# How did the Martlets rate against the European aircraft?



## VBF-13 (Oct 11, 2012)

This question has always been left vague with me but as long as it seems I'm now in the right place for some answers I thought I'd ask it. I know the F4F-3s were under contract with Great Britain and France in 1939 but I don't believe any were delivered there until after the invasion of France. I know they performed reasonably-well at sea off the smaller British carriers patrolling the shipping lanes and what-not in the Atlantic and North Atlantic. I know they're credited with the first air victory of the F4F-3s when two of them tangled with a Junkers Ju 88. I'd like to know principally how they did off land bases against the German aircraft and to what degree they were used off land in that theater of operations.


----------



## herman1rg (Oct 11, 2012)

Terry (Airframes) would be the expert on this question.


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2012)

Compared to most European fighter aircraft produced during the same time frame the F4F / Martlet was rather slow. How could it be otherwise? F4F loaded weight was similiar to the Me-109G but it had a less powerful engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 11, 2012)

F4F was, for the engine power, a big airplane. The wing area was some 50% greater than of the European fighters (109, D.520, Yak-1), even the Spitfire had smaller wing (and thinner, too). The radial engine was further worsening the drag. Out of the European competition, the Bf-109 Spitfire should perform better, while the Yak-1 should be fractionally better under 15000 ft, and about equal above that. Hurricane II - a tad better at all altitudes, unless the 4 cannons are on board? The D.520 equaling under 15000 ft, the F4F being better above 18000 ft. The F4F should come ahead of the Italian competition, until the MC.202 arrives. 
F4F-3 *should* fare better than F4F-4, due to lower weight.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 11, 2012)

AFAIK, the RAF and FAA never received any F4F-3 versions of the Wildcat. Initial Martlet deliveries through the first few marks were endowed with P&W or Wright engines with single-stage, 2 speed superchargers. Essentially poorer performers (at altitude) than their USN F4F-3 4 counterparts . Later marks like the Mk IV also used a Wright 1820 engine and not the P W. [/I] If Wiki is correct, I believe the Mk V was simply a FM-1, all of which I believe had the original P W 1830-86 engine with a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger. I wonder whether that means two speeds with each stage of compression or just one speed for each stage? I assume it's the latter.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2012)

The 2 stage system for teh R-1830 was, IIRC, a fixed speed main stage and a 2 speed auxiliary stage. Actually, it may be considered a 3 speed drive, since there was neutral, low gear and high gear.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 12, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> AFAIK, the RAF and FAA never received any F4F-3 versions of the Wildcat. Initial Martlet deliveries through the first few marks were endowed with P&W or Wright engines with single-stage, 2 speed superchargers. Essentially poorer performers (at altitude) than their USN F4F-3 4 counterparts.


Just on this point, I never knew that, thanks. I know the F4F-3s came out of production in June, 1939, at which point Grumman was contracted with all three nations, but that was about it.

At any rate, I'm kind of getting the idea, now, that the Martlets' deployment from land bases was so limited as to have not enabled that aircraft to have racked-up very meaningful combat performance statistics against the German aircraft over land. If that's pretty much the case, I guess it makes sense. The RAF wasn't hurting in good fighter aircraft. Grumman aircraft was carrier-oriented, which was just where the bulk of their aircraft ended up.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 12, 2012)

Whilst operating together from HMS Indomitable, 10 Martlets claimed only four kills, while about 24 Sea Hurricanes claimed 24 kills. I suspect that the Martlet/F4F simply didn't have the performance needed to compete against the Luftwaffe.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 12, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Whilst operating together from HMS Indomitable, 10 Martlets claimed only four kills, while about 24 Sea Hurricanes claimed 24 kills. I suspect that the Martlet/F4F simply didn't have the performance needed to compete against the Luftwaffe.


I'm not doubting your facts but I'll caution that's a pretty sweeping conclusion to draw based alone on those facts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Whilst operating together from HMS Indomitable, 10 Martlets claimed only four kills, while about 24 Sea Hurricanes claimed 24 kills. I suspect that the Martlet/F4F simply didn't have the performance needed to compete against the Luftwaffe.





VBF-13 said:


> I'm not doubting your facts but I'll caution that's a pretty sweeping conclusion to draw based alone on those facts.



Agree - while I'll put the Sea Hurricane as the better performer of the two, basing their over all performance on kills alone is kind of silly. One would have to look on how, when and where both aircraft were deployed to really make that assertion IMO.


----------



## renrich (Oct 12, 2012)

According to Eric Brown, RN, the Martlet was at least as good as the Sea Hurricane as a shipbord fighter and probably superior.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 12, 2012)

renrich said:


> According to Eric Brown, RN, the Martlet was at least as good as the Sea Hurricane as a shipbord fighter and probably superior.


 
Brown admitted, that in mock combat with a Sea Hurricane, that the Hurricane could usually get in more gun camera shots than a Martlet, but the problem is that the original unarmoured , fixed wing Martlets were much lighter than the later variants.

However, look at the performance figures for the folding wing Martlet IIs used by 806 squadron on Indomitable:

Max speed = 292 mph at 6000ft, 300mph at 14000ft and 8min to 15000ft. AUW = 7740lb. These numbers just don't cut the mustard in mid 1942. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-II-ads.jpg

While RAE testing shows considerably poorer performance.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 13, 2012)

Just to reiterate the point, the early Martlet marks were neither F4F-3 or F4F-4s. They were poorer performers in general although Lundstrom has told me that (based on his interviews) USN Pilots felt the Grumman F4F-4 performance figures were inflated and rarely achieved in operational settings. I expect that whatever the reality of the F4F-4 performance at lower altitudes, its high altitude performance made it a formidable interceptor. It's ceiling and climb rate were _roughly_ comparable to the Merlin powered P-40F. Data from USN and USAAF pubs AHT. P-40D weight at 8,100 lbs (is heavy), P-40E at 8,700 lbs The P-40 values are somewhat heavier than a likely interceptor configuration which I would expect to be about 8,000 lbs for the P-40D and 8,400 lbs for the P-40E.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 13, 2012)

Couldn't figure out how to exchange graphs for the one that includes the P-40F (doing this on the fly) Should have added labels sorry! X-axis (horizontal) is time in minutes and Y-axis (vertical) is altitude in feet. I think there is at least one error in these plots with respect to the F4F-4 and P-40E. I am attempting to make a correction. There, I believe its a bit more accurate. 

Would be interesting to hear Rich Leonard's take on land-based F4F-4 performance in combat. As I understand, in the PTO land-based F4F-4s did quite well against IJN aircraft and in the MTO land based Martlett IIIs (P&W 1830 with the one stage supercharger) equivalent to the F4F-3A also did well. It is my assumption that Martlet IIIs were armored, but perhaps not so much as the Martlet II or later marks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 13, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Would be interesting to hear Rich Leonard's take on land-based F4F-4 performance in combat. As I understand, in the PTO land-based F4F-4s did quite well against IJN aircraft and in the MTO land based Martlett IIIs (P&W 1830 with the one stage supercharger) equivalent to the F4F-3A also did well. It is my assumption that Martlet IIIs were armored, but perhaps not so much as the Martlet II or later marks.


Yeah, that's what I'd like to know, as that's where I'd think they'd be the most likely to have encountered the German air power, i.e., from over land. At sea, it wasn't until the convoys and fleets got close to their destinations, i.e., the continents, that that possibility even existed, much less had a chance to materialize, if it even did.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 13, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Brown admitted, that in mock combat with a Sea Hurricane, that the Hurricane could usually get in more gun camera shots than a Martlet, but the problem is that the original unarmoured , fixed wing Martlets were much lighter than the later variants.


But it's your earlier conclusion based on those tallies represented that's somewhat misleading. And, let's acknowledge a few things. These planes don't fly themselves, for one. And, for two, combat conditions are a lot more demanding than trial conditions. Case in point, if the Navy had concluded on the trials before having given the go ahead on the F6F, we'd have ended up with Army Air Force planes on those carriers. 

Probably the biggest factor to consider, though, is the difference between these two wars. The Pacific war was an air war, a carrier war. I don't recall any big German carrier fleets in the Atlantic. The Atlantic war was about spotting and bombing gun boats and primarily submarines. A submarine, of course, is blind in the water; it has to ascend to periscope depth just to see what's going on, much less to get a shot off. That's how our planes got them. Simply put, that war wasn't the air war the Pacific war was. The volume in terms of air encounters simply wasn't there in that war.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 13, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Just to reiterate the point, the early Martlet marks were neither F4F-3 or F4F-4s. They were poorer performers in general although Lundstrom has told me that (based on his interviews) USN Pilots felt the Grumman F4F-4 performance figures were inflated and rarely achieved in operational settings. I expect that whatever the reality of the F4F-4 performance at lower altitudes, its high altitude performance made it a formidable interceptor. It's ceiling and climb rate were _roughly_ comparable to the Merlin powered P-40F. Data from USN and USAAF pubs AHT. P-40D weight at 8,100 lbs (is heavy), P-40E at 8,700 lbs The P-40 values are somewhat heavier than a likely interceptor configuration which I would expect to be about 8,000 lbs for the P-40D and 8,400 lbs for the P-40E.



There's a couple of points to consider. The first is that the P-40 was also badly outperformed by comparable Luftwaffe aircraft, but also that the Merlin/Allison engined fighters could use their combat ratings to appreciably increase their climb rates where the F4F was already at it's maximum, military rating. I have rather crudely inserted the time to climb figures for the Hurricane/Hurricane IIC, both at ~6.5lb boost. 12lb boost would reduce time to climb by 40-50%:


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 13, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> But it's your earlier conclusion based on those tallies represented that's somewhat misleading. And, let's acknowledge a few things. These planes don't fly themselves, for one. And, for two, combat conditions are a lot more demanding than trial conditions. Case in point, if the Navy had concluded on the trials before having given the go ahead on the F6F, we'd have ended up with Army Air Force planes on those carriers.
> 
> Probably the biggest factor to consider, though, is the difference between these two wars. The Pacific war was an air war, a carrier war. I don't recall any big German carrier fleets in the Atlantic. The Atlantic war was about spotting and bombing gun boats and primarily submarines. A submarine, of course, is blind in the water; it has to ascend to periscope depth just to see what's going on, much less to get a shot off. That's how our planes got them. Simply put, that war wasn't the air war the Pacific war was. The volume in terms of air encounters simply wasn't there in that war.



RN CVs fought extended battles with Axis "unsinkable" aircraft carriers in both the Med and Atlantic oceans.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 13, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> RN CVs fought extended battles with Axis "unsinkable" aircraft carriers in both the Med and Atlantic oceans.


That's very interesting. Maybe that's where I need to look into, then, as the Martlets had to engage. I didn't know that.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 13, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> That's very interesting. Maybe that's where I need to look into, then, as the Martlets had to engage. I didn't know that.



Here's the results on one such battle, on May 08 1941:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fulmars-finest-hour-33978.html

Operation Pedestal and Operation Torch were the only large scale operations where RN CV used the Martlet, although some were used against Madagascar and during the Italian landings.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 13, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> There's a couple of points to consider. The first is that the P-40 was also badly outperformed by comparable Luftwaffe aircraft, but also that the Merlin/Allison engined fighters could use their combat ratings to appreciably increase their climb rates where the F4F was already at it's maximum, military rating. I have rather crudely inserted the time to climb figures for the Hurricane/Hurricane IIC, both at ~6.5lb boost. 12lb boost would reduce time to climb by 40-50%:
> View attachment 213235



Yep pretty much what I thought the Hurricane would do (a case for reverse lend lease: USAAF Hurricanes and Spitfires in the PTO?). Thanks for the add on. I concur with you statement on the Merlin, but it's been my impression was the P-40 with the Allison -39's were pretty much maxed out at about 27-28,000 feet in practice. That there was nothing available to the pilot of an Allison 1730-39 above the "Military Power" setting. Is that incorrect? It was also my impression that the P-40B or E were at least competitive with the Emil at medium altitude. I think I '_heard_' that here at least once; no?


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 13, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Yep pretty much what I thought the Hurricane would do (a case for reverse lend lease: USAAF Hurricanes and Spitfires in the PTO?). Thanks for the add on. I concur with you statement on the Merlin, but it's been my impression was the P-40 with the Allison -39's were pretty much maxed out at about 27-28,000 feet in practice. That there was nothing available to the pilot of an Allison 1730-39 above the "Military Power" setting. Is that incorrect? It was also my impression that the P-40B or E were at least competitive with the Emil at medium altitude. I think I '_heard_' that here at least once; no?


 
Theoretically, the Canadian built Sea Hurricane II would have been a useful stopgap between the F4F-4 and F6F-3. Hurricanes might have had some advantages over the P-39/40 at higher altitudes, say at Guadalcanal, as would UK built spitfires.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 14, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Theoretically, the Canadian built Sea Hurricane II would have been a useful stopgap between the F4F-4 and F6F-3. Hurricanes might have had some advantages over the P-39/40 at higher altitudes, say at Guadalcanal, as would UK built spitfires.



Yes, I agree. Either type probably would been as important in the PTO as were the reverse-lend-lease Spitfires were to the USAAF in the ETO. At least from land bases. I prefer the somewhat longer internal fuel endurance of the F4F-4 for the USN, but then I also must admit a bias on that account. What I really would have preferred as an interim gap filler _*between the F4F-3 and F6F *_was a 4 gun F4F-4, with 250-300 rounds per gun. It should have been roughly comparable to either the P-40F and the Hurricane Mk I in terms of climb and ceiling. Speed would probably have been about 320+ mph at optimum altitude. You don't happen to have a Sea Hurricane's time to climb performance do you? 

