941 and the end of the war in the Pacific, with at least 7 by submarines and the rest by aircraft. 5 Japanese Hospital Ships were sunk. This maybe is not as horrific as it may sound, as the US attacked pretty much anything that they thought was Japanese and operated on or under the water.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 15, 2020)

Folks - good information here but please avoid politics.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 15, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks - good information here but please avoid politics.


Hey Joe, would it be possible to get the Seenotdienst comments moved to it's own thread?
This is one of thise cases where a good thread got hijacked by an equally good side discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## RagTag (Sep 15, 2020)

Wildcats would be an ideal tool against the He 59's, but so also were Blenheims, Defiants, Ansons, and grandmothers with slingshots! 


I tried....


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 15, 2020)

FWIW I agree about the move. I was thinking the same when I uploaded the Red Cross-Geneva Convention pdfs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 15, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Hey Joe, would it be possible to get the Seenotdienst comments moved to it's own thread?
> This is one of thise cases where a good thread got hijacked by an equally good side discussion.


Agree but It's easier if someone started a new post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> ......Not all raids into England were high altitude. Plenty of photographs from Do17 crews showing the bomber over their target in the hundreds of feet, not thousands....


 At the start of the Battle, the Luftwaffe still mounted many attacks with the Do.17 at low level. But, as the Battle progressed and the targets were further inland, the Luftwaffe switched their bombers to as high an altitude as they could manage, with their escorts stepped up even higher and also sweeping ahead of the raids. By the end of the Battle, any Luftwaffe bombers flying low-level attacks were doing so on those days were they flew singleton nuisance raids in bad weather.


GrauGeist said:


> ......With Great Britain strapped for fighters, the Martlet would have been a boost to interception numbers.....


 Yes, but the actual RAF shortage was in trained pilots. Hawkers in particular kept production humming well ahead of the loss rate, and Fighter Command had considerably more fighters at the end of the Battle than the start, whilst the Luftwaffe had shrunk due to losses. If the production of Hurricanes and Spitfires had not kept pace, the RAF had several local emergency fighter designs (Martin-Baker MB 2 and Miles M.20) that would have been quicker and simpler to introduce than the Martlet.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 20, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> But, as the Battle progressed and the targets were further inland, the Luftwaffe switched their bombers to as high an altitude as they could manage, with their escorts stepped up even higher and also sweeping ahead of the raids. By the end of the Battle, any Luftwaffe bombers flying low-level attacks were doing so on those days were they flew singleton nuisance raids in bad weather.


By September, the Do17 was operating at medium altitudes and by October, was sidelined while the Ju88 and He111 operated at night.

The Do17's production had been halted mid-1940 and unsustainable losses during the Bob along with the Do217 entering production is why it was withdrawn.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> ....the cowl guns on the Tomahawks (and P-39s the British got) were noted for rarely exceeding 500rpm.....The P-40D/E doesn't show up until the middle or fall of 1941 and those _should_ have had M2 guns. Doesn't mean they performed at book performance either to start with......


 When the pilots of 112Sq RAF switched from Tomahawks IIBs to Kittyhawk Is (roughly P-40C to P-40D/E) in January 1942, they commented on how much more reliable the nose-mounted Tomahawk's guns were than the wing-mounted Kittyhawk's. Whilst they did get the odd round through the prop due to interrupter gear timing issues with the nose-mounting, they found the nose-mounting reduced the impact of G on the .50s, whereas the wing-mountings were notorious for jamming up during dogfights. The Kittyhawk's wing-mounted .50s were great for level strafing, but they needed the reliability for the air superiority mission against the Bf109Fs. In effect, those two nose-mounted .50s were worth more than four or six wing-mounted .50s because they could still be relied on to fire until the ammo was exhausted. This plus the fact the Kittyhawk Is climbed slower than the Tomahawk made pilots like Neville Duke say they preferred the Tomahawk.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

wuzak said:


> .....Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!! Them facts of history....again raising hell with the Brits BULLSHIT stories !!!


 I think you are getting confused between single-*speed* and single-*stage* superchargers. The Rolls-Royce Merlin III used by the Spitfire and Hurricane in the BoB had one speed and one stage, but its design was to produce maximum power at a higher altitude (the rated altitude) than the single-speed and single-stage Allison V-1710-33 engine used in the P-40C. The USAAC had decided to go with turbocharging for high-altitude requirements and the USAAC requirement for the P-40 was for a fighter to provide low-altitude air superiority over the battlefield, so Allison had designed the V-1710-33's supercharged to be best for lower altitudes. That is why the Tomahawk was judged unsuited to RAF Fighter Command operations in the UK in late 1940, because combats were moving to 30,000ft, an altitude the Tomahawk struggled at. In the Middle East, it was presumed their opponent would be the Italian fighters like the Macchi C200, Fiat CR42 and G50, all of which had even worse altitude performance and speed than the Tomahawk. So the RAF sent the Tomahawks to the Desert and Palestine.
The first production version of the Merlin with a *two-speed* supercharger was the Merlin X, and this was already in production before the BoB. But it had been designed for bombers, not fighters, and used 87 Octane fuel. Instead, the Merlin III was replaced in the Spitfire II by the Merlin XII, which was still single-speed and single-stage, but had a different impeller to produce more power at a higher rated altitude. The Merlin X was developed into the two-speed Merlin XX with 100 Octane fuel, and this was the engine used in the Hurricane II. The Merlin XX was the first version to benefit from Stanley Hooker's supercharger redesign. In some ways, it might have produced a better Spitfire if the Mk V had got the Merlin XX rather than the Merlin 45. As it was, the first *two-stage* Merlin was the 61, which didn't appear in production until late 1941. 
The Mustang was ordered from North American in May 1940 with the first flight in October 1940, so - in theory - it could have been designed to take the Merlin XII or XX, but the only available and tested inline engine in the US at the time was the V-1710. A Mustang with a Merlin XX would have been superior in speed, range and altitude performance to a Spitfire V, and superior at altitude to the P-51A with the Allison V-1710-81, so it's a great shame the Americans didn't get their finger out and tell the Nazi-loving Henry Ford to make Merlins in 1940.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> By September, the Do17 was operating at medium altitudes and by October, was sidelined while the Ju88 and He111 operated at night.
> 
> The Do17's production had been halted mid-1940 and unsustainable losses during the Bob along with the Do217 entering production is why it was withdrawn.


 The Do.17 was an old design, having seen action in the Spanish Civil War, so it's not surprising that production was ended in he Summer of 1940. But, if you look at September 15th 1940, which is celebrated as Battle of Britain Day and considered the height of the Battle, the Dorniers were still operated in the day-bomber role that date by KG2, KG3 and KG76 (one of the latter famously with a flame-thrower mounted to deter fighter attacks!). At this time, the Do.17's replacement, the Ju88 (the Do.217 didn't appear until mid-1941), was operating in numbers, but the pilots actually preferred the old Do.17Z to the Ju88A-1, and the Do.17Zs soldiered on with frontline units until the end of 1941. All KG units were already flying night-bombing operations before the BoB, it's just after September 15th the Luftwaffe switched from day- to night-bombing as the main operational aim. Hitler postponed _Sealowe_ on September 17th because he knew the Luftwaffe had lost, hence the switch to night-bombing, whilst the _Jagdgruppen_ switched to high-altitude and _jabo_ raids. Do.17Z operations tailed off because their airframes were the oldest and most worn-out of the Luftwaffe bombers, but after repairs and refits they went on to operate in 1941 as day-bombers in the Med (particularly over Greece), the Desert and also the early part of _Barbarossa_ with KG2.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Wow. Ok.
> By a vote here, how many people think hitting the enemy plane with bullets is important in actually shooting him down?
> How many people have read John Thach’s idea on how to attack a bomber and shoot it down without getting shot down yourself by defensive guns?
> Those of you that don’t believe training pilots to shoot accurately so they can actually hit the enemy plane, how many of you guys hunt, shoot or actually own guns?
> ...


111Sq were just one of a number of RAF fighter units that preferred to make head-on attacks on Luftwaffe bomber formations as a matter of choice in 1940, its just opportunities were rare because the RAF fighters were often climbing to catch the bombers, and then didn't have the time to get into position for a head-on attack before being pounced on by the escorts. You seem to be failing to understand the realities of the situation faced by the RAF pilots. 
And in fighter-vs-fighter combat, it was widely acknowledged that the Germans did not like getting into level turning fights with Hurricanes or Spitfires because the ME109 couldn't turn as fast as either British fighter, the Germans preferring to hit and run. Your comparison to Thach and the Japanese, who preferred to stay and turn, is invalid.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> ......Perhaps the RAF should have followed the pre-war American example, and just ordered some Bell Airacuda's for bomber interception.....


 It Fighter Command had been using only Airacudas then they would definitely have lost!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 20, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> (one of the latter famously with a flame-thrower mounted to deter fighter attacks!)


A prototype that failed to work and was designed to deter stern-on attacks.

Yes, the Do17 was used beyond September 1940, but not in the Bob. It was used in limited numbers in the Balkans and other secondary fronts. The He111 and Ju88 were better suited to the switch to higher altitudes (medium to higher)

Of the many pilot accounts I have read, the pilots transitioning from the "Flying Pencil" to the Ju88 appreciated the Ju88's performance.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 20, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The Do.17 was an old design, having seen action in the Spanish Civil War, so it's not surprising that production was ended in he Summer of 1940. But, if you look at September 15th 1940, which is celebrated as Battle of Britain Day and considered the height of the Battle, the Dorniers were still operated in the day-bomber role that date by KG2, KG3 and KG76 (one of the latter famously with a flame-thrower mounted to deter fighter attacks!). At this time, the Do.17's replacement, the Ju88 (the Do.217 didn't appear until mid-1941), was operating in numbers, but the pilots actually preferred the old Do.17Z to the Ju88A-1, and the Do.17Zs soldiered on with frontline units until the end of 1941. All KG units were already flying night-bombing operations before the BoB, it's just after September 15th the Luftwaffe switched from day- to night-bombing as the main operational aim. Hitler postponed _Sealowe_ on September 17th because he knew the Luftwaffe had lost, hence the switch to night-bombing, whilst the _Jagdgruppen_ switched to high-altitude and _jabo_ raids. Do.17Z operations tailed off because their airframes were the oldest and most worn-out of the Luftwaffe bombers, but after repairs and refits they went on to operate in 1941 as day-bombers in the Med (particularly over Greece), the Desert and also the early part of _Barbarossa_ with KG2.


The Royal Bulgarian Air Force was still using Dornier 17s against the Germans in 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I re-read this. I think there might be a mis-understanding here. Early in the war the RAF had a ‘spread pattern’ that they used where they didn’t focus all of the guns on a fighter at a specific range. they literally pointed each of them in a different direction. (This is hard to explain by typing. I hope someone posts a pic of what I’m talking about). It wasn’t that they focused all 8 at 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 yards, they would point them all over the place (poor description on my part). For instance an HE111 straight and level a Spitfire straight and level 200 yards behind it, both parked on a runway, only maybe 2 or 3 of the Spitfires guns would hit the HE111. Do you see the problem? Instead of having all 8 hit in say a 3 foot circle at that distance (not sure that was even possible as a machine gun shoots a large group, unlike a rifle) So instead of a Spitfire or Hurricane saddling up behind an HE111 and putting to sight on the left engine and then pumping 160 rounds a seconds into that 1 engine, he might only be able to get 1 gun to bear on that engine. Does that make more sense?


The gun harmonisation pattern you are referring to was based on the idea that the RAF fighters would be engaging only formations of enemy bombers, and have time to get into formation behind them and then shoot off all their ammunition. To aid the pilot in judging the correct range to fire, the RAF had an excellent reflector gunsight, and the pattern was supposed to concentrate fire to hit the vulnerable engines and wing fuel tanks.
The gunsight had a a central dot, two rings for deflection, and two horizontal bars. The bars could be adjusted to suit a range and the wingspan of the target aircraft by two adjustment wheels. Turning the upper wheel adjusted the range setting, and turning the lower adjusted the bars for the wingspan of his target. In operation, the range wheel was usually set to one range position and then locked in place, either by soldering or by a piece of sticky tape. Then the pilot just had to set the range bar for the wingspan of his target, and when the horizontal range bars exactly overlapped the wings of his target he knew he was at exactly the required range behind the target. 
As operational experience grew, the RAF armourers started putting blobs of coloured paint on the wingspan selector for the most common Luftwaffe aircraft, so all the pilot had to do was remember "red is a 109, blue is a 110, and green is a 88" and turn to the required paint blob, rather than having to remember a 109 had a wingspan of 32 feet, etc. This system was perfect for formating behind enemy bomber formations.
But, because the RAF was already aware of the difficulty of shooting down all-metal aircraft with .303s even before the War, they chose a pattern designed to hit both engines of a twin-engined bomber when flying behind the bomber. The most common 1940 Fighter Command harmonisation plan, the so-called "Dowding Pattern", was a box at 250 yards of twelve feet wide by eight feet tall, which was designed to overlap the target's engines. The problem of this big box was also exaggerated in the Spitfire by the wing flexing during hard turns and the fact the Spit was more sensitive to recoil, the nose "wandering about" when the guns fired (the Hurricane was always considered a much steadier and more accurate gun platform). Whilst the Dowding Pattern gave a greater chance of a hit for an inexperienced pilot, those with shooting experience hated it. Many squadrons had their own preference (64Sq's was a six-foot circle at 200 yards) and some RAF squadron leaders switched to a "point harmonisation" of all guns aligned to coincide 250 yards ahead, even before the BoB. The harmonisation pattern was re-evaluated in mid-1940 after Fighter Command reported too many German bombers surviving lots of dispersed hits, and Fighter Command switched to point harmonisation at 250yds from September 1940. In theory, point harmonisation concentrated all the bullets onto one point on the airframe, but the realities of having to take snapshots at enemy aircraft that didn't fly straight and level, at whatever range presented itself, meant the cone of fire from a Hurricane or Spitfire could all be missing even when the pilot had got everything else right.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 20, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The gun harmonisation pattern you are referring to was based on the idea that the RAF fighters would be engaging only formations of enemy bombers, and have time to get into formation behind them and then shoot off all their ammunition. To aid the pilot in judging the correct range to fire, the RAF had an excellent reflector gunsight, and the pattern was supposed to concentrate fire to hit the vulnerable engines and wing fuel tanks.
> The gunsight had a a central dot, two rings for deflection, and two horizontal bars. The bars could be adjusted to suit a range and the wingspan of the target aircraft by two adjustment wheels. Turning the upper wheel adjusted the range setting, and turning the lower adjusted the bars for the wingspan of his target. In operation, the range wheel was usually set to one range position and then locked in place, either by soldering or by a piece of sticky tape. Then the pilot just had to set the range bar for the wingspan of his target, and when the horizontal range bars exactly overlapped the wings of his target he knew he was at exactly the required range behind the target.
> As operational experience grew, the RAF armourers started putting blobs of coloured paint on the wingspan selector for the most common Luftwaffe aircraft, so all the pilot had to do was remember "red is a 109, blue is a 110, and green is a 88" and turn to the required paint blob, rather than having to remember a 109 had a wingspan of 32 feet, etc. This system was perfect for formating behind enemy bomber formations.
> But, because the RAF was already aware of the difficulty of shooting down all-metal aircraft with .303s even before the War, they chose a pattern designed to hit both engines of a twin-engined bomber when flying behind the bomber. The most common 1940 Fighter Command harmonisation plan, the so-called "Dowding Pattern", was a box at 250 yards of twelve feet wide by eight feet tall, which was designed to overlap the target's engines. The problem of this big box was also exaggerated in the Spitfire by the wing flexing during hard turns and the fact the Spit was more sensitive to recoil, the nose "wandering about" when the guns fired (the Hurricane was always considered a much steadier and more accurate gun platform). Whilst the Dowding Pattern gave a greater chance of a hit for an inexperienced pilot, those with shooting experience hated it. Many squadrons had their own preference (64Sq's was a six-foot circle at 200 yards) and some RAF squadron leaders switched to a "point harmonisation" of all guns aligned to coincide 250 yards ahead, even before the BoB. The harmonisation pattern was re-evaluated in mid-1940 after Fighter Command reported too many German bombers surviving lots of dispersed hits, and Fighter Command switched to point harmonisation at 250yds from September 1940. In theory, point harmonisation concentrated all the bullets onto one point on the airframe, but the realities of having to take snapshots at enemy aircraft that didn't fly straight and level, at whatever range presented itself, meant the cone of fire from a Hurricane or Spitfire could all be missing even when the pilot had got everything else right.


200-250 yards was considered close, but in reality is not close at all, no one would expect someone to hit a moving target at 250 yards running with a rifle or machine gun. Most ex BoB pilots I have heard speak on it said you had to be point blank range to guarantee a victory, I take that to be 100- 50 yards.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 20, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> the RAF fighters were often climbing to catch the bombers, and then didn't have the time to get into position for a head-on attack before being pounced on by the escorts. You seem to be failing to understand the realities of the situation faced by the RAF pilots.





Mad Dog said:


> the Germans did not like getting into level turning fights with Hurricanes or Spitfires because the ME109 couldn't turn as fast as either British fighter, the Germans preferring to hit and run. Your comparison to Thach and the Japanese, who preferred to stay and turn, is invalid.


I fail to see the invalidity of this. Even if circumstances put you in the position of frequent bounce victim, with appropriate tactics the opportunities arise for brief snap shots at your tormentors. These opportunities are useless to the careful, fastidious, sniper-like "aimed" shooter, but valuable to a dynamic wing shooter.
I'm reminded of the time my uncle (the former ASW jeep carrier Avenger pilot) who was later a USIA officer, took my brothers and I out to the gravel pit at camp to burn up his mandatory 90 days allotment of self defense ammunition. He had a veritable arsenal of concealment-friendly Berretas and Smith&Wessons. We all took turns trying to hit cereal boxes with minimal success. After my brothers and I had demonstrated our incompetence, Uncle Ned showed us how these weapons were supposed to be used. He put a snub nosed S&W in a holster under his jacket and walked away from the five single-serving cereal boxes he had arrayed on the hillside. At a signal from us, he whirled around in a crouch, bounding side to side as he charged the hillside, and hit each one of those itty-bitty cereal boxes, starting from about forty yards away. He was shooting so fast it sounded almost like an automatic weapon. He then slapped another cylinder in the gun and from the same distance fired five carefully aimed rounds, only scoring 2 for 5. "You don't aim a hand cannon like this. Your sight radius is too short. You throw the bullets at the target. Did you notice how I thrust the gun toward the target with each shot? That's how you practice to develop the skill. It takes lots of practice. Here, you try it." Both my brothers had had enough, but I tried it, and after four cylinders of ammunition, actually hit a full size Wheaties box from twenty paces. My wrist and elbow were not happy with me. .38 Special out of a two inch barrel wears you down pretty quick if you're not used to it.
The point of all this (at last!) is that dynamic shooting is worth the time and effort it takes to achieve it.
*PS*: He also was deadeye Dick on the pitcher's mound. He could fire the ball past you in the corners of the strike zone in a way that was frustratingly unhittable.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> I think you are getting confused between single-*speed* and single-*stage* superchargers.



I am not confused at all, but you seem to be confused by who said what. 

The words you ascribed to me were not mine, but those of a recently banned member.




Mad Dog said:


> The USAAC had decided to go with turbocharging for high-altitude requirements and the USAAC requirement for the P-40 was for a fighter to provide low-altitude air superiority over the battlefield, so Allison had designed the V-1710-33's supercharged to be best for lower altitudes.



Allison designed the V-1710 in the P-40 to be an altitude rated engine, as opposed to a sea level rated engine, which would be used with a turbocharger.

The turbochargers used in the XP-37 and YP-37 had poor reliability, so it was dropped from the P-40.

The P-40 was not designed as a low altitude aircraft at all, rather a general pursuit type. 





Mad Dog said:


> That is why the Tomahawk was judged unsuited to RAF Fighter Command operations in the UK in late 1940, because combats were moving to 30,000ft, an altitude the Tomahawk struggled at.



The reason that the Tomahawk was judged unsuitable was that it lacked armour and self sealing fuel tanks, and its performance was lacking.




Mad Dog said:


> In the Middle East, it was presumed their opponent would be the Italian fighters like the Macchi C200, Fiat CR42 and G50, all of which had even worse altitude performance and speed than the Tomahawk. So the RAF sent the Tomahawks to the Desert and Palestine.



I am not sure that any assumptions were made as to what would be faced in North Africa. The theatre was considered secondary, but still needed aircraft to be deployed there. Hurricanes and, in particular, Spitfires were required for home defence, so other available aircraft were sent to the desert.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The USAAC had decided to go with turbocharging for high-altitude requirements and the USAAC requirement for the P-40 was for a fighter to provide low-altitude air superiority over the battlefield, so Allison had designed the V-1710-33's supercharged to be best for lower altitudes.



This is one of the most persistent aviation myths of WW II. To date no one has produced a letter, memo, specification or any other document to back this up. 

