Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
At the risk of being pedanticI think what gets under some peoples skin (at least mine) is the skewing of time lines. The F4F-3 was entering squadron service about 4-6 weeks ahead of the Hurricane MK II. That might be a better comparison
I extolled the range factor not as a campaign changer but as an option, and in most situations options are a nice thing to have .Another thing is the "legs" of the Wildcat. Yes the Wildcat had more range but the Hurricane carried 97 imp gal of fuel which comes out to 116.5 US gallons. Wildcat with self sealing tanks had 147 US gallons. 26% more, nice to have but a battle/campaign changer?
.
At the risk of being pedantic
isn't that the difference between a comparison and a what-if?
A comparison usually does take contemporaneous peers and run them against each other, what-ifs ask us to disregard the historically correct and present an informed debate based on our collective knowledge of the two subjects.
This really shouldn't be getting under anybody's skin
I extolled the range factor not as a campaign changer but as an option, and in most situations options are a nice thing to have .
That makes sense"What-ifs" that ask us to chose between plane "A" and plane "B" for a given job when plane "B" is almost 3 years newer (based on entry into squadron service) are almost always going to have the same answer
I find that statement a little far stretched. There's many variables that have to be put in place considering if the aircraft is sitting on alert ready to go. The type of runway, field and wind conditions would play a major part in getting into the air. In WW2 there were many RAF bases with open grass strips so there was little time for taxi. Also pilot skill has a lot with doing a "short field take off" and going immediately to "Vx" while maintaining engine temps. A number of aircraft could have done the same thing, and that's not taking anything away from the Hurricane.How long did it take the Wildcat to take off. I have read that the Hurricane was the fastest aircraft of the war to scramble.
Yes, but as far as possible we should be comparing the F4f as it existed in July 1940, to the hurricane as it exsted in July 1940. If you do that, you find the f4f has a LOT of deficiencies and design faults, that mean it would not have been abale to do the job....if you want to fast forward the evolution and argue the F4f3 as it existed in say April 1941 should be the representative type, then you have to compare that with the hurricane as it existed at that time...trouble is, by that stage the hurricane was not being developed as a true or pure fighter....it was already on its way to being transformed into a fighter bomber with a different role to that of the f4f.
Again parsifal, you have no real data to back that up. The problems with the aircraft were things quickly fixed as seen how fast the FAA put them into services. As far as the aircraft not being ready for carrier service, the Martlet 1 went aboard carriers in the fall of 40. Just because their wings didn't fold didn't mean they couldn't operate from a carrier.True enough about the types problems being overstated. But it nevertheless was not a type that was really ready, whereas the hurricane had been ready for some years. Whilst the type may have had land based possibilities, it was not ready for carrier operatiion in the RN until november, and then only in a very limited way, primarily the result of the lack of wing folding in the martlets until April '41.
That's speculationif the type had been thrown into battle as the hurricane was, it would have suffered the heavy losses that the hurricane suffered.
I could agree to a point. Had the -3 been thrown into the BoB factory fresh, I can agree.Its problems with armamant, undercariage armour fuel systms etc, instead of being worked out in a peacetime environment, would have been worked out under combat conditions....and that would have meant a lot of losses. to try and compare the f4f3 AFTER it was made fully operational, with hurricane subtypes years older in design and fighting for their very existence under the most difficult comabat conditions, is not comparing apples to apples
The Marlet 1 was still miles a head of the Fulmar despite the operations flown.Martlet Is were never deployed onto Carriers. 100 were ordered in 1940 (by the french) and 81 of these were delivered to the RN. the remaining 19 were lost to u-Boats enroute. As a type they actually outnumbered the Fulmar. Clearly they were superior to the Fulmar, but the martlet Is were only ever used defensively, whereas the Fulmar was entrusted with many extremely hazardous offensive operation.
