Ah yes - that would be the Wildcat for sure !!- I think you got me twice in one evening
Perhaps maybe a hotted-up Hellcat would have been better suited to smaller carriers - jeep carriers for example
Just a thought. Possibly not a good one ahem.
Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
They still have to be vectored onto them in time. This isn't some steady-stream formation giving you a nice, fat radar plot coming in with the bombers, they will be staying low and jinking their way out. For the most part, they will have allowed themselves a fuel margin to make a high-power exit.
Strange. I would have told the F4Fs to do the exact opposite; bring your heavier weapons to bear on the bombers and let the faster Spitfires take care of the Bf109s.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
yes but the destination of the 109's is a known , and that tough little unit with the radial might be just the thing to make an interdiction .and a longer range or endurance is a feature that trumps many others .
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
If we're talking about hitting them over the target
why are we talking about F4Fs to the exclusion of all else? It still brings the Spitfires back into the equation as the best platform to tackle the escorts. The 'tough little unit with the radial' (and the punchier armament) would be best employed tackling the bombers.
As proved with the historically correct Spitfire and Hurricane combination, the lines between who tackled what got a little blurry in the heat of battle, so I'm not suggesting the F4F was a sitting duck by any means; if the Bf109 could be forced to engage (protecting bombers) the F4F would acquit itself.
There is no condition where the F4F would be generally preferable over the Spitfire for tackling the Bf109s, simply because the 109s wouldn't have to engage the F4Fs if they didn't want to. Sending the F4Fs after the fuel and ammo-depleted mission aircraft would be folly, at some stage they too would need to return and they would not be able to outrun any Axis CAP put up to protect the returning mission aircraft.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
What is the matter with putting range into play its an option neither the Brits or Germans actually figured out during the war. I can't recall mentioning the Wildcat surperceding the Spit .But why not the Wildcat over the Hurricane range adds a whole new set of options in your tactics
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
If we're still talking about chasing fuel and ammo-depleted Axis mission aircraft back over the channel, then what's your exit strategy when the F4Fs eventually do run low on fuel? Because they'll need one.
You didn't. But you (and a couple others) seem to be precluding the Spitfire from any of the activities whilst tossing the F4F into those that would suit the Spitfire better; the radial-engined, heavier-hitting, slower F4F would excel at bomber-killing. It would not excel at running after fleeing escorts with a 30mph margin over them and it certainly wouldn't excel at running away from them.
Best bet for the F4Fs tackling the escorts is, ironically enough, by tackling the bombers and forcing the 109s to engage them.
The F4F as an escort itself would make use of its superior range, penetrating deeper into France than either the Hurricane or Spitfire could but you still have the issue of extraction vs a faster opponent who's on his side of the channel and so also has the numbers.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Not talking about Balboas of aircraft maybe a Squadron or 2 to penetrate the French coast and create a little havoc amongst returning aircraft . I'm quite sure the Germans would be hard pressed to discriminate between friend and foe . Its a tactic I've not heard about prior to mid 41
Considering the first Martlets were a diverted French order, the second batch diverted from Greek deliveries it seems to me all else aside the Wildcat was considered good by some officials of the time at least for European operations with a land based air force in 1940.
I don't think the OP was trying to start an argument between Hurricane and Wildcat afficionadoes. Obviously they were contemporary between each other with varied benefits and weaknesses.
Good range and equipment is certainly a strength of the Wildcat. Light weight and tested design manufacture is certainly a strength of the Hurri.
Why wasn't the Hurri engineered like a Wildcat? Because the design requirements and industrial complex to be used were different. Hence my initial statement I would've picked a MiG, which is an interceptor type like a Hurri and has range benefits a bit like a Wildcat, with specialised altitude performance I think it would've been very interesting to see in the BoB.
MiG problems are armament (you need the gunpods that were eventually developed) and fighter performance at low alt (you need Spits). Also you need to push MiG development back about six months to be good for BoB, but there is really nothing prohibiting this if there were say, strong British relations and interest in the prototypes. As a purpose built interceptor in 1940 though I think it's hard to beat the MiG.