A simple comparison of other engines OF THE TIME, shows the fallacy. ONLY the Merlin, of all the production aircraft engines in the World (OK Russian M-35 might slip in here) had a higher full throttle/critical altitude than the V-1710-33 in the spring of 1939 when the P-40 was ordered. 
1040hp at 14,300ft. (4358 meters) beats the early 1939 DB 601, it beats any production French Hispano (or licenced engine), it beats any single speed radial engine (except perhaps the R-2600) from any country like Japan, Italy, France, England and................................. 

But somehow, when the production planes are introduced into combat almost two year later and are outperformed by newer aircraft the excuse that the P-40 was _designed _for low altitude combat seems to crop up. 
The V-1710-33 was the best altitude engine the US had available in the near future and it was in the top 3 in the world counting the unknown in the west Russian M-35 (if it was even available in 1939). Time to put this myth in the "busted" pile. 
Please note the Germans were on their 3-5th supercharger design on the DB 601 by mid 1941 and Hooker had taken the already first in the world supercharger design to even great heights by mid 1941 (forget the 2 stage supercharger). But that has no bearing on what the P-40 was _designed_ to do in 1938-39.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 20, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I've read this numerous times in pilot notes, they had no actual gunnery training, just how the sight worked, there are many video's and photo's of pilots opening fire at ridiculously long range.....


Pre-BoB RAF fighter pilots were taught that the .303 Browning was effective from 1000 yards, and in the hurry to get a burst in before the escorts attacked, many RAF pilot did indeed open fire at ranges as great as 1000yds. The aces learnt to get in close, and many talk about not opening fire until the enemy a/c "filled the windscreen". I have notes on the gunnery training camp of RAF 263Sq before they were sent to Norway in 1940, and it really is a lot of straight dives and passes at target sleeves also being towed in a straight line - not very realistic, but it did teach the pilots about the lead-off required to get hits with the Brownings. By most accounts, those training camps were rare events, not weekly exercises, and a lot of the RAF gunnery training was skeet shooting with shotguns!
The RAF could have had the most realistic pre-War gunnery training if they had been allowed to use maneuvering drones (like the de Havilland Queen Bee) as targets, but these were considered too expensive for individual pilot training and were kept for the RN fleet to shoot at (badly).


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 21, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> This is one of the most persistent aviation myths of WW II......


 Strange, then, that the service ceiling of the P-40C was lower than the Hurricane, Dewotaine 520, and ME109, given that you insist the Allison was at no disadvantage to the inline engines powering those other fighters.  
The XP-40 came out of the failed XP-37 of 1937, which was the turbocharged Allison in a much-modified P-36 airframe. The XP-40 was a much simpler modification, but came with the Allison V-1710-19 pegged to a rated altitude of 11,000 feet. The P-40/B/C's V-1710-33 had a rated altitude of 12,800ft, lower than the Dewotaine 520's Hispano-Suiza 12Y-49 (rated altitude 17,224ft) and the Bf109E's DB601A (14,800ft). Sorry, but the high-altitude pursuit policy of the USAAC was turbocharged, fullstop. Everything else was meant for the low-level role.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 21, 2020)

Explain, then, why the Mustang Mk.I had the same engine (V-1710-39), but was built to British specifications.

Did the British want a low altitude fighter too?


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 21, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Explain, then, why the Mustang Mk.I had the same engine (V-1710-39), but was built to British specifications.
> 
> Did the British want a low altitude fighter too?


The Mustang MkI had an Allison engine because of two key reasons. Firstly, the British Purchasing Commission sent to the USA in 1938 was vastly inexperienced in modern fighter design, their main priority being to buy just about anything available. Secondly, when the BPC's engineers sat down with John Attwood of NAA to flesh out the Mustang spec between January and April 1940, no-one in that team (or, indeed probably anyone) had realised how important altitude performance was going to become in the ETO by the end of the Battle of Britain. If they had of, they would never have ordered _any_ of the available American designs. Instead, they were operating with the little data available from fighting in Poland, which had involved lots of low-level action, and didn't have any reason to suspect the Allison would make the Mustang as altitude-crippled as the P-40. After all, the BPC had originally asked NAA to build P-40s, it was NAA whom insisted they could build something better. So, no, the British did not want a low altitude fighter, it's just all the Americans could offer.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 21, 2020)

Going to have to do better than that


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 21, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Going to have to do better than that


Why? The only engines available in numbers in the USA in 1940 were the Allison, the Wright Cyclone and the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp. The latter two were draggy radials already reaching their design limits, which meant the choice was really down to the Allison. Even if the US government had approved exporting the turbocharger tech required to make the Allison work at altitude, the XP-37 showed the problems of trying to squeeze that much ducting into a small(ish) fighter. There was no point in building just airframes in the USA and then shipping engines from the UK because every Merlin was needed already for production in the UK. The only fighter in production in the USA with the Allison was the P-40, so that was the yardstick.
The RAF could have had a winner if the P-39 had been built with the turbo, but it was crippled by NACA, who were totally centered on level speed over every other consideration. The Mustang MkI was better than the P-40, and was at least used in the ETO as a recce and ground-attack fighter, but it took the RR Merlin and British intervention to make it into the P-51B.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 21, 2020)

The P-39 had a considerable amount of issues, there is no way it was going to be on the level of the P-40 (which served on ALL fronts from the start of the war to the finish) or the Mustang/P-51/A-36.
No amount of most postulating or Google/wiki searches will change historical fact.
My Great Uncle, who flew P-36s, transitioned into the P-39 and stated that "your life was not worth a plugged nickel in that bastard" (he went on to the P-38, btw) and while the P-39/P-400 had some success in the PTO, it was not a fighter that would have held up well in the ETO (not Eastern Front, where combat occurred at low to medium altitudes).
In regards to the P-40, it held it's own in the CBI, PTO, MTO, Aleutians and Eastern Front.
So while it might not have been ideal for northern European operations, it held it's own across the rest of the world...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2020)

Oh boy! Yanks and Brits, at it again.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Strange, then, that the service ceiling of the P-40C was lower than the Hurricane, Dewotaine 520, and ME109, given that you insist the Allison was at no disadvantage to the inline engines powering those other fighters.
> The XP-40 came out of the failed XP-37 of 1937, which was the turbocharged Allison in a much-modified P-36 airframe. The XP-40 was a much simpler modification, but came with the Allison V-1710-19 pegged to a rated altitude of 11,000 feet. The P-40/B/C's V-1710-33 had a rated altitude of 12,800ft, lower than the Dewotaine 520's Hispano-Suiza 12Y-49 (rated altitude 17,224ft) and the Bf109E's DB601A (14,800ft). Sorry, but the high-altitude pursuit policy of the USAAC was turbocharged, fullstop. Everything else was meant for the low-level role.


The P-40 was heavier than the other fighters you list. That affected the ceiling. Do not confuse cause and effect.
Ratings for the V-1710-33 seem to be a bit scattered but include 1090hp at 13,200ft and 1040hp at 14,300ft.
There was some disagreement between Allison and the army over these ratings as the army wanted the Higher HP rating. 

Which Db 601A? The A-0, the A-1 or the Aa? 

we are also discussing what an airplane was 'designed" to do. The D. 520 was on it's 4th version of the Hispano engine when it got to the -49 version. most of the production models were built with the-45 engine which had a critical altitude of 4200 meters (and 920hp at that altitude) earlier prototypes had the -31 engine with a critical altitude of 3250 meters. 

Both the P-40 and the P-39 were built with the highest altitude engines the Army could get _at the time, _while they waited for the trubo charger to become an item that could be used in squadron service. The Army did want the turbo, they just couldn't have it in 1939-40. rather than wait for any new fighters they bought the best altitude engine they could get. 

Sorry, that is the way it was. Both planes were substitutes until the army could get what it wanted, that does not mean they were 'meant' for the low altitude role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 21, 2020)

Pre war what was considered high altitude, I am going to guess anything above 15,000 feet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 21, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Pre war what was considered high altitude, I am going to guess anything above 15,000 feet.


You'll find that on average, pre-war ceilings ranged in the mid-20,000 foot range.
The B-18 (cutting edge for it's time) had a ceiling of 24,000 feet, the SM.79 was 24,500 feet, He111 was 21,500 feet and the Hampton and Wellington were 19,000 feet and 18,000 feet respectively.

With the introduction of better engines, more reliable oxygen systems and eventually, pressurized cabins, the altitudes increased considerably.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 21, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> I know the F4F production missed the time frame of the Battle Britain by 6 to 12 months for operational squadrons. But how would the F4F-3 Wildcat/Martlet 1 have fared alongside the Hurricane I and Spitfire II during the Battle?


Circling back to the beginning. Put the Wildcat of 1942 into the BoB and you have something useful.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Circling back to the beginning. Put the Wildcat of 1942 into the BoB and you have something useful.


What's the point? The store is all sold out of time machines. I checked. "It is unknown when or if this item will be in stock again."


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> What's the point? The store is all sold out of time machines. I checked. "It is unknown when or if this item will be in stock again."


I know, but the whole premise of this thread needs a time machine.


pinehilljoe said:


> I know the F4F production missed the time frame of the Battle Britain

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 21, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> I know the F4F production missed the time frame of the Battle Britain by 6 to 12 months for operational squadrons. But how would the F4F-3 Wildcat/Martlet 1 have fared alongside the Hurricane I and Spitfire II during the Battle?


Again, Grumman G-36A (French F4Fs) were diverted from France to Britain and were assigned to 804 Naval Air Squadron based at Skaebrae in October 1940.
Even though 804 RNAS operated under RAF Fighter Command, they didn't see combat until December, downing two Ju88s off Scape Flow.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 21, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The Mustang MkI had an Allison engine because of two key reasons. Firstly, the British Purchasing Commission sent to the USA in 1938 was vastly inexperienced in modern fighter design, their main priority being to buy just about anything available. Secondly, when the BPC's engineers sat down with John Attwood of NAA to flesh out the Mustang spec between January and April 1940, no-one in that team (or, indeed probably anyone) had realised how important altitude performance was going to become in the ETO by the end of the Battle of Britain. If they had of, they would never have ordered _any_ of the available American designs. Instead, they were operating with the little data available from fighting in Poland, which had involved lots of low-level action, and didn't have any reason to suspect the Allison would make the Mustang as altitude-crippled as the P-40. After all, the BPC had originally asked NAA to build P-40s, it was NAA whom insisted they could build something better. So, no, the British did not want a low altitude fighter, it's just all the Americans could offer.


The Mustang was bought to be better than the P-40 and it was. It was still in use at the end of the war and its performance at low level was still impressive. That 21 miles of water raises the level of combat, once D-Day established a beach head things moved down, neither the Typhoon nor Tempest were optimised for high altitude, because they didn't need to be.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Circling back to the beginning. Put the Wildcat of 1942 into the BoB and you have something useful.



Put the Spitfire VC of 1942 into the BoB and you have something very useful, I will leave out the Spitfire IX

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Again, Grumman G-36A (French F4Fs) were diverted from France to Britain and were assigned to 804 Naval Air Squadron based at Skaebrae in October 1940.
> Even though 804 RNAS operated under RAF Fighter Command, they didn't see combat until December, downing two Ju88s off Scape Flow.




See post #4


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 21, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> See post #4


It was my understanding that the French Purchasing commission requested the Wright GR-1820-G205A, which had a single-stage, 2-speed supercharger, that was rated 1250hp.
The British Martlet (G-36B) had the P&W R-1830-S3C4--G (rated at 1,200hp.)


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Put the Spitfire VC of 1942 into the BoB and you have something very useful, I will leave out the Spitfire IX


Why not a few P-47s as top cover too?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Why not a few P-47s as top cover too?


Or a staffel of Me262s?


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Or a staffel of Me262s?


I think we have "time machine creep" here.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I think we have "time machine creep" here.


Why settle for halfway measures?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> It was my understanding that the French Purchasing commission requested the Wright GR-1820-G205A, which had a single-stage, 2-speed supercharger, that was rated 1250hp.
> The British Martlet (G-36B) had the P&W R-1830-S3C4--G (rated at 1,200hp.)


 

They did.

Except those are the powers (both engines were 1200hp, the wright was not 1250hp) for take-off and/or low gear. 
The 1200 hp on the Cycone was good to 4100ft (4 digits) at some point above that the engine was shifted to high gear and that peaked at 1000hp at 14,000 ft (no ram) so there was no power advantage compared to a Hurricane I. 

The P & W engine could make 1200hp at 4,900ft in low gear. High gear was 1050hp at 13,100ft according to one source 

The two stage engine made 1000 hp at 19,000ft so obviously the single stage planes are going to have rather less performance at altitudes in the high teens and twenties. 
They are not a way to get F4F-3 performance early. 

Once the Hurricane gets 12lbs of boost the American engines 1200hp at low level advantage disappears. Since the Hurricane could run 12lbs before the BoB even started the Martlets don't bring much of anything to the fight that isn't already there (without the use of the time machine

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Why settle for halfway measures?


I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2020)

The British didn't need Wildcats......they had James Bigglesworth

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Even destitute poor folk like the Joads in _Grapes of Wrath _could find a way to acquire an ancient Model T Ford (converted to a pickup truck) in which to make their exodus to California, stopping along the way to grind the valves and fashion new head gaskets out of scrounged materials.
> 
> *SNIP*


Not to be picky (Me picky? Hard to fathom I know) but I believe in the book, it was a Hudson Sedan converted into a truck, in the John Ford 1940 movie, it was a 1926 Hudson Super Six.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 22, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.


If it was available a year earlier, would the Gloster E.28/39 be any use in the BoB? It would need to be armed, and available in sufficient quantities for several squadrons.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> If it was available a year earlier, would the Gloster E.28/39 be any use in the BoB? It would need to be armed, and available in sufficient quantities for several squadrons.


I would only need one, to whizz around photo recon planes and change the markings every night.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Except those are the powers (both engines were 1200hp, the wright was not 1250hp) for take-off and/or low gear.


Ahh...the 1250hp on the Cyclone was a typo. 



pbehn said:


> I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.


The only jet that had flown before the start of the Bob, was the He178 (1939).

The Caproni N.1 (August 1940) and He280 (September 1940) would have barely made it.

The E.28/38 would have been too late to the party, first flying the following May.

(Of course, first flights for prototypes are listed to show the timeline only)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to be picky (Me picky? Hard to fathom I know) but I believe in the book, it was a Hudson Sedan converted into a truck, in the John Ford 1940 movie, it was a 1926 Hudson Super Six.


Don't get old, your memory goes all to hell! I read the book sophomore in high school. Guess it's time to read it again. It was a good read. Thanks for the nudge. Steinbeck was good reading. _Cannery Row, Grapes of Wrath, _and _Travels with Charley in Search of America _should get me through the months of hibernation coming up.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2020)

6


Peter Gunn said:


> Not to be picky (Me picky? Hard to fathom I know) but I believe in the book, it was a Hudson Sedan converted into a truck, in the John Ford 1940 movie, it was a 1926 Hudson Super Six.


Hudson manufactured pickups based on their Super Six sedan through 1947

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

Thanks for the rating a la Steinbeck, Biff! While I'm curled up hibernating with a book this winter, you'll be out there slogging through the muck. My condolences! If I never see the (S)EWR again it will be too soon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-39 had a considerable amount of issues, there is no way it was going to be on the level of the P-40 (which served on ALL fronts from the start of the war to the finish) or the Mustang/P-51/A-36....


 Despite carrying a heavier armament, the P-39D outclimbed, outsped and had a higher ceiling than the P-40E. Below is the Australian tests of the Boomerang, Hurricane IIB, Spitfire VC, P-39D and P-40E. The P-40E came out worse than the P-39 on everything except range.





Eric Brown kept a P-39 as his personal mount whilst a test pilot, flying it all over the UK and Europe, simply because he loved flying it. That is a pretty big endorsement given he had his choice of every frontline US and British fighter. The P-39's biggest problem was that it was designed by a small company (Bell) whilst the P-40 was lucky to be kludged together by America's largest pursuit supplier. As it was, the P-40 was kept on as a bomb-truck. True, the Mustang MkI was better than the P-39, but the P-39 was superior to the P-40, as proven by pilots like Lexander Pokryshkin, who shot down more Nazis in a P-39 than any Soviet pilot managed in the P-40. Pokryshkin even turned down a switch to the Yak-3 because he preferred the P-39N!
George Welch was another pilot that liked flying the P-39 over New Guinea in 1942, despite many tales to the contrary. His complaint about the P-39 was it did not have the range to go hunting for the Japanese, which is why he wanted to transfer to P-38s, not because the P-39 couldn't handle the Japanese fighters. On the one occasion Welch got to fight the elusive Japanese in the P-39 (December 7th 1942), he shot down three.
Sorry, but I'm afraid Eric Brown, Alexander Pokryshkin and George Welch carry a bit more weight than your uncle, though please thank him for his service if he's still alive and kicking.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-40 was heavier than the other fighters you list.....


 No disagreement there, the P-40 was overweight its whole life, even in the stripped down "Gypsy Rose-Lee" versions.


Shortround6 said:


> .....That affected the ceiling. Do not confuse cause and effect......


 But the P-40F with the Merlin had far superior altitude performance than the *lighter* P-40E, so the Allison engine *is* the cause of the resulting effect.


Shortround6 said:


> .....Ratings for the V-1710-33 seem to be a bit scattered but include 1090hp at 13,200ft and 1040hp at 14,300ft.
> There was some disagreement between Allison and the army over these ratings as the army wanted the Higher HP rating.......


 The higher figure seems to relate to a few Flying Tiger P-40Bs which had hand-built engines built from spares. These were closer to the RAF's and Rolls-Royce's practice of "fitting" engines (assembling from carefully matched parts for the best performance), whilst the average Allison that saw USAAC service was assembled to loser, mass-production tolerances. The RAF method was a headache for spares and servicing, but was valued for the extra performance. I'm not saying the Allison was a bad design overall, in fact it was a good and reliable design, but the early variants had a low rated altitude, and the USAAC's fixation with turbocharging meant it never got a good mechanical supercharger until too late.



Shortround6 said:


> .....Which Db 601A? The A-0, the A-1 or the Aa?......


 Figures are for the DB601A in the Bf109E-3 as tested by the Luftwaffe in May 1940, so representative of E-3s and E-4s at the time in question.



Shortround6 said:


> .....we are also discussing what an airplane was 'designed" to do. The D. 520 was on it's 4th version of the Hispano engine when it got to the -49 version. most of the production models were built with the-45 engine which had a critical altitude of 4200 meters (and 920hp at that altitude) earlier prototypes had the -31 engine with a critical altitude of 3250 meters.......


 The original argument was that the Allison did not have a rated altitude lower than competitors, whereas my examples show otherwise.



Shortround6 said:


> .....Both the P-40 and the P-39 were built with the highest altitude engines the Army could get _at the time....._


 Not the P-39. The XP-39's mid-engined design gave space for the turbocharged Allison V-1710-17 , it was NACA that dumped the turbo, killing altitude performance, in the quest for level speed at lower altitudes. A turbocharged P-39 would probably have had some of the issues the P-38 had in the ETO, but they could have been sorted with the same amount of effort as was thrown at the mediocre P-40. As it was, the P-39 was developed into the P-63, which was far superior to any frontline P-40.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2020)

Interesting bit about Lt. Welch - he shot down more Japanese in a P-40 (4) than the did in a P-39 (3 - which included two Vals on 7 December 42), and when asked about his favorite aspect of the P-39, his answer was "well...it has 1,200 pounds of Allison armor plate..."
He repeatedly asked to be assigned to a unit that was equipped with P-38s (which eventually happened with which he scored nine more victories).
In short, Welch did not like the P-39.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting bit about Lt. Welch - he shot down more Japanese in a P-40 (4) than the did in a P-39 (3 - which included two Vals on 7 December 42), and when asked about his favorite aspect of the P-39, his answer was "well...it has 1,200 pounds of Allison armor plate..."
> He repeatedly asked to be assigned to a unit that was equipped with P-38s (which eventually happened with which he scored nine more victories).
> In short, Welch did not like the P-39.


The "1200Lbs of Allison armor" quote is a much-repeated myth, Welch said he never said it. Curtis had a lot money, a lot of Army and political support, and seem to have been responsible for some of the P-39-bashing, though I don't know if they were responsible for the "1200Lbs" quote. Bell's biggest problem was they were a tiny company by comparison, with few friends in either House.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I always think its a bit odd that the Battle of Britain took place after the jet age started.


Well, Mr. Hitler would have liked to have avoided the whole event seeing as he had a pressing engagement with Mr. Stalin, but a certain Mr. Chruchill rudely insisted on going first.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The higher figure seems to relate to a few Flying Tiger P-40Bs which had hand-built engines built from spares. These were closer to the RAF's and Rolls-Royce's practice of "fitting" engines (assembling from carefully matched parts for the best performance), whilst the average Allison that saw USAAC service was assembled to loser, mass-production tolerances. The RAF method was a headache for spares and servicing, but was valued for the extra performance.



Jesus wept will this myth never die.

How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> it was NACA that dumped the turbo, killing altitude performance, in the quest for level speed at lower altitudes.


Who's buying the airplane? NACA's certainly not. They don't have the authority to change the design, only make recommendations. The buyer (USAAC) is the final authority, and NACA's work had to be at their bidding, and to achieve their goals. A high top speed number is good advertising, but a siren song if achieved at the cost of too many other important qualities. I remember reading somewhere that the wing area was reduced to gain the "clipped wing effect" for speed purposes, negatively affecting ceiling and turning ability.
I think it's been established elsewhere on this forum that a neat low drag turbocharger on the P39 was not possible with the turbo technology of the time, due to the small airframe and cluttered internal space. Also, I believe the armament installation on some of the D models badly hurt performance.
That the P39 was applauded by a few capable and experienced pilots who appreciated its sporty handling, doesn't necessarily make it a good choice for the average nugget fighter pilot, given its unorthodox characteristics.
And at the time these decisions were being made, the altitude demands of NW European air combat were relatively recent and kind of an anomaly from a global perspective. They certainly hadn't gained much penetration into USAAC doctrine, which was still largely influenced by ground army thinking.
So while the P39 could sometimes advertise some attractive numbers, it frequently couldn't produce them in actual service and due to it's short range, poor climb (in actual combat trim) and general quirkiness, a less than optimal solution to the problem, except in certain atypical circumstances.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Jesus wept will this myth never die.
> 
> How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.





fastmongrel said:


> Jesus wept will this myth never die.
> 
> How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.


I have no definitive figures on hours, but I was told by a wartime 112Sq fitter that the a new Merlin III required twice as much preparation and ongoing servicing time compared to the Allisons in the Tomahawks. By prep time, I assumed he meant getting a new Merlin or Allison unboxed and installed into an airframe ready for an operational sortie, and then keeping it running after daily operational use. His experience was from servicing Hurricanes in the BoB and then being sent out to the Desert to 112Sq in late 1941, so it would be the relevant time period and engine models.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> .....I think it's been established elsewhere on this forum that a neat low drag turbocharger on the P39 was not possible with the turbo technology of the time, due to the small airframe and cluttered internal space......


 I agree the tech was a challenge, but Bell did an excellent job of squeezing the engine and turbo into the XP-39. Here's a shot of the original prototype, apart from the bulky cooler on the left of the fuselage (probably less draggy than the P-40B's radiator), the airframe is very clean and tidy, and smaller than the P-40. Smallness equals lightness. As regards the turbo, things would only have improved for the P-39 if they had stuck with the turbo, as they would have benefited from the resources spent on getting the P-38's turbos to work.






XBe02Drvr said:


> .....Also, I believe the armament installation on some of the D models badly hurt performance......


 ?? Do you mean the later underwing .50 gunpods on the P-39Qs? Or are you referring to the possibility of the center of gravity moving aft if the if the empty brass from the nose weapons was expelled rather than captured inside the nose? The mix of three weapons (cannon, .30 and .50 MGs) did present aiming issues with their different trajectories, and complicated the supply side.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Jesus wept will this myth never die.
> 
> How the hell did the RAF and Rolls Royce find the time and the highly skilled workers to assemble 105,000 Merlins from carefully matched parts by hand during a war.


The myth now produces engines of better or worse performance depending on your needs.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Well, Mr. Hitler would have liked to have avoided the whole event seeing as he had a pressing engagement with Mr. Stalin, but a certain Mr. Chruchill rudely insisted on going first.


so Churchill started the BoB ?
you really believe that ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The "1200Lbs of Allison armor" quote is a much-repeated myth, Welch said he never said it. Curtis had a lot money, a lot of Army and political support, and seem to have been responsible for some of the P-39-bashing, though I don't know if they were responsible for the "1200Lbs" quote. Bell's biggest problem was they were a tiny company by comparison, with few friends in either House.


It appears to that the actual myth is that Welch never said that, because he did.

His dislike of the P-39 was well known and one of the reasons why he was allowed to transfer to 80th FG - his CO (of the 36th FS) was tired of the constant requests.
Once he got into his P-38, he went on to down two A6Ms, three KI-61s, three KI-53s and one KI-46 - in less than six months.
He would have most likely downed more, but suffered from Malaria, which forced him to retire in 1944.

So perhaps Welch may not have been the right guy to use as a pro-P-39 example?


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> ....Welch - he shot down more Japanese in a P-40 (4) than the did in a P-39 (3 - which included two Vals on 7 December 42....


 IIRC, the Pearl Harbor kills were over two sorties, whereas he shot down three Japanese fighters in one sortie in the P-39, so the P-39 still comes out better.


GrauGeist said:


> ....He repeatedly asked to be assigned to a unit that was equipped with P-38s....


 Yes, but only because the Japanese bases were too far away for the P-39s to be used offensively, which meant they were kept back for air-defence. The Japanese in New Guinea in late-1942 weren't doing daylight raids on the US bases, which meant the P-39 units spent a lot of time doing nothing whilst the P-38 jocks built up scores, because the longer-legged P-38s were used for escorting the Allied bombers hitting the Japanese bases. Welch was aggressive, he wanted to see more combat, so he asked for a switch to P-38s for that and only that reason.


GrauGeist said:


> ....In short, Welch did not like the P-39.


 Sorry, but that's not the case, that's simply the incorrect conclusion drawn by P-38 fans because they did not understand why he wanted to transfer to a P-38 unit. A pilot that does not have confidence in his aircraft would have been very unlikely to engage and shoot down three Japanese opponents in one sortie, one a Zero, as Welch did in a P-39D-1 (serial 41-38359) on 7th Dec 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2020)

More myths. 






The inter-cooler was much too small. 
The radiator was in one wing and couldn't cool the engine properly.
The oil cooler was in a duct on the other side of plane and also had cooling problems. 
Different angle on the plane




Gives a better idea of the intercooler duct. 
Slot in the walk way on the wing is the exit from the radiator. 
Please note that neither the radiator or the intercooler had no good way to adjust airflow, meaning that when climbing there wasn't enough cooling air flowing through them and at high speed there was too much air flow creating too much drag. 

Basically the original XP-39 that went to the NACA was a dog's breakfast of an airplane that stood no chance of making it's advertised numbers. 

We have a lot of other threads on this with numbers for the airflow (how much over or under for climb and highspeed).

Please consider that General Arnold was making arrangements for XP-39 to go to the NACA wind tunnel in a matter of weeks after it's first flight. And it spent 15 days on the ground between the 2nd and 3rd flight while they worked on the cooling problems (Engine and oil cooling) the 3rd and 4th flight on the same day totalled 47 minutes so the turbo was probably hardy used. They were retracting the landing gear though 
Next day (flight 5) the landing refused to extend for a period of time and after finally getting it to lower the nose gear failed on landing taking the XP-39 out of service for another period of time. 

The P-39 program stood a good chance of being canceled outright if they had stayed with the turbo. 

General Arnold may have been looking for a 2nd fighter to the P-40 to build while waiting for the P-38.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2020)

I would note that the "hand fitted" Allisons for the Flying Tigers were actually built of initially rejected parts that were reworked. Often castings with one or more bad bolt holes that were redrilled and fitted with a repair insert. It was only by using this "stock" of parts that Allison could build the engines for the engines that would wind up going to the Flying Tigers while meeting their other delivery commitments. 

I would really, really love to see the specification sheets that show these loser mass production tolerances. The small amount of information I have on allowable tolerances for overhaul of both early Allison and Merlin engines shows almost no difference in the tolerances listed (which is not an extensive list) and the list often give tolerance when new and tolerance for used/overhauled engine. 


It is easy to understand why Merlins were more difficult to set up and service. They had a lot more fasteners holding them together, like a lot more fasteners holding on the valve cover boxes. So yes, it takes longer to take covers off and adjust the valves and put the covers back on. 
Which is a far cry from the oft repeated claim that the Merlin was a more mechanically complicated engine. They are both 12 cylinder engines with 4 valves per cylinder and a single overhead cam in each head. Where is the extra mechanical complication?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Please note that neither the radiator or the intercooler had no good way to adjust airflow, meaning that when climbing there wasn't enough cooling air flowing through them and at high speed there was too much air flow creating too much drag......


 Yet the XP-39 prototype was already far faster and climbed better than any P-40, prototype or otherwise, right up to the P40-Q. When the XP-40 prototype first flew on October 14, 1938, it struggled to hit 300mph! Things had improved before the first production P-40 (two .50s only) flew on April 4, 1940, the plane hitting 357mph. By comparison, the XP-39 prototype hit 390mph when it first flew on April 6, 1939. The USAAC was aware of Hawker's first flight of the new Typhoon on 24 February, 1940, and that Supermarine had test flown the Spitfire MkIII on 16 March, 1940, both of which promised 400mph speeds. Is it any surprise the USAAC hedged their bets?



Shortround6 said:


> .....Basically the original XP-39 that went to the NACA was a dog's breakfast of an airplane that stood no chance of making it's advertised numbers.....


 The XP-40 didn't make its advertised numbers either, but Curtis had the size and political clout to get orders. And lets not mention the time wasted on ducted spinners!



Shortround6 said:


> .......The P-39 program stood a good chance of being canceled outright if they had stayed with the turbo.....


 the fact the USAAC persisted with the P-39 is itself a measure of just how bad the situation was in American fighter production, including the P-40. The P-40 when it was accepted into service was already acknowledge to be obsolete compared to European aircraft; the P-36 had already long passed its design zenith; the P-38 was still looking like a risky and expensive bet; the P-35 was past obsolete, and the civil war going on in Seversky/Republic did not bode well for future developments (indeed, Republic were behind the curve until they got the P-47 out the door); and Vultee's P-48/63 was not promising to be any great step forward. The USAAC was so desperate they even considered the Douglas XP-48, which had a ridiculous prediction of a 525mph top speed from a 525hp engine - lunacy! Indeed, it seems quite clear that the state of the US fighter design and the clout of being the biggest pursuit manufacturer saved the P-40 program, but the mediocre P-40 also kept the P-38 and P-39 from being cancelled.



Shortround6 said:


> ....General Arnold may have been looking for a 2nd fighter to the P-40 to build while waiting for the P-38.


 More than likely, given Curtis's development performance! Comparing the development histories, the XP-39 was ordered October 7, 1937, with the first P-39C delivery in January 1941. That's with full armament, cannon and machineguns. By comparison, the P-36-modfied-with-an-Allison XP-40 was approved July 1937 (3 months earlier), but only delivered as the two-gun P-40 on April 4th, 1940. So Curtis took 34 months to get from P-36 to a two-gun P-40, whilst Bell got from concept to the higher-performing and heavier-armed P-39C in 39 months. Seeing as General Arnold could probably see the progress from both teams, I'm not surprised he kept the P-39 program running.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Yet the XP-39 prototype was already far faster and climbed better than any P-40, prototype or otherwise, right up to the P40-Q. When the XP-40 prototype first flew on October 14, 1938, it struggled to hit 300mph! Things had improved before the first production P-40 (two .50s only) flew on April 4, 1940, the plane hitting 357mph. *By comparison, the XP-39 prototype hit 390mph when it first flew on April 6, 1939. *The USAAC was aware of Hawker's first flight of the new Typhoon on 24 February, 1940, and that Supermarine had test flown the Spitfire MkIII on 16 March, 1940, both of which promised 400mph speeds. Is it any surprise the USAAC hedged their bets?



The Bolded part has been shown to be a myth, even the more fervent XP-39 supporters only claim _ about 375mph _on one of the few test flights before it was shipped to Langley and they don't even tell which one. See the other threads. Check the information. One source says the engine was not cleared to run at over 2700rpm before going to Langley, another says the limit was 2600rpm. This due to an anticipated vibration problem with the drive shaft which was redesigned while the plane was at Langley.

This is supposed to be thread about the WIldcat in the Bob. Not a rehash of the myth of the 390mph XP-39 and stories of conspiracies.

Here is one of them: XP-39 and the Claims

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> IIRC, the Pearl Harbor kills were over two sorties, whereas he shot down three Japanese fighters in one sortie in the P-39, so the P-39 still comes out better.
> Yes, but only because the Japanese bases were too far away for the P-39s to be used offensively, which meant they were kept back for air-defence. The Japanese in New Guinea in late-1942 weren't doing daylight raids on the US bases, which meant the P-39 units spent a lot of time doing nothing whilst the P-38 jocks built up scores, because the longer-legged P-38s were used for escorting the Allied bombers hitting the Japanese bases. Welch was aggressive, he wanted to see more combat, so he asked for a switch to P-38s for that and only that reason.
> Sorry, but that's not the case, that's simply the incorrect conclusion drawn by P-38 fans because they did not understand why he wanted to transfer to a P-38 unit. A pilot that does not have confidence in his aircraft would have been very unlikely to engage and shoot down three Japanese opponents in one sortie, one a Zero, as Welch did in a P-39D-1 (serial 41-38359) on 7th Dec 1942.


P-38 fans creating conspiracies? I thought it was Curtiss.
And Welch shot down four A6Ms with two probables at Pearl, in a half-armed P-40B. Yes it was two sorties, all the while under attack and wearing pajamas.

I admire the dedication to try and prove that the P-39 was the world beater that conspiracies have buried, but the three aircraft that Welch downed in his P-39 was one fighter and two Vals. He was not in an isolated location, he ooerated in the Buna area of New Guinea which was a target rich environment.

Welch and many other pilots did not like the P-39, including Bill Overstreet who managed to get into Mustang's and went on to be an ace in Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> .....I admire the dedication to try and prove that the P-39 was the world beater.....


 Nope, not a worldbeater, but definitely much better than a lot of critics make out, and certainly far better than the P-40. Remember, Pokryshkin was _choosing_ a P-39N to fight FW190As and Bf109Gs in 1944, and he shot down plenty of both. I don't remember any ace of any airforce in 1944 flying the P-40N by choice, not unless they had zero other options. That says a lot about the P-39. You can mutter about Pokryshkin only fighting at low level all you like, an FW190 is still an FW190, and probably at least the A5 variant in 1944.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The Bolded part has been shown to be a myth.....


 Sure, if you say so. You sure you don't mean the YP-39, which was after the turbo was removed?


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 22, 2020)

The choices that the USAAF pilots had were pretty broad, but in the environments in which they operated, the P-39 suffered from inadequate range and both it and the P-40 inadequate high-altitude performance. Both also had to compete with superior aircraft for the USAAF pilots choices.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

rochie said:


> so Churchill started the BoB ?
> you really believe that ?


Yes, Churchill started it by calling Hitler's bluff, knowing that doing so would force the Germans to attempt an invasion. Hitler's 1939 plan assumed that all he had to do after the fall of France was threaten the UK with a U-boat blockade and bombing, and Churchill would accept a negotiated peace. Hitler even had this crazy idea that Britain would then join the Nazis in attacking the USSR! Some of this was due to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, who had secretly tried to open peace talks via Sweden on May 20th 1940, before France had even fallen. Halifax knew Hitler wanted a deal with the British Empire because Halifax had discussed it with Hermann Goering in 1937. On June 30th, Jodl at the OKW issued a communique stating that they had won the War and that a British compromise was inevitable. Even as late as July 2nd 1940, Hitler instructed von Ribbentrop to write a speech to again offer a negotiated peace. Churchill told Hitler to get stuffed. Hitler was left with no real option but to try and carry out his threats, to do otherwise risked leaving an enemy in his rear when he turned to attack the Soviets. The _Kanalkampf_ attacks, the first phase of the Battle, started on July 4th 1940. So, yes, Churchill started the BoB.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

wuzak said:


> ....The reason that the Tomahawk was judged unsuitable was that it lacked armour and self sealing fuel tanks, and its performance was lacking.....


 The Tomahawks the RAF had ordered from Curtis were Model H81-A2 and had external self-sealing liners (Tomahawk MkIIA) or internally-lined fuel tanks (MkIIB), and all had seat armour and a bullet-proof windscreen. The unarmoured P-40s received were from the French order and were Curtis H81-A1 models, and were absorbed into the RAF as Tomahawk MkIs. The MkIs were only used for training, the MkIIs were sent to the Desert.



wuzak said:


> ....I am not sure that any assumptions were made as to what would be faced in North Africa.....


 There was no need to assume anything. Italy was officially neutral up until June 10th 1940, and Mussolini was keen to export weaponry for foreign currency. The cheeky Brits pretended they were interested in buying Italian aircraft and weaponry, and in December 1939 a British purchasing commission was allowed to test the newest Italian fighter and bomber models. Whilst there is some discussion over whether it was a real offer or an attempt to screw with the Italians, the Brits even enquired about ordering 300 Reggiane Re.2000s. In the event, the RAF knew the Tomahawk MkII was more than viable against the likes of the Macchi C200 and Fiat G50.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Circling back to the beginning. Put the Wildcat of 1942 into the BoB and you have something useful.


Yeah, but if you're allowed to dip into 1942, then I can have a Spitfire IX, or a Hawker Typhoon. And a Typhoon could easily outrun a ME109E-4 at the heights the German bombers were flying in 1940, and hit the bombers with four working Hispano cannons. Of course, then the Germans could have Bf109Gs with drop-tanks too, or FW190s....


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Remember, Pokryshkin was _choosing_ a P-39N to fight FW190As and Bf109Gs in 1944, and he shot down plenty of both.


And that was a P39 modified and optimized by the Soviets to customize it for the unique requirements of their war. Range was not an issue, and neither was altitude performance: the action was down in the weeds. Wing guns were removed for weight and maneuverability reasons, as Russian pilots tended to shove their guns into the enemy's cockpit before squeezing the trigger. Some of the aft mounted electronics were removed, improving the weight and balance issue. Allison engines were pushed routinely beyond manufacturer's limits, which they seemed to handle just fine and the cold climate helped. So now you have a "tricked up hot rod" airplane customized for its combat environment, and not representative of its species as a whole. This has all been covered in other threads here. 
If I had to fly combat, I'd give my eye teeth to fly a plane customized for the tactical situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Do you mean the later underwing .50 gunpods on the P-39Qs? Or are you referring to the possibility of the center of gravity moving aft if the if the empty brass from the nose weapons was expelled rather than captured inside the nose?


Yes


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Yeah, but if you're allowed to dip into 1942, then I can have a Spitfire IX, or a Hawker Typhoon. And a Typhoon could easily outrun a ME109E-4 at the heights the German bombers were flying in 1940, and hit the bombers with four working Hispano cannons. Of course, then the Germans could have Bf109Gs with drop-tanks too, or FW190s....


Well, we are in the What’if forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> It appears to that the actual myth is that Welch never said that, because he did......


 Not what I've read. Yes, Welch wanted a transfer to a P-38 unit, but not for the reasons given. Welch's complaints centered around the fact that he was not seeing any action in the P-39D *because its short range meant he never met any Japanese aircraft*. He could have been flying the Spitfire IX and he would have had exactly the same complaint. As for Buna being "target rich", Welch saw combat only once his whole tour there, and that was December 7th 1942. *One solitary combat*. Yet he knocked down three Japanese aircraft, including a Zero, in a P-39D.
Other pilots in the same theatre were quite clear over their preference for the P-39. 8th FG pilot Boyd "Buzz" Wagner, the first USAAC ace, was very clear that the P-39D was superior to the P-40E. He didn't think the P-39D was faultless, indeed it was he who coined the term "Iron Dog". He stated that "the Airacobra was better than P-40E in all respects except horizontal maneuverability" - sounds like a preference to me! He flew both in combat, going from the P-40 with the 17th Squadron of the 24th Pursuit Group in the Philippines to the P-39D in New Guinea. Boyd also didn't see much action over New Guinea, but on April 30th, 1942, he shot down three Zeros to add to the five Ni27s he shot down over the Philippines. Ironically, he was ordered home to help Curtis improve the P-40, and was killed in a flying accident in a P-40K in November 1942. I don't know if Boyd ever got the chance to fly a P-38, but he doesn't seem to have regretted flying the P-39.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Sure, if you say so. You sure you don't mean the YP-39, which was after the turbo was removed?




See: XP-39 II

And BTW the XP-39*B* was after the turbo was removed.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> ......So now you have a "tricked up hot rod" airplane customized for its combat environment, and not representative of its species as a whole. This has all been covered in other threads here.
> If I had to fly combat, I'd give my eye teeth to fly a plane customized for the tactical situation.


There was plenty of modifying done by RAF and American pilots. The first rear-view mirrors fitted to Spitfires were bought by their pilots from the local Halfords. In 1940, many Fighter Command squadrons experimented with more boost long before it was officially sanctioned. Bob Tuck moved the turn-and-bank indicator in his fighters to just under the gunsight, so he could ensure he was shooting straight. Pete Brothers is a particular example from the BoB, amongst other tricks he modified his Hurricane MkI before the BoB to carry more ammo and planed down the rudder trim so he could make the Hurricane crab sideways, making it harder for attackers to judge deflection. 
On Malta in 1940 and 1941, the Commanding Engineering Officer, Squadron Leader Louks, extensively modified Gladiators, Hurricanes and Blenheims, and he totally rebuilt Hurricanes to turn them into long-range PR machines. His exploits were famous to aircrew and notorious to senior officers, and his unauthorised modifications are credited with inducing the senior Engineering Officer in AHQ Cairo to a nervous breakdown.
The late model P-40s got the nickname "Gypsy Rose Lee" because the operational units stripped equipment out to try and make them climb better. The same thing was done with Spitfire Mk VIs and VIIs, with many of them flying with the Browning .303s removed. Sometimes kit was added to improve combat capability. Several Blenheims from 113Sq were modified in 1941 with a nose-mounted Hispano cannon for ground-strafing, a trick they copied from 1940 Coastal Command pilots who added a 20mm Oerlikon to their Avro Ansons for attacking U-boats. It wasn't really that uncommon.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Nope, not a worldbeater, but definitely much better than a lot of critics make out, and certainly far better than the P-40. Remember, Pokryshkin was _choosing_ a P-39N to fight FW190As and Bf109Gs in 1944, and he shot down plenty of both. I don't remember any ace of any airforce in 1944 flying the P-40N by choice, not unless they had zero other options. That says a lot about the P-39. You can mutter about Pokryshkin only fighting at low level all you like, an FW190 is still an FW190, and probably at least the A5 variant in 1944.


HUGE difference between the P-39 of 1942 and 1944.
To touch back on Welch for just a moment, he was flying a *P-40B *when he downed those four A6Ms (and two probable), not a P-40E, not a P-40N, etc.

As for "distances", you do realize the 36th FS was based out of Milne Bay (New Guinea) from the latter half of 1942, right?
That puts them well within range of IJA AND IJA air elements.
Even prior to that, the 36th FS escorted B-26s of the 33rd BG to New Guinea and back from Port Moresby, so I'm not following the range issue.

And then, we have a single VVS ace being used to prop up the uber-P-39 thing. There were thousands of P-39s produced, so it would seem that out of the many pilots who flew it, there would be more than one (or two, if we count the other pilot who the P-38 fans or Curtiss or whoever is trying to discredit) that would have spoken up for it.

Also, Pokryshkin's unit converted to La-7s in 1944 - although there is rumors that he flew a P-63 later. But the fact remains, that he was not flying a P-39 by 1944.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 23, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yes


Regarding the wing guns, the Soviets often removed all the wing guns, .30s or .50s, because they considered the 20mm or 37mm and two .50s enough to deal with the types of Luftwaffe aircraft they met most often (Bf109s, FW190s, Ju87s and Ju88s). They never had to face something really big and tough like the B-17, but some USAAC pilots (like Lt. Col. William A. Shomo) reckoned the 37mm was powerful enough to knock even a B-17 out of the sky. Whilst the 37mm had a very slow rate of fire and a banana-like trajectory, a single HE hit was enough to do terminal damage to a Bf109 or FW190. Soviet pilots describe Luftwaffe aircraft as "disintegrating" when hit by the big cannon shells.
The P-39 design included space in the nose for the brass from the nose guns to collect. As I understand it, this was because there was a worry that the big 37mm shells might tumble along the fuselage and cause damage, or fly into the radiator, and not originally due to the center of gravity issue. It also reduced drag and simplified manufacturing as it was one less hole in the fuselage. The brass was emptied out after the plane landed by the ground crew. One hidden bonus was that it reduced the movement of the center of gravity when the guns were fired. Soon after the P-39 entered US service, pilots reported that planes without loaded guns could be made to tumble backwards in a high-speed stall. After wind-tunnel tests, the problem was traced to the center of gravity and the manual was updated to state that the aircraft should always be flown with full ammo, empty brass or a ballast weight in the nose.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2020)

It's been a rather "interesting" conversation about the P-39 (in the middle of a Wildcat discussion), but this bit about keeping thirty empty 37mm casings in the nose to preserve the plane's Cog has just entered the realm of steep bullshit.
The bulk of a cartridge's weight is the projectile (bullet), the brass, while having some weight to it, is less than the balance of an un-spent cartridge.
Otherwise, Me262s would have gone ass over appetite after expending all their 30mm cannon rounds from their Mk108s (which recklessly ejected the shells into oblivion).
Now, you remove the Oldsmobile T9 cannon from the nose of the P-39, And you will most certainly have a (genuine) Cog issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 23, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The Tomahawks the RAF had ordered from Curtis were Model H81-A2 and had external self-sealing liners (Tomahawk MkIIA) or internally-lined fuel tanks (MkIIB), and all had seat armour and a bullet-proof windscreen. The unarmoured P-40s received were from the French order and were Curtis H81-A1 models, and were absorbed into the RAF as Tomahawk MkIs. The MkIs were only used for training, the MkIIs were sent to the Desert.



But it was only the Tomahawk Mk I that was remotely close to being in time for the BoB. The Mk IIs started turning up mid 1941, the P-40B (on which the Mk II was based) first flew in March 1941.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> ....but this bit about keeping thirty empty 37mm casings in the nose to preserve the plane's Cog has just entered the realm of steep bullshit.
> The bulk of a cartridge's weight is the projectile (bullet), the brass, while having some weight to it, is less than the balance of an un-spent cartridge....


 I don't have a copy of any of the P-39 manuals, but if anyone does then it should be pretty easy to check for the warning. Is there one in the technical section? As I understand it, the weight of the empty brass didn't stop the CG moving aft but was enough to keep the CG inside the preferred limits.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2020)

Seriously...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 23, 2020)

I can only speak to the Airacobra -- but interestingly enough the aircraft kept all brass and link for *all five* weapons****. The empty cases of the 37-mm gun could jettisoned in the air if need be. This was the 15-rd version and this was thought to be unnecessary as there was plenty of room. Unlike the .5-inch case container.

It seems that in the 20-mm version the Hispano cases used the same container as the .5-inch cases -- so a full load of .50 cal could never be fired.


****I think I read this incorrectly, and the five containers detailed in the report are for the .50 link (x2 containers), .50 brass (x2 containers), and the 37mm brass (x1 container) -- and the .30s eject normally. Looking at photos of P-39s with clearly visible ejection ports in the wings makes me lean further in this direction.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> HUGE difference between the P-39 of 1942 and 1944.
> To touch back on Welch for just a moment, he was flying a *P-40B *when he downed those four A6Ms (and two probable), not a P-40E, not a P-40N, etc....


 And? The P-39D was superior to the P-40B too.



GrauGeist said:


> ......As for "distances", you do realize the 36th FS was based out of Milne Bay (New Guinea) from the latter half of 1942, right?
> That puts them well within range of IJA AND IJA air elements.
> Even prior to that, the 36th FS escorted B-26s of the 33rd BG to New Guinea and back from Port Moresby, so I'm not following the range issue....


 And yet Welch still only tangled with Japanese aircraft once whilst flying the P-39D in New Guinea. Same with Boyd. Yet in the one chance they got, they both shot down three enemy aircraft each.



GrauGeist said:


> ......And then, we have a single VVS ace being used to prop up the uber-P-39 thing....


 Did I mention the Soviet 216th Fighter Division had 28 aces with at least 15 kills whilst flying the P-39? I think there was grand total of nine P-38 aces and 26 P-51 aces with scores of 15 or higher. One of the Soviet P-39 aces was Nikolay Gulaev, who scored 41 victories in the P-39 in a year and five days, a faster rate than Pokryshkin, or Allied aces such as Richard Bong or Thomas McGuire. And that's not Soviet propaganda because the Soviet authorities downplayed victories in foreign aircraft.



GrauGeist said:


> ......Also, Pokryshkin's unit converted to La-7s in 1944 - although there is rumors that he flew a P-63 later. But the fact remains, that he was not flying a P-39 by 1944.


 Pokryskin was ordered to convert to the La-7 becasue the Soviets wanted the propaganda of their top ace flying a Soviet design. His Division had one unit which was equipped with the La-7 and Pokryshkin did not fly with them. The rest of his units had P-39s. One of Pokryshkin's friends, Alexander Klubov, was killed converting to the La-7 due to a hydraulic failure, so Pokryshkin decided he would rather stick with his reliable P-39N. 
The P-63s didn't arrive at the Eastern Front until the spring of 1945 because the Soviets had originally promised they would only be used against the Japanese. Combat sorties with the P-63s didn't start until the early summer. Pokryshkin flew several models of P-39s, including a D, a K and two Ns and possibly a Q-15. Whilst his Division is said to have got 36 P-63s by the end of the War, Pokryshkin did not score any victories in that model and may not have even flown it until post-War. 
So Pokryshkin was fighting in the P-39 from mid-1942 through 1944 and into 1945.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 23, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> the XP-39 prototype hit 390mph when it first flew on April 6, 1939.


That's Larry Bell hyperbole. He always talked a great flight, but was often hard pressed to send a plane to independent testing that would live up to his claims. My dad worked at Bell Niagara in '44 and '45. Larry's employees weren't fooled by his big talk.
Some of the Soviet procurement officers that worked the plant were pretty colorful characters. Most were former combat pilots who were injured and unable to fly combat any more. Frequently one would show up at the flight line and "claim" a P63 fresh off the assembly line for a "production test flight", pull a Russian flight test report form out of his briefcase, and blast off. Shortly, phone calls would start to come in from area farmers about some crazy pilot chasing cows in a fighter plane. Usually they would first call the better known Curtis plant downtown, who would give them Bell's number. Curtis test pilots had a little more self discipline.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 23, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Yes, Churchill started it by calling Hitler's bluff, knowing that doing so would force the Germans to attempt an invasion. Hitler's 1939 plan assumed that all he had to do after the fall of France was threaten the UK with a U-boat blockade and bombing, and Churchill would accept a negotiated peace. Hitler even had this crazy idea that Britain would then join the Nazis in attacking the USSR! Some of this was due to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, who had secretly tried to open peace talks via Sweden on May 20th 1940, before France had even fallen. Halifax knew Hitler wanted a deal with the British Empire because Halifax had discussed it with Hermann Goering in 1937. On June 30th, Jodl at the OKW issued a communique stating that they had won the War and that a British compromise was inevitable. Even as late as July 2nd 1940, Hitler instructed von Ribbentrop to write a speech to again offer a negotiated peace. Churchill told Hitler to get stuffed. Hitler was left with no real option but to try and carry out his threats, to do otherwise risked leaving an enemy in his rear when he turned to attack the Soviets. The _Kanalkampf_ attacks, the first phase of the Battle, started on July 4th 1940. So, yes, Churchill started the BoB.


That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard !

So following your logic.
Hitler invades mainland europe, he then turns to Britain and says surrender or else.
Britain doesnt surrender so its Britains fault the Battle of Britain starts !

Wow

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 23, 2020)

rochie said:


> That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard !
> 
> So following your logic.
> Hitler invades mainland europe, he then turns to Britain and says surrender or else.
> ...


It's always the victim's fault! Ask any bully.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2020)

rochie said:


> That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard !
> 
> So following your logic.
> Hitler invades mainland europe, he then turns to Britain and says surrender or else.
> ...


The UK built a navy airforce and air defence system just to surrender without a shot being fired. If that was the aim, Halifax would have been made PM.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> And? The P-39D was superior to the P-40B too.


 First P-39D was delivered in April 1941.
Last P-40B was delivered April 24th 1941. 
1st P-40D for the was delivered in May of 1940. 

In the spring of 1941 Curtiss was averaging over 150 fighters per month, Bell was doing good to get over 10 in one month.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> the fact the USAAC persisted with the P-39 is itself a measure of just how bad the situation was in American fighter production, including the P-40. The P-40 when it was accepted into service was already acknowledge to be obsolete compared to European aircraft; the P-36 had already long passed its design zenith; the P-38 was still looking like a risky and expensive bet; the P-35 was past obsolete, and the civil war going on in Seversky/Republic did not bode well for future developments (indeed, Republic were behind the curve until they got the P-47 out the door); and Vultee's P-48/63 was not promising to be any great step forward. The USAAC was so desperate they even considered the Douglas XP-48, which had a ridiculous prediction of a 525mph top speed from a 525hp engine - lunacy! Indeed, it seems quite clear that the state of the US fighter design and the clout of being the biggest pursuit manufacturer saved the P-40 program, but the mediocre P-40 also kept the P-38 and P-39 from being cancelled.
> .


Governments don't have time machines, what hasn't been done cant be done just by praying or wishing to go back and re do it. The P-39 wasn't useless, the Russians got a lot of use out of it. The P-40 wasn't useless many forces got a lot of good use out of it. By the time the USA declared war on Japan it was producing the P-47, P-38 and P-51 (as Mustang MkI). The Wildcat had been much improved, the Corsair was flying and 6 months away from introduction. High power radial engines had been developed and production was increasing rapidly while a source for two stage supercharged V12 engines had been found and put in train. In the short term the USA was desperately short of the planes (and other stuff) it needed, but the USA didn't declare war. You produce what you can until you don't need it, so the poorer designs were made and then quickly fell by the wayside, or were used in other roles that are still important like advanced trainers.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> First P-39D was delivered in April 1941.
> Last P-40B was delivered April 24th 1941.
> 1st P-40D for the was delivered in May of 1940.
> 
> In the spring of 1941 Curtiss was averaging over 150 fighters per month, Bell was doing good to get over 10 in one month.


I am having trouble with timelines, could you confirm that the USA was not actually at war in the spring of 1941, because when the UK declared war it didn't have 150 Spitfires in service and many of its Hurricanes had dope wings, wooden props and 85 octane fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 23, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The UK built a navy airforce and air defence system just to surrender without a shot being fired.


I thought that was the Dutch?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I thought that was the Dutch?


A bit of an insult to them TBH, if any place was indefensible from a German invasion it was the Netherlands in 1939-40.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2020)

It appears someone has been spending way too much time in War Thunder forums.

This entire P-39 "conversation" belongs in the forum's "What-If" section under "alternate history and fantasy".

And most importantly, if one is going to cherry-pick from Wiki to try and defend a point, at least be aware of the timeline of said point.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 23, 2020)

pbehn said:


> A bit of an insult to them TBH, if any place was indefensible from a German invasion it was the Netherlands in 1939-40.


Very insulting !

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 23, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It's always the victim's fault! Ask any bully.



You've been watching CNN again I see...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 23, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> And yet Welch still only tangled with Japanese aircraft once whilst flying the P-39D in New Guinea. Same with Boyd. Yet in the one chance they got, they both shot down three enemy aircraft each.



Mad Dog,

Yes, both of these guys only tangled once and both had good results. It appears follow on they had good results in other planes as well. However, this neither proves nor disproves the validity of the P-39. Not enough data. Did they start both fights defensive, claw to the offensive and shoot down their adversaries? Or did they get the benefit of surprise or from the set up. 

I get that you like the plane, as do others on here. However, you have been handed a lot of data not from Wiki. Go through it, and then re-evaluate your hypothesis.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2020)

rochie said:


> That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard !
> 
> So following your logic.
> Hitler invades mainland europe, he then turns to Britain and says surrender or else.
> ...


Thinking about it, it may have been Churchill calling Adolf a corporal with an Italian poodle that got the argument started.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 23, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Thinking about it, it may have been Churchill calling Adolf a corporal with an Italian poodle that got the argument started.


Or chanted" two world wars and one world cup doo dah ! "


Oh wait that was Boris to Angela Merkel

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 23, 2020)

A thing that I don't understand about P-39 is why it has not been used in Korea against Mig-15 and afterwards, why it has not been proposed to the N.A.T.O. as main fighter.
Apparently, there are only two airplanes to which churches and altars have been dedicated, P-39 and FW-187.
More seriously.
A - The numbers related to Moments of First and Second Order for an airplane are exactly important as speed, rate of climb, range etc. etc.
But, as to the vast majority of the people that write on the Forums the idea of what a "Moment of inertia" is, very often, it is not perfectly clear, sometimes this matter tends to be completely ignored as non-existant.

B- In 1944 P-39s were issued to Italian Cobelligerent Air Force, all formed by well seasoned Pilots, survivors of three years of war against overwhelming Allied Air forces.
One of these Pilots said in an interview:
_"When we were assigned to P-39, we were very upset, we could not believe Allied AF used an airplane that was so dangerous. I owe my life to the fact that, to the contrary of what we Italian Pilots were used to do, I never attempted to perform aerobatics with P-39.
And to add insult to injury, other Italian Pilots, still on Macchi 205 or in very old Spitfire V, did take the P*** by calling us "i camionisti" (the truck drivers) for the car style door of the airplane..."_
In this book you will see the (very poor..) esteem Italian Pilots had of P-39:

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2020)

As to why the P-40 was such an important aircraft in the early part of the war.

maker..................1940................................................................................first 6 months 1941

Bell...................24 planes, including 11 YFMs............................................73 planes
Curtiss............*1259* planes, Hawk 75s and 81s........................................*898* planes
Curtiss S.L......27 planes (CW-21s)...............................................................no fighters
NA....................6 planes......................................................................................no fighters
Republic........104 planes, most EP-1s for Sweden..................................a few dozen P-43s?
Lockheed......1 plane..........................................................................................14 planes
Brewster.........160 planes...................................................................................194 fighters
Grumman.......103 planes..................................................................................194 fighters. 

Curtiss was the only factory tooled up and staffed to produce large numbers of aircraft at the time. 
We could argue as to which fighter was better or if the USAAC thought that combat would take place at high or low altitudes but for both the British and Americans it was Curtiss fighters or next to nothing (dribs and drabs) until the 2nd half of 1941 and even then CUrtiss far out produced anybody else. changing the Curtiss factory over to another design might have meant the loss of hundreds of fighters not built as Curtiss re-tools and gets back up to speed.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
5 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 24, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> You've been watching CNN again I see...


Huh? Don't even have TV. Ain't no signal in this hole in the hills, and I won't pay Comcast's prices. When I did have it I hardly ever watched. Too much fatuous drivel. I've got several radio stations across the political spectrum I like to listen to, mostly of the less hysterical variety. It's amazing how different the narratives of the same event can be depending on the biases of the speaker. "Truth" becomes a synthesis. No wonder we're so tribalized; we see the world through different lenses.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 24, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Huh? Don't even have TV. Ain't no signal in this hole in the hills, and I won't pay Comcast's prices. When I did have it I hardly ever watched. Too much fatuous drivel. I've got several radio stations across the political spectrum I like to listen to, mostly of the less hysterical variety. It's amazing how different the narratives of the same event can be depending on the biases of the speaker. "Truth" becomes a synthesis. No wonder we're so tribalized; we see the world through different lenses.



I completely agree. Spent 6 years behind a desk with CNN and Fox both running 24/7 on the wall. Something interesting gets reported, so for comparison I run down to the SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Info Facility, AKA Skiff) to get the military view on things. Hands down one of those two was almost spot on almost every time and the other not even close. I enjoy my days so much better with very small doses of news usually gleaned from the interwebs.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 25, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Hands down one of those two was almost spot on almost every time and the other not even close.


Now let me guess; Fox was always spot on and CNN not even close right?[/QUOTE]

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2020)

> XBe02Drvr said:
> 
> 
> > Now let me guess; Fox was always spot on and CNN not even close right?



Faux and CNN are one and the same. It just depends on the misinformation you enjoy getting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 25, 2020)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Boyd Wagner and George Welch have scored those victories in the P-39 based on, oh I don't know... Pilot Skill?

I'm pretty sure guys of that caliber could have been assigned to P-39's in New Guinea or P-51's in England and they were going to score double digits. Using them as examples of how great the P-39 supposedly was is rather disingenuous at best.

And to me, Welch flying his *P-40B* v IJN on 7 December 1941, after racing to Haleiwa in his Buick in mess dress after an all night poker game with his bud Ken Taylor, and then knocking down 3 Vals and a Zero, some using only the .30 cals, is MoH worthy and the stuff of legend.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> HUGE difference between the P-39 of 1942 and 1944.
> To touch back on Welch for just a moment, he was flying a *P-40B *when he downed those four A6Ms (and two probable), not a P-40E, not a P-40N, etc.
> 
> As for "distances", you do realize the 36th FS was based out of Milne Bay (New Guinea) from the latter half of 1942, right?
> ...



3 (none of them Pokryshkin, who was the 7th highest scorer) of the top 5 Soviet VVS aces got most of their kills (as did Pokryshkin) while flying P-39s and in fact Pokryshkin's unit, 9th Guards Fighter Division used P-39s all the way to Berlin. Pokryshkin got his last kill on 16 July 44, a Ju-87. His unit has begun convert to La-7 in Oct 44, but when one of its top aces crashed in a La-7 during his first training flight in it and was KIFA Pokryshkin thought 'enough is enough' and the formation stayed with P-39s to the VE Day.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 25, 2020)

> Even prior to that, the 36th FS escorted B-26s of the 33rd BG to New Guinea and back from Port Moresby, so I'm not following the range issue.



Port Moresby is in New Guinea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 25, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Port Moresby is in New Guinea.