Interesting thread here:

FAA aircraft comparative performance - Naval History Forums

about exchanging FAA aircraft for USN at Midway. Please, I am merely presenting not endorsing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 14, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> .... but it's been my impression was the P-40 with the Allison -39's were pretty much maxed out at about 27-28,000 feet in practice. That there was nothing available to the pilot of an Allison 1730-39 above the "Military Power" setting. Is that incorrect? It was also my impression that the P-40B or E were at least competitive with the Emil at medium altitude. I think I '_heard_' that here at least once; no?



The as nothing _officially_ available to the pilot of the V-1710-39 above the Military Power level. Many squadrons used higher than "book" settings. However this only worked _BELOW_ the critical (full throttle) height. Above the FTH there was nothing a pilot or mechanic could do. The closer to sea level the P-40 flew the more boost could be had _IF_ the pilot wanted (dared) to use it.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 14, 2012)

Ahhhh! Thanks SR, and just for clarification, the graphs above were time-to-climb values at military power.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 14, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> RN CVs fought extended battles with Axis "unsinkable" aircraft carriers in both the Med and Atlantic oceans.



Don't forget the Tungston Norwegian operation! among other fighter types, lots of Martlet/Wildcats in that op. too.


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2012)

Four wing mounted .50cal MGs is not a lot of firepower when shooting at aircraft with decent armor protection.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 14, 2012)

davebender said:


> Four wing mounted .50cal MGs is not a lot of firepower when shooting at aircraft with decent armor protection.



"_...interim gap filler between the F4F-3 and F6F was a 4 gun F4F-4._" I would submit that PTO is implicit in the previous statement as there were not a lot of F4F-3s fighting in Europe but the 4-gun FM-1 -2 Martlet/Wildcat appear to have been acceptable to our cousins across the pond unless they had Eastern A/C build a FAA specific variant with 6 gun installation for which I have no prior knowledge, although as has been pointed out, these latter were not tasked with exactly the same mission. I would certainly specify that preference for the USN in PTO. 

Of course, the thread is entitled:

"How did the Martlets rate against the *European aircraft*?"

so your point must be considered: the F4F-3s were NOT Martlets and follow on comments were certainly a digression.


----------



## stug3 (Oct 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> Four wing mounted .50cal MGs is not a lot of firepower when shooting at aircraft with decent armor protection.



Then why was the P-51B so successful?

Ive read that Navy pilots preferred the 4 gun Wildcat because it carried more total ammo than the F4F-4 which had 6.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> Four wing mounted .50cal MGs is not a lot of firepower when shooting at aircraft with decent armor protection.



Hogwash - 4 .50 cal could do a lot providing you hit your target. 

"A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will definitely miss with six." -John "Jimmy" Thach


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 15, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hogwash - 4 .50 cal could do a lot providing you hit your target.
> 
> "A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will definitely miss with six." -John "Jimmy" Thach


Aw, what does he know, he just flew them in combat. I'll bet he never even heard of Wikipedia.


----------



## davebender (Oct 15, 2012)

Two decent quality 20mm cannon will do a lot more provided you hit the target.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 15, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> What I really would have preferred as an interim gap filler _*between the F4F-3 and F6F *_was a 4 gun F4F-4, with 250-300 rounds per gun. It should have been roughly comparable to either the P-40F and the Hurricane Mk I in terms of climb and ceiling. Speed would probably have been about 320+ mph at optimum altitude. You don't happen to have a Sea Hurricane's time to climb performance do you?



The Sea Hurricane IB should have similar performance to the Hurricane IB trop, since they weigh about the same. Brown in Wings of the Navy states a time to climb of 9.1 minutes to 22,000ft, for the Sea Hurricane IIC.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> Two decent quality 20mm cannon will do a lot more provided you hit the target.


Catch them where those .50s converge and you tear them apart.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 15, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> The Sea Hurricane IB should have similar performance to the Hurricane IB trop, since they weigh about the same. Brown in Wings of the Navy states a time to climb of 9.1 minutes to 22,000ft, for the Sea Hurricane IIC.



Should have looked in my own copy of Brown! Doing so, Brown makes an interesting comment regarding the Wildcat compared to the Hurricane IB: "Its [Wildcat, presumably Martlet II or F4F-4/Wildcat 5?] initial climb rate was better than that of the Hurricane IB."

Looking at:

Hawker Sea Hurricane Mk IB

This site indicates that the Hurricane Mk IB had a gross wt about 500 lbs lighter than the F4F-4 (with gross weight of the Hurricane Mk 1B about the same as that of a Martlet II), but with the RR-Merlin III providing some 170 Hp less at sea level. I don't have a performance curve for the Merlin III, but with their similar wing areas and similar weight, I would expect any performance difference between the IB and martlet II to be marginal until higher altitudes (>15,000 ft) where the Merlin may be more in its element. The above listed site provides a time to climb for the HIB to 20,000 ft of 11 minutes. That suggests to me an overall (including high altitude) performance similar or just a bit less sharp than the F4F-3. it also lists a speed of 317 mph at 15,000 ft. In the same general regime of the F4F-3A /martlet III of 312 mph at 16K' ( assuming Grumman's numbers are accurate) or the F4F-4, ~318 at ~18,000.

Interesting history on the above site quote:

"_The Mk IB entered service in October 1941, operating from converted merchant ships - the MAC-ships. These ships had a small through-flight deck, and could carry a small number of fighters and anti-submarine aircraft - often the Sea Hurricane and Fairey Swordfish.

The first Arctic convoy to be accompanied by an escort carrier was PQ18, the first convoy after the disastrous PQ17. PQ18 was escorted by the US-built escort carrier HMS Avenger, which carried three Swordfish from 825 Squadron and twelve Sea Hurricanes from 802 and 883 Squadrons - six assembled on deck and six dismantled and stored below deck as replacements. The convoy also included the CAM-ship Empire Morn and her Sea Hurricane Mk IA, a cruiser, two destroyers, two anti-aircraft vessels, four corvettes, two anti-submarine trawlers, three minesweepers and two submarines. On the outwards journey the Sea Hurricanes shot down five enemy aircraft and damaged seventeen, in return for four losses. These were replaced with five aircraft from below decks, before the carrier transferred to the home-bound convoy QP14, which contained the survivors from PQ17.

The Sea Hurricane Mk IB and Mk IC played an important role in the defence of the August 1942 Malta convoy (Operational Pedestal). The convoy was escorted by four aircraft carriers with Indomitable (800 Squadron), Eagle (801 Squadron) and Victorious (885 Squadron) carrying 43 Sea Hurricanes between them. There were also sixteen Fairey Fulmars and nine Grumman Mantlets. The convoy began badly with the loss of HMS Eagle, along with sixteen of her Hurricanes - the only four to escape were on Combat Air Patrol (CAP) duty over the convoy. Between 10-15 August the convoy came under attack by up to 500 German and Italian aircraft. 39 enemy aircraft were claimed shot down at a cost of eight naval fighters lost. Only five of the convoy's fourteen merchant ships reached Malta, but the supplies they carried played a crucial role in allowing the island to withstand the Axis siege. The fighting around the Pedestal convoy did demonstrate one increasing problem for the Sea Hurricane - although it had been a high performance fighter when introduced, it was already being outpaced by the Junkers Ju 88, and the Fleet Air Arm would soon need a faster interceptor._"


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 15, 2012)

On paper, the Sea Hurricane is a little better performer than the F4F-4 and about as good as the F4F-3. However, speed/climb stats don't really tell you much about about how good a fighter it was, just the relative performance levels. The Wildcat dove better and handled better at high speeds.

Canadian pilots certainly considered their locally made Hurricane IIBs better than the USN's F4F-4s, and even engaged their USN counterparts in some friendly dogfights, where the Hurris typically ended up glued to the rear ends of the Wildcats.

In contrast, Eric Brown stated the Wildcat - no mention of sub-type - was "faster and more maneuverable than the Sea Hurricane". Possibly the weight gain in the conversion of the Sea Hurri sapped some of the performance. Mr Brown was something of a fan of the Wildcat, summing it up as "A potent fighter with splendid manoueverability, good performance, heavy firepower and excellent range and endurance". He also admits an emotional fondness for the Wildcat.

Certainly, in the wash of things, the F4F had a better combat record (at least in US hands) than the Hurricane did. The F4F usually just about broke even against its fighter opposition, and the FM-2 had a sterling record. On the other hand, the Hurricane rarely had a favourable kill-loss ratio, and was considered a lovely aircraft but a bit of an underperformer.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will definitely miss with six." -John "Jimmy" Thach



Thach was an aviator for about 10 years when the US got into WW II and had been a gunnery instructor. While his argument has some validity he is also speaking from a level of expertise that many pilots never archived. 

Few aircraft (even 4 engine bombers) can withstand a _GOOD, WELL AIMED_ burst of .50 cal fire. The problem most pilots had was keeping the guns on target _LONG_ enough. Four .50s are good for about 54 bullets per second. _IF_ the pilot can catch the enemy aircraft in the "sweet spot" of convergence and _* keep it there*_ for a full second 54 bullets in a 3-4ft square area are going to do a lot of damage. Six .50s will deliver the same number of bullets in 0.66 seconds giving the slightly less skillful pilot a better chance of delivering a killing blow. A poor pilot is going to miss almost no matter what. 
Many pilots fired from way too long a range. Many pilots fired bursts that lasted way too long, they depended on the target flying though their stream of bullets at some point as they hosed the area of sky the target was in. A 300mph airplane is moving 440 feet per second so keeping the guns on target for a full second ( let alone 2 or 3) is not as easy as it might seem.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 15, 2012)

What would be good was if anyone had the AFDU and RAE trials of the Martlet and Sea Hurricane. I've done a little googling but come up dry.

The only trials of FAA aircraft I've been able to find are the Brewster Buffalo vs Hurricane I and Spitfire I comparative trials, which shows the the Buffalo was superior to either British aircraft in terms of aileron/elevator control, marginally faster than the Hurricane below 15,000 ft and easily able to out-turn either British type.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 15, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Should have looked in my own copy of Brown! Doing so, Brown makes an interesting comment regarding the Wildcat compared to the Hurricane IB: "Its [Wildcat, presumably Martlet II or F4F-4/Wildcat 5?] initial climb rate was better than that of the Hurricane IB."
> 
> Looking at:
> 
> ...



Getting weight and performance stats on the Sea Hurricane is tough because the Sea Hurricane IB is somewhat ill defined. If we define it as a late model Hurricane I with 8 x .303mgs and converted for carrier operations with catapult spools and arrester hook, then the gross weight comes to about 6800lbs, according to both Birtles. Mason gives a complete weight breakdown for the IIC/Sea Hurricane IIC as 7544/7618lb. Birtles states the loaded weight of a IB as 6800lb, which seems about right given that the airframe weight of a SH IIC is only 47lb more than a standard IIC. Performance stats for the Sea Hurricane IB bounce around considerably as well. But logically they should be similar to a land based Hurricane with the same weight. Performance for some SHs might be somewhat less because testing was done on a tired airframe or because the combat rating or even 5min 3000rpm rating was not used.

Engine output of the Merlin III was 1030hp at 6.25lb boost/3000rpm and 1310hp for 12lb/3000rpm and 1440hp for 16lb/3000rpm as used in the Sea Hurricane IC, which was a IB with the 4 20mm cannon wing.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 16, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Yep pretty much what I thought the Hurricane would do (a case for reverse lend lease: USAAF Hurricanes and Spitfires in the PTO?). Thanks for the add on. I concur with you statement on the Merlin, but it's been my impression was the P-40 with the Allison -39's were pretty much maxed out at about 27-28,000 feet in practice. That there was nothing available to the pilot of an Allison 1730-39 above the "Military Power" setting. Is that incorrect? It was also my impression that the P-40B or E were at least competitive with the Emil at medium altitude. I think I '_heard_' that here at least once; no?



Well, at least in this trial, they tried to fly a P-39D at 70 inches of manifold pressure against a tame Zero:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf (page 7) but had to back it down to 52 inches! On page 8 they state that the P-40 trials could not be completed because of engine problems...I'll bet they blew it up trying to pull too much boost!


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 16, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> On paper, the Sea Hurricane is a little better performer than the F4F-4 and about as good as the F4F-3. However, speed/climb stats don't really tell you much about about how good a fighter it was, just the relative performance levels. The Wildcat dove better and handled better at high speeds.
> 
> Canadian pilots certainly considered their locally made Hurricane IIBs better than the USN's F4F-4s, and even engaged their USN counterparts in some friendly dogfights, where the Hurris typically ended up glued to the rear ends of the Wildcats.
> 
> ...


 
Yep, Brown certainly had a soft spot for the Martlet, unsurprising perhaps as he scored his only two kills in the type (Fw200 Condors). Still, in describing the Wildcat generally as the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war years, he's open to the charge of hyperbole. For all the F4Fs ruggedness and the courage of its pilots, I think an assertion that it was superior to the A6M2 might be pushing it a bit far. 
Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! Good on Zeros, average on 109s, badly inadequate on heavy bombers (bear in mind that the Fw200 was pretty lightly built, and Brown knocked down his two by targetting the cockpit). In terms of firepower for weight a couple of 20mm cannon would have been much better, but the fifties still made sense for logistical and ammo load reasons


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Still, in describing the Wildcat generally as the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war years, he's open to the charge of hyperbole. For all the F4Fs ruggedness and the courage of its pilots, I think an assertion that it was superior to the A6M2 might be pushing it a bit far.


 It may depend on _which_ Wildcat/Martlet you are talking about and _which_ Zero. The A6M3 being introduced in the Spring of 1942 so a lot of the summer/fall 1942 fighting was between A6M3s and F4F-4s. It also depends on which attributes you prize more. The folding wing F4F-4 did allow for a 50% increase in fighters carried which has to count for something. 