I don't think the OP was trying to start an argument between Hurricane and Wildcat afficionadoes. Obviously they were contemporary between each other with varied benefits and weaknesses.
Good range and equipment is certainly a strength of the Wildcat. Light weight and tested design manufacture is certainly a strength of the Hurri.
Why wasn't the Hurri engineered like a Wildcat? Because the design requirements and industrial complex to be used were different. Hence my initial statement I would've picked a MiG, which is an interceptor type like a Hurri and has range benefits a bit like a Wildcat, with specialised altitude performance I think it would've been very interesting to see in the BoB.
MiG problems are armament (you need the gunpods that were eventually developed) and fighter performance at low alt (you need Spits). Also you need to push MiG development back about six months to be good for BoB, but there is really nothing prohibiting this if there were say, strong British relations and interest in the prototypes. As a purpose built interceptor in 1940 though I think it's hard to beat the MiG.
The XF4F-2 monoplane crashed, Grumman came up with the XF4F-3 which had a new wing, engine and tail.
The F2A gained app. 1,000lb in armour and armament between testing and combat, the F4F less since she had 4*.50 right away.
The emphasis is on later Hurricane but the OP stated this is a hypotethical scenario where the F4F-3 is already available and the Mk.II isn´t.
proton45
Senior Airman
I hate to sound out on this...But didn't the UK win the BoB? Are we wondering if it could have been won "better"? 
I'm just kidd'in around....
ON a second point...I think that in the long run it would have been a bad idea to take the fight "over France" (at this time)...another advantage that the English had was that they didnt loose pilots that had to "bail out" over England. They where able to keep more qualified trained pilots in the air...
I'm just kidd'in around....
ON a second point...I think that in the long run it would have been a bad idea to take the fight "over France" (at this time)...another advantage that the English had was that they didnt loose pilots that had to "bail out" over England. They where able to keep more qualified trained pilots in the air...
Last edited:
claidemore
Senior Airman
While there may be a certain tactical advantage in attacking planes on the homeward leg of their sortie, the emphasis generally should be to attack them before they get to their target. This would be particularly true during the early part of BoB when fighter airfields were the target.
For a fighter to be used in an offensive role over France, it should have performance parity (mainly speed), and preferably performance superiority, against it's principle opponents (109s), and this was lacking in both the Hurricane and Wildcat/Martlet.
I kinda think that waiting to catch returning bombers with a couple squadrons of Wildcat fighters over the channel or over France would work once. The second time 'Jerry' would counter with a few Gruppes of nicely timed 109s and the slower Wildcats would have a hard time making it home.
Best option for this question, Wildcat/Marlet vs Huricane, would seem to me to be a comprimise, a domesticlaly produced already available plane (the Hurricane) with two or more .50 Brownings replacing .303s. Even a mix of .50 and .303 would have been an improvement.
For a fighter to be used in an offensive role over France, it should have performance parity (mainly speed), and preferably performance superiority, against it's principle opponents (109s), and this was lacking in both the Hurricane and Wildcat/Martlet.
I kinda think that waiting to catch returning bombers with a couple squadrons of Wildcat fighters over the channel or over France would work once. The second time 'Jerry' would counter with a few Gruppes of nicely timed 109s and the slower Wildcats would have a hard time making it home.
Best option for this question, Wildcat/Marlet vs Huricane, would seem to me to be a comprimise, a domesticlaly produced already available plane (the Hurricane) with two or more .50 Brownings replacing .303s. Even a mix of .50 and .303 would have been an improvement.
claidemore
Senior Airman
oops, double post, system hang up.