Heres where the speculation kicks in. Why would the RN not put the Martlet into the frontline of combat, when in up front perfomrance it clearly out shone the Fulmar. i think it was due to reliability issues as well as the lack of wing folding. It was found to suffer undercarriage issues, which meant its attrition rate whilst in heavy seas and on carriers was too high. it was found to suffer armemnt stopages which had criticalimplications when every fighter counted in the types of combat face by the RN in early'41. It suffered fuel system failures which again affected attrition and reliability. Lastly it lacked wing folding, which meant that if it had been embarked it would have dropped air group sizes in british carriers (already far too small) by at least a third.
But yet the aircraft were immediately deployed. Look at the time span from when the Martlet 1 was acquired to when it did began operations, I think we're talking 4 months.Whilst the problems were minor, they did take more than a year to iron out.
What's your definition of "performing poorly?"Most of the problems had been identified in the USN by early '40, yet they, and the RN soldiered on with examples that performed poorly for more than a year. The F4f in British service did not really reach full operational status until April 1941, and was not extensively shipped aboard carriers until september '41 (with the introduction of the martlet IIIs)
This site proviodes some basic information that tends to back up my speculation
Grumman Martlet (F4F Wildcat)
In Dean the empty weight of the F4F3 shows a weight of armor of 155 pounds. The F4F4 with added armor showed a weight of 162.5 pounds. Based on that, to say the F4F3 lacked armor, is incorrect. Unless I am mistaken the Hurricane that fought in the BOB had one fuel tank, right in front of the pilot, which was not self sealing and a number of RAF pilots paid a price for that. First flight of the Wildcat was in 1937. First flight of the Hurricane was in 1935 so there was about two years difference in the beginning of development.
I
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
Report No. 1469A
August 12, 1941
Detail Specification ForModel F4F-3 Airplane (this is the non armoured initial version - overload version shown is roughly equal to armoured version)
wrong assumption the report it's for -3 with armour as you can read in it
In Dean the empty weight of the F4F3 shows a weight of armor of 155 pounds. The F4F4 with added armor showed a weight of 162.5 pounds. Based on that, to say the F4F3 lacked armor, is incorrect. Unless I am mistaken the Hurricane that fought in the BOB had one fuel tank, right in front of the pilot, which was not self sealing and a number of RAF pilots paid a price for that. First flight of the Wildcat was in 1937. First flight of the Hurricane was in 1935 so there was about two years difference in the beginning of development.
Martlet Is were never deployed onto Carriers. 100 were ordered in 1940 (by the french) and 81 of these were delivered to the RN. the remaining 19 were lost to u-Boats enroute. As a type they actually outnumbered the Fulmar. Clearly they were superior to the Fulmar, but the martlet Is were only ever used defensively, whereas the Fulmar was entrusted with many extremely hazardous offensive operation.
Heres where the speculation kicks in. Why would the RN not put the Martlet into the frontline of combat, when in up front perfomrance it clearly out shone the Fulmar. i think it was due to reliability issues as well as the lack of wing folding. It was found to suffer undercarriage issues, which meant its attrition rate whilst in heavy seas and on carriers was too high. it was found to suffer armemnt stopages which had criticalimplications when every fighter counted in the types of combat face by the RN in early'41. It suffered fuel system failures which again affected attrition and reliability. Lastly it lacked wing folding, which meant that if it had been embarked it would have dropped air group sizes in british carriers (already far too small) by at least a third.
its true my argument about the type being vulnerable to losses if it had been committed to heavy fighting in 1940 is speculative , but I think its a reasonable speculation. the RN also evidently did not think it ready either....if they had, they would have committed the type to frontline combat, like the Fulmar, rather than holding the type back on essentially light duties, flying defensive patrols in relatively safe areas like Scapa
Whilst the problems were minor, they did take more than a year to iron out. Most of the problems had been identified in the USN by early '40, yet they, and the RN soldiered on with examples that performed poorly for more than a year. The F4f in British service did not really reach full operational status until April 1941, and was not extensively shipped aboard carriers until september '41 (with the introduction of the martlet IIIs)
This site provides some basic information that tends to back up my speculation
Grumman Martlet (F4F Wildcat)