CobberKane said:


> Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! Good on Zeros, average on 109s, badly inadequate on heavy bombers (bear in mind that the Fw200 was pretty lightly built, and Brown knocked down his two by targetting the cockpit). In terms of firepower for weight a couple of 20mm cannon would have been much better, but the fifties still made sense for logistical and ammo load reasons



The four .50s were also fairly decent against single engine bombers, float planes and many twin engine bombers. The big problem with the .50s is that they are heavy for the firepower they did provide which is a different matter than if they provided adequate or inadequate firepower regardless of weight. I don't like the .50 cal because of weight reasons but that doesn't make it a popgun.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 16, 2012)

I could probably post more than a half dozen _likes_ on this page of this thread. But that just seems over the top. I'll just say, "Neat discussion!"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! Good on Zeros, *average on 109s, badly inadequate on heavy bombers *(bear in mind that the Fw200 was pretty lightly built, and Brown knocked down his two by targetting the cockpit). In terms of firepower for weight a couple of 20mm cannon would have been much better, but the fifties still made sense for logistical and ammo load reasons



Do you have documented proof of that or is this just your opinion?


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 16, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I could probably post more than a half dozen _likes_ on this page of this thread. But that just seems over the top. I'll just say, "Neat discussion!"


I'd be right behind you in those likes. I like where this is going, too. If we can't nail down anything that specific on the Martlet encounters with the Luftwaffe fighters, this is the next best thing, I think, identifying and discussing these relative strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 16, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! Good on Zeros [...]


And the F4Fs didn't even have to hit these in the "sweet spot" to take them down. That's evident just from the combat films. I've seen film of Zeroes going down virtually "smokeless." You see the tracers, then they go belly-up, and fall. I imagine that "observation deck" they had for a canopy was implicated in a number of those "smokeless victories."


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 16, 2012)

More on Sea Hurricane/Martlet performance:

Page 44 Brown notes that the folding wing Martlet MkII was about a 1000lbs heavier than the MkI - of course the Mk II had a plethrora of other additions such as armour and self sealing tanks. Brown states that the Mk II was good for 254 knots at 5400 and 13000ft. on Page 114 Brown states that the Sea Hurricane 1C was good for 256 knots at about 15000ft. Of course the Sea Hurricane IC with it's 4 x 20mm cannon was the heaviest and draggiest of the Mk1 series and would compare least favourably to the Martlet. However, under 6000ft, the SH IC would have a decided edge at the Merlin III's 16lb boost, combat rating.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 16, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you have documented proof of that or is this just your opinion?


 
The Luftwaffe did detailed analysis of wrecked B-17s and calculated that on average it took twenty 20mm cannon hits to bring one down. Gun camera footage indicated that about 2% of cannon shells fired actually hit a Fortresss, ergo to score twenty hits, one thousand rounds would need to be fired.
Thus a Fw 190 with four 20mm cannon firing at 600 rounds per minute fires about 40 rounds per second, and would take twenty five seconds of firing time to loose off the 1000 rounds required on average to do the job. Typically, multiple passes by several fighters would be required.
The USN considered one 20mm cannon to equal three .50 mgs in terms of firepower. By this reckoning four .50s are about equal to 1.3 20mms, or about 32% of the firepower on an Fw190 (I’ve excluded the 190s two .50 cal mgs for the sake of simplicity). Thus a fighter with four .50s, say a P51B, would take about three times the firing time to inflict the same amount of damage as an Fw190 with four cannon. In other words the P51 would need on average 75 seconds of firing time to reliably down a B-17. I would regard that as inadequate fire power for the job. 
The Luftwaffes research and calculations were the impetus for the adoption of the 30mm cannon as standard fighter armament. They judged that for all its shortcomings, it was the only gun that gave the average pilot a realistic chance of inflicting fatal damage in a B-17 in a single pass


----------



## stug3 (Oct 16, 2012)

Good thing it was their job to shoot down 190s and 109s instead of B-17s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stug3 (Oct 16, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Thus a fighter with four .50s, say a P51B, would take about three times the firing time to inflict the same amount of damage as an Fw190 with four cannon. In other words the P51 would need on average 75 seconds of firing time to reliably down a B-17. I would regard that as inadequate fire power for the job.



Good thing it was their job to shoot down 190s and 109s instead of B-17s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> The Luftwaffe did detailed analysis of wrecked B-17s and calculated that on average it took twenty 20mm cannon hits to bring one down. Gun camera footage indicated that about 2% of cannon shells fired actually hit a Fortresss, ergo to score twenty hits, one thousand rounds would need to be fired.
> Thus a Fw 190 with four 20mm cannon firing at 600 rounds per minute fires about 40 rounds per second, and would take twenty five seconds of firing time to loose off the 1000 rounds required on average to do the job. Typically, multiple passes by several fighters would be required.
> The USN considered one 20mm cannon to equal three .50 mgs in terms of firepower. By this reckoning four .50s are about equal to 1.3 20mms, or about 32% of the firepower on an Fw190 (I’ve excluded the 190s two .50 cal mgs for the sake of simplicity). Thus a fighter with four .50s, say a P51B, *would take about three times the firing time to inflict the same amount of damage as an Fw190 with four cannon. In other words the P51 would need on average 75 seconds of firing time to reliably down a B-17. I would regard that as inadequate fire power for the job.*
> The Luftwaffes research and calculations were the impetus for the adoption of the 30mm cannon as standard fighter armament. They judged that for all its shortcomings, it was the only gun that gave the average pilot a realistic chance of inflicting fatal damage in a B-17 in a single pass



Your original statement...



CobberKane said:


> Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! Good on Zeros, average on 109s, badly inadequate on heavy bombers (bear in mind that the Fw200 was pretty lightly built, and Brown knocked down his two by targetting the cockpit).



This is all based on loose statistics - regardless of how effective you're trying to determine the 50 caliber to be (or not to be), 4 .50 calibers hitting their mark are going to do considerable damage, be it against a Zero, -109 or FW-200 and there is no way you can determine real effectiveness in this situation unless you make comparisons of where the aircraft was hit, stress analysis on the damage resulting in structrural damage and finally gun accuracy.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2012)

Unfortunately, in many of these comparisons, there are too many variables. And in too many cases people read into them what they want.

The American .50 was not a super gun and yet it was not a popgun either. It was heavy for the firepower it did deliver and it's ammo was also heavy. This is somewhat offset be it's high velocity (only the German 15mm mg 151 was much faster) and good bullet shape. This meant shorter flight times to any given range (not so important at 100-200yds but the more important as the range grew), which meant it was easier to get hits with. Depending on range, angle and obstacles in the way, it is rather impractical to armor a plane to be "proof" against .50 cal gun fire. The best that can be done is provide enough armor to stop rounds fired beyond at certain range and fired at certain angles. Using the radio as "extra" protection is one way of saving the pilot but doesn't mean the plane is bullet proof because the pilot wasn't killed. 
Effectiveness also changes with the ammo fired. US Navy Planes in 1942 were using mixed belts of ball, AP, tracer, and perhaps incendiary rounds. Difference between ball and AP is that the steel core in the ball was soft or unhardened steel while the AP core was hardened. Now it becomes real crap shoot as to which bullet hits what part of the air frame. Some pilot armor may stop the ball round or the incendiary while failing against the AP bullet. Ball and AP rounds may cause fuel tanks to leak but will not set them on fire. Tracers may or may not light up a fuel tank while incendiaries, while not 100% by any means, give the best chance. By the time P-51B/Cs are common in Europe the belts are almost 100% MK8 AP/incendiary. No ball and every AP round has about ( just under?)) 1 gram of incendiary material (about double what a .303 De Wilde incendiary carried). The incendiary is in front of the AP core and will not be carried through armor to light up stuff behind it but it does mean that _each_ bullet is effective against a wider range of areas of the airplane than the old mixed belts. 

FlyboyJ has mentioned stress analysis on the damage. I believe one of O'Hare's victories was when he shot an engine off of a twin engine bomber. Some say the Japanese planes were lightly built. This may be true to some extent but the plane in question used a 1500hp engine and a 4 blade propeller. The structure mounting the engine to the airframe and the local airframe has to withstand 25% more thrust than a B-17 or B-24 engine generates and even if the plane is only pulling a 3 G maneuver the heavier engine and propeller would impose more strain than the engine/s on the B-17/B-24. I would say that if you could shoot an engine off a Betty with four .50 cal guns you could shoot an engine off a B-17 or B-24 with a similar burst. The two big differences are that shooting one engine off a 4 engine bomber does not guarantee the destruction of the 4 engine airplane (although it certainly would be a mission kill) and that attacking a small formation of Bettys (defended mostly by single 7.7mm machine guns) and attacking a larger formation of 4 engine bombers defended by large numbers of .50 cal guns in power mounts is a much different thing. Not trying to take anything away from O'Hare, his wingmans guns were jammed and he was the only american shooting at the time. One fighter vs 8 bombers is pretty strong odds but 12 fighters or so vs several dozen bombers doesn't give the fighter pilots as much scope for either maneuver or time to pick shots. 

The German 20mm MG 151 is often rated as roughly equal to the Hispano in power, however each gun had it's individual strengths and weaknesses so trying to go from comparing the the .50 cal to the Hispano _and then by extension_ to the MG 151/20 introduces a few extra areas of dispute.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 17, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your original statement...
> 
> 
> 
> This is all based on loose statistics - regardless of how effective you're trying to determine the 50 caliber to be (or not to be), 4 .50 calibers hitting their mark are going to do considerable damage, be it against a Zero, -109 or FW-200 and there is no way you can determine real effectiveness in this situation unless you make comparisons of where the aircraft was hit, stress analysis on the damage resulting in structrural damage and finally gun accuracy.


 
Well, you asked for evidence and this is what I found. If you can offer evidence that four .50s would be an effective weapon against heavy bombers I'm ears, other wise I guess its just 'personal opinion'.
I don't want to divert this thread onto the relative merits of tthe browning fifty cal because I know its been covered elsewhere. It sems to me it was a good weapon that did very well in the roles it was used for - which was never attacking heavy bombers. 
Regarding my 'loose statistics', - they came frome the United states Navy and the Luftwaffe. That's good enough for me.
Of course a fighter with four .50s 'could' shoot down somethng like a B-17; so could a Gloster Gladiator with four .303s, given sufficient luck, but the hard won experience of the Germans was that only heavy cannon were sufficient to reliably (read 'effectively') knock down ruggedly built four engine bombers. From the time they first faced B-17s with BF109Fs (a fighter with comparable firepower to four fifties) the impetus was towards bigger guns and more of them. They weren't doing it just to keep the armament factories open


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Of course a fighter with four .50s 'could' shoot down somethng like a B-17; so could a Gloster Gladiator with four .303s, given sufficient luck


My point....


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 17, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My point....


 

If your point is that a fighter with four .50 cal Brownings 'could' shoot down a B-17, I agree. I would agree if you said a fighter with one .50 cal could.
On the other hand, if you are suggesting that an armament of four .50s is adequate for fighters tasked with intercepting heavy bombers in a tacticlcal stuation like that faced by the Luftwaffe, I very much disagree. So would have the Luftwaffe, apparently.
Ultimately its all academic, of course, because Wildcats and P51Bs never faced heavy bombers, and .50 proved great for the tasks they were given. But even there the nature of the enemy aircraft in the PTO and ETO seem to have prompted slightly different paths in the development of the respective fighters; the P51 up-gunned to six .50s whereas tthe FM2 went back to four. I guess that's one nice thing about having banks of machine guns compared to, say, quads of cannon; its easier to customise the aramament by increments.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2012)

The cannons were rather easy to 'customise' in a fighter, provided they were flexible and compact enough. Unfortunately, that was not the case with Hispano II and it's US derivate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> If your point is that a fighter with four .50 cal Brownings 'could' shoot down a B-17, I agree. I would agree if you said a fighter with one .50 cal could.
> On the other hand, if you are suggesting that an armament of four .50s is adequate for fighters tasked with intercepting heavy bombers in a tacticlcal stuation like that faced by the Luftwaffe, I very much disagree. So would have the Luftwaffe, apparently.


No the original point was you can't accurately say that


> Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! Good on Zeros, *average on 109s*



Many -109s fell under the guns of P-51Bs...


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 18, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No the original point was you can't accurately say that
> 
> 
> Many -109s fell under the guns of P-51Bs...



You mean I can't accurately say that that four .50s is inadequate armament for intercepting heavy bombers? Woud you say that it is? Any one else got thoughts on that?
And yes, many 109s went down to four .50s - it was adequate armament for the job, as I said. of course, six .50s were better, or four 20mm, or two 20mm and four.303s, or pretty much any other armament set the allies were using at the time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> You mean I can't accurately say that that four .50s is inadequate armament for intercepting heavy bombers? Woud you say that it is?.



I'll answer in part with an earlier quote from someone else....

"If you can't hit em with 4 what makes you think you're gonna hit em with 6?"

Jimmy Thatch, Cmdr, USN


If you had a pilot who really knew aerial gunnery, yes.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> On the other hand, if you are suggesting that an armament of four .50s is adequate for fighters tasked with intercepting heavy bombers in a tacticlcal stuation like that faced by the Luftwaffe, I very much disagree. So would have the Luftwaffe, apparently.


Quite honestly I don't know how you can categorically conclude that. Four .50s converged on a bomber for just a matter of a couple of seconds would rip that thing in half. If they didn't do that they'd at least most certainly disable it in terms of its mission. And I'd think they'd suffice to take on any Luftwaffe fighter cover, as well.