In this time frame you would be comparing the Hurricane I to the Martlet I or II as the Martlet I was operational with the FAA in Sept 1940. The key difference is the Martlet I had the Wright cyclone and fixed wings, while the Martlet II had t he P&W Twin Wasp and folding wings. The top speeds are 313 and 317 respectively,at about 15,000ft . Initial climb rates at 2000 ft per min or slightly less . These fighters take about 7 to 8 minutes to 15,000 ft and 12 minutes to 20,000 ft. These are the performance numbers of combat ready aircraft, as tested by A&AEE .
Compared to a Hurricane I with a constant speed prop , the Hurricane has a top speed of about 320 mph at 20,000 ft and an initial climb rate of 2600 ft/min.Time to 20,000 ft is about 8 minutes.
Both of these fighters were considered rugged ,well armoured and manoeuvrable.
The Hurricanes role in the BoB was that of a short range interceptor, Climbrate is probably the most important performance factor as an interceptor and the Hurricane has a very significant advantage over the Martlet/Wildcat.
Other essential factors to wining the BoB where the Hurricane was superior to the wildcat include:
-repair of battle damage aircraft
-wide track under carriage
-the probability of hitting the target is greater with 8x .303 vs 4x .50
The last two are particularly important with the pilot training and shortages that occurred during the battle.
Slaterat
Compared to a Hurricane I with a constant speed prop , the Hurricane has a top speed of about 320 mph at 20,000 ft and an initial climb rate of 2600 ft/min.Time to 20,000 ft is about 8 minutes.
Both of these fighters were considered rugged ,well armoured and manoeuvrable.
The Hurricanes role in the BoB was that of a short range interceptor, Climbrate is probably the most important performance factor as an interceptor and the Hurricane has a very significant advantage over the Martlet/Wildcat.
Other essential factors to wining the BoB where the Hurricane was superior to the wildcat include:
-repair of battle damage aircraft
-wide track under carriage
-the probability of hitting the target is greater with 8x .303 vs 4x .50
The last two are particularly important with the pilot training and shortages that occurred during the battle.
Slaterat
afai i've understand reading the FAA archive pages martlet II was delivered much later, the martlet III (greek) were delivered before of II and have R1830 single stage, for plane with 1830 two stage need spring '42.
afaik early US F4F-3 were not with ss tank and armour but with the best performance of wildcat family
on weaponry you've sure more hitting probability around three times but also a round that less of six times the damage so i'm agree with people that tell it's best 4 .50
Last edited:
- an F4F-3 could climb to 20,000ft in eight minutes. Twelve minutes to 20kft is the climb time of the heavier F4F-4.
- what is the point of hitting a target with bullets that are too weak to do real damage?
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
No question that an early model F4F3, if available would have been superior. Faster, much better rate of climb, more heavily armed and much more durable in an attack on the six of an HE111 or DO17. In addition much better visibility for gunnery. From Dean, "Americas' Hundred Thousand" "The fastest and lightest Wildcat was the early F4F3 which touched 335 mph at 22000 feet. In addition the climb rate was over 3200 feet per minute at sea level." The throw weight of the F4F3 four 50 cals was 6.36 pound per second whereas, the throw eight of the eight 30 cals of the Hurricane was around five pounds per second. The firing time of the wildcat was 28.7 seconds whereas I believe the Hurricane's firing time was 17 seconds. The 50 cal round's lethality was far higher than the rifle caliber weapons of the Hurricane.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
To be honest, I'm starting to wonder why we're even discussing this comparison when the F4F-3 wasn't even available during the BoB. By the time of the BoB, the Hurri had already been extensively blooded (and bloodied) in combat over France so any alternative had to be available in large numbers well before May 1940.
Matching up the Hurri MkI to the F4F-3 is, as the originator of the thread stated, merely hypothetical so why not compare the Hurri MkI to the P-51D or Tempest or Spit XIV? It's a general trend of aviation that older designs perform less well than newer designs (there are exceptions but I did say "general trend") so it should come as no surprise that an aircraft which entered service 2.5 years after the Hurri MkI has better performance, particularly given the rapid advance of techology that was occurring during this period. We really ought to compare apples and apples, at least in a temporal context.
