Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

[vikingBerserker]

That's really great info and perfect timing. I never really read about the Fulmar until studying which aircraft to build for the BoB GB. I was pretty impressed with this fairly unknown fighter. Thanks again for the info!

 

[Nikademus]

More on Fulmar from other areas (source: Shores)

North Africa (same period Med as Malta books)

Kills:

1 x Z-1007bis

Losses

1 to Bf-109
1 to Ju-88



Greece (1941)

Kills:

1 x S-81
3 x S-79
1 x Z-1007bis
4 x Ju-88
1 x He-111
2 x Ju-52
1 x Do-24

losses

2 to S-79
1 to Ju-88
1 to Ju-52
5 operational


Indian Ocean 1942

Kills:

4 x D3A

losses

4 to A6M2
2 to Hurricane (friendly fire)
1 operational loss

 

[Kurfürst]

Next Question, Where did Kurfurst go?

Gone drinking, meeting a beautiful blonde, generally enjoying weekend like normal people do. How was yours? 8)

 

[parsifal]

I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended.

People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.

 

[Glider]

Gone drinking, meeting a beautiful blonde, generally enjoying weekend like normal people do. How was yours? 8)

Good reply, I asked for that

 

[Kurfürst]

I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended.

People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.

Maybe. Or maybe they have a life to live. And oh the discussion is going very much the way I intend it. Intelligent, informative, and except for your latest post, heading towards a rational and civilized discussion.

I did not have the time to express my compliments to Nikodemus who had the lion's share in that wit his excellent research. Thanks Nik, I'll reply when time permits!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And oh the discussion is going very much the way I intend it. Intelligent, informative, and except for your latest post, heading towards a rational and civilized discussion.

+1

Gotta agree here...

I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended.

People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.

Kurfurst was correct above. This discussion has been informative and up to that comment conducted in an adult manner (Unless I missed something before, I don't think I have...). Ever since Soren was removed, so was the problem for the most part.

Therefore it is not necessary to make such comments in this discussion, unless such things are happening in the discussion. People who typically do that (when not warranted that is), are only trying to pick a fight because they have nothing better to say.

 

[RCAFson]

Fulmar (1942) Malta related operations:

2 x S-79
2 x S-84
5 x Z-1007bis

losses:

1 to CR-42
1 to Re-2001
1 to S-79
1 to Z-1007bis
1 to D-520
9 operational losses
1 to 'Friendly' AA


Martlet (1942) Malta related operations

2 x S-84
1 x Re-2001
1 x Ju-88

losses:

1 to Ju-88
6 operational losses

On the face of it, the Fulmar appears to have a kill rate very close to the Martlet, but a higher loss rate.

 

[parsifal]

It depends on the numbers of each type as to how effective they were. Also the primary mission of a naval fighter is not to shoot down anything. thats just a bonus really. Its primary mission, in the context of the MTO, is to protect ships from the attentions of enemy strike aircraft.

British carriers, as a general rule (there were some exceptions, tended to never enter areas within range of axis SE fighters. This gradually changed as airfields on Sardinia were gradually developed and used by the axis

 

[RCAFson]

It depends on the numbers of each type as to how effective they were. A

AFAIK, on the 1942 Malta operations, there was 4 Fulmars available during Harpoon and 16 during Pedestal, versus 10 Martlets during Pedestal.

 

[RCAFson]

May 18th, 1942. D-520 of Vichy French unit GC III/6 downed a Fulmar piloted by Lt. P.R. Hall and A/G Nuttall during Operation 'LB' flying in 17 Spitfires to Malta. A Catalina was also downed by a D-520 from GC II/3 same day.

According to a snippet from google books,Carrier Operations in World War II: The Royal Navy the Fulmars also shot down a D520 during that operation.

 

[Glider]

+1

Gotta agree here...



Kurfurst was correct above. This discussion has been informative and up to that comment conducted in an adult manner (Unless I missed something before, I don't think I have...). Ever since Soren was removed, so was the problem for the most part.

Therefore it is not necessary to make such comments in this discussion, unless such things are happening in the discussion. People who typically do that (when not warranted that is), are only trying to pick a fight because they have nothing better to say.

I was fair to Kurfurst before and its only right that I be fair to Parsifal here. Kurfurst does have a track record of making statments, often inflamitory ones and then dissapearing when the going gets tough. Recent examples are :-

a) Pilots Hours
His statment about the RAF sending pilots into battle had not had time to master the Tiger Moth. When challanged to support it he tried to imply that he had said something else.
Quote Alll RAF fighter pilots arriving with a mere 6 weeks of training (instead of the orginal, iirc 3 months..), very little flight experience with either general flying or on their operational type to their operational units. How can you fly the Spitfire if you haven't even mastered the Tiger Moth yet..?

b) Bomber Command Losses
One report said that Bomber Command had lost approx 8,500 planes and Kurfurst said that these were based on incorrect radio reports for the British public and the real losses were 10,000. When asked to support this he made a bland statement that it was well known and documented in a number of publications and official reports. When asked which he just went quiet and dissapeared.
See posting 40 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/westland-whirlwind-vs-fw-187-vs-p-38-a-26065-3.html

c) This thread
The evidence was going against him, the first class Nickadeamus filled a lot of gaps and again he went quiet. Until he responded to the flipant line that I posted but as I said it was a good riposte I will give him that.

I should emphasise that this is a pattern and these are just the recent threads.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was fair to Kurfurst before and its only right that I be fair to Parsifal here. Kurfurst does have a track record of making statments, often inflamitory ones and then dissapearing when the going gets tough. Recent examples are :-

a) Pilots Hours
His statment about the RAF sending pilots into battle had not had time to master the Tiger Moth. When challanged to support it he tried to imply that he had said something else.
Quote Alll RAF fighter pilots arriving with a mere 6 weeks of training (instead of the orginal, iirc 3 months..), very little flight experience with either general flying or on their operational type to their operational units. How can you fly the Spitfire if you haven't even mastered the Tiger Moth yet..?

b) Bomber Command Losses
One report said that Bomber Command had lost approx 8,500 planes and Kurfurst said that these were based on incorrect radio reports for the British public and the real losses were 10,000. When asked to support this he made a bland statement that it was well known and documented in a number of publications and official reports. When asked which he just went quiet and dissapeared.
See posting 40 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/westland-whirlwind-vs-fw-187-vs-p-38-a-26065-3.html

c) This thread
The evidence was going against him, the first class Nickadeamus filled a lot of gaps and again he went quiet. Until he responded to the flipant line that I posted but as I said it was a good riposte I will give him that.

I should emphasise that this is a pattern and these are just the recent threads.

I understand that, but it had not happened in this thread yet. Therefore there is no reason for comments to be made that will derail a thread. If Kurfurst has made such a comment, everyone would have blown up, because no one else can do wrong...

If a comment is not warranted at the time, why make childish comments????? Why derail a thread that is going smoothly at the moment?????

Also those examples you have given, have nothing to do with this thread, so why bring them up in this thread.

To be fair to myself, I think you will notice that I am impartial and call anyone out when it is needed. I do not take sides as much as possible. I am not taking sides here, I am just saying what is needed to be said at this particular time.

Now may I do my job as a forum moderator and try and keep things under control before they get out of hand? That includes keeping off the wall comments from derailing threads. If that is okay with you?

 

[Glider]

Of course

 

[Juha]

Hello fastmongrel
For some reason Fulmar has not generated much sympathy in me, even if I have soft spots on many very British weapon systems, which were not so outstanding: Valentine tank, Archer SP AT gun, Blackburn Skua, Fairey Swordfish and Westland Whirlwind.

Fulmar did what it was planned to do and had its good points originating from Admiralty's specs but when compared to its contemporaries of the two other big naval powers, Wildcat and Zero, it really was a 2nd rate plane. FAA pilots achieved much but IMHO that was what soldiers had to do during the war, trying to do their best with the equipment given to them.

IMHO Fulmar's problems stemmed from backwardness of Admiralty, IMHO there were no outstanding British carrier plane between Flycatcher/Nimrod period and Seafury/Seahawk period, and WWII happened to be fought during that dry period. Swordfish sqns did well and it suited well to MACs but IMHO its successes depended more on men who flew it than on the plane itself.

To me the most interesting thing on Fulmar was that the CVE HMS Campania used in combat operations a det of 3 NF Fulmars still in early 45. I have no info what they achieved and their use originated from the failure of Firefly NF II but still interesting to note that and I wonder if they had the 4 .5 armament for which at least late Fulmar Mk IIs were prepared for but not necessary equipped with.

Juha

 

[fastmongrel]

Juha your right it wasnt a great plane. I think it could be considered to be the aircraft equivalent of an old joke. What do you get if a committee designs a horse...... A Camel

 

[parsifal]

we've done the fulmar vs Wildcat versus the zero argument before. No doubt in my mind the Fulmar was the least capable of the three types. however, it was at least available whilst the other two were still essentially prototypes. Putting the zero aside for the moment. The Martlet was not operational with the RN until December, and not really used to any great extent until the following April . By that time the RN had fought many battles and would have lost its war if it had been forced to await for the full scale adoption of the type

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal
Yes, I know but IIRC both Fulmar and Zero got their first kills in Sept 40, so they were contemporaries. But the main question is why RN went to big 2-seater when IJN and USN chose smaller single seater. We know the answer, so no need to discuss it here. And as I wrote, soldiers had to do their best with the equipment given to them. Even use shot-guns and logs of wood as A/T weapons if there was nothing better around. Fulmar was much better fighter than those ad hoc means were AT weapons but it is self-clear that one use what one get but one can still wonder why this solution and not something else that might be more effective to given job.

Juha

 

[NZTyphoon]

Hello Parsifal
Yes, I know but IIRC both Fulmar and Zero got their first kills in Sept 40, so they were contemporaries. But the main question is why RN went to big 2-seater when IJN and USN chose smaller single seater. We know the answer, so no need to discuss it here. And as I wrote, soldiers had to do their best with the equipment given to them. Even use shot-guns and logs of wood as A/T weapons if there was nothing better around. Fulmar was much better fighter than those ad hoc means were AT weapons but it is self-clear that one use what one get but one can still wonder why this solution and not something else that might be more effective to given job.

Juha

Part of the problem with FAA requirements was that the Royal Navy and the RAF were at cross purposes when it came to deciding what was needed: when the RAF were in charge of the FAA there were short-range single seat fighters designed and used (eg: Fairey Flycatcher, Hawker Nimrod [which was not a development of the Fury Biplane as myth would have it - it was a parallel development of the Fury formula] etc) on carriers) When the Royal Navy took over operating carriers and framing requirements for the FAA many of those who framed the requirements were unsure of exactly what the role of fleet carriers should be. Unlike many in the US Navy, who envisaged carriers to be the strategic weapons systems of the future, the RN still considered battleships to be the main weapon, with carriers in support. Nor did the RN envisage that their fleet would be faced with concentrated air raids from land based or carrier based aircraft.
So, when it came to framing requirements for fighters the RN decided that to save time, money and deck-space it would be good to have aircraft which combined roles; hence we had the Blackburn Skua, which was supposed to be a fighter as well as a dive bomber ( it could be argued the JNAF used the D3A 'Val' as a fighter on ocassion, but that was up to the aircrews involved - the Skua was supposed to attack enemy bombers and reconnaissance aircraftbut, as it turned out the Skua was usually to slow to catch anything but seaplanes). The Fulmar was supposed to be used as a long range reconniassance aircraft as well as a fighter. Result was mediocre designs which were never entirely adequate for any of the roles they were designed to fulfill.

When the penny finally dropped and the RN realised they needed proper single-seat fighters their only options were to go to America for the F4F and scream at the Air Ministry for some British designs.

It should be noted here that Supermarine did have drawing board designs for two-seat FAA fighters based on their experience with the Spitfire, although the elliptical wing was dropped for a tapered design, and there was an early design for a single-seat fighter based on the Spitfire which was dropped in favour of the Fulmar.

 

[tail end charlie]

It should be noted here that Supermarine did have drawing board designs for two-seat FAA fighters based on their experience with the Spitfire, although the elliptical wing was dropped for a tapered design, and there was an early design for a single-seat fighter based on the Spitfire which was dropped in favour of the Fulmar.

I dont know the details of lend lease but it is known that at the end of the war FAA Corsairs were pushed into the sea so they didnt have to be paid for, I would imagine that was a major part of British thinking, design build and fly a plane you pay for yourself or borrow one that if its "lost" you dont pay for.