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Quite honestly I don't know how you can categorically conclude that. Four .50s converged on a bomber for just a matter of a couple of seconds would rip that thing in half. If they didn't do that they'd at least most certainly disable it in terms of its mission. And I'd think they'd suffice to take on any Luftwaffe fighter cover, as well.



Its a personal view but I beleive that Cobbers comments are pretty much on the nose. 
No one can deny that the Fw 190 with its 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG had considerably more firepower than the 4/6/8 0.50 M2 as carried on the USAAF fighters. Equally, no one can deny that the Luftwaffe decided to increase the firepower of the 190 with 30mm cannon when faced with the B17. 
This alone again in my opinion tells me that against aircraft such as the B17, the 0.50 M2 would not have been adaquate.

Of course there are exceptions where luck or extra ordinary skill resulted in aircraft being shot down with few shots or by aircraft with little firepower, but generally the more firepowe the better.

It all very theoretical because if in the real world the USAAF had found themselves faced by large formations of B17 type aircraft the P51 and P47 would quickly be rearmed with 4 x 20mm. The first P51 were armed with 4 x 20mm and I am very confident the P47 would have easily been altered

Re converging for a couple of seconds being effective, at a 100MPH closing speed (probably on the low side) the fighter is closing at the rate of about 50 yards a second. So if, and its a big if, the convergence range is spot on then you are talking about fractions of a second, probably less than a fifth of a second, not a couple of seconds. 
Throw in the spread of the gun, the vibration in the mounting, the bend motion of the wing and the fact that the bombers are firing back so judgement is not normally calm and considered and its easy to see why in the real world so few shots hit the target.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2012)

Who cares if 4 50's could bring down a heavy bomber, the Germans didn't have any, end of story. 4 50's could bring down anything in the German inventory with out much difficulty, 109's, 190's, Ju88's, Fw Condors, were all brought down by 4 50's whether they were in a Wildcat or P51B.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 18, 2012)

Speaking of hitting the target, I just noticed this when looking at the weight breakdown for the Sea Hurricane IIC:


> Sea Hurricane Mark IIC (Temperate). Aircraft Tare Weight (with 18 gallons coolant) 5,738 Ib; pilot and parachute 200 lb; four 20-mm cannon 425 lb; ammunition boxes and belt feeds (364 rounds) 327 lb; gunsight *(gyro)* 54 lb; oxygen equipment 15 lb; naval radio 92 lb; fuel (main, 69 gallons) 497lb; fuel (reserve, 28 gallons) 202 lb; oil (7.5 gallons) 68 lb. Aircraft Normal Loaded Weight 7,618 lb. (from Mason)



Note the gyro gunsight.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 18, 2012)

Glider said:


> Its a personal view but I beleive that Cobbers comments are pretty much on the nose.
> 
> No one can deny that the Fw 190 with its 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG had considerably more firepower than the 4/6/8 0.50 M2 as carried on the USAAF fighters. Equally, no one can deny that the Luftwaffe decided to increase the firepower of the 190 with 30mm cannon when faced with the B17.
> 
> ...


Interesting detail and pretty much conceded, Glider. But bombers are basically shells. Four 50s are going to tear a doorway into the fuselage of any of those, I don't care how big they are. The bigger the more firepower they're likely throwing out. One has to get around that and duck any fighter cover, as well. But four 50s on sight are sufficient to bring any bomber down, I'll still maintain.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 18, 2012)

Glider said:


> Its a personal view but I beleive that Cobbers comments are pretty much on the nose.
> No one can deny that the Fw 190 with its 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG had considerably more firepower than the 4/6/8 0.50 M2 as carried on the USAAF fighters. Equally, no one can deny that the Luftwaffe decided to increase the firepower of the 190 with 30mm cannon when faced with the B17.
> This alone again in my opinion tells me that against aircraft such as the B17, the 0.50 M2 would not have been adaquate.
> 
> ...



Pretty much spot on, i think. 

My assertion that four .50s would be inadequate for knocking down heavy bombers is based on the experience and investigations of the luftwaffe, who had far more experience in this area than any other airforce. The Allies had none. If the Luftwaffe collected data and concluded that a fighter like the Fw190 with at least three times the firepower of a P51B (by the reckoning of the the United States Navy) did not have enough punch to reliably down a B-17 how can anyone seriously suggest four .50s is a realistic armamentent choice for the task? Unless of course the P51 is being flown by some hypothetical super-pilot who can somehow hold position right behind the Bomber formation and rip their wings off with perfectly converged and aimed two second bursts - all the while dodging the fire of dozens of machine guns coming back at him. Who is this masked man - Captain America? 
Saying that "four .50s would be adequate for shooting down a heavy bomber because a pilot with exceptional luck or skill could do it" is exactly the same as saying "a pilot who shoots down a heavy bomber with four .50s is exceptionally lucky or skillfull". But the average pilot is not exceptionally lucky or skillfull, therefore by any reasonable meaning of the word, four .50 are inadequate for the job.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Saying that "four .50s would be adequate for shooting down a heavy bomber because a pilot with exceptional luck or skill could do it" is exactly the same as saying "a pilot who shoots down a heavy bomber with four .50s is exceptionally lucky or skillfull". But the average pilot is not exceptionally lucky or skillfull, therefore by any reasonable meaning of the word, four .50 are inadequate for the job.


Your opinion....

Define average pilot....


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 18, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your opinion....
> 
> Define average pilot....


 

No, I was actually paraphrasing Glider's comments, with wich i agree.
Define Average? I'm sure you know what the word means, but applied to this discussion; the Luftwaffe drew their figure of a 2% hit rate for cannon shells fired from reviewing gun camera footage. These guys weren't stupid - they would not have cherry-picked footage from aces or rookies to skew the results, they would have used either all the footage they had or a large, randomly drawn sample. Hence the results they got were indicative of a pilot with the average flying and gunnery skils. Likewise, when they wanted to know how many 20mm hits it took to knock down a B-17 they wouldn't have simply counted up the holes in the first wreck they came upon and gone with that, they would have examined hits in as many wrecks as they could and divided by the total of the sample,. That's how statistics work. Thats 'average' .


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Pretty much spot on, i think.
> 
> My assertion that four .50s would be inadequate for knocking down heavy bombers is based on the experience and investigations of the luftwaffe, who had far more experience in this area than any other airforce. The Allies had none. If the Luftwaffe collected data and concluded that a fighter like the Fw190 with at least three times the firepower of a P51B (by the reckoning of the the United States Navy) did not have enough punch to reliably down a B-17 how can anyone seriously suggest four .50s is a realistic armamentent choice for the task? Unless of course the P51 is being flown by some hypothetical super-pilot who can somehow hold position right behind the Bomber formation and rip their wings off with perfectly converged and aimed two second bursts - all the while dodging the fire of dozens of machine guns coming back at him. Who is this masked man - Captain America?
> Saying that "four .50s would be adequate for shooting down a heavy bomber because a pilot with exceptional luck or skill could do it" is exactly the same as saying "a pilot who shoots down a heavy bomber with four .50s is exceptionally lucky or skillfull". But the average pilot is not exceptionally lucky or skillfull, therefore by any reasonable meaning of the word, four .50 are inadequate for the job.


CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick. 

Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters. And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building. 

If the Japanese didn't see a necessity to "down-arm" the Zeroes for carrier duty, why would one expect the Germans to see a necessity to "down-arm" their fighters for bomber duty? It could very well be, in other words, those fighters just so happened to be so equipped by the time they were put to that bomber duty. When they were off that duty, they hardly sat around in the hangars. They were deployed otherwise, over land.

There's no question the Luftwaffe fighters were more heavily armed. Maybe they had too much? That could be, too. Regardless, that's hardly evidence the 50s were inadequate for the job, I'm saying.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2012)

If I may cut in:



VBF-13 said:


> CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick.



Great. The paper mache plane gets caught in a burst of HMG bulets and his fuel tank explodes. Hence that's the proof that BMG can destroy B-17 class of target?



> Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters.



Now what is a 'land fighter'? MAybe a fighter that is to destroy tanks, trucks, artillery pieces? If that's the definition, and Bf-109 and Zero fit there - I happen to sell the Brooklyn bridge for the fair price, care to buy?



> And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building.



Both sentences are flaty wrong. Zero's cannons were in the wings, while the building the 20mm can take down, in any practical terms, need to be constructed of wood or canvas, not from a proper material. 



> If the Japanese didn't see a necessity to "down-arm" the Zeroes for carrier duty, why would one expect the Germans to see a necessity to "down-arm" their fighters for bomber duty? It could very well be, in other words, those fighters just so happened to be so equipped by the time they were put to that bomber duty. When they were off that duty, they hardly sat around in the hangars. They were deployed otherwise, over land.



Axis fighers were rarely, if ever, off duty. They were, for the most of WW2, contested with superior number of Allied planes, and their job was to kill those.



> There's no question the Luftwaffe fighters were more heavily armed. Maybe they had too much? That could be, too. Regardless, that's hardly evidence the 50s were inadequate for the job, I'm saying.



And there is evidence that 50s were adequate for heavy bomber busting? Plenty of opinions here, let alone the ones easily proved wrong.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 19, 2012)

The Zero was always designed as a carrier fighter, not as a "land fighter". Agree with Tomo Pauk, the performance of 50cal weapons against a lightly-built Japanese fighter says nothing about the performance of that armament against heavy bombers. Also, look at the experience of the Japanese against Allied heavy bombers - even the much-vaunted Zero had a hard time bringing them down. I think it's pretty safe to say that 50 cal armament "could" bring down a heavy bomber but that, all things being equal - same pilot, same airframe etc - heavier armament of 4xcannon would do the job better because every single hit would blow somewhat larger holes in the bomber's structure.


----------



## glennasher (Oct 19, 2012)

How did the .50s do against Emilys and other Japanese flying boats? The larger ones, of course. That ought to answer any questions as to the usefulness of the .50s.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 19, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick.
> 
> Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters. And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building.
> 
> ...



Good grief. I suppose I could try to decipher this but thankfully Tommo has already done the impossible. This is probably the most incoherent post I have ever seen, including my own - and that's really saying something!
Glenassher, good thought - Emily and Mavis flying boats were big aircraft and the the Emily in particular was well armed. But I have no idea as to their structural stength compared to a B-17 or whether they hd self sealing tanks, crew armour, extinguishers etc. They certainly wouldn't have been encountered in massed formations like B-17 were either.
At the end of the day the LW had the experience, did the study (as previously detailed) and concluded that heavy cannon were the way to go against heavy bombers. If anyone - VBF13, Flyboy, whoever - can produce any evidence (that means data!)that the LW were wrong, and their efforts to progressively up-gun their fighters to deal with the B 17 were just a waste of time because four machine guns would have been fine for the job, I'm waiting. And waiting...


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2012)

The F4F had little trouble against the Mavis but then that was little more than a 4 engine gas tank. 

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. On _AVERAGE_ you need a lot of fire power to _BRING DOWN_ a B-17. You need a lot less to screw one up and send it home with 3 or even 2 engines running and dead or wounded crew members. 

We have had a lot of discussions about the usefulness (or uselessness) of defensive guns on bombers. While they do not even come close to giving immunity they do give the attacking aircraft a number of problems. They will, in general, cause attacking fighters to fire from further away, to fire for shorter periods of time, and to fire with, shall we say, less steadiness of aim. All contribute to more rounds fired per hit on the bomber. The American bombers had a much more effective defensive armament than the Japanese bombers and the larger formations just added to the intercept problem. Didn't the Germans resort to those 21cm rockets to try to break up the bomber formations _BEFORE_ the american escort fighters showed up in use? 
Against the Japanese bombers the American fighters were able to pick an attack position/angle a little better, close a little slower, fire a little longer ( in some cases the Mavis took more than one firing pass even with no armor and no self sealing tanks). 

There are more differences than just the armament of the attacking fighters. 

Four .50s are certainly less than ideal against a bomber (and formation) like the B-17. Less than ideal does not mean useless. And for a better comparison, How well did the early B-17s (before the "E") fair against the Japanese? Flying in small groups with no power operated guns and single ones at that?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 19, 2012)

Well it was a great thread... I blame Flyboy J... (Gotta blame someone... that's the way the world turns these days... Besides, those doggone _*mods*_ mess everything up especially every time we get a rollicking political discussion going they descend on us like vultures.  

In VBF's defense for espousing what can only be described as heresy or worse in this forum. We find Lundstrom quoting VF pilots flying the 4 HMG equipped F4F-3 at the start of WW2 as saying, when confronted with exchanging their mounts for the undesired 6-gun F4F-4, "Their 4 HMGs could sink a destroyer. Why add two more guns?" (my paraphrase) Now, first point: I am not sure, but I think a destroyer is a bit more challenging than a bomber. second point: I am not sure I believe the hyperbole of those "First Team pilots." Personally, If I was in the ETO doing bomber interception ops, I'd want 4 x 20 mm. (Or maybe even a Ju-88 throwing 75 mm rounds into the Bomber stream?) JMO

Yes, I know for you purists out there, I should have said, "...more challenging to destroy if a bit less to hit..."


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 19, 2012)

and where the 4 HMG had sink a destroyer? (or destroyer is just a motorboat?)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Good grief. I suppose I could try to decipher this but thankfully Tommo has already done the impossible. This is probably the most incoherent post I have ever seen, including my own - and that's really saying something!
> Glenassher, good thought - Emily and Mavis flying boats were big aircraft and the the Emily in particular was well armed. *But I have no idea as to their structural stength compared to a B-17 *or whether they hd self sealing tanks, crew armour, extinguishers etc. They certainly wouldn't have been encountered in massed formations like B-17 were either.
> At the end of the day the LW had the experience, did the study (as previously detailed) and concluded that heavy cannon were the way to go against heavy bombers. If anyone - VBF13, Flyboy, whoever - can produce any evidence (that means data!)that the LW were wrong, and their efforts to progressively up-gun their fighters to deal with the B 17 were just a waste of time because four machine guns would have been fine for the job, I'm waiting. And waiting...