No doubt others will disagree but this thread is starting to seem rather pointless unless we take some hypotheticals out of the equation. To quote the immortal Scottie, "Ye canna change the laws of physics" and we all know what problems ensue when you dick around with the space-time continuum!
Matching up the Hurri MkI to the F4F-3 is, as the originator of the thread stated, merely hypothetical so why not compare the Hurri MkI to the P-51D or Tempest or Spit XIV? It's a general trend of aviation that older designs perform less well than newer designs (there are exceptions but I did say "general trend") so it should come as no surprise that an aircraft which entered service 2.5 years after the Hurri MkI has better performance, particularly given the rapid advance of techology that was occurring during this period. We really ought to compare apples and apples, at least in a temporal context.
No doubt others will disagree but this thread is starting to seem rather pointless unless we take some hypotheticals out of the equation. To quote the immortal Scottie, "Ye canna change the laws of physics" and we all know what problems ensue when you dick around with the space-time continuum!
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Yep
got my data wrong, rate of climb for the F4F-3 was 3,300ft/min but to be fair my source wasn't that clearly laid out; the rate of climb I offered was for the -4 (in brackets, next to the -3 data).
Apologies for that
It would have been quite a bomber-killer.
To the earlier point from another poster about greater probability of 8 x .303s hitting the target over 4 x .50s, well, if both sets of guns are harmonised the way you want them, what's the difference between missing the target with one set over the other? If you've missed, you've missed.
In the absence of a reliable Hispano installation, .50 cal-armed fighters would have been of immeasurable value over SE England in summer 1940.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
One way of looking at it, though, was that the production contract for the first batch of F4F3s was awarded in August 1939 If the US had been at war then, like the UK was, there is little doubt that the Wildcat could have been operational in late summer 1940. That is a stretch but the two AC were somewhat contemporaneous. Another point is that the F4F3 with all protected tanks carried 147 gallons of internal fuel. I don't believe the Hurricane carried that much and all tanks were not protected. If I had been a pilot, that point alone would have made me choose the Wildcat.
I agree with buffnut and was going to post the same myself but didn't want to look like a stick in the mud. At least not the first, lol.
If we are choosing an alternative to the Hurricane for RAF fighter command int he summer of 1940 we should be looking at aircraft that would have been available for the RAF to buy instead, which the F4F-3 definitely was not. Having flown in 1935, the first service Hurricanes were being delivered to the RAF in 1937, two years BEFORE the F4F-3 contract mentioned above was signed. This is what enabled the Hurricane to be the primary defensive fighter in the BoB. So whats the real alternative to that
Many decisions were taken during rearmament that proved incorrect - but in procuring the Hurricane and Spitfire I honestly don't think that any better choice could have possibly been made.
I also don't necessarily see that an F4F-3 purchase that early would have brought 50 cals with it. Too many obstacles are simply being overlooked and it seems to me that, in overlooking all the problems with an F4F-3 buy, but at the same time taking into account every percieved failing of the Hurricane I, the deck is being rather obviously and unfairly stacked in this comparison.
If we are choosing an alternative to the Hurricane for RAF fighter command int he summer of 1940 we should be looking at aircraft that would have been available for the RAF to buy instead, which the F4F-3 definitely was not. Having flown in 1935, the first service Hurricanes were being delivered to the RAF in 1937, two years BEFORE the F4F-3 contract mentioned above was signed. This is what enabled the Hurricane to be the primary defensive fighter in the BoB. So whats the real alternative to that
Many decisions were taken during rearmament that proved incorrect - but in procuring the Hurricane and Spitfire I honestly don't think that any better choice could have possibly been made.
I also don't necessarily see that an F4F-3 purchase that early would have brought 50 cals with it. Too many obstacles are simply being overlooked and it seems to me that, in overlooking all the problems with an F4F-3 buy, but at the same time taking into account every percieved failing of the Hurricane I, the deck is being rather obviously and unfairly stacked in this comparison.
Last edited:
