Only a handful were delivered that way. It would have taken a lot of work to fit an 8 gun .303 armament to a Martlet. Why didn't the French go with the .5in? Why did they feel that the 7.5mm was the better gun?
Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat
- Thread starter Schweik
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Only a handful were delivered that way. It would have taken a lot of work to fit an 8 gun .303 armament to a Martlet. Why didn't the French go with the .5in? Why did they feel that the 7.5mm was the better gun?
Admiral Beez
Captain
The Fulmar is the FAA's top scoring fighter of all time, with 122 air combat kills to only 14 air combat losses, and produced nine FAA aces – more than any other aircraft type for the whole war. Not bad since it was introduced a year into the war and begun to be withdrawn through 1942.
HMS Illustrious and Formidable were badly damaged yes, but no RN carrier was sunk by air attack when protected by the Fulmar. Hardly a disaster. Yes, a faster, better rate of climb, single seat fighter like the Martlet, Sea Hurricane or Seafire would have certainly done better. But let's hear what Admiral Sommerville thought of the Fulmar, though his closing sentence is a bit of a backhanded compliment.
"The Fulmars of ARK ROYAL contributed in no small measure to the safe arrival of the convoy at its destination. On 23rd July formations of enemy aircraft were intercepted on three occasions. On the first occasion, two were shot down for certain and another two probably destroyed, whilst the survivors which reached the fleet were in no state to carry out an accurate attack.
On the second occasion, as the Fulmars were about to intercept, the bombers released their bombs on the destroyer screen and immediately withdrew. Finally an attempted T/B attack was completely broken up and driven off, leaving two aircraft shot down with another damaged and possibly lost.
On 25th July the only enemy formations to approach the fleet were once again thoroughly routed. A force of torpedo bombers withdrew before the fighters could reach it and the only high level bombing attack was intercepted about 15 miles from the fleet, when four enemy planes were destroyed for certain with one probably destroyed and two more damaged. All bombs were jettisoned.
One Italian officer survivor stated he had been shot down by a Hurricane. It is evident that the enemy hold our Fleet Air Arm fighters in higher esteem than do our own Fulmar pilots."
(Signed) J. F. SOMERVILLE,
Vice-Admiral, Force H
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You stated that the "F4F-4 wasn't available to the FAA"
The Martlet IV IS an F4F-4, suffix B denoting the Cyclone engine and cowling arrangement.
But it is of the F4F-4 series, therefore, the FAA did receive F4F-4s...
F4F-4 denotes a two stage P&W engine. The F4F-4B is not an F4F-4.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Perhaps because they were already making parts and ammunition for it and wanted logistics commonality?
Re discovered this lost site. The Small force of Sea Hurricanes available to operate from the Avenger performed quite well, making PQ 18 a success. The Avenger operated only 6 Sea Hurricanes and 3 Swordfish, with another 6 sea Hurricanes disassembled as spares.
HMS Avenger aircraft carrier profile. Aircraft Carrier Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945
HMS Avenger aircraft carrier profile. Aircraft Carrier Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945
GregP
Major
Hi Schweik and RCAFson,
The book shown earlier, Statistial Digest 1946, is NOT the same as the WWII digest. It is for 1946. There is one for every year, more or less. The "special edition" was for the entire war. Links below.
1) USAAF Statistical Digest of World War II: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf
2) Naval Aviation Combat Statistics of WWII: https://www.history.navy.mil/conten...s/naval-aviation/aviation-monographs/nasc.pdf
These have bare statistics and do NOT give individual statistics. Also, the USAAF and US Navy/Maries did NOT save exactly the same data in their records, so comparisons are difficult except at the macro level. For instance, the USN/MC break out combat losses into losses due to enemy aircraft, AAA, and operational losses. The USAAF does not do that. Then, the USAAF breaks out victories into ground kills and air kills. The USN/MC does not do that.
So, we have losses broken out for the Navy/Marines but not the victories, and victories broken out into air and ground for the USAAF but not for the Navy/Marines.
It's almost as if they specifically don't WANT you to be able to compare the data, and that is likely the actual case. Who says interservice rivalry doesn't exist? But, there ARE some useful data in these studies. It is also useful to recall that the USAAF and the USN/MC had wildly different combat experiences. In the ETO, you had 1,000-plane raids with a LOT Mof aircraft engaging each other at times. Anyone who bailed out or went down and wasn't shot on the way down could usually return to service and crash-landed airplanes could be recovered or at least scrounged for parts. In the PTO, you usually had small units of 4 or 8 aircraft encountering anywhere from 1 to 12 enemy aircraft, mostly over water. If anyone went down any real distance away from home, they were usually lost and the aircraft were just gone. It is a LOT easier to keep track of potenital victories in a sky with a few airplanes in it than it is in a sky with 1,000 ariplanes flitting about.
The difference in experience between carrier air combat and air combat over land was tremendous, especially if you talk with people who have done both in WWII where modern nav aids weren't avialable.
Cheers and happy statistics, if those actually exist, that is.
The book shown earlier, Statistial Digest 1946, is NOT the same as the WWII digest. It is for 1946. There is one for every year, more or less. The "special edition" was for the entire war. Links below.
1) USAAF Statistical Digest of World War II: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf
2) Naval Aviation Combat Statistics of WWII: https://www.history.navy.mil/conten...s/naval-aviation/aviation-monographs/nasc.pdf
These have bare statistics and do NOT give individual statistics. Also, the USAAF and US Navy/Maries did NOT save exactly the same data in their records, so comparisons are difficult except at the macro level. For instance, the USN/MC break out combat losses into losses due to enemy aircraft, AAA, and operational losses. The USAAF does not do that. Then, the USAAF breaks out victories into ground kills and air kills. The USN/MC does not do that.
So, we have losses broken out for the Navy/Marines but not the victories, and victories broken out into air and ground for the USAAF but not for the Navy/Marines.
It's almost as if they specifically don't WANT you to be able to compare the data, and that is likely the actual case. Who says interservice rivalry doesn't exist? But, there ARE some useful data in these studies. It is also useful to recall that the USAAF and the USN/MC had wildly different combat experiences. In the ETO, you had 1,000-plane raids with a LOT Mof aircraft engaging each other at times. Anyone who bailed out or went down and wasn't shot on the way down could usually return to service and crash-landed airplanes could be recovered or at least scrounged for parts. In the PTO, you usually had small units of 4 or 8 aircraft encountering anywhere from 1 to 12 enemy aircraft, mostly over water. If anyone went down any real distance away from home, they were usually lost and the aircraft were just gone. It is a LOT easier to keep track of potenital victories in a sky with a few airplanes in it than it is in a sky with 1,000 ariplanes flitting about.
The difference in experience between carrier air combat and air combat over land was tremendous, especially if you talk with people who have done both in WWII where modern nav aids weren't avialable.
Cheers and happy statistics, if those actually exist, that is.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