There's nothing to wait about here and I'm not challenging the LW study on what it would take to bring down an allied bomber. My point is 4 .50 cal are deadly if placed in the right spot regardless of the aircraft. 

As far as an average pilot - I guess we're just talking gunnery skills.....


oldcrowcv63 said:


> Well it was a great thread... I blame Flyboy J... (Gotta blame someone... that's the way the world turns these days... Besides, those doggone _*mods*_ mess everything up especially every time we get a rollicking political discussion going they descend on us like vultures.



Yup - that's the way the world turns these days....


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Interesting detail and pretty much conceded, Glider. But bombers are basically shells. Four 50s are going to tear a doorway into the fuselage of any of those, I don't care how big they are. The bigger the more firepower they're likely throwing out. One has to get around that and duck any fighter cover, as well. But four 50s on sight are sufficient to bring any bomber down, I'll still maintain.



Bombers are more like cigar tubes. Most of the time the 0.50 is going to cause a little hole going in and another going out, its down to luck as to what bullet hits or doesn't in between. The other advantage of the 20mm is of course the explosive content which is going to a lot more damage than any 0.50 bullet. The 20mm will cause a hole going in (a lot bigger than the 0.50) and a lot of smaller holes all over the place when the shell explodes.

If the Germans believed that 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG wasn't sufficient, why should 4 x 0.50 be sufficient, at the end of the day that is the question that needs to be considered


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 19, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> and where the 4 HMG had sink a destroyer? (or destroyer is _*just a motorboat*_?)


 

Vinny! Don't shoot the messenger, Please  

Evidently some VF-42 pilots attacked a destroyer during a raid on Tulagi during the Coral Sea prelims and they came away with the impression they had actually sunk it. At least that's what I recall. Somebody with a First Team copy on hand can verify. 

from wikipedia. 

Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The four U.S. fighters then strafed Yūzuki, killing her captain and nine others of her crew, and causing moderate damage to the ship. Two or three other Japanese floatplanes were damaged in Tulagi harbor and their crews were killed.[32][34][35][36]

Of course that's a full division of F4F-3s so we are really talking about 16 HMGs not 4.... but who's counting?


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> and where the 4 HMG had sink a destroyer? (or destroyer is just a motorboat?)



At Wake in Dec 41

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2012)

According to Wiki, take as you will.

"Kisaragi was sailing away from the engagement when it came under air attack by four F4F Wildcat fighter planes from Wake armed with 100-pound bombs. One Wildcat, piloted by Henry "Baron" Elrod, dropped his bombs on Kisaragi's stern, which was packed with depth charges.[7]" 

While .50 cal MGs can certainly poke a lot of holes in a destroyer, the destroyer does have damage control pumps and damage control equipment to control leaks and flooding. It would take and very badly trained crew and a set of extraordinary circumstances for .50 gunfire alone to sink a destroyer. Setting off secondary explosions from ready use ammunition or torpedo/depth charges is going to be much more likely and much more damaging to the ship.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 19, 2012)

Juha said:


> At Wake in Dec 41
> 
> Juha



I believe that was due to a lucky hit with a small bomb amidst the destroyer's depth charges. I don't think the HMGs played a role, but perhaps they did.


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2012)

Hello, SR6 is right. I recalled that .5 fire set up the depth charges and forgot the 100lb bombs.

Juha


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There's nothing to wait about here
> 
> 
> ...Yep, I figured that!
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> ...Yep, I figured that!
> 
> and I'm not challenging the LW study on what it would take to bring down an allied bomber.
> 
> ...



The LW was looking for more effective ways to bring down as many bombers as possible. I think that was pretty obvious with some of the weapons they came up with outside conventional armament


CobberKane said:


> I guess we're just talking gunnery skills....
> 
> ...Not sure I understand, but if you mean the LF study was indicative only of the average pilots ability to bring down the bomber once he was in firing range, for sure. Not much relevence to navigation, take-off and landing etc.


You're making reference to a pilot's ability with regards to gunnery - there's a lot more to flying than gunnery. I'll be more than happy to explain some of those aspects....


CobberKane said:


> Well its been fun guys, and it would seem we have all settled into our camps. *I'm going to claim a solid points decision for the affirmatives on the grounds of evidence offerered, as opposed to speculation*, but good luck to you if you want to stick to your (inadequate) guns. (Extra points for wit, there!) And perchance anyone does come up with pilots accounts of fighters with similar or less firepower encountering B-17s (MC202 or Bf109F, maybe?), please stick it up.



Your original post that started all this...



> Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! *Good on Zeros*, *average on 109s, badly inadequate on heavy bombers *(bear in mind that the Fw200 was pretty lightly built, and Brown knocked down his two by targetting the cockpit).



If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is (especially if you're basing this on the FW 200)


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2012)

I would like to ask what was the record of the early B-17s (pre "E" model) against the Japanese in 1941/early 1942? 

It may be too small an example to draw a valid conclusion from but I think there was more going on in shooting down B-17s than just the size/number of the attackers guns.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 19, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> If I may cut in:


Go ahead. Make my day. 



tomo pauk said:


> *Posted by VBF-13*
> CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick.
> 
> Great. The paper mache plane gets caught in a burst of HMG bulets and his fuel tank explodes. Hence that's the proof that BMG can destroy B-17 class of target?


Aw, now, it very well can destroy a B-17. Disable or disrupt would be more likely, though, I’m sure.



tomo pauk said:


> *Posted by VBF-13*
> _Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters._
> 
> Now what is a 'land fighter'? MAybe a fighter that is to destroy tanks, trucks, artillery pieces? If that's the definition, and Bf-109 and Zero fit there - I happen to sell the Brooklyn bridge for the fair price, care to buy?


Concentrate. A "land fighter" is a fighter that's deployed to targets on land. Yeah, like a bridge. Good example.



tomo pauk said:


> *Posted by VBF-13*
> And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building.
> 
> Both sentences are flaty wrong. Zero's cannons were in the wings, while the building the 20mm can take down, in any practical terms, need to be constructed of wood or canvas, not from a proper material.


OK, so I’m not accustomed to fact-checking in Wikipedia, and I got the Claudes in China mixed up with the Zeroes. Big deal. We were discussing the Luftwaffe fighters and the point I was trying to make was that those were deployed in Poland on land targets well before they were put to the task of taking on those Allied bombers. You’ll excuse my lapse of memory on the caliber of those nose guns, too, I’m sure. 

Oh, one more thing. On that wood or canvas construction. Masonry and stone are held together with mortar, and mortar is porous and brittle. That's the reason you rarely see brick homes in Los Angeles or San Francisco; rather, that cheap stucco. Go ahead, fact-check it in Wikipedia. 



tomo pauk said:


> *Posted by VBF-13*
> If the Japanese didn't see a necessity to "down-arm" the Zeroes for carrier duty, why would one expect the Germans to see a necessity to "down-arm" their fighters for bomber duty? It could very well be, in other words, those fighters just so happened to be so equipped by the time they were put to that bomber duty. When they were off that duty, they hardly sat around in the hangars. They were deployed otherwise, over land.
> 
> Axis fighers were rarely, if ever, off duty. They were, for the most of WW2, contested with superior number of Allied planes, and their job was to kill those.


I never said they were “off duty.” I said, rather, “off _that _duty,” referencing the bomber duty. Again, it pays to concentrate.



tomo pauk said:


> *Posted by VBF-13*
> There's no question the Luftwaffe fighters were more heavily armed. Maybe they had too much? That could be, too. Regardless, that's hardly evidence the 50s were inadequate for the job, I'm saying.
> 
> And there is evidence that 50s were adequate for heavy bomber busting? Plenty of opinions here, let alone the ones easily proved wrong.


Sure there is. Common sense. Four .50s on sight will tear a big hole in any bomber. But there are other ways short of that they could take those down, as well.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The LW was looking for more effective ways to bring down as many bombers as possible. I think that was pretty obvious with some of the weapons they came up with outside conventional armament
> 
> You're making reference to a pilot's ability with regards to gunnery - there's a lot more to flying than gunnery. I'll be more than happy to explain some of those aspects....
> 
> ...


 
Flyboy, I made a statement that 4x.50 were ineffective against heavy bombers. You asked for evidence and I gave it, drawing on the conclusions (not opinions) of the Luftwaffe. and the USN. You called that evidence "loose statistics", but when I asked if you rejected the findings of the Luftwaffe you said no. When I asked if you actually did believe that 4x .50's werre sufficient for tackling heavy bombers you said yes, if the pilot could shoot, thereby apparently excluding the luftwaffe from that catagory. You gave no evidence to support your opinions and agreed that you had none. Now, you refer back to my original statement that four .50s are inadequate for tackling heavy bombers and say "If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is". Ergo, the Luftwaffes studies are once more back in the trash can. No evidence to support your views, no evidence to contradict mine, no consistency.
It's been fun, but honestly - don't take up debating.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 19, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I would like to ask what was the record of the early B-17s (pre "E" model) against the Japanese in 1941/early 1942?
> 
> It may be too small an example to draw a valid conclusion from but I think there was more going on in shooting down B-17s than just the size/number of the attackers guns.



Been reading a lot of books on the early history of WWII in the PTO and I am coming away with the impression that the few employed were fairly ineffective. Either the B-17C/Ds or the LB-30s that were sent over appear to have been committed piecemeal, never more than a few (<10) on a raid. Maintenance appears to have been an issue, especially in cases of repairing battle damage. With respect to fighter defense, I don't get the impression they were all that difficult to shoot up (as opposed to shoot down). If they were grounded for battle damage that just provided an opportunity for a raid to take them out permanently. Few airfields were safe harborage for allied aircraft from the wide ranging IJN in the early months. Not that this is relevant to the point at issue, but this was during a period when the USAAC had the perception that B-17s LB-30s were an effective anti-shipping weapon. Seems to me the most effective USAAC/F tactical bomber in the early PTO was the P-40E.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Flyboy, I made a statement that 4x.50 were ineffective against heavy bombers. You asked for evidence and I gave it, drawing on the conclusions (not opinions) of the Luftwaffe. and the USN.


 And who's heavy bombers? US? German? Who would be firing .50 calbers at what aircraft?




CobberKane said:


> You called that evidence "loose statistics", but when I asked if you rejected the findings of the Luftwaffe you said no. When I asked if you actually did believe that 4x .50's werre sufficient for tackling heavy bombers you said yes, if the pilot could shoot, thereby apparently excluding the luftwaffe from that catagory.


You're assuming that..



CobberKane said:


> You gave no evidence to support your opinions and agreed that you had none. Now, you refer back to my original statement that four .50s are inadequate for tackling heavy bombers and say "If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is". Ergo, the Luftwaffes studies are once more back in the trash can. No evidence to support your views, no evidence to contradict mine, no consistency.


You made a statement about the amount of effectiveness .50 calibers would be against a -109. I'm saying even based on the information you cited, that would be impossible...



CobberKane said:


> It's been fun, but honestly - don't take up debating.


It has been fun, but at this point please don't piss me off...


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 20, 2012)

Oh Yeah? I'll get my big brother onto you!!

Seriously though, I think we've both gone about as far as we can with this, given we're both coming from different directions. Thanks for the to an fro, and let's do it again sometime - and not take ourselves too seriously in the process - OK?


----------



## stona (Oct 20, 2012)

F/Lt Stanley Huppert and P/O John Christie,flying a Mosquito N.F. XIII,MM456,coded RA-D,of 410 Squadron shot down a Heinkel 177 A-3 (6N+AK of 2./KG 100) in the early hours of Wednesday19th April 1944.

To do this they used their four 20mm cannon. 

They expended 110 rounds of A.P.I. and 111 rounds of H.E. ammunition. "Many" strikes were seen,initially on the port wing and engine,then tearing away sections of the airframe.

We'll never know how many of the 221 rounds fired hit the big Heinkel but I very much doubt that the same result would have been achieved with a similar burst from four 0.5" machine guns.

Steve


----------



## stug3 (Oct 20, 2012)

stona said:


> F/Lt Stanley Huppert and P/O John Christie,flying a Mosquito N.F. XIII,MM456,coded RA-D,of 410 Squadron shot down a Heinkel 177 A-3 (6N+AK of 2./KG 100) in the early hours of Wednesday19th April 1944.
> 
> To do this they used their four 20mm cannon.
> 
> ...



Yes, because certainly no Axis twin or 4 engined AC were EVER shot down ANYWHERE by American planes with those puny .50s. 
Thank god the RAF was everywhere with its awesome 20mm to save us.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 20, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Posted by CobberKane*
> You gave no evidence to support your opinions and agreed that you had none. Now, you refer back to my original statement that four .50s are inadequate for tackling heavy bombers and say "If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is". Ergo, the Luftwaffes studies are once more back in the trash can. No evidence to support your views, no evidence to contradict mine, no consistency.
> 
> You made a statement about the amount of effectiveness .50 calibers would be against a -109. I'm saying even based on the information you cited, that would be impossible...


I didn't see that Luftwaffe study but if it concluded 20s were more effective firepower than .50s I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could have told them that. That's not evidence .50s are ineffective against bombers, however. It's simply evidence 20s are more effective. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> *Posted by CobberKane*
> It's been fun, but honestly - don't take up debating.
> 
> It has been fun, but at this point please don't piss me off...


At least he didn't call you "incoherent." If I might observe, some debating-style that is...