Yep, I meant targets from Port Moresby *in* New Guinea. Posts get weird when I try and edit a post with this phone before posting.

The point was that the area of operations for the 36th was still a target rich environment during 1942, early '43.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 29, 2020)

rochie said:


> That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard !
> So following your logic.
> Hitler invades mainland europe, he then turns to Britain and says surrender or else.
> Britain doesnt surrender so its Britains fault the Battle of Britain starts !
> Wow


You are not understanding the basis of the whole premise. Hitler needed a quick War. Hitler's grand war plan required the British to simply accept a truce after Hitler had defeated France, then Hitler would be free to attack the USSR. Hitler simply didn't allow for another option, and even hoped that the British Empire would then join him in attacking the USSR! Senior British politicians like Lord Halifax actually _wanted_ to agree a truce, and it took the intervention of Chamberlain to actually give Churchill the power to overrule the cabinet and tell Hitler to get stuffed.
Now, Britain could have done a France and agreed an armistice. After all, the British Army was shattered, the RAF were doubtful that Fighter Command had enough fighters, and the German propaganda was making out that Germany had a massive advantage in aircraft. Hitler was willing to offer the British what was essentially a carving up of the World into zones for non-competing British and German empires. It was arguably a better idea (as proposed by Lord Halifax) to have accepted terms and let Germany rule Europe.
But Churchill knew that the Germans could not survive a long war because Germany did not have the right industrial balance and access to strategic materials, and that the longer the war dragged on the more the advantage would swing to Britain, especially with the backing of the industrial might of the USA. He was fairly confident (being a naval guy) that the Germans could not cross the Channel without the _Luftwaffe_ first defeating the RAF and then the RN. So Churchill deliberately rebuffed Hitler, knowing that it would start the attack on the UK that Hitler could (most likely) not win. So, yes, Churchill deliberately forced Hitler to attack the UK.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 29, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The UK built a navy airforce and air defence system just to surrender without a shot being fired. If that was the aim, Halifax would have been made PM.


Lord Halifax _did_ want to be the PM to replace Chamberlain, but turned it down rather than suffer the embarrassment of a political defeat when he realised Churchill had more backing in Parliament. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax was one of the appeasers from Chamberlain's government that had given Hitler everything Hitler demanded, and was one of the reasons Hitler assumed the British were bluffing when they said they would go to war if Poland was invaded.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> You are not understanding the basis of the whole premise. Hitler needed a quick War. Hitler's grand war plan required the British to simply accept a truce after Hitler had defeated France, then Hitler would be free to attack the USSR. Hitler simply didn't allow for another option, and even hoped that the British Empire would then join him in attacking the USSR! Senior British politicians like Lord Halifax actually _wanted_ to agree a truce, and it took the intervention of Chamberlain to actually give Churchill the power to overrule the cabinet and tell Hitler to get stuffed.
> Now, Britain could have done a France and agreed an armistice. After all, the British Army was shattered, the RAF were doubtful that Fighter Command had enough fighters, and the German propaganda was making out that Germany had a massive advantage in aircraft. Hitler was willing to offer the British what was essentially a carving up of the World into zones for non-competing British and German empires. It was arguably a better idea (as proposed by Lord Halifax) to have accepted terms and let Germany rule Europe.
> But Churchill knew that the Germans could not survive a long war because Germany did not have the right industrial balance and access to strategic materials, and that the longer the war dragged on the more the advantage would swing to Britain, especially with the backing of the industrial might of the USA. He was fairly confident (being a naval guy) that the Germans could not cross the Channel without the _Luftwaffe_ first defeating the RAF and then the RN. So Churchill deliberately rebuffed Hitler, knowing that it would start the attack on the UK that Hitler could (most likely) not win. So, yes, Churchill deliberately forced Hitler to attack the UK.


so Hitler is the good guy for just wanting to be left alone to conquer mainland Europe inc the USSR without interference and Churchill the villain for forcing Hitler to fight the RAF thus making the war last longer and cause more deaths and destruction ?


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 29, 2020)

OK, getting back to the subject of the thread - the Wildcat as an option for the BoB. Here's my opinion.
Yes, the Wildcat was probably the best shipboard fighter available to the Royal Navy in 1940, as Eric Brown states. Yes, for launching off escort carriers and shooting down converted airliners like the FW200 Condor, far away from enemy fighters, the Wildcat was the best available, tried and tested option. But only because Hawkers hadn't yet navalised the Hurricane.
For intercepting German bombers being escorted by ME109s and 110s in the 11 Group areas in August/September 1940? No, not by choice, anyway. 
Maybe as a peripheral fighter down in 10 Group, or up north in Scotland, but kept as far away from ME109s as possible. IMHO, in 1940, the P-36 presents a better option than the Wildcat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 29, 2020)

rochie said:


> so Hitler is the good guy for just wanting to be left alone to conquer mainland Europe inc the USSR without interference and Churchill the villain for forcing Hitler to fight the RAF thus making the war last longer and cause more deaths and destruction ?


Did I ever say Hitler was "the good guy"? Yeah, keep beating that strawman.


----------



## rochie (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Did I ever say Hitler was "the good guy"? Yeah, keep beating that strawman.



no but you seem to be inferring that after invading most of western Europe, Hitler just wanted peace with Britain and that Churchill really had other options than to rebuff Hitlers "peace" proposal !
because he didn't sign any sort of non aggression pact with the USSR or anything like that before invading did he ?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> You are not understanding the basis of the whole premise. Hitler needed a quick War. Hitler's grand war plan required the British to simply accept a truce after Hitler had defeated France, then Hitler would be free to attack the USSR. Hitler simply didn't allow for another option, and even hoped that the British Empire would then join him in attacking the USSR! Senior British politicians like Lord Halifax actually _wanted_ to agree a truce, and it took the intervention of Chamberlain to actually give Churchill the power to overrule the cabinet and tell Hitler to get stuffed.
> Now, Britain could have done a France and agreed an armistice. After all, the British Army was shattered, the RAF were doubtful that Fighter Command had enough fighters, and the German propaganda was making out that Germany had a massive advantage in aircraft. Hitler was willing to offer the British what was essentially a carving up of the World into zones for non-competing British and German empires. It was arguably a better idea (as proposed by Lord Halifax) to have accepted terms and let Germany rule Europe.
> But Churchill knew that the Germans could not survive a long war because Germany did not have the right industrial balance and access to strategic materials, and that the longer the war dragged on the more the advantage would swing to Britain, especially with the backing of the industrial might of the USA. He was fairly confident (being a naval guy) that the Germans could not cross the Channel without the _Luftwaffe_ first defeating the RAF and then the RN. So Churchill deliberately rebuffed Hitler, knowing that it would start the attack on the UK that Hitler could (most likely) not win. So, yes, Churchill deliberately forced Hitler to attack the UK.


Hitler had no grand plan, show me any planning for an attack and invasion of England before France was about to fall. The German military were as surprised as everyone else by the fall of France.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Lord Halifax _did_ want to be the PM to replace Chamberlain, but turned it down rather than suffer the embarrassment of a political defeat when he realised Churchill had more backing in Parliament. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax was one of the appeasers from Chamberlain's government that had given Hitler everything Hitler demanded, and was one of the reasons Hitler assumed the British were bluffing when they said they would go to war if Poland was invaded.


That is why I posted what I posted. If the British intended to surrender Halifax would have had backing in the commons and would have been made PM to do it. The difference is between that of President and Prime Minister.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 29, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Hitler had no grand plan, show me any planning for an attack and invasion of England before France was about to fall. The German military were as surprised as everyone else by the fall of France.



... and the German military were surprised not only by the fall of France, but they were expecially surprised by the suddennes of that fall.
If Hitler had had in his hands more than three hundred thousands British prisoners, that escaped with Dynamo, probably the public opinion in GB would have been different: a clear sign that Hitler had no precise idea of what to do next.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 29, 2020)

rochie said:


> no but you seem to be inferring that after invading most of western Europe, Hitler just wanted peace with Britain and that Churchill really had other options than to rebuff Hitlers "peace" proposal !....


 Of course Churchill had other options! The British could have signed an armistice in 1940 just like the French did. After the Great War, a lot of British people were opposed to the idea of getting involved in "another Continental war" and didn't want to provide the assurance to Poland that we would stand by them. For many business people in the UK (and the USA), the idea of going to war over Poland was "silly", they didn't see the Nazis as a risk to the British Empire, and saw Hitler as a bulwark against Communism. In the USA, many prominent politicians and business people did not want war between Germany and the British. People like Henry Ford had big business interests in Germany and were positively hostile to supporting the UK. Joseph Kennedy, the US Ambassador to the UK, was actively pursuing a policy of influencing Washington to refuse aid to the UK so Churchill would be forced to sign an armistice.
As for Hitler, he openly expressed his admiration for the "English Empire" and wanted to build an equivalent Aryan empire. He did not see Britain as a natural enemy of Germany. He did remember how the British had sent forces to Russia in 1919 to fight the Reds, and how Britain had overcome the impact of socialism agitators (unlike the French). Hitler was under the illusion that the British public were just looking for an excuse to ditch the French and join him in stamping out Communism. Some of that idea was due to British appeasers like Lord Halifax, some was due to British right-wingers like Mosely, and some was due to how the British had secretly supported Franco at the start of the Spanish Civil War. Once Hitler had convinced himself the British would seek a peace, he convinced himself there could be no other outcome. He was so surprised that he was rebuffed that he wasted weeks in June waiting for "the English to come to their senses". Even as late as July 11th 1940, Hitler and Admiral Raeder discussed invading Britain and Hitler described it as "the last resort", even though the Luftwaffe was then confidently predicting complete annihilation of the RAF in three weeks!
So, yes, Hitler wanted peace with the British in 1940. It's a historical fact.


rochie said:


> .....because he didn't sign any sort of non aggression pact with the USSR or anything like that before invading did he ?


 Hitler had made clear his long-term goal was expansion into the East, so his clash with the Soviets was inevitable. Churchill had plenty of intelligence telling him Hitler wanted to attack Russia, and one of Churchill's aims was to try and bring Russia into the War against Germany, because he knew Hitler could not afford a two-front war. Hitler himself knew the Soviets were planning to attack, so he had to get a peace signed with or defeat Britain and get his forces to the East before Stalin was ready. Hitler had to leave the West in 1941 after failing to get that peace and after failing to defeat Britain in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Sep 29, 2020)

I will not divert this thread further but it is unfair to use Lord Halifax's name as if he were prepared to sell the British Empire and Europe for a mess of pottage. He had his faults to be sure but a closer examination of his career shows him to addicted to peace rather than fearing to wage war in a just cause. The 'Lord Halifax would sell out' meme is just that and exists only by virtue of it's repetition.

There is no reason to expect him to sign up to a peace with Germany were he to have become Prime Minister. But he was not prepared to close contacts just for the sake of it. What he did not have was the confidence of the House nor the public charisma of Churchill which was appropriate to the needs of those days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Of course Churchill had other options! The British could have signed an armistice in 1940 just like the French did. After the Great War, a lot of British people were opposed to the idea of getting involved in "another Continental war" and didn't want to provide the assurance to Poland that we would stand by them. For many business people in the UK (and the USA), the idea of going to war over Poland was "silly", they didn't see the Nazis as a risk to the British Empire, and saw Hitler as a bulwark against Communism. In the USA, many prominent politicians and business people did not want war between Germany and the British. People like Henry Ford had big business interests in Germany and were positively hostile to supporting the UK. Joseph Kennedy, the US Ambassador to the UK, was actively pursuing a policy of influencing Washington to refuse aid to the UK so Churchill would be forced to sign an armistice.
> As for Hitler, he openly expressed his admiration for the "English Empire" and wanted to build an equivalent Aryan empire. He did not see Britain as a natural enemy of Germany. He did remember how the British had sent forces to Russia in 1919 to fight the Reds, and how Britain had overcome the impact of socialism agitators (unlike the French). Hitler was under the illusion that the British public were just looking for an excuse to ditch the French and join him in stamping out Communism. Some of that idea was due to British appeasers like Lord Halifax, some was due to British right-wingers like Mosely, and some was due to how the British had secretly supported Franco at the start of the Spanish Civil War. Once Hitler had convinced himself the British would seek a peace, he convinced himself there could be no other outcome. He was so surprised that he was rebuffed that he wasted weeks in June waiting for "the English to come to their senses". Even as late as July 11th 1940, Hitler and Admiral Raeder discussed invading Britain and Hitler described it as "the last resort", even though the Luftwaffe was then confidently predicting complete annihilation of the RAF in three weeks!
> So, yes, Hitler wanted peace with the British in 1940. It's a historical fact.
> Hitler had made clear his long-term goal was expansion into the East, so his clash with the Soviets was inevitable. Churchill had plenty of intelligence telling him Hitler wanted to attack Russia, and one of Churchill's aims was to try and bring Russia into the War against Germany, because he knew Hitler could not afford a two-front war. Hitler himself knew the Soviets were planning to attack, so he had to get a peace signed with or defeat Britain and get his forces to the East before Stalin was ready. Hitler had to leave the West in 1941 after failing to get that peace and after failing to defeat Britain in 1940.


maybe i should have wrote "realistic options" ?
hmmm !
the British empire and an Aryan empire side by side peacefully sharing the planet, that was not going to happen was it ?
i'm sure America and Japan would of loved that.

starting to sound like a lost starwars episode !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 29, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Hitler had no grand plan, show me any planning for an attack and invasion of England before France was about to fall. The German military were as surprised as everyone else by the fall of France.


The fact he had no plan completely supports the premise that Hitler never actually wanted to invade Britain, that he wanted a "just peace" where the Third Reich would be treated as an equal to the British Empire. He _did_ have a plan to defeat France because France was always the traditional enemy of Germany, and Hitler saw France as the main instigator of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. Planning for _Unternehmen Seelöwe_ didn't even start until June 1940, and then Jodl's strategy was not invasion but to put pressure on the British to agree an armistice. As it was, the detailed planning of the invasion of Russia started on July 4th, showing where Hitler's real focus lay.
Hitler's pre-War plans roughly fall into three stages - domination of Continental Europe and expansion into Russia up to the Urals; subjugation of most of Africa; and finally invasion and defeat of the USA. 
The _Heer_ were surprised at how fast France collapsed, yes, but then so was everyone _except_ the extreme Right. Hitler had long concluded that France would fall quickly because he saw it as rotten to the core from years of socialism. That belief wasn't based on any great military judgement, it was Hitler's gut belief.
Because he was right with Poland and then right with France, Hitler overcame the natural caution of many of his military commanders and they subsequently made several bad moves because they put their faith in Hitler's gut instinct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The fact he had no plan completely supports the premise that Hitler never actually wanted to invade Britain, that he wanted a "just peace" where the Third Reich would be treated as an equal to the British Empire. He _did_ have a plan to defeat France because France was always the traditional enemy of Germany, and Hitler saw France as the main instigator of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. Planning for _Unternehmen Seelöwe_ didn't even start until June 1940, and then Jodl's strategy was not invasion but to put pressure on the British to agree an armistice. As it was, the detailed planning of the invasion of Russia started on July 4th, showing where Hitler's real focus lay.
> Hitler's pre-War plans roughly fall into three stages - domination of Continental Europe and expansion into Russia up to the Urals; subjugation of most of Africa; and finally invasion and defeat of the USA.
> The _Heer_ were surprised at how fast France collapsed, yes, but then so was everyone _except_ the extreme Right. Hitler had long concluded that France would fall quickly because he saw it as rotten to the core from years of socialism. That belief wasn't based on any great military judgement, it was Hitler's gut belief.
> Because he was right with Poland and then right with France, Hitler overcame the natural caution of many of his military commanders and they subsequently made several bad moves because they put their faith in Hitler's gut instinct.


The man was barking mad and utterly delusional. He believed everyone was rotten to the core and he only had to kick the door in for the building to crash down. He thought the same about UK even though the UK was out producing Germany in most significant arms like fighters. He thought he could take his time when in fact the time had passed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Hitler's grand war plan required the British to simply accept a truce after Hitler had defeated France, then Hitler would be free to attack the USSR.





Mad Dog said:


> It was arguably a better idea (as proposed by Lord Halifax) to have accepted terms and let Germany rule Europe.


Hitler, despite his vaunted strategic foresight, just couldn't recognize the difference between a Halifax and a Quisling, and in the surprise arrival at the channel coast, allowed wishful thinking to settle in. That doesn't change the villain/hero relationship. Churchill knew his people and their proud history, as Margaret Thatcher did in her time, and so did Queen Boadica in hers. Even today, I believe most British people, though they may mourn their losses, understand and accept their necessity.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 29, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The man was barking mad and utterly delusional. He believed everyone was rotten to the core and he only had to kick the door in for the building to crash down. He thought the same about UK even though the UK was out producing Germany in most significant arms like fighters. He thought he could take his time when in fact the time had passed.


 Yes, but he convinced 70-odd million Germans and allies to follow him to war in 1939 only twenty years since they had last been defeated. The man knew which buttons to press, crazy or not, so to just write him off as some type of dribbling loon is to underestimate his evil genius.
Mind you, in defence of the Germans, a supposedly more educated and erudite populace still gave over 10.2 million votes to Jeremy Corbyn, and he couldn't find a button in Panasonic warehouse!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2020)

Oh look...a Martlet.






(Image credit: our very own Clave)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Oh look...a Martlet.
> 
> View attachment 596578
> 
> (Image credit: our very own Clave)


Would they have been any use in the Battle of Britain?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 29, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Yes, but he convinced 70-odd million Germans and allies to follow him to war in 1939 only twenty years since they had last been defeated. The man knew which buttons to press, crazy or not, so to just write him off as some type of dribbling loon is to underestimate his evil genius.
> Mind you, in defence of the Germans, a supposedly more educated and erudite populace still gave over 10.2 million votes to Jeremy Corbyn, and he couldn't find a button in Panasonic warehouse!



He had quite a lot of help, including from the beaten German military commanders, especially in selling the false "stab in the back" story. One of the major allied errors at Versailles was not having a triumphal march down Kaiserstrasse.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Would they have been any use in the Battle of Britain?



That's an interesting question. Maybe we should have a thread that discusses the topic?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Would they have been any use in the Battle of Britain?


If the Royal Navy could have acquired a substantial number of them, I'd say yes.
Use them to sweep for low-level bomber intercept or have them stationed in the secondary areas (as was historically with the 804 Naval Squadron) to free up the Hurricanes and Spitfires for the high-action zones.
The afore-mentioned low level sweeps would allow the Hurries and Spits to remain up top to engage the escorts while the Martlet focused on the Dorniers and Heinkels.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tkdog (Sep 30, 2020)

Any remotely viable fighter would have been put to the use providing it was available in numbers that made the logistics worthwhile. I think you are right, they would have found uses for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 30, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The _Kanalkampf_ attacks, the first phase of the Battle, started on July 4th 1940. So, yes, Churchill started the BoB.



You've just contradicted yourself in these two sentences, Mad Dog.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 30, 2020)

I think our hydrophobic canine is just proving he can live up to his username.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 30, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> So, yes, Churchill deliberately forced Hitler to attack the UK.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Oh look...a Martlet.



Oh yeah, we had a discussion about these recently...




0307 FAA Museum Martlet

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 30, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


>


After all he was a reasonable chap, just given what he wanted he wouldn't of asked for anything else would he ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 30, 2020)

Yeah guys i do apologise for dragging this thread out of line

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 30, 2020)

rochie said:


> Yeah guys i do apologise for dragging this thread out of line


Hey, don't claim all the credit, you had lots of help!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 30, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey, don't claim all the credit, you had lots of help!


True


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Would they have been any use in the Battle of Britain?


Might be a good topic for a thread.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 30, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Might be a good topic for a thread.



Oh, do pay attention! We had that suggestion at post #473. Try to keep up!


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 30, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Oh, do pay attention! We had that suggestion at post #473. Try to keep up!


Well OK Mr. Smarty pants...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Sep 30, 2020)

It's true that Hitler only wanted peace - a piece of Poland, a big piece of France ........................ I'll get me coat - again !!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 30, 2020)

Thats quite a good one Dogsbody


----------



## Airframes (Sep 30, 2020)

I have to admit to "borrowing" it from the movie "The Producers", with minor alterations.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 30, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think our hydrophobic canine is just proving he can live up to his username.


No, that would be Rabid Dog, he posts over on the Grumman fansites.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 30, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> You've just contradicted yourself in these two sentences, Mad Dog.