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 20, 2012)

The RAF (actually, maybe the Air Ministry) formulated their requirements for 8 x .303MGs based upon how many firing passes that an average pilot might make per sortie. 

It seems patently obvious that 4 x 20mm guns will cause far more damage per firing pass than 4 x .5in. This was also the rational for the FAA specifying 6 x .5in rather than 4 x .5in in the Martlet.

OTOH, a lighteraircraft, due to a lighter armament, might make more firing passes at an enemy fighter, when equipped with lighter guns, but this seems a much less likely scenario when engaging a loaded multi-engine bomber.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 20, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> I didn't see that Luftwaffe study but if it concluded 20s were more effective firepower than .50s I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could have told them that. That's not evidence .50s are ineffective against bombers, however. It's simply evidence 20s are more effective.
> 
> 
> At least he didn't call you "incoherent." If I might observe, some debating-style that is...



Sorry, VFM, I meant to take a light-hearted swipe at both of us, not cause offense.

Re the Luftwaffe study, I've never found the full text but it gets quoted pretty widely so it may be out there somewhere. So far as I know the study did not compare HMGs to cannon, Why would it? Like you say, its a matter of common sense that cannon represent a highter level of firepower - about three times as high according to the USN. What the study did conclude is that on average it took more than the entire ammo load of their most heavily armed single seat fighter to bring down a B-17. No doubt they also considered that this would involve mutliple passes thought the bombers defensive fire and, from 1944 onwards, increased exposure to escort fighters. Time to bring in the 30mm. This is the basis of my contention that 4xHMGs would be inadequate against heavy bombers - if the LW indicated that an aramament of 4x20mm was wanting, decreasing the firepower by a factor of three would be unlikely to improve things. 

Re the suggestion that four HMGs at convergence for a two send burst would tear a heavy bomber apart - even assuming this is so such an attack would require the fighter to approach the bomber box from behind at a convergence speed low enough to throttle back at exactly the right distance and hold a perfectly static position relative to the bombers while you fired. Possibly there may have been some workplace health and safety issues with this. 

One other thing in passing, FlyBoy pulled me up one my description of 4xHMGs as 'average' when used on a 109. Here I used the term in the common usage that the HMGs represented a middle order of the firepower typically directed against single engined axis fighters - better than 8x.303s but not so good as, say 2x20m+4x.303s. I certainly didn't mean to infer that I had totaled up every fighter that ever fired at a 109, analysed their firepower, divided by the total, etc


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 21, 2012)

CobberKane, I think I just picked a bad day to stop sniffing model glue. At any rate, thanks. And I can see the Luftwaffe wanting to go with everything they got in terms of their fighters to protect their cities--definitely. FWIW, you never had a debate from me on whether 20s were more effective than .50s, only on whether .50s had the capacity to take down bombers, as well. Perhaps I should have said that from the outset, but I just didn't think of it at the time. 

Hey, you know how it is.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> I didn't see that Luftwaffe study but if it concluded 20s were more effective firepower than .50s I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could have told them that. That's not evidence .50s are ineffective against bombers, however. It's simply evidence 20s are more effective.


BINGO!


VBF-13 said:


> *At least he didn't call you "incoherent*." If I might observe, some debating-style that is...



Or worse.... 

Carry on!


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 21, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> CobberKane, I think I just picked a bad day to stop sniffing model glue. At any rate, thanks. And I can see the Luftwaffe wanting to go with everything they got in terms of their fighters to protect their cities--definitely. FWIW, you never had a debate from me on whether 20s were more effective than .50s, only on whether .50s had the capacity to take down bombers, as well. Perhaps I should have said that from the outset, but I just didn't think of it at the time.
> 
> Hey, you know how it is.



No worries. But don't call me Shirley...


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 21, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> No worries. But don't call me Shirley...


Surely...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 28, 2012)

...and after a considerable amount of thread drift, I thought I'd offer a few thoughts on the Martlet/Wildcat in Europe. I don't know if this information in any way helps the original thread title, but In a book I have on testing aircraft with the Aircraft and Armaments Experimental Establishment(A&AEE) the Martlet is covered in detail. Here's a snippet from the passage on the Martlet I:

"At 6,810 lb the aircraft was pleasant to fly with straightfoward stalls at 83 mph (clean) and 70 mph (flaps and undercarriage down). Take off run was 280 yd (160 yd into a 230 kt wind) but the narrow undercarriage was described as 'twitchy' and took 30 seconds to retract manually. Other comments included the lack of a direct vision panel and the placing together of the similar flap and fuel levers. A creditable maximum range of 930 miles was calculated on 136 gallons of fuel. Contamination by carbon monoxide was bad, but improved by sealing the cowling and cockpit."

Unfortunately the author then writes that reports on the effectiveness of its .50 cal machine guns have not been found (!). For the Martlet Mark II, the author wrote that its performance was, "... not outstanding for 1942, resulted from the weight used representing full catapult equipment and a 25 gallon external tank."

Performance as follows for the Martlet II: Take off weight 7,790 lbs, take off run 320 yds, max rate climb 12.5 mins at 1,940 ft per min. Max altitude 31,000 ft, max speed 293 at 13,800 ft.

For the Wildcat V the author had this to say: "Stick forces became dangerously light at aft CG and a limit (based on a pull of 2 lb per G) further forward than earlier marks was determined; the ailerons were assessed as heavy as a fighter." Performance for the Wildcat VI was recorded as max speed 322 mph at 16,800 ft.

Just a description of the RN's naming of the Grumman fighter. Both names (Martlet and Wildcat) were officially used. Martlet to describe aircraft that were ordered by the FAA, which included the French and Greek aircraft, which were included in the British contracts. Aircraft ordered by the British govt were Martlet Is, IIs and IIIs, but when lend lease aircraft from the USA arrived, these were officially named Wildcats, although there was a bit of crossover as the Mark IV and Vs were referred to as Martlets until 1944, when, to conform with the US Navy the name Wildcat became official. Wildcat mark numbers were continued from where Martlet ones left off, Mark IV, V and VI.

Wildcat IVs were equivalent to the F4F-4 and were generally similar to the F4F-3, but with two additional wing guns. The Wildcat V was the equivalent of the FM1 and the Mark VI being equivalent to the FM2. Martlet equivalents have been covered elsewhere.

Clear as mud!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 28, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Take off run was 280 yd (160 yd *into a 230 kt wind*)



YIKES!!! I know it's just a typo but it conjured images of a Martlet heading into a Cat 5+ Hurricane/Cyclone/Typhoon or worse, a tornado. I think the take off run into such a wind would be quite abbreviated. Like maybe 0.5 yards?  

also, I suspect the capacity of the drop tank was reversed and should be 52 gallons, not 25.

Although more seriously, I find it difficult to believe any text would claim that Wildcat IVs were equivalent to the F4F-4 *and were generally similar to the F4F-3, * unless by _generally similar_ it meant they had about the same appearance. The performance of the -3, which the RN never saw except perhaps in stateside training , was significantly superior to the -4 and any subsequent mark until the advent of the FM-2 and even in that case I believe the -3 performed better at altitude.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 28, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> YIKES!!! I know it's just a typo but it conjured images of a Martlet heading into a Cat 5+ Hurricane/Cyclone/Typhoon or worse, a tornado. I think the take off run into such a wind would be quite abbreviated. Like maybe 0.5 yards?
> 
> also, I suspect the capacity of the drop tank was reversed and should be 52 gallons, not 25.
> 
> Although more seriously, I find it difficult to believe any text would claim that Wildcat IVs were equivalent to the F4F-4 *and were generally similar to the F4F-3, * unless by _generally similar_ it meant they had about the same appearance. The performance of the -3, which the RN never saw except perhaps in stateside training , was significantly superior to the -4 and any subsequent mark until the advent of the FM-2 and even in that case I believe the -3 performed better at altitude.


 
I thought some non folding wing Martlets had the two stage, two speed engine? In any event under 15000ft or so, the generally lighter single stage blower variants had better performance:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf
see page 3, paragraph 5.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 28, 2012)

THe F4F-3 had a 2 stage (maybe 3 speed) engine and had not the folding wing if i remember right but as writed the FAA used this only in training in US


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 29, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> I thought _*some non folding wing Martlets had the two stage, two speed engine?*_ In any event under 15000ft or so, the generally lighter single stage blower variants had better performance:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf
> see page 3, paragraph 5.



I had not heard that about the early Martlet IIs. For a comparison of the F4F-4 and Martlet F4F-4B, I have to agree, however, the F4F-3 had a slightly lower weight (by about 200 pounds I believe) than the F4F-4B so the latter's low to mid altitude performance would indeed be somewhat similar to that of the F4F-3 with perhaps a slight edge to the -3. I emboldened the _*simiiar to the F4F-3*_ part of the sentence because I was sure that version of the aircraft performed significantly better then any subsequent Wildcat or Martlet mark at all altitudes, incorrectly assuming the RN FAA -4B was closer in weight to the USN's -4.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 29, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I had not heard that about the early Martlet IIs. For a comparison of the F4F-4 and Martlet F4F-4B, I have to agree, however, the F4F-3 had a slightly lower weight (by about 200 pounds I believe) than the F4F-4B so the latter's low to mid altitude performance would indeed be somewhat similar to that of the F4F-3 with perhaps a slight edge to the -3. I emboldened the _*simiiar to the F4F-3*_ part of the sentence because I was sure that version of the aircraft performed significantly better then any subsequent Wildcat or Martlet mark at all altitudes, incorrectly assuming the RN FAA -4B was closer in weight to the USN's -4.



Well, see:
The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer
and the entry for the Martlet III. Apparently the FAA received at least 40 Martlets with 4 x wing guns, a two stage, two speed engine, and fixed wings. However, even the F4F-3, after armour and SS tanks are added, weighed 7556lbs and still had only 1200hp. I'm not sure if any of the FAA F4F-3s saw combat, but these, prior to adding armour and SS tanks and the 6800lb Martlet I would have been quite spritely.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2012)

of this Martlet III, 8 would be that lost with hms audacity,


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 29, 2012)

stug3 said:


> Yes, because certainly no Axis twin or 4 engined AC were EVER shot down ANYWHERE by American planes with those puny .50s.
> 
> Thank god the RAF was everywhere with its awesome 20mm to save us.


Re-reading through this thread, I must have missed this; lol!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 29, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Well, see:
> The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer
> and the entry for the Martlet III. Apparently the FAA received at least 40 Martlets with 4 x wing guns, a two stage, two speed engine, and fixed wings. However, even the F4F-3, after armour and SS tanks are added, weighed 7556lbs and still had only 1200hp. I'm not sure if any of the FAA F4F-3s saw combat, but these, prior to adding armour and SS tanks and the 6800lb Martlet I would have been quite spritely.




Looking at Archer, I am not sure his analysis of the admittedly confusing situation wrt to Grumman production is correct. My understanding, from a variety of sources, is that the first 10 Martlet IIs (w/o folding wings but presumably similarly equipped as either of the the USN production F4F-3 and/or F4F-4s in most other respects is that they were equipped with the export P&W R-1830-S3C4-G engine to power this aircraft with a single-stage, two-speed supercharger. It is my understanding that the P&W 1830-76 was embargoed and so would not have been available to the Martlet IIs or IIIs. I have been attempting to work with the Grumman historical archives to retrieve the earliest production records of the Wildcat Martlet series and it's been a trial. To date they have only sent records for aircraft with USN Bureau Numbers starting in 2/4/41 (I mean February 4, 1941). I do have the records for the early F4F-3A/Martlet III Greek order starting with Bu No. 3875 in 3/18/41 and continuing thru 3904. No other F4F-3As were exported to the FAA as far as I can tell from the records.

My internet connect is being intermittent thanks to the horribly overrated frankin-storm at least here is Sussex county NJ.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 29, 2012)

Fact-check. The F4F-3s were the first Wildcats delivered overseas. They came in too late to be involved in the blitzkrieg over France. But they got a Junkers Ju 88, I believe, over Britain, which was the first recorded victory credited to any Wildcat-type aircraft. Do I check out on those statements? Are they accurate?


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 29, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Fact-check. The F4F-3s were the first Wildcats delivered overseas. They came in too late to be involved in the blitzkrieg over France. But they got a Junkers Ju 88, I believe, over Britain, which was the first recorded victory credited to any Wildcat-type aircraft. Do I check out on those statements? Are they accurate?



If we define an F4F-3 as an F4F with a PW two stage, two speed engine and fixed wings, and the F4F-3A as an F4F with PW single stage, two speed engine and fixed wings, then the first Martlets did not meet this criteria as they used Wright Cyclone single stage, two speed engines. I believe the Ju-88 was actually shot down over Scapa flow on Dec 25 1940, as the FAA Martlets were being used to defend the RN's anchorage. The kill was probably scored by a Martlet I.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 29, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> If we define an F4F-3 as an F4F with a PW two stage, two speed engine and fixed wings, and the F4F-3A as an F4F with PW single stage, two speed engine and fixed wings, then the first Martlets did not meet this criteria as they used Wright Cyclone single stage, two speed engines. I believe the Ju-88 was actually shot down over Scapa flow on Dec 25 1940, as the FAA Martlets were being used to defend the RN's anchorage. The kill was probably scored by a Martlet I.


Would you happen to know whether those engine-adaptations were made at the factory or overseas after that aircraft shipped? That question is raised on what you just said, as I hadn't known enough, before, to ask it.

Also, forgetting about the engine-change, can it fairly be said that Ju 88 was the first recorded victory of any Wildcat-type aircraft? 

Of course, I appreciate all this.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 29, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Well, see:
> The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer
> and the entry for the Martlet III. Apparently the FAA received at least 40 Martlets with 4 x wing guns, a two stage, two speed engine, and fixed wings. However, even the F4F-3, after armour and SS tanks are added, weighed 7556lbs and still had only 1200hp. I'm not sure if any of the FAA F4F-3s saw combat, but these, prior to adding armour and SS tanks and the 6800lb Martlet I would have been quite spritely.



if you read carefully only 10 of this Martlet III would have the 2 stage engine (the ex greek had a single stage engine)


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 29, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Would you happen to know whether those engine-adaptations were made at the factory or overseas after that aircraft shipped? That question is raised on what you just said, as I hadn't known enough, before, to ask it.
> 
> Also, forgetting about the engine-change, can it fairly be said that Ju 88 was the first recorded victory of any Wildcat-type aircraft?
> 
> Of course, I appreciate all this.



AFAIK, these were all Grumman installed engines. 

Yes, AFAIK the first F4F/Martlet kill was 25 Dec 1940.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> if you read carefully only 10 of this Martlet III would have the 2 stage engine (the ex greek had a single stage engine)



Yes, I think you're correct.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 30, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> AFAIK, these were all Grumman installed engines.
> 
> Yes, AFAIK the first F4F/Martlet kill was 25 Dec 1940.


Thank you, again.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 30, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, I think you're correct.


 


Vincenzo said:


> if you read carefully only 10 of this Martlet III would have the 2 stage engine (the ex greek had a single stage engine)



And because Archer does not mention the embargoed P&W R-1830-76 being supplanted by the aforementioned P&W R-1830-S3C4-G with a single stage supercharger in all export Martlett IIs I remain skeptical regarding the first 10 aircraft being stock F4F-3. I concur all engine mods were done by Grumman AFAIK.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 30, 2012)

i writed would have not only have or had because i'm agree the situation of that is not clear.
however if they were called III they need to be different to II


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 30, 2012)

I agree Vincenzo, The II is reputed to have had the P&W R-1830-S3C4-G, WHILE THE III had the R-1830-90. Both with single stage supercharger. Archer makes the claim that both II III had the -90, except for the first 10 of the II which had the -76 and were then reclassified as III. That is counter to everything I have read about Martlet production.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 30, 2012)

Specification http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-1830/R-1830Index.pdf
S3C4-G Ratings TO 1200HP/2700rpm, military 1200/2700/4900ft, 1050/2700/13100, normal 1100/2550/6100, 1000/2550/12600 Fuel 100/130 (possible 95) Weight dry 1492 Prop shaft ratio 16:9 spline 50 Cylinders comp. ratio 6.7:1 Impeller ratio 7.15:1, 8.47:1, Carburetors&Magnetos Optionals, Diameter 48.19 Lenght 63.44 (in the list of installation there are not grumman planes)
-90 Ratings same but NA military and one more normal 1000/2700/14500 Fuel 100, Weight fry 1495, Prop.. same, Cyl... same, Imp... same Diameter 48.19 Lenght 63.41


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 30, 2012)

> of this Martlet III, 8 would be that lost with hms audacity



There were only four aboard _Audacity_ on its last cruise when it went down. Whether they were IIs or Is that 802 Sqn was equipped with seems to be something of a confusing issue; many books state the aircraft were IIs - as does Eric Brown - as they were 'navalised' i.e. folding wings that the Is were not fitted with as the reason why the Mark IIs went to sea. _Audacity_ did not have a hangar; her aircraft were stored on deck. According to a number of sources I've read however, all the serial numbers quoted associated with these aircraft are Martlet Is, including Brown's (AL254) in which he shot down Fw 200s and Lt Cdr J.M. Wintour, shot down in BJ516 by an Fw 200 on 8 November.

The very first F4F victory was indeed the Ju 88 shot down on Christmas Day by two Martlet Is of 804 Sqn, Hatston, Orkney; Lt L.V.Carter and Sub-Lt Parke were responsible for shooting down the aircraft that belly landed in a bog on Orkney.



> Archer makes the claim that both II III had the -90, except for the first 10 of the II which had the -76 and were then reclassified as III. That is counter to everything I have read about Martlet production.



An interesting collection of source material that Archer's listed at the bottom of his missive, but I'm also confused about this too, as the books I have read are contrary to his claim also. As far as I was aware the S3C4-G powered the Mark II.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 30, 2012)

For the FAA page the 802nd had Martlet I and III this squadron never get II. AFAIK had 4 operational Martlet idk if had desembarked the others Martlet (the 802nd was assigned to hms audacity with 8 planes)


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 31, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Well, see:
> The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer
> and the entry for the Martlet III. Apparently the FAA received at least 40 Martlets with 4 x wing guns, a two stage, two speed engine, and fixed wings. However, even the F4F-3, after armour and SS tanks are added, weighed 7556lbs and still had only 1200hp. I'm not sure if any of the FAA F4F-3s saw combat, but these, prior to adding armour and SS tanks and the 6800lb Martlet I would have been quite spritely.



I don't know of any source that states the weight of an armoured F4F-3 as over about 7,450 lbs. I wonder Archer's source for the higher number?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 31, 2012)

> the 802nd was assigned to hms audacity with 8 planes


 ...but, as I said earlier Vincenzo, on _Audacity_'s last cruise, departing the UK in mid December escorting a convoy of 32 vessels, there were only four Martlets aboard. I stand corrected on one point, only three Martlets went down with _Audacity_ though; Sub Lt Fletcher was shot down and crashed in the sea whilst attacking U 131.

Several sources, including books I have and Mr Eric Brown himself have claimed that Martlet IIs equipped 802 Sqn aboard _Audacity_. I'm not so certain though and no one is able to give a definite answer from a reliable source.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 31, 2012)

RCAFson, I believe I have found some on line sources for a gross weight of ~7550 lbs. Not sure yet of their provenance. I believe Lundstrom and Linn quote something like ~7,450 lbs for the fully armored bird but being away from my sources in North Jersey, research is difficult. Yet another F4F mystery?


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 31, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> RCAFson, I believe I have found some on line sources for a gross weight of ~7550 lbs. Not sure yet of their provenance. I believe Lundstrom and Linn quote something like ~7,450 lbs for the fully armored bird but being away from my sources in North Jersey, research is difficult. Yet another F4F mystery?



The FAA data on the F4F-3A:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-III-ads.jpg
gives a weight of 7200lbs, but this is with 240rpg instead of 430 and this aircraft doesn't have SS tanks. Note that the fuel capacity is 133IG or 160USG, when the SS tanks reduced it to 120IG or 144USG. So add in the weight for SS tanks, the dual stage engine and another 840 rounds of .5in ammo and the weight starts climbing.

The Standard Aircraft Characteristics data from Aug 1942 states 7556lb for the F4F-3 with full fuel and ammo, with armour and SS tanks.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Oct 31, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> The FAA data on the F4F-3A:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-III-ads.jpg
> gives a weight of 7200lbs, but this is with 240rpg instead of 430 and this aircraft doesn't have SS tanks. Note that the fuel capacity is 133IG or 160USG, when the SS tanks reduced it to 120IG or 144USG. So add in the weight for SS tanks, the dual stage engine and another 840 rounds of .5in ammo and the weight starts climbing.
> 
> The Standard Aircraft Characteristics data from Aug 1942 states 7556lb for the F4F-3 with full fuel and ammo, with armour and SS tanks.



My understanding from Lundstrom (only source I can access on a borrowed internet connect) is that the ~7,200 lb F4F-3A and F4F-3 at ~7450 lbs. includes armor and SS tanks. *First team* page 140. Same general section claims the armored and SS Tank equipped Martlet II weighed in at 7,512 lb. Guess I won't know details about the USN marks until I get home and can check my copy of AHT. AFAIK, the F4F-3A carried the same 430 rpg ammo load and had just the 4 x 0,50 guns. I don't believe the 240 rpg came into existence until there were 6 guns to feed. Likewise with the fuel capacity which you correctly point out is for an unprotected tank. Something just doesn't add up here. It seems to me you've uncovered yet another inconsistency in the 'official' records. Not that Lundstrom's history is 'official.' Given a choice I'd expect your sheet to be more accurate except that it appears to conflict with a lot of historical accounts and some fairly careful historians. Right now, I am not sure what to think.


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2012)

I don't know if its any help but the Martlet IV when tested in the UK was weighted at 7,740 lb


----------



## merlin (Nov 5, 2012)

The FAA had aircraft ordered for France and later for Greece passed on to them. The successful test flight of the aircraft was in Feb '39, and it wasn't until Aug that the USN placed an order, and allowed it to be made available for export.
Now seems to me that it's plausable for the British Purchasing Commission to get in before the French, therefore aircraft built would have equipment that would match Britain's. This would save time getting the aircraft into service without having the bother in time etc to convert the French spec. aircraft over.
The question that follows from that, is how useful would a FAA spec (and I don't mean with two seats) Martlet be in the BoB?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2012)

merlin said:


> The question that follows from that, is how useful would a FAA spec (and I don't mean with two seats) Martlet be in the BoB?



The answer to that question is WHAT _EXACTLY_ the FAA spec Martlet would be? 

It took until Oct 31st of 1940 for the first 81 Martlets do be delivered to the FAA, and that does not mean delivered to England. 

Assuming you could speed things up and get 80-100 Martlets delivered to England by July 31 1940, which version or spec would they be? 

The US was _NOT_ releasing the 2 stage supercharged engine for export at this time regardless of what the foreign purchasers wanted. It wasn't quite ready for service use in any case. That leaves the single stage R-1830 and R-1820 engines with their poorer altitude performance. A FAA Martlet would have self-sealing tanks of some sort and some sort of pilot protection.
Gun armament is a big question. Four guns or six? At some point in 1940 the M2 Brownings rate of fire changed from 500-600rpm to 750-850 rpm. DO the British accept four of slow firing guns or spec the six gun installation. The decision has to made months before first delivery. Wing folding is optional and of little consequence to the BoB except to lower performance. 

Without the two stage supercharger performance is about 313-320mph at 14-14,500ft and Service ceilings are about 31,000ft. Performance is somewhat similar to a MK I Hurricane but not quite as good over 15,000ft. Hurricanes ability to use 12lb boost under 12,000ft may help there.


----------



## Glider (Nov 5, 2012)

If only to replace the Defiant and Blenhiem fighters, the Martlet would be welcomed with open arms. There seems to be a general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane, which means that it would be more than capable of taking care of itself in the front line.

As to the version, if we are going for the July 1940 period then it would have to be as built for the US forces as time would not allow for any tinkering around. That would presumably mean 4 guns and if they are the slower ones, then so be it. The bit that would worry me more would be the lack of SS fuel tanks, which I would rate a higher priority than the faster firing guns. Armour can easily be installed in the field so that isn't so much of an issue.

If the RAF had to go without the SS tanks then to a degree the radial engine would possibly reduce the losses. 

Again a personal view but I would rather replace the Blenhiem with anything P36's or even at a push, Gladiators.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2012)

Glider said:


> If only to replace the Defiant and Blenhiem fighters, the Martlet would be welcomed with open arms. There seems to be a general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane, which means that it would be more than capable of taking care of itself in the front line.



"..general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane.."

While it was a _rough equivalent_ it was lacking in altitude performance. It's service ceiling (altitude at which the plane can climb 100ft.min) was about 3,000ft lower than the Hurricane which means the operational ceiling (altitude as which a formation of planes can maneuver and keep formation and generally figured to be the altitude at which the planes could climb 500ft/min) was also about 3,000ft lower and the combat ceiling (altitude at which the planes could reasonable fight) was several thousand feet below that. A Hurricane, while slower than a 109, was within 100fpm climb of the 109 at both 25,000 and 30,000ft. The Martlet would a touch slower in level flight than the Hurricane but it would have a 3-4,000 ft height disadvantage. 

It would be better than the Defiant or Blenheim but then they didn't operate that much during the day in the highly contested areas anyway after the first few weeks. 
I bring up the guns because a 4 gun Martlet in 1940 _might_ have about 70% of the fire power of a 4 gun Wildcat in 1942 making comparisons of combat operations difficult.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 5, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> a 4 gun Martlet in 1940 _might_ have about 70% of the fire power of a 4 gun Wildcat in 1942


Why would that be?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 5, 2012)

read SR6 129th topic in this thread


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 5, 2012)

I see.


----------



## merlin (Nov 5, 2012)

Spec.? Well the aircraft would not have French equipement as per the French order, so time from arrival to Squadron use would be much quicker.

From Wiki:

Royal Navy Martlets
Martlet Mk I

At the end of 1939, Grumman received a French order for 81 aircraft of model G-36A, to equip their new Joffre-class aircraft carrier: Joffre and Painlevé. The main difference with the basic model G-36 was due to the unavailability for export of the two-stage supercharged engine of F4F-3. The G-36A was powered by the nine-cylinder, single-row R-1820-G205A radial engine, of 1,200 hp (890 kW) and with a single-stage two-speed supercharger.

A G-36A at Grumman, 1940 
The G-36A had also* French instrumentation, radio, and gunsight*. The* throttle was modified to conform to French *pre-war practice: the throttle lever was moved towards the pilot, (i.e., backward), to increase engine power. The *armament which was to be fitted in France was six 7.5 mm (.296 in) Darne machine guns *(two in the fuselage and four in the wings). The first G-36A was flown on 11 May 1940.

After the defeat of France, all contracts were taken over by Britain. The throttle was modified again, four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) guns were installed in the wings, and most traces of the original ownership removed. The Martlets were modified for British use by Blackburn, which continued to do this for all later marks. British gunsights, catapult spools, and other items were installed.[40] After initial attempts to fit British radio sets, it was decided to use the much superior American equipment.
The first ones entered service in August 1940, with 804 Naval Air Squadron, then stationed at Hatson in the Orkney Islands. The Martlet Mk I did not have a wing folding mechanism, and was therefore only used from land bases.

In 1940, Belgium also placed an order for at least 10 Martlet Mk 1s. These were to be modified with the removal of the tailhook, however, after the surrender of Belgium, none were delivered and by May 10, 1940, the aircraft order was transferred to the Royal Navy.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 5, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> DO the British accept four of slow firing guns or spec the six gun installation.



Given that it took until the latter end of 1942 to resolve gun issues in the Wildcat, P-40 and P-51, one wonders whether the 50 cal was a truly viable (ie combat reliable) weapon in 1940? Doesn't matter whether you have 4 or 6 guns if you can't count on them in combat.


----------



## Glider (Nov 5, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> "..general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane.."
> 
> While it was a _rough equivalent_ it was lacking in altitude performance. It's service ceiling (altitude at which the plane can climb 100ft.min) was about 3,000ft lower than the Hurricane which means the operational ceiling (altitude as which a formation of planes can maneuver and keep formation and generally figured to be the altitude at which the planes could climb 500ft/min) was also about 3,000ft lower and the combat ceiling (altitude at which the planes could reasonable fight) was several thousand feet below that. A Hurricane, while slower than a 109, was within 100fpm climb of the 109 at both 25,000 and 30,000ft. The Martlet would a touch slower in level flight than the Hurricane but it would have a 3-4,000 ft height disadvantage.
> 
> ...



Your points are of course correct but few combats took place as 25-30,000 ft so that wouldn't be a huge problem. Re the Defiant they did operate during the day but were swiftly rmoved due to losses, I am pretty sure the Martlet would do a lot better than that, and Blenhiems tended to stay out of the fight due to there vulnerability again I am sure that the Martlet would do better. Few Blenhiem fighters were used in night fighting (happy to be corrected on that) partly because of the lack of suitably trained pilots. 
The RAF had enough problems training fighter pilots for day fighters, training a load more for night fighting was asking too much.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 5, 2012)

Glider said:


> The RAF had enough problems training fighter pilots for day fighters, training a load more for night fighting was asking too much.


We had Evelyn Trainers in the U.S. for night vision training, and those were really no big deal to complete. Our Navy and Marine Corps pilots were also instrument rated when they got their wings. Our training program in 1943 was 18 months. I'm thinking yours must have been a lot shorter.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 5, 2012)

> training a load more for night fighting was asking too much.



There wasn't seperate 'night fighter training' as such, there was instrument flying and procedural training, but, depending on aircraft type meant that some were more suitable than others. It was discovered early on that the Spit wasn't as suitable as a night fighter compared to the Hurricane or Blenheim or Defiant. The Blenheim and Defiant had an added extra set of eyes, which increased the probability of seeing their prey; the Blenheim's biggest fault was that it was too slow. Extra Martlets would have helped, but why instead of Blenheims and Defiants? The issue was not capability, but shortage of pilots and aircraft. 

(As for the Defiant being withdrawn from Day fighter duties, this is because of Fighter Command's misallocation of resources and a knee jerk reaction to circumstance; by comparison to other types, Defiant losses were actually very low; it's just there was only ever two squadrons equipped with them and only one of those at any time was ever in combat. The highest number of Defiants lost in one day was six. There was not one instance where there was more than 10 to 12 Defiants in the air at once throughout the entire BoB, this at a time when the Germans were regularly fielding up to sixty Bf 109s in escort of bomber formations. Back to the Martlet...)


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 6, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> There wasn't seperate 'night fighter training' as such, there was instrument flying and procedural training, but, depending on aircraft type meant that some were more suitable than others.



This is what the Navy and Marine Corps pilots had to complete for their night vision training. It's basically a big box, a flight-simulator. I got this card from my friend. It's his Dad's card, and that's why it's redacted. You get the idea, though. Again, this is no big fuss, and one would think the British had trainers comparable to these, as well.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 6, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Well, see:
> The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer
> and the entry for the Martlet III. Apparently the FAA received at least 40 Martlets with 4 x wing guns, a two stage, two speed engine, and fixed wings. However, even the F4F-3, after armour and SS tanks are added, weighed 7556lbs and still had only 1200hp. I'm not sure if any of the FAA F4F-3s saw combat, but these, prior to adding armour and SS tanks and the 6800lb Martlet I would have been quite spritely.



Got home last night and checked AHT and other sources. AHT quotes over-load fighter (full gas and ammo) as 7,543 lbs, so your values appear more accurate than what I remembered (The Lundstrom quote is: "_about 7,450 lbs_." F4F-3A overload fighter is listed as 7,320 lbs.

Interesting are comparing the empty weight of the various marks: F4F-3: 5,426 lbs., F4F-4: 5,779 lbs., FM-2: 5,328 lbs.


----------



## Glider (Nov 7, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> We had Evelyn Trainers in the U.S. for night vision training, and those were really no big deal to complete. Our Navy and Marine Corps pilots were also instrument rated when they got their wings. Our training program in 1943 was 18 months. I'm thinking yours must have been a lot shorter.



I should have been clearer. Training night fighter pilots would have taken a lot of additional effort, effort that could not be spared during 1940. By 1943 RAF fighter traiing was very similar to USAAF training. In 1940 the no 1 priority was training enough pilots to fight in the BOB and wasn't nearly to the same standard. 

The point I was trying to make was that the Blenhiems were not NF squadrons, a small number were but not the majority. And these I would replace in the front line with almost anything. Marlets, Buffalos, P36's or even Gladiators. 

I did some research on RAF training in the BOB and if you are interested this is the link. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/raf-pilot-training-hours-1940-a-25873.html


----------



## Glider (Nov 7, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> There wasn't seperate 'night fighter training' as such, there was instrument flying and procedural training, but, depending on aircraft type meant that some were more suitable than others. It was discovered early on that the Spit wasn't as suitable as a night fighter compared to the Hurricane or Blenheim or Defiant. The Blenheim and Defiant had an added extra set of eyes, which increased the probability of seeing their prey; the Blenheim's biggest fault was that it was too slow. Extra Martlets would have helped, but why instead of Blenheims and Defiants? The issue was not capability, but shortage of pilots and aircraft.


The RAF did have for the time qhite advanced training in night flying, they had to for Bomber Command. I also agree that the problem was a shortage of aircraft and more importantly pilots. 

Blenhiems were basically sitting ducks for german fighters, be they Me 109 or Me 110, way too slow, heavy, underpowered and lightly armed. Defiants were also poor performers and very vulnerable. The whole concept of a turret fighter was wrong and had been so since WW1. When the Bristol fighter was first introduced they had neavy losses as they fought concentrating on using the gunner. They only worked when they fought like ordinary fighters leaving the gunner to clear the tail.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 7, 2012)

Glider said:


> I did some research on RAF training in the BOB and if you are interested this is the link. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/raf-pilot-training-hours-1940-a-25873.html


Glider, thanks for pointing me to that thread. That's a very informative and nicely documented post!


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 7, 2012)

Glider, nice post re the training.



> Training night fighter pilots would have taken a lot of additional effort, effort that could not be spared during 1940.



You are right to a degree, but 'night fighter squadrons', as you pointed out didn't exist; it was considered a part of the day fighter duties. In hindsight it is easy to say they could have extended the fighter training to cover better night techniques as employed by Bomber Command, but such a need was not considered necessary at that time - as fool hardy as this might seem. There's no counting for experience however and it took Fighter Command many anxious nights and failed interceptions before squadrons engaged in night fighter duties proved worthy - there was a big learning curve from mid 1940 to mid 1941.



> Blenhiems were basically sitting ducks for german fighters, be they Me 109 or Me 110, way too slow, heavy, underpowered and lightly armed. Defiants were also poor performers and very vulnerable. The whole concept of a turret fighter was wrong and had been so since WW1.



Again, it's easy to say this in hindsight, but at the time, these aircraft could not be spared and they were still considered to be useful. Withdrawing them would have reduced front line strength, with a shortage of aircraft, this is not an option. Any new aircraft acquired by the British would have been put in service alongside existing types, not instead of them. The failures of both these types are obvious in hindsight, but with the Defiant more so than the Blenheim, the tactics employed in their use was asking for trouble and had they been employed in the defence of northern airfields out of the range of single seat fighters they would not have the reputation they do. Nevertheless, the fact they weren't comes down to numbers.

Throughout the battle there was little questioning the qualitative ability of British equipment over German and regardless of any lack of faith in the Defiant, at no time did the British ever consider that this might change the direction of the battle.



> Defiants were also poor performers and very vulnerable.



This is arguable and not necessarily true (here we go again); it's an old perception that refuses to die. With correct tactics employed by 264 Sqn the Defiants had a far better chance of survival and did so against overwhelmingly superior numbers of enemy fighters.


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 7, 2012)

What were the succesful tactics for Defiants?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 7, 2012)

Basically form a defensive circle and then reduce altitude. The guns provided mutual protection keeping German fighters off the tail of each aircraft in the circle while reducing altitude prevented the vulnerable undersides from being attacked. It was quite effective, indeed Me110s employed the same tactics when engaged by RAF single-engined fighters.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 7, 2012)

It was called the Lufbery Circle and was proven to be effective in combat on the 28th and 31st of May when 264 Sqn Defiants went into action against 30 Bf 109s on the 28th and a force of 70 Bf 109s escorting bombers on the 31st, although there was a sqn of Spits and Hurris there on the 31st as well. On both occasions only three Defiants were lost; on the 31st, two of those collided with each other.

Since this thread is about the Martlet/Wildcat I'm gonna continue in another thread...


----------



## Glider (Nov 8, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Glider, thanks for pointing me to that thread. That's a very informative and nicely documented post!



Thank you for the comment. If you want to look at RAF training during the war and compared to the USAAF the following may be of interest.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/raf-pilot-training-ww2-26347.html


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 8, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Since this thread is about the Martlet/Wildcat I'm gonna continue in another thread...


Nuuumannn, do you have a link to that thread? Thanks.

Edit: I found it.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 8, 2012)

Glider said:


> Thank you for the comment. If you want to look at RAF training during the war and compared to the USAAF the following may be of interest.
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/raf-pilot-training-ww2-26347.html


You're welcome. I looked at your source-link in this, too, going back to the cadet program, and, perhaps not surprisingly, while it's very generalized, it does roughly mimic the Navy curriculum.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 9, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Well, see:
> The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer
> and the entry for the Martlet III. Apparently the FAA received at least 40 Martlets with 4 x wing guns, a two stage, two speed engine, and fixed wings. However, even the F4F-3, after armour and SS tanks are added, weighed 7556lbs and still had only 1200hp. I'm not sure if any of the FAA F4F-3s saw combat, but these, prior to adding armour and SS tanks and the 6800lb Martlet I would have been quite spritely.



Just looked carefully at the Grumman green sheets I obtained from the Grumman Historical Center (email: [email protected]) These sheets list the grumman aircraft delivered to the customer with date and aircraft type and Bureau number. 

While it is not a complete list of grumman aircraft delivered, it does list the 81 G36A A/C delivered to the FAA between 7/27/40 and 10/28/40 (in US norm of mm/dd/yy). It also lists the 100 Martlet II A/C delivered to the FAA between 3/4/41 and 4/6/42. However it lists the latter as AM054 through AM063 (10 A/C) as G36A and the remaining AM964 through AM999 (36 A/C) and AJ100 through AJ153 (54 AC) as G36B. This strongly suggests to me that The first 10 Martlets delivered to the FAA in the initial order of 100 were built to the same specs as the F4F-3 in every respect EXCEPT the engine which would appear to have been either the Wright R-1820-40 (aka R-1830-G205A) or the P&W R-1820-S3C-4G. either with a single-stage, 2 speed Supercharger. This also is consistent with all the histories I've read except Archer's. My guess is the P&W is the engine; being consistent with the remaining 90 A/C delivered. 

Page 18 of the Green Sheets lists 18 of the Martlet III/F4F-3A A/C delivered to the FAA starting in 3/18/41 including only the USN Bureau Numbers of 3875 through 3890 delivered 3/31/42. UNfortunately they did not send me the green sheets for the remainder of the F4F-3A production or the initial batch of F4F-3 production with Bureau numbers 1844 through 1896.

Bottom line: No F4F-3s were delivered to the FAA until they sent pilots to the states in 1942 for training. These aircraft were used by the FAA but eventually repatriated to the USN.


----------



## Nikaki (Nov 9, 2012)

Hi all,

Sorry to have joined belatedly, but I just stumbled upon this forum. I believe the issue ought to be asked on two levels, strategically and tactically. The Martlets had strong points that made them desirable strategically, (ease of maintenance, adequate overall performance, good armament, incredible durability) but were no match, ceteris paribus, for top British and German fighters of the same era. Of the Italians, only the Regianne 2000 would have offered credible opposition in 1940-41, with their in-line successors being superior. Also, the Wildcat was designed for naval operations and it is unfair to compare it to superior but more fragile terrestrial types. A good case in point, is the Sea Spitfire which was a dream to fly and fight in, but a dog on and off carriers.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 9, 2012)

Welcome, Nikaki! Got a question for you. What, specifically, do you think handicapped the Martlets? I agree on how you described them, and that they were certainly built to take a licking.


----------



## stug3 (Nov 19, 2012)

A Grumman Martlet naval fighter of No 888 Squadron Fleet Air Arm taking off from the deck of HMS FORMIDABLE in the Mediterranean.


----------



## stug3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Fleet Air Arm Grumman Martlet fighters from No.888 Squadron in flight.


----------



## VBF-13 (Dec 18, 2012)

Great photos. I wonder what the assignment was. Sometimes they mark that on the backs of the original photos and sometimes they don't. After all, these weren't taken with an iPhone camera.


----------