OK, for those that can't read a calendar, July comes _after_ May and June. Churchill first told the cabinet he didn't want to negotiate peace in May. He then spurned Hitler's advances in June. If the World needed any proof of Churchill's determination, the Royal Navy's attack on the French Fleet at Mer el-Kebir on 3rd July wrote it large - Britain was not going to compromise.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 30, 2020)

Elmas said:


> .....In 1944 P-39s were issued to Italian Cobelligerent Air Force, all formed by well seasoned Pilots, survivors of three years of war against overwhelming Allied Air forces.
> One of these Pilots said in an interview:
> _"When we were assigned to P-39, we were very upset, we could not believe Allied AF used an airplane that was so dangerous. I owe my life to the fact that, to the contrary of what we Italian Pilots were used to do, I never attempted to perform aerobatics with P-39.
> And to add insult to injury, other Italian Pilots, still on Macchi 205 or in very old Spitfire V, did take the P*** by calling us "i camionisti" (the truck drivers) for the car style door of the airplane..."_
> In this book you will see the (very poor..) esteem Italian Pilots had of P-39:


The Italians were used to light aircraft with very low wing-loading, so for them the switch to the P-39 was probably a bit too extreme. For example, the MC202 had a loaded weight over 1000Lb lighter than the P-39Q. You also have to remember that the Italian pilots were also extremely traditional - they resisted the introduction of monoplanes even after having met aircraft like the Hawker Hurricane in combat. The fact the Italians couldn't or wouldn't master the P-39 suggests the Russians were either just better pilots or a lot more open to modern ideas. That or the American conversion training was rushed. Mind you, the Italians complained when they were given second-hand Bf109F-4s in 1943, and didn't stop complaining when Kesselring got them brand-new Bf109G-6s. Maybe complaining was just the Italian way.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 30, 2020)

rochie said:


> maybe i should have wrote "realistic options" ?
> hmmm !
> the British empire and an Aryan empire side by side peacefully sharing the planet, that was not going to happen was it ?
> i'm sure America and Japan would of loved that.
> ...



Ah well, if you don't read any historical texts and only relied on fiction then I'm not surprised everything sounds like a movie plot to you. Here's some other "movie-like" historical facts you probably missed whilst "researching" down the pub:

1. The future Queen of England enlisted and drove a truck as a driver/mechanic.
2. Germany lost 136 generals killed during the War, but Hitler executed 84 of those, far more than were killed by the Allies.
3. Coca-Cola was considered so vital to Allied success that the US Army built three plants in Africa just to make the drink.
4. Texan Seaman Calvin Graham earned the Bronze Star for his heroics fighting on the battleship USS South Dakota at Guadalcanal. Unfortunately, his mother cut short his naval career when she informed the authorities that Graham was only thirteen (he had managed to bluff his way through enlistment aged twelve).

There you go, plenty of homework for you to do, and no skipping off to the pub until you've learnt something.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 30, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The Wildcat wouldn't climb fast enough to reach them and be fast enough to catch them, as posted above the .50's don't have a reliable feed mechanism and jam under G, they don't have effective AP, no incendiary, no HE, just a barely good enough daytime tracer and low velocity cup and core ball ammunition.


Missed this post earlier!
The ammunition problem was fixable. Before the War, Kynoch made export orders for many aircraft guns not in use by the RAF, and had supplied the ammunition used in the 1923 and 1924 RAF trials of the .50 Browning. They supplied "flame-tracer" (phosphorous incendiary of the Great War Buckingham type) and ball at first, but by the '30s they were supplying foreign customers with modern tracer, AP and incendiary rounds. They never did make a good HE round, finally giving up in 1944, though a few commercial experimental designs were later tried in the '50s.


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 1, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> They supplied "flame-tracer" (phosphorous incendiary of the Great War Buckingham type) and ball at first, but by the '30s they were supplying foreign customers with modern tracer, AP and incendiary rounds.




The first reliable .50 cal incendiary round wasn't issued until early 1942, same for tracer, as for the AP round it tumbled at oblique angles, specialised .50 cal ammunition was a tale of disappointment before 1944.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 1, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The fact the Italians couldn't or wouldn't master the P-39 suggests the Russians were either just better pilots or a lot more open to modern ideas.


You don't suppose the Russians were a little more pressed by necessity than the Italians, and on their own, far from US supervision, free to innovate, modify, and adapt to their conditions of combat? They wouldn't have been tainted by USAAF's dismissive attitude about the plane, and were operating in a climate that woudn't impair the plane's performance as much as the Med. A plane with an undersized wing for its weight and barely adequate cooling in temperate climates, is not a likely winner in more tropical conditions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Oct 1, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Ah well, if you don't read any historical texts and only relied on fiction then I'm not surprised everything sounds like a movie plot to you. Here's some other "movie-like" historical facts you probably missed whilst "researching" down the pub:
> 
> 1. The future Queen of England enlisted and drove a truck as a driver/mechanic.
> 2. Germany lost 136 generals killed during the War, but Hitler executed 84 of those, far more than were killed by the Allies.
> ...




Must be a terrible burden being the cleverest person you have ever known.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 1, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The Italians were used to light aircraft with very low wing-loading, so for them the switch to the P-39 was probably a bit too extreme. For example, the MC202 had a loaded weight over 1000Lb lighter than the P-39Q. You also have to remember that the Italian pilots were also extremely traditional - they resisted the introduction of monoplanes even after having met aircraft like the Hawker Hurricane in combat. The fact the Italians couldn't or wouldn't master the P-39 suggests the Russians were either just better pilots or a lot more open to modern ideas. That or the American conversion training was rushed. Mind you, the Italians complained when they were given second-hand Bf109F-4s in 1943, and didn't stop complaining when Kesselring got them bs. Maybe complaining was just the Italian way.



Italian Pilots complained about monoplanes as the first series monoplane fighters that were issued (MC-200 and Fiat G-50) had serious aerodynamics flaws, mainly due to absence of wash-out in the wings and, for MC-200 a sharp leading edge.
After that issues were solved, expecially in the MC 200, they complained about the engine, as an engine of 840 HP was certainly not enough for 1941, as was not enough second-hand with worn-out engines Bf109F-4s in 1943.
I'm not aware that they complained about new brand-new Bf109G-6s and -10S that were issued to the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana, as they considered Me-109 of the latest series more than a match to all Allied fighter up to the end of the war (Spitfire and P-51) and vastly superior to P-38. They were more cautious with P-47s, as an Italian Pilot stated, they had such a huge armament that even a couple of seconds in their sights would have been deadly.
The problem with P-39 was not only the high wing-loading, as the main problems of P-39 were:
A - a C.G. far too much aft , expecially in some conditions, that in every airplane is a sure recipe for disaster
B - masses too concentrated, that gave to the airplane a flawed longitudinal Moment of inertia.
These two very serious flaws (and many others) induced quite rightly Top Brass and Pilots of AAF to get rid of the airplane ASAP:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 1, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The Italians were used to light aircraft with very low wing-loading, so for them the switch to the P-39 was probably a bit too extreme. For example, the MC202 had a loaded weight over 1000Lb lighter than the P-39Q. You also have to remember that the Italian pilots were also extremely traditional - they resisted the introduction of monoplanes even after having met aircraft like the Hawker Hurricane in combat. The fact the Italians couldn't or wouldn't master the P-39 suggests the Russians were either just better pilots or a lot more open to modern ideas. That or the American conversion training was rushed. Mind you, the Italians complained when they were given second-hand Bf109F-4s in 1943, and didn't stop complaining when Kesselring got them brand-new Bf109G-6s. Maybe complaining was just the Italian way.



Of course, the USAAF's P-39 instructors may not have been terribly interested in training their former enemies in a new aircraft. Also, these instructors may not have been pulled from the elite of the flight training organization, but from a pool of pilots with P-39 time sometime in the distant past, some of whom were contemptuous of the P-39 and Italians, and had no more idea of how to teach than does my dog.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 1, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Of course, the USAAF's P-39 instructors may not have been terribly interested in training their former enemies in a new aircraft. Also, these instructors may not have been pulled from the elite of the flight training organization, but from a pool of pilots with P-39 time sometime in the distant past, some of whom were contemptuous of the P-39 and Italians, and had no more idea of how to teach than does my dog.



In the three months of training with P-39 there were 11 accidents, with 3 Pilots killed.
Some of the accidents were due to bad location of the airfield (main AB were occupied by Allied AF) and to the fact that airplanes P-39N and -Qs, were letf to the open for a long time, when Allied Pilots discharged the airplane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 1, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> OK, for those that can't read a calendar, July comes _after_ May and June. Churchill first told the cabinet he didn't want to negotiate peace in May. He then spurned Hitler's advances in June. If the World needed any proof of Churchill's determination, the Royal Navy's attack on the French Fleet at Mer el-Kebir on 3rd July wrote it large - Britain was not going to compromise.


This is tedious, get back to your Martlets. A declaration of war is a statement that compromise is now off the table.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 1, 2020)

Perhaps the Soviet pilots didn't complain because complaining could cause death by 7.62mm lead poisoning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 1, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Perhaps the Soviet pilots didn't complain because complaining could cause death by 7.62mm lead poisoning.


Someone posted here the lengths the Soviets went to to make the P-39 work for them, like installing drains etc. Maybe that also included studying how it flew and how to fly it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Oct 1, 2020)

pbehn said:


> This is tedious, get back to your Martlets. A declaration of war is a statement that compromise is now off the table.


Yes it is very tedious, bored of this now going back to my war movies and commando comics to learn more about WW2 history, Johnny Red was a real RAF pilot right ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 1, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Someone posted here the lengths the Soviets went to to make the P-39 work for them, like installing drains etc. Maybe that also included studying how it flew and how to fly it.



By my personal point of view, much simpler than that.
First, even if P-39 was not the best of an airplane, it was better than theirs, for various reasons, and it was "for free";
Second, and more important, Soviets were accustomed to losses, both in training and in combat, enormously more heavy than those that U.S. Generals and RAF Air Marshals, subjected to a strict public opinion, unexistant in USSR, were willing to bear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 1, 2020)

rochie said:


> Johnny Red was a real RAF pilot right ?



Of course he was real and every Hurricane IID was used as a fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2020)

The Russians were also used to planes with handling 'quirks'.
I-16s had rear center of gravity problems.
Mig 3s had rear center of gravity problems. 

A few of their other planes had 'quirks' that would have never made it past flight testing in a western nation (or at least not in less desperate times).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Oct 1, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Of course he was real and every Hurricane IID was used as a fighter.


Thank god for that, was beginning to think i really didnt know anything !


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 1, 2020)

rochie said:


> Thank god for that, was beginning to think i really didnt know anything !



He was from a time when the good were good and the bad were German/Japanese

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 1, 2020)

rochie said:


> Yes it is very tedious, bored of this now going back to my war movies and commando comics to learn more about WW2 history, Johnny Red was a real RAF pilot right ?


The nightmare of the German military was a war on two fronts. An evil genius would be one who only fought on one front at a time, Adolf managed to be fighting on at least half a dozen in the space of 18 months, including one he was hardly aware of "intelligence" but that is not really a surprise.

In terms of the OP the Wildcat could have been used for the BoB if the British were short of planes and not pilots, it was certainly capable of taking down any German bomber in 1940. They started to arrive in the summer and were in service by the end of the year, the first of about 8,000 to be built, the P-40 would be arriving soon 14,000 were built, and they both had bigger brothers and cousins on the drawing board. The "gig was up" as soon as that Martlet made its first kill, Goering just didnt realise it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 1, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The Russians were also used to planes with handling 'quirks'.
> I-16s had rear center of gravity problems.
> Mig 3s had rear center of gravity problems.
> 
> A few of their other planes had 'quirks' that would have never made it past flight testing in a western nation (or at least not in less desperate times).



Probably for this very reason they loved P-39 so much...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Oct 7, 2020)

rochie said:


> Must be a terrible burden being the cleverest person you have ever known.


I see you never met anyone clever enough to tell you that everyone else knows you have lost the debate when all you do is post fact-free snarks. But do go ahead and keep on showing the limits of your research, it does provide unintended amusement.


----------



## Mad Dog (Oct 7, 2020)

Elmas said:


> .....The problem with P-39 was not only the high wing-loading, as the main problems of P-39 were:
> A - a C.G. far too much aft , expecially in some conditions, that in every airplane is a sure recipe for disaster
> B - masses too concentrated, that gave to the airplane a flawed longitudinal Moment of inertia.....


All of which is completely debunked by the results the Russians managed with their P-39s. Face it, Pokryshkin was _choosing_ the P-39 over every Allied fighter available, and that includes Spitfires and the much-hyped Yaks. And we know that's not just Russian propaganda because the Luftwaffe were reporting on him as well.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2020)

Oh look, another Martlet!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 8, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> All of which is completely debunked by the results the Russians managed with their P-39s.


I think it's been pretty well established here that the Russians custom modified their P39s to ameliorate many of their shortcomings, which western services, for whatever reason, seemed unwilling or unable to do effectively. Apples to applanges.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Oh look, another Martlet!
> 
> View attachment 597448




Did I miss a new forum rule that every thread MUST have a discussion about P-39s, the Russians liking them and removing wing guns, and the type's CofG issues?

There's an XP-39 thread and P-39D/P-400 thread and yet here we are in a supposedly Wildcat-centric thread talking about P-39s.

Maybe the Forum should change its title to "P-39s-and-other-ww2aircraft.net"?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Did I miss a new forum rule that every thread MUST have a discussion about P-39s, the Russians liking them and removing wing guns, and the type's CofG issues?
> 
> There's an XP-39 thread and P-39D/P-400 thread and yet here we are in a supposedly Wildcat-centric thread talking about P-39s.
> 
> Maybe the Forum should change its title to "P-39s-and-other-ww2aircraft.net"?


I understand that threads tend to drift (and I am guilty of this, too), but damn.

Hence me posting Terry's favorite warbird just to remind SOME people that this is a thread regarding the Grumman G-36A/Martlet/F4F during the Battle of Britain.

Oh...wait, there's another Martlet!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 8, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> All of which is completely debunked by the results the Russians managed with their P-39s. Face it, Pokryshkin was _choosing_ the P-39 over every Allied fighter available, and that includes Spitfires and the much-hyped Yaks. And we know that's not just Russian propaganda because the Luftwaffe were reporting on him as well.



Had Pokryshkin the skill in deflection shooting of Marseille and Beurling? (melted together, if possible). Soviet aviation fighter tactics could have been considered by Allied standards just a little bit less than "suicidal".
Pokryshkin could also have choosen P-39, but the question is: _"...how many Pokryshkin's wingmen got killed?_"
If Hartmann & Co. had aerial victories by the hundreds was not by chance, and certainly USAAF and RAF High Commands (and Aircrews, of course...) were not at all willing to bear such losses.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 8, 2020)

Oh look....a Martlet:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Oh look....a Martlet:
> 
> View attachment 597529


All I can see is three roundels a pilot and a shadow, that camo sure works well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Oct 13, 2020)

Elmas said:


> _"...how many Pokryshkin's wingmen got killed?_".....


 Not as many as some want to believe, given that there were far more Soviet P-39 aces with scores of at least 15 kills in Pokryshkin's Regiment than there were USAAC P-38 or USN Wildcat aces, and definitely more than FAA Martlet aces. *Indeed, were there any FAA Martlet aces?* IIRC, the only FAA ace in the Pacific was Major Ronald Hay (Major 'cos he was a Royal Marine), and he scored his kills in the Skua (1940 Norway), Fulmar (Med 1940-41) and the Corsair (1944-45 Pacific).

Hey, another Martlet! Maybe this one ran into a Bf109?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2020)

I missed the back and forth snarkiness in this thread earlier.

E V E R Y O N E , everyone chill out and play nice please.


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 13, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> IIRC, the only FAA ace in the Pacific was Major Ronald Hay....



According to _Osprey Aircraft of the Aces 75: Royal Navy Aces of World War 2_ (Thomas), there were many more FAA aces which saw service in the Pacific theater but Hay was the highest scoring of the group with a total of 13 (as with many FAA aces these include a number of shared victories).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 13, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> *Indeed, were there any FAA Martlet aces?*



According to Thomas the highest scoring Martlet/Wildcat pilot in the FAA was awarded four victories (2 + 2 shared), so no aces.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Oct 13, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> According to Thomas the highest scoring Martlet/Wildcat pilot in the FAA was awarded four victories (2 + 2 shared), so no aces.


Hey, didn't FAA pilot Richard "Dicky" Cork get to be an ace twice over? Once in the BoB in RAF Hurricanes, and then 5-in-a-day during the _Pedestal_ convoy? Oh, but the latter achievement was _after_ his unit upgraded from Martlets to the Hawker Sea Hurricane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 13, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Hey, didn't FAA pilot Richard "Dicky" Cork get to be an ace twice over? Once in the BoB in RAF Hurricanes, and then 5-in-a-day during the _Pedestal_ convoy? Oh, but the latter achievement was _after_ his unit upgraded from Martlets to the Hawker Sea Hurricane.



Yes he did. In fact he was the highest scoring FAA Sea Hurricane/Hurricane pilot with 11 victories, which was also the most awarded to a FAA pilot while flying a single type of aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 29, 2020)

pinsog said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf
> 
> This is the full report showing the specs of the actual F4F-3 used in the test. It was armed, armored and had self sealing tanks



The above is not a test report. It's the manufacturer's specification that aircraft were supposed to meet. Unfortunately, AFAIK, no tested aircraft ever met the specs, and actual tests showed inferior performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 29, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The above is not a test report. It's the manufacturer's specification that aircraft were supposed to meet. Unfortunately, AFAIK, no tested aircraft ever met the specs, and actual tests showed inferior performance.


here are some testing reports;
Gotta love mimeographs!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-1845.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 29, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> here are some testing reports;
> Gotta love mimeographs!
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-1845.pdf



With full armour and SS tanks, TO weight increased to 7556lbs according to the USN SAC data.


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 29, 2020)

That was very educational. The 20mm v. 50 cal thread mentioned the reliability and testing of aircraft armament. I wondered how they would test these weapons in peace time. Somehow spraying the sky with lead to see if the guns work seems a bit cavalier. But somehow they did it. I was also surprised that gun cameras were around in 1940. That was farsighted (unless we swiped that idea from our “cousins” too). 
A very interesting post about a plane I’m interested in.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 29, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> That was very educational. The 20mm v. 50 cal thread mentioned the reliability and testing of aircraft armament. I wondered how they would test these weapons in peace time. Somehow spraying the sky with lead to see if the guns work seems a bit cavalier. But somehow they did it. I was also surprised that gun cameras were around in 1940. That was farsighted (unless we swiped that idea from our “cousins” too).
> A very interesting post about a plane I’m interested in.


Sadly there was much more gun camera use than there was people with the foresight to keep the film for future use, and in any case on a deflection shot, it doesn't need a huge deflection before the camera shows nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 29, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The above is not a test report. It's the manufacturer's specification that aircraft were supposed to meet. Unfortunately, AFAIK, no tested aircraft ever met the specs, and actual tests showed inferior performance.









Here are actual tests. 331 mph at 21,000 to 22,000 feet. That’s about 15 mph faster than a Mark I Hurricane. I didn’t see a climb rate in this test but I imagine the 6,200 pound Wildcat probably climbed pretty good. Eric Brown mentions a 3,300 feet per minute initial climb rate for the F4F-3 he tested. Replace the 4 50’s and 450 rounds per gun with 8 303’s and 500 rounds per gun and you’ve saved 350 pounds right there. A Wildcat also carried 145 gallons of fuel so you could either put in less fuel or station them farther away from the channel. An F4F-3 would have done fine. The British didn’t need a different fighter, as I said early on in this thread, they had 2 fine aircraft, what they needed was pilots with gunnery training.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 29, 2020)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 606743
> View attachment 606744
> Here are actual tests. 331 mph at 21,000 to 22,000 feet. That’s about 15 mph faster than a Mark I Hurricane. I didn’t see a climb rate in this test but I imagine the 6,200 pound Wildcat probably climbed pretty good. Eric Brown mentions a 3,300 feet per minute initial climb rate for the F4F-3 he tested. Replace the 4 50’s and 450 rounds per gun with 8 303’s and 500 rounds per gun and you’ve saved 350 pounds right there. A Wildcat also carried 145 gallons of fuel so you could either put in less fuel or station them farther away from the channel. An F4F-3 would have done fine. The British didn’t need a different fighter, as I said early on in this thread, they had 2 fine aircraft, what they needed was pilots with gunnery training.



It seems that even in late Aug 1940 the two-stage PW engine was having development issues.

The lighter aircraft has no armour or SS tanks: It's not really comparable to a BoB Hurricane but would have been similar to the aircraft that Brown mentions.. This test is for two F4F-4 aircraft at ~7370lb:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-5262.pdf

results:

Gross weight (lbs)7369 / 7370 
Airplane critical altitude (ft) 21100 / 19400 
Vmax at critical altitude (mph) 318 / 319

so ~330mph seems a bit anomalous when several similar weight F4F-4s were tested (and spec was 318) to ~319mph.

This one at 7975lb managed only 316mph:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf

which met the revised spec for that weight. The F4F-4 specifications were revised downward when production aircraft could not meet the Aug 1941 specifications,.

Climb rate was measured using full throttle with the resulting high fuel consumption at high throttle yet climb was considerably worse than a BoB Hurricane 1 using normal climb power. With SS tanks the F4F-3/4 carried 120IG (F4F-3 at ~7550lb = full ammo and 120IG) versus 97 for a Hurricane 1 but it would burn more fuel during climb and combat while it's more economical low speed cruise would be less of an advantage during the BoB.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 29, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> It seems that even in late Aug 1940 the two-stage PW engine was having development issues.
> 
> The lighter aircraft has no armour or SS tanks: It's not really comparable to a BoB Hurricane but would have been similar to the aircraft that Brown mentions.. This test is for two F4F-4 aircraft at ~7370lb:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-5262.pdf
> ...


We’ve been through this. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig. The wing folding mechanism itself was several hundred pounds. The test I sent the pics of was the original 2 F4F-3’s. Just changing from 4 50’s to 8 303’s saves 350-400 pounds. Armor? The Spitfire had a 73 pound sheet behind the pilot. The Hurricane with supposed self sealing tanks was notorious for drenching the pilot in fuel and then lighting him on fire. The F4F-3 with a 2 stage engine if employed at the BoB would have done fine. The test I sent the pic of showed an actual test of an actual F4F-3 with 4 50’s that weighed 7,300 pounds at takeoff and did 331 mph at 21,000 feet on 981 hp. Actual test. The lighter F4F with 2 30’s and 2 50’s weighed 6,260 pounds and did 331 mph at 22,000 feet on 944 hp. Either of those are 15 mph faster than a Hurricane at that altitude. The F4F can bunt and follow a 109 down in a dive without rolling which neither the Spitfire or Hurricane can do.

The F4F-4 would probably have done poorly in the BOB because it was an overweight pig. It would have been good for waiting at altitude, making a single diving pass at the bombers and just keep right on diving as it left the area. At least that’s how I would have flown it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 29, 2020)

pinsog said:


> The F4F-4 would probably have done poorly in the BOB because it was an overweight pig.


At roughly 200 pounds heavier than the F4F-3A, how is the F4F-4 an "overweight pig"?
The FM-2 weighed 450 pounds more than the F4F-4 and seemed to do as well as the others...


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 29, 2020)

pinsog said:


> We’ve been through this. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig. The wing folding mechanism itself was several hundred pounds. The test I sent the pics of was the original 2 F4F-3’s. Just changing from 4 50’s to 8 303’s saves 350-400 pounds. Armor? The Spitfire had a 73 pound sheet behind the pilot. The Hurricane with supposed self sealing tanks was notorious for drenching the pilot in fuel and then lighting him on fire. The F4F-3 with a 2 stage engine if employed at the BoB would have done fine. The test I sent the pic of showed an actual test of an actual F4F-3 with 4 50’s that weighed 7,300 pounds at takeoff and did 331 mph at 21,000 feet on 981 hp. Actual test. The lighter F4F with 2 30’s and 2 50’s weighed 6,260 pounds and did 331 mph at 22,000 feet on 944 hp. Either of those are 15 mph faster than a Hurricane at that altitude. The F4F can bunt and follow a 109 down in a dive without rolling which neither the Spitfire or Hurricane can do.
> 
> The F4F-4 would probably have done poorly in the BOB because it was an overweight pig. It would have been good for waiting at altitude, making a single diving pass at the bombers and just keep right on diving as it left the area. At least that’s how I would have flown it.



I quoted tested performance figures for the F4F-4 at ~7370lb. The F4F-3 with full fuel and armour weighed 7556lb


----------



## pinsog (Dec 29, 2020)

Top pic is an F4F-4 at 7,975 pounds.
Middle pic and bottom pic are FM2 at 7,418 pounds with up to 1,475 hp. So nearly 500 pounds lighter and 275 more hp would make an FM2 a bit better performer.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 29, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> I quoted tested performance figures for the F4F-4 at ~7370lb. The F4F-3 with full fuel and armour weighed 7556lb


And I’m showing a test at 7,300 pounds takeoff weight doing 331 mph at 21,000 feet. You could lose close to 400 pounds just changing from 4 50’s and 450 rounds per gun to 8 303’s and 500 rounds per gun, the same as the British fighters carried which would help on climb. I’m not sure how the F4F-3 1845 was setup that weighed 800 pounds less than F4F-3 1848. I know 1845 only had 2 50’s and 2 30’s instead of 4 50’s but that wouldn’t account for 800 pounds.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 30, 2020)

These are the empty weights of the Wildcat types:
F4F-3 - 5,238 lbs.
F4F-3A - 5,216 lbs.
F4F-4 - 5,448 lbs.
FM-2 - 5,895 lbs.

The F4F-4 had six .50 MGs where all other types had four .50 MGs.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> And I’m showing a test at 7,300 pounds takeoff weight doing 331 mph at 21,000 feet. You could lose close to 400 pounds just changing from 4 50’s and 450 rounds per gun to 8 303’s and 500 rounds per gun, the same as the British fighters carried which would help on climb. I’m not sure how the F4F-3 1845 was setup that weighed 800 pounds less than F4F-3 1848. I know 1845 only had 2 50’s and 2 30’s instead of 4 50’s but that wouldn’t account for 800 pounds.



I'm saying that the F4F-3 tests were anomalous and F4F-4 production aircraft tested at similar weights were slower and had poorer climb resulting in continual downward revision of F4F-4 performance specs. Basically, the F4F-3 in service was really about 10-12mph slower at critical altitude than the Aug 1940 F4F-3 tests and this conforms with pilot comments regarding F4F-3 and -4 performance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 30, 2020)

My God, looking at these test results shows clearly how the Japanese Navy was able to destroy the US Navy.
If only the Americans had Spitfires, they may have won the Pacific War...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> We’ve been through this. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig. The wing folding mechanism itself was several hundred pounds. The test I sent the pics of was the original 2 F4F-3’s. Just changing from 4 50’s to 8 303’s saves 350-400 pounds. Armor? The Spitfire had a 73 pound sheet behind the pilot. The Hurricane with supposed self sealing tanks was notorious for drenching the pilot in fuel and then lighting him on fire. The F4F-3 with a 2 stage engine if employed at the BoB would have done fine. The test I sent the pic of showed an actual test of an actual F4F-3 with 4 50’s that weighed 7,300 pounds at takeoff and did 331 mph at 21,000 feet on 981 hp. Actual test. The lighter F4F with 2 30’s and 2 50’s weighed 6,260 pounds and did 331 mph at 22,000 feet on 944 hp. Either of those are 15 mph faster than a Hurricane at that altitude. The F4F can bunt and follow a 109 down in a dive without rolling which neither the Spitfire or Hurricane can do.
> 
> The F4F-4 would probably have done poorly in the BOB because it was an overweight pig. It would have been good for waiting at altitude, making a single diving pass at the bombers and just keep right on diving as it left the area. At least that’s how I would have flown it.



The F4F-4 was an "overweight pig" because it had to land and take off from aircraft carriers. The F4F-3 was not fully equipped for that, and thus was not an operational aircraft.
Spitfires & Hurricanes had to be 'beefed up' for carrier use and their performance suffered.
Carrier aircraft are heavier than land based aircraft.
Unless you make the carrier aircraft out of paper, like the A6M.

Oh, and did I miss 8 x .30cal proving so effective during the Battle of Britain that every country adopted that as standard aircraft armament for the rest of the war? The difference between 4 x .50 cal and 8 x .30 cal is about 57lbs. The difference in weight of fire is 96kg/Min for the 8 x .30cal vs 146Kg/Min for the 4 x .50cal. For 57lbs you get 50% more lead on target and at a greater range. 3 x .50cal gives you more firepower for about the same weight as 8 x .30cals. If you want to really save weight, why not have the pilot open the canopy and fire his .45 Browning at the enemy?
Data source: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables
And when you add four more holes in the leading edge of that wing, your 15 mph speed advantage is gone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> The F4F-4 was an "overweight pig" because it had to land and take off from aircraft carriers. The F4F-3 was not fully equipped for that, and thus was not an operational aircraft.
> Spitfires & Hurricanes had to be 'beefed up' for carrier use and their performance suffered.
> Carrier aircraft are heavier than land based aircraft.
> Unless you make the carrier aircraft out of paper, like the A6M.
> ...


50 brownings weigh about 75 pounds each. 4 of them weigh around 300 pounds. 303 browning weigh about 23 pounds apiece, 8 of them weigh around 200 pounds. There is 100 pounds right there. 50 ammo weighs around 50 pounds per 200 rounds. 450 rpg is 1,800 total meaning 450 pounds total weight for ammo. 3006 (close enough to 303) weighs 33 pounds for 500 rounds. 33 pounds for 8 guns is 264 pounds. So you have around 300 pounds difference between 50 and 303.
The F4F-3 was fully cleared for carrier service, it flew on US carriers up until it was replaced for the Midway battle. 
If you read back through my posts on here you will see that I have always preferred the 50 to the 30. But if you compare performance of a Wildcat to a Hurricane and the Hurricane carries 300 pounds less weight in guns and ammo it tends to skew the results.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> My God, looking at these test results shows clearly how the Japanese Navy was able to destroy the US Navy.
> If only the Americans had Spitfires, they may have won the Pacific War...


The pilots that went from F4F-3 to the F4F-4 thought the -4 was an overweight pig. An 1800 feet per minute climb rate is a pathetic joke for a fighter. I’ve been studying the pacific battles for 40 years and I am well aware of what the Wildcat accomplished, but it doesn’t change its paper performance, it was too heavy for the horsepower it had.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 30, 2020)

So if 200+ pounds made the -4 an overweight pig, what shall we call the FM-2, which almost a quarter ton heavier?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> 50 brownings weigh about 75 pounds each. 4 of them weigh around 300 pounds. 303 browning weigh about 23 pounds apiece, 8 of them weigh around 200 pounds. There is 100 pounds right there. 50 ammo weighs around 50 pounds per 200 rounds. 450 rpg is 1,800 total meaning 450 pounds total weight for ammo. 3006 (close enough to 303) weighs 33 pounds for 500 rounds. 33 pounds for 8 guns is 264 pounds. So you have around 300 pounds difference between 50 and 303.
> The F4F-3 was fully cleared for carrier service, it flew on US carriers up until it was replaced for the Midway battle.
> If you read back through my posts on here you will see that I have always preferred the 50 to the 30. But if you compare performance of a Wildcat to a Hurricane and the Hurricane carries 300 pounds less weight in guns and ammo it tends to skew the results.



I have the correct values for the above. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf, gives 524lbs for the F4F armament including gun camera and pyrotechnics. The same figure for and 8 gun Hurricane is 432lbs, from, The Hurricane II manual, a total difference of 92.5 lbs. So switching out the F4F-3 too 8 x.303 , by the time you modify the wing isn't going to save you much weight, if it could be done without too much re design.

The correct maximum air speed for a rotol equipped Hurricane I is at least 324 mph. other AA&E tests tests were slightly faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

slaterat said:


> I have the correct values for the above. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf, gives 524lbs for the F4F armament including gun camera and pyrotechnics. The same figure for and 8 gun Hurricane is 432lbs, from, The Hurricane II manual, a total difference of 92.5 lbs. So switching out the F4F-3 too 8 x.303 , by the time you modify the wing isn't going to save you much weight, if it could be done without too much re design.
> 
> The correct maximum air speed for a rotol equipped Hurricane I is at least 324 mph. other AA&E tests tests were slightly faster.


That’s interesting. Surely that doesn’t include ammo on the Wildcat. 450 rpg is 1800 total rounds. 50 BMG weighs 50 pounds per 200 rounds (it would vary by bullet type, I got that figure from the P36 on wwiiaircraftperformance sight)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> So if 200+ pounds made the -4 an overweight pig, what shall we call the FM-2, which almost a quarter ton heavier?


Look at my post 537. I’m showing the FM2 to be 557 pounds lighter than an F4F-4 and the FM2 has 275 more hp at sea level
Also, I’m assuming you’ve read The First Team? At Coral Sea the US pilots reported the F4F-3 to be the equal of the Zero in speed and climb but not nearly as maneuverable. When they got the F4F-4 they were extremely concerned/disappointed. It lost a lot of performance. This is from the pilots themselves. Give me a little while and I’ll post the pics out of the First Team to back up my statements and you can read it yourself.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Look at my post 537. I’m showing the FM2 to be 557 pounds lighter than an F4F-4 and the FM2 has 275 more hp at sea level
> Also, I’m assuming you’ve read The First Team? At Coral Sea the US pilots reported the F4F-3 to be the equal of the Zero in speed and climb but not nearly as maneuverable. When they got the F4F-4 they were extremely concerned/disappointed. It lost a lot of performance. This is from the pilots themselves. Give me a little while and I’ll post the pics out of the First Team to back up my statements and you can read it yourself.


I'm assuming you missed my post at #539 that showed the empty weights of the F4F-3, F4F-3A, F4F-4 and FM-2.

These are values according to the USN and the FM-2 is *clearly heavier*.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Look at my post 537. I’m showing the FM2 to be 557 pounds lighter than an F4F-4 and the FM2 has 275 more hp at sea level
> Also, I’m assuming you’ve read The First Team? At Coral Sea the US pilots reported the F4F-3 to be the equal of the Zero in speed and climb but not nearly as maneuverable. When they got the F4F-4 they were extremely concerned/disappointed. It lost a lot of performance. This is from the pilots themselves. Give me a little while and I’ll post the pics out of the First Team to back up my statements and you can read it yourself.



We've all seen performance reports of multiple F4F-4 aircraft and even at a very similar weight they cannot match the F4F-3 report of Aug 1940. In view of that and the engine issues reported in Aug 1940, we have to take the Aug 1940 report as being questionable.

That was their first experience with the Zero. At Midway the the 22 MAG, flying F2A-3 and F4F-3s and stated:

_- (a) As evidenced by statements of pilots who flew them in
actual combat, the performance of the F2A-3 and F4F-3 types of air-
Planes is markedly inferior to that of the Japanese 00 1 Sento Kl -
Fighter in speed, maneuverability, and rate of climb. The fact that.
Marine Fighting squadron 221 gave such an excellent account of it-
self should not be allowed to becloud this fact, but is directly _.
attributable largely to an exceptionally fine organization of fight-
ing pilot personnel and apparent great vulnerability of enemy 
bombers. In view of the foregoing it is recommended that F2A-3 and 
F4F-3 type airplanes be not assigned as equipment for use in combat,
but be retained for use at training centers only. (MAG 22 CO report)_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> The pilots that went from F4F-3 to the F4F-4 thought the -4 was an overweight pig. An 1800 feet per minute climb rate is a pathetic joke for a fighter. I’ve been studying the pacific battles for 40 years and I am well aware of what the Wildcat accomplished, but it doesn’t change its paper performance, it was too heavy for the horsepower it had.



Weight with full ammo, fuel, armour and SS tanks, was 7556lb for the F4F-3 and 7975lb for the F4F-4. A 420lb difference, or less than 6%. Yes, the extra weight will degrade performance but at the same weight, as per test data, the performance should be essentially identical.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> That’s interesting. Surely that doesn’t include ammo on the Wildcat. 450 rpg is 1800 total rounds. 50 BMG weighs 50 pounds per 200 rounds (it would vary by bullet type, I got that figure from the P36 on wwiiaircraftperformance sight)



That is very interesting, is it another case of US testing of aircraft without ammo load? I have seen that before. I also noticed that the 330 mph figure and the 3,300 ft/min climb, were with a fuel load of 110 gallons, which is only 14 more than a Hurricane.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

slaterat said:


> That is very interesting, is it another case of US testing of aircraft without ammo load? I have seen that before. I also noticed that the 330 mph figure and the 3,300 ft/min climb, were with a fuel load of 110 gallons, which is only 14 more than a Hurricane.


110USG = 92IG. Full fuel on a Hurricane was 97IG or 116USG.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

From The First Team page 300







From the first team page 318. F4F-3 vs F4F-4 “it had the same engine and weighed about 800 pounds more”


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Weight with full ammo, fuel, armour and SS tanks, was 7556lb for the F4F-3 and 7975lb for the F4F-4. A 420lb difference, or less than 6%. Yes, the extra weight will degrade performance but at the same weight, as per test data, the performance should be essentially identical.


Take 2 identical BoB Hurricanes, Spitfires or ME109’s and add 420 pounds of lead directly below the pilot and then let them dogfight each other. It may not be a huge difference in a Corsair or P47 or P38 but when you have less than 1,100 hp I can assure you that 420 pounds is a lot of weight. Page 318 of The First Team says “it had the same engine and weighed 800 pounds more”. That quote is in the lower pic in the post above


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> We've all seen performance reports of multiple F4F-4 aircraft and even at a very similar weight they cannot match the F4F-3 report of Aug 1940. In view of that and the engine issues reported in Aug 1940, we have to take the Aug 1940 report as being questionable.
> 
> That was their first experience with the Zero. At Midway the the 22 MAG, flying F2A-3 and F4F-3s and stated:
> 
> ...







I wonder if the difference in perceived performance between Coral Sea and Midway was difference in training between high time Navy pilots and lower time Marine pilots? Were the Marine Wildcats worn out? Marine Wildcats not as well maintained as planes on a carrier. I don’t know, I’m asking, because we have 2 completely different reports on the same fighters vs each other.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> From The First Team page 300From the first team page 318. F4F-3 vs F4F-4 “it had the same engine and weighed about 800 pounds more”



The weights I quoted are from the USN SAC data = 7556lb and 7975lb. I don't doubt that an F4F-3 without armour, SS tanks, and maybe a partial fuel and ammo load could be pared down considerably but this is hardly a fair comparison.

Even the Aug 1941 spec for the F4F-3 states 7432lb (but these weights increased) for the overload fighter while the March 1942 production inspection of F4F-4 #4058 states 7921lb for the overload fighter and by Oct 1942 these weights had increased to 7975lb.

The Aug 1941 spec for the *F4F-3 at 7432lb* states 336mph (which, in fact seems like a typo and should probably read 326) while the March 1942 production inspection of the *F4F-4 #4508 at 7370lb* states 319mph based on flight testing.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> These are the empty weights of the Wildcat types:
> F4F-3 - 5,238 lbs.
> F4F-3A - 5,216 lbs.
> F4F-4 - 5,448 lbs.
> ...


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

5,324 pounds for an empty FM2

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2-15953.pdf


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> 50 brownings weigh about 75 pounds each. 4 of them weigh around 300 pounds. 303 browning weigh about 23 pounds apiece, 8 of them weigh around 200 pounds. There is 100 pounds right there. 50 ammo weighs around 50 pounds per 200 rounds. 450 rpg is 1,800 total meaning 450 pounds total weight for ammo. 3006 (close enough to 303) weighs 33 pounds for 500 rounds. 33 pounds for 8 guns is 264 pounds. So you have around 300 pounds difference between 50 and 303.
> The F4F-3 was fully cleared for carrier service, it flew on US carriers up until it was replaced for the Midway battle.
> If you read back through my posts on here you will see that I have always preferred the 50 to the 30. But if you compare performance of a Wildcat to a Hurricane and the Hurricane carries 300 pounds less weight in guns and ammo it tends to skew the results.




Look at the data reference I provided.

I'll do the math for you:

4 x .50cal @ 29Kg each = 116Kg x 2.2Lb/Kg =255Lbs.
8 x .30cal @ 10.4Kg each = 83.2Kg x 2.2Lb/Kg = 183Lbs.
255 - 183 = 72Lbs difference. **My bad for bad math saying it was 57 lbs diff.**
200 rounds of .50cal ammo = 50Lbs ( http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf ).
500 rounds of .30cal ammo = 33Lbs. ( Same source as above).
4 x 50Lbs = 200Lbs for 4 .50cal @ 200 rounds/gun, 240Lbs @ 240 rounds/gun.
8 x 33Lbs = 264Lbs for the .30cal @ 500 rounds/gun. Your weight advantage is pretty much gone.

As for firepower:
4 x .50cal x 850 rounds/min x 43g/round = 146,200g = 146Kg/min.
8 x .30cal x 1200 rounds/min x 10g/round = 96,000g = 96Kg/min. 
96/146 = 65.7%

Eight .30cals had just under 2/3 the firepower of four .50cals.

In addition, the effective range of the .30cal is 1500 yards; the effective range of the .50cal is 2000 yards.

Use three .50cals: weight is about 191Lbs, firepower is 109Kg/min. You increase firepower by 11% for 8lbs. 

Using 8 x .30cals would be in no way an improvement to a WWII fighter.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The weights I quoted are from the USN SAC data = 7556lb and 7975lb. I don't doubt that an F4F-3 without armour, SS tanks, and maybe a partial fuel and ammo load could be pared down considerably but this is hardly a fair comparison.
> 
> Even the Aug 1941 spec for the F4F-3 states 7432lb (but these weights increased) for the overload fighter while the March 1942 production inspection of F4F-4 #4058 states 7921lb for the overload fighter and by Oct 1942 these weights had increased to 7975lb.
> 
> The Aug 1941 spec for the *F4F-3 at 7432lb* states 336mph (which, in fact seems like a typo and should probably read 326) while the March 1942 production inspection of the *F4F-4 #4508 at 7370lb* states 319mph based on flight testing.




While the Vmax speeds show the F4F-4 as 17mph slower at a lighter weight than the F4F-3, the difference in climb rates is far more dramatic:

Time to 20K ft:

*F4F-3 at 7432lb = 8.4min*

*F4F-4 at 7370lb = 11min*

*F4F-4 at 7426lb = 12.7min* ( from the The Oct 1942 Spec for the F4F-4)


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> While the Vmax speeds show the F4F-4 as 17mph slower at a lighter weight than the F4F-3, the difference in climb rates is far more dramatic:
> 
> Time to 20K ft:
> 
> ...


I have noticed the same thing on the wwiiaircraft performance website. I hadn’t noticed the climb rate but I noticed the top speed difference. Would the folding wing have an aerodynamic drag issue with it? Seems like I read somewhere that in a dive the seam in the folding wing would spread out some. I’m really grasping at straws here. We have both provided evidence proving our own theories. I think we might want to start a thread on F4F-3 vs F4F-4 performance differences at XYZ weights. Maybe some other members have some theories

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Look at the data reference I provided.
> 
> I'll do the math for you:
> 
> ...


I understand and I agree with you on hitting power. I’ve always been a fan of the 50 IF the aircraft has the performance to carry them. Limiting ammo to only 200 rounds per gun would save 1000 rounds total which is 250 pounds. (Load out for the F4F-3 was 450 per gun) 
200 rounds would give 8-10 seconds of firing time, say 2-3 bursts. Guys that haven’t had a lot of air to air gunnery training would probably be better off with 8 303’s and a lot of ammo. Well trained pilots would likely do well with either setup.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I have noticed the same thing on the wwiiaircraft performance website. I hadn’t noticed the climb rate but I noticed the top speed difference. Would the folding wing have an aerodynamic drag issue with it? Seems like I read somewhere that in a dive the seam in the folding wing would spread out some. I’m really grasping at straws here. We have both provided evidence proving our own theories. I think we might want to start a thread on F4F-3 vs F4F-4 performance differences at XYZ weights. Maybe some other members have some theories



It's possible that there might be minor drag increases in the F4F-4, but these should have little to no effect on climb because the lower speed in a climb minimizes increases in drag. I suspect that there were instrumentation problems with the F4F-3 performance tests and some transcription errors that have been repeated over time. Consequently, F4F-3 performance has been overestimated and overstated.

The fact that USN pilots were able to fight the Zero to a draw, in the F4F-3 and -4 is a great credit to them.

Checking the references for *First Team*, I found that the stated 800lb weight difference between an F4F-3 and -4 came from a Pilot's memoirs. I suspect that at Coral Sea, pilots simply didn't note huge differences in performance between the Zero and -3, but that over time their opinions would have changed. However by the time that the USN encountered the Zero again, they had transitioned to the -4 and thus blamed the -4 for something that was always present.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I understand and I agree with you on hitting power. I’ve always been a fan of the 50 IF the aircraft has the performance to carry them. Limiting ammo to only 200 rounds per gun would save 1000 rounds total which is 250 pounds. (Load out for the F4F-3 was 450 per gun)
> 200 rounds would give 8-10 seconds of firing time, say 2-3 bursts. Guys that haven’t had a lot of air to air gunnery training would probably be better off with 8 303’s and a lot of ammo. Well trained pilots would likely do well with either setup.



Well, from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058.pdf it looks like the "Normal Fighter" compliment was 200 rounds:


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> It's possible that there might be minor drag increases in the F4F-4, but these should have little to no effect on climb because the lower speed in a climb minimizes increases in drag. I suspect that there were instrumentation problems with the F4F-3 performance tests and some transcription errors that have been repeated over time. Consequently, F4F-3 performance has been overestimated and overstated.
> 
> The fact that USN pilots were able to fight the Zero to a draw, in the F4F-3 and -4 is a great credit to them.










Here is another problem. An FM2 doing 327 mph on 1,000 hp at 19,500 feet. Virtually the same as original F4F-3 specs.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 30, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Well, from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058.pdf it looks like the "Normal Fighter" compliment was 200 rounds:
> View attachment 606808


When defending a carrier they would always have a max load out of ammo. Over England it wouldn’t be as big an issue, they can’t sink your airfield if you run out of ammo and don’t get that last bomber. Pilots complained about the firing time of the F4F-4 because it only held I think 267 rounds per gun.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 606806
> View attachment 606807
> 
> Here is another problem. An FM2 doing 327 mph on 1,000 hp at 19,500 feet. Virtually the same as original F4F-3 specs.



The FM2 was a cleaned up airframe, so not really comparable to the F4F-3/4.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 30, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> 110USG = 92IG. Full fuel on a Hurricane was 97IG or 116USG.



110 was already in imperial, 133 was the load in US gallons of F4F-4


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 30, 2020)

Vincenzo said:


> 110 was already in imperial, 133 was the load in US gallons of F4F-4



The Oct 1942 spec data for the F4F-4 states 110USG for the standard fighter (7370lb) and 144USG for the overload fighter (7972lb), differences in other weights made up the variation.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 30, 2020)

"Using 8 x .30cals would be in no way an improvement to a WWII fighter"
Besides the fact that they worked? This is 1940, and the 1940 era M2 in a wing mount was next to useless in combat. I am sure the RAF would have preferred 8 firing .303's, over jammed .50's.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 30, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Take 2 identical BoB Hurricanes, Spitfires or ME109’s and add 420 pounds of lead directly below the pilot and then let them dogfight each other.



That's not quite right, we have enough information here to fully compare the 8x .303 vs 4x .50

8x .303 for the Hurricane
guns and accessorizes 201 lbs
ammunition and boxes 204 lbs ( 8 x 330 = 2640 rounds)
pyrotechnics 21 lbs
camera 9 lbs
total 435 lbs

4x .50 F4F
guns and equipment 248.7 lbs ( does this include the ammo boxes?) plus ammo = fixed gun installation (524.5 lbs)
524.5 -248.7= 275.8 lbs of ammo, 275.8 divide by 4 guns = 69 lbs of ammo per gun, @ 50 lbs per 200 rounds =276 rpg approx

Fixed gun installation 524.5 lbs
pyrotechnics 7.9
camera 13.7
total 546.1

The difference is 111 lbs in armament not 420 lbs.

So there you have it, to achieve 330 mph the F4F-3 is loaded to 6,895 lbs which includes less than full fuel ( 110 US gal or 92 Imp) and ammo loads.

Basically a 1941 F4f-3 closely matches a 1940 Hurricane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 31, 2020)

I personally don't put much faith in any performance figures except the RAF's, they tested in squadron aircraft as they found them, usually 5 and took the average, the American's on the other hand tested one aircraft that was quite often not a production plane that had gotten some extra attention to give it a bit more speed. I don't believe for one moment that front line warbird Wildcats ever averaged 330mph, the 316-319mph is a more accurate figure, same for the Hurricane, it was rated at 340mph, brand new aircraft on a good day might hit that but otherwise it's optimistic, MkV Trop Spitfires in England were rated at 375mph, Oz Spit's with Merlin 46's maxed out at 335mph. I think is all to common for people to focus on the best figure, not the average.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 31, 2020)

slaterat said:


> That's not quite right, we have enough information here to fully compare the 8x .303 vs 4x .50
> 
> 8x .303 for the Hurricane
> guns and accessorizes 201 lbs
> ...


275 pounds isn’t a full load of ammo for an F4F-3. It carried 450 rounds per gun which is 1800 rounds total. The P36 site listed 50 ammo at 50 pounds per 200 rounds, that’s 450 pounds of ammo. You could of course load less ammo.
I’m not a fan of 30 caliber guns for fighters, but the 50 and its ammo were heavy and degraded performance until more powerful engines came along. Also, apparently, most BoB pilots couldn’t hit anything so a large amount of ammo was needed so they could spray the sky until they hit something. (I don’t think any other pilots were any better shots except for US Navy and possibly Japanese navy pilots)
I agree that the F4F-3 and the BoB Hurricane were very close in performance, the Wildcat probably faster and tougher, the Hurricane probably climbed better. F4F-3 would have done fine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 31, 2020)

I don't know where the 50lbs per hundred for .50 cal ammo comes from. Perhaps a misprint.
Most weight charts come out at about 30lbs per hundred. A substantial difference. But not that big deal in this case.
A problem with the F4F-3 in the Bob is that there weren't very many F4F-3s built in all of 1941 so the time line needs a considerable shift.
The Martlets and F4F-3a's that were built in 1940/41 had engines rated at lower altitudes.
They would have been useful but no real advantage over the Hurricane I.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 31, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know where the 50lbs per hundred for .50 cal ammo comes from. Perhaps a misprint.
> Most weight charts come out at about 30lbs per hundred. A substantial difference. But not that big deal in this case.
> A problem with the F4F-3 in the Bob is that there weren't very many F4F-3s built in all of 1941 so the time line needs a considerable shift.
> The Martlets and F4F-3a's that were built in 1940/41 had engines rated at lower altitudes.
> They would have been useful but no real advantage over the Hurricane I.







here’s where I got 50 pounds per 200 rounds for 50 bmg. This is from wwiiaircraftperformance P36. Might be wrong but it’s where I got it. I’m sure different rounds would weigh out different as well.
I know there wasn’t but a couple of F4F-3’s with the 2 stage engine at that time, but I’m going along with the spirit of the thread. How would the Wildcat have done in the BoB? The -3 would have done fine, I think the -3A with a lower altitude 2 speed engine would have struggled.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 31, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> "Using 8 x .30cals would be in no way an improvement to a WWII fighter"
> Besides the fact that they worked? This is 1940, and the 1940 era M2 in a wing mount was next to useless in combat. I am sure the RAF would have preferred 8 firing .303's, over jammed .50's.



Again, I go back to the fact that after about 1941, no new fighters were designed with that armament; all featured heavier guns.
Great Britain even redesigned the Spitfire's wing for 20mm cannon and .50cal machine guns.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 31, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Again, I go back to the fact that after about 1941, no new fighters were designed with that armament; all featured heavier guns.
> Great Britain even redesigned the Spitfire's wing for 20mm cannon and .50cal machine guns.


Yes I know. I’m very very very pro 50 bmg. But for the BoB and pilots with little gunnery training 8 303’s might be better, as well as shedding several hundred pounds


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 31, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Again, I go back to the fact that after about 1941, no new fighters were designed with that armament; all featured heavier guns.
> Great Britain even redesigned the Spitfire's wing for 20mm cannon and .50cal machine guns.



Not sure I understand the point you're making. Aircraft capabilities evolve. Typically, the next generation of aircraft have better performance, to include armament, than the preceding generation. During WW2 the generations came around very quickly, as demanded by the accelerating rate of technological advancement. The RAF had already given up on 303-only armament in 1940, it just took time to make the 20mm cannon installations reliable.

The RAF would have been in dire straits had it tried using wing-mounted 50cals in 1940. Yes, it offered greater throw weight but it didn't become reliable in wing-mounted installations until the tail-end of 1942...that's 2 years too late for the Battle of Britain.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 31, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Not sure I understand the point you're making. Aircraft capabilities evolve. Typically, the next generation of aircraft have better performance, to include armament, than the preceding generation. During WW2 the generations came around very quickly, as demanded by the accelerating rate of technological advancement. The RAF had already given up on 303-only armament in 1940, it just took time to make the 20mm cannon installations reliable.
> 
> The RAF would have been in dire straits had it tried using wing-mounted 50cals in 1940. Yes, it offered* greater throw weight* but it didn't become reliable in wing-mounted installations until the tail-end of 1942...that's 2 years too late for the Battle of Britain.



The difference in *throw weight *is not that great in 1940.

Four .50 cal guns at 600rpm = 40 bullets (48.6 grams each) per second = 1.944 kg per second.
Eight .303 guns at 1200rpm = 160 bullets (11.275 grams each) per second = 1.804 KG per second. (92.7%) 

The British had *NO *approved incendiary ammunition for the .50 cal in 1940.
.303 incendiary ammunition was in short supply. 

British used different weight (heavier) .50 cal bullets at a lower velocity in the early part of the war compared to what the Americans were *starting* to use in 1940.

Adjust rpm of the guns as you see fit but the .50, while better, is only better by single digit percentages. 
Adjust for different bullet weights but the weights given are for .50 cal Ball MK Iz and .303 AP Mark VIIW. The .50 cal ball used an unhardened steel core. 

A single .50 cal weighs over double what the .303 Browning does. and .50 cal ammo weighs about 5 times as much as .303 ammo does for the same amount of ammo.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 31, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I know there wasn’t but a couple of F4F-3’s with the 2 stage engine at that time, but I’m going along with the spirit of the thread. How would the Wildcat have done in the BoB? The -3 would have done fine, I think the -3A with a lower altitude 2 speed engine would have struggled.



They would be welcome to handle the few Zeros the Luftwaffe had in time for the BoB!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 31, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Again, I go back to the fact that after about 1941, no new fighters were designed with that armament; all featured heavier guns.
> Great Britain even redesigned the Spitfire's wing for 20mm cannon and .50cal machine guns.



1941 is very different to 1939 and those 1941 guns still needed years of development, the .303's lacked the punch of the bigger rounds but the guns and ammunition were a proven reliable system.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 31, 2020)

pinsog said:


> Also, apparently, most BoB pilots couldn’t hit anything so a large amount of ammo was needed so they could spray the sky until they hit something. (I don’t think any other pilots were any better shots except for US Navy and possibly Japanese navy pilots)



There is nothing apparent about it, the average BoB pilot on both sides couldn't hit the preverbal broad side of a barn even if they were standing inside it, having .50's with no tracer or De Wilde flash ammunition or AP that worked or guns themselves that worked is not going to improve that situation.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 31, 2020)

wuzak said:


> They would be welcome to handle the few Zeros the Luftwaffe had in time for the BoB!



Don't laugh, the RAAF wanted to buy A5M planes before WW2 to use as interim aircraft until British and American models became available.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 31, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> Don't laugh, the RAAF wanted to buy A5M planes before WW2 to use as interim aircraft until British and American models became available.


Put an inline engine like in the HS-powered A5M3 and the RAAN might have a good fighter.

Mitsubishi A5M3: a carrier-based Hisso-powered "Claude"


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 31, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> There is nothing apparent about it, the average BoB pilot on both sides couldn't hit the preverbal broad side of a barn even if they were standing inside it, having .50's with _no tracer or De Wilde flash ammunition or AP that worked_ or guns themselves that worked is not going to improve that situation.




There was AP ammunition. Perhaps not as good as later ammunition but it was tested (or rated) to penetrate 1/2 in (12.7mm) at 1000 yds. 
*"Cartridge S.A. Armour Piercing .50 inch Browning W Mark Iz"* 

There was tracer.
*Cartridge S.S. Tracer .50 inch Browning G Mark Iz* 
It had a red trace that lasted to to 2000yds. 

All of this ammunition was american pattern and supplied either from the US government though a shell company or by Remington under direct contract to the British. 

There was also an incendiary round. 
*Cartridge S.A. Incendiary .50 inch Browning B Mark Iz* however this may not have shown up until 1941 and in very small numbers. No examples seem to have survived for collectors. 
This was, unlike the others, a British designed and loaded round. There was an earlier American sourced incendiary but the British did not consider it bore safe (possible to ignite in the gun barrel) and was little used. 

basically any American aircraft showing up in 1940 with .50 cal guns had ball, AP and tracer available. Just not the Ball, AP anda tracer used by the Americans or in some cases the British in later years. 

SOurce British Military Small Arms Ammo


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 31, 2020)

The .50 cal tracer was not daytime tracer and could not be clearly seen in broad daylight, the incendiary didn't work and the American's reversed engineered the De Wilde .303 round to get something that was usable, the AP was tail heavy and tumble as soon as it struck anything, when hitting on oblique angles such as aircraft rear fuselages it tumble immediately. In 1940 aircraft mounted 50BMG's and it's specialised ammunition didn't work, period.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 1, 2021)

The Mk.I Tracer (Remington M1 Tracer) was available which was a long-range day tracer. Although a 2,000 yard length of trace was specified, in practice it wasn't uniform and varied between 1,600 and 2,000 yards.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jan 1, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Not sure I understand the point you're making. Aircraft capabilities evolve. Typically, the next generation of aircraft have better performance, to include armament, than the preceding generation. During WW2 the generations came around very quickly, as demanded by the accelerating rate of technological advancement. The RAF had already given up on 303-only armament in 1940, it just took time to make the 20mm cannon installations reliable.
> 
> The RAF would have been in dire straits had it tried using wing-mounted 50cals in 1940. Yes, it offered greater throw weight but it didn't become reliable in wing-mounted installations until the tail-end of 1942...that's 2 years too late for the Battle of Britain.



The idea of using 8 x .30cal that I objected to was using them in the F4F in place of the 4 x .50cal that were there.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jan 1, 2021)

.


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2021)

Yet despite all this the UK believed that the 4 x 0.5 in 1940/1 was a considerable improvement on the 8 x 303.

The French asked for their Wildcat order to be converted to 6 x LMG but the British didn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jan 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> Yet despite all this the UK believed that the 4 x 0.5 in 1940/1 was a considerable improvement on the 8 x 303.
> 
> The French asked for their Wildcat order to be converted to 6 x LMG but the British didn't.



Fighter Gun Table


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> Yet despite all this the UK believed that the 4 x 0.5 in 1940/1 was a considerable improvement on the 8 x 303.
> 
> The French asked for their Wildcat order to be converted to 6 x LMG but the British didn't.



Well, the only Martlets in British service in 1940 were the 81 ex-French machines plus another 10 ex-Belgian contract machines that were taken over by Britain. The French machines had been modified to use 6 x 7.5mm machine guns that were to be fitted in France. After taking over the order, the Brits reinstated the 50 cal armament. It's likely that conversion work was done in the UK by Blackburn's (typically, aircraft delivered from the US were bought without armament, which was fitted in-country). 

Perhaps, in the conversion process in the UK, Blackburn was able to come up with a wing gun installation that worked? Regardless, we're still talking about less than 100 aircraft...so suggesting that it's a "considerable improvement" is perhaps stretching things a little in the 1940 timeframe?


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Well, the only Martlets in British service in 1940 were the 81 ex-French machines plus another 10 ex-Belgian contract machines that were taken over by Britain. The French machines had been modified to use 6 x 7.5mm machine guns that were to be fitted in France. After taking over the order, the Brits reinstated the 50 cal armament. It's likely that conversion work was done in the UK by Blackburn's (typically, aircraft delivered from the US were bought without armament, which was fitted in-country).
> 
> Perhaps, in the conversion process in the UK, Blackburn was able to come up with a wing gun installation that worked? Regardless, we're still talking about less than 100 aircraft...so suggesting that it's a "considerable improvement" is perhaps stretching things a little in the 1940 timeframe?



To be honest, no I don't think it's a stretch. I once spent a day in the NA concentrating on the Wildcat because at the time there was a lot of talk about the UK wanting to increase the firepower to six x 0.5. I found a lot of positive comments about the 4 x 0.5 although there were some negative comments about the installation of the 6 x 0.5. The only comments I found about the comparison with the standard 8 x 303 was that the 4 x 0.5 was along the lines that it was a positive improvement.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> To be honest, no I don't think it's a stretch. I once spent a day in the NA concentrating on the Wildcat because at the time there was a lot of talk about the UK wanting to increase the firepower to six x 0.5. I found a lot of positive comments about the 4 x 0.5 although there were some negative comments about the installation of the 6 x 0.5. The only comments I found about the comparison with the standard 8 x 303 was that the 4 x 0.5 was along the lines that it was a positive improvement.



You may be right...but that all depends on those 4 x 50cals working under combat conditions. Per Lundstrom, the USN didn't get them working properly in Wildcats until the back end of 1942. How many actual engagements did the FAA's Martlets participate in during 1940? And how many were manoeuvering engagements?


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You may be right...but that all depends on those 4 x 50cals working under combat conditions. Per Lundstrom, the USN didn't get them working properly in Wildcats until the back end of 1942. How many actual engagements did the FAA's Martlets participate in during 1940? And how many were manoeuvering engagements?


Clearly I don't know but, I do know they really didn't like the installation of the 6 x 0.5 in the Wildcat. If I remember correctly the guns would often rust and rearming took a heck of a lot of time. I will try and dig out some of my notes over the weekend.


----------



## slaterat (Jan 2, 2021)

I have always been of the opinion that the RAF much preferred a larger number of mgs. They believed that the larger number of .303s would do more damage to the airframe. Prewar testing also showed that engines were very vulnerable to even a few strikes. The much larger number of projectiles leads to a greater probability of being on target and getting a critical hit. A small study of downed aircraft early in the war showed that most were downed by hits that were fatal to the engine.


----------



## slaterat (Jan 2, 2021)

Here is a scan of the tactical notes for a Hurricat attacking a more heavily armed and armoured FW Condor. Basically assassinate the pilot.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 13, 2021)

<Edited, overtaken by conversation>


----------

