Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat

SaparotRob said:

I think we've established that the Wildcat and Hurricane were less than optimal naval aviation supremacy aircraft. That would definitely be a factor in comparing the different theatres.
In the North Atlantic, fleet defense didn't require first rate fighters. Breaking up unescorted bomber attacks was the task, not attacking/counter attacking opposing fleets. The convoys would put as much distance as possible from hostile airfields. Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes and Martlets would suffice if only to disrupt attacks. Anti-aircraft weapons were perpetually upgraded and increased as soon as practicable.
There may be some similarities between the PTO and the MTO, however.
Consider Axis airfields as unsinkable aircraft carriers. RN fleets maneuvering to avoid the "flight decks" of opposing air fleets. Scrambling aircraft up to altitudes those planes were not enthusiastic about reaching (No supporting data, just what I got from this thread). The quality of Allied aircraft was far more important in the Med and was found lacking. The attacks on the Med convoys were more incessant than the attacks on the American forces by the IJN/IJA. The LW possibly had superior planes to the IJN but no Air Force in the world could match the IJN in training, experience and dedication in anti ship warfare. At least up to the Battle of Santa Cruz.
The PTO was a battle between opposing air fleets launched from aircraft carriers as well as unsinkable aircraft carriers. Henderson Field, Rabaul, etc. It involved land based aircraft crewed by navy, army and marine personnel. Both side's air forces were (for the most part) trained in anti ship warfare. The Axis air forces in the PTO may have had less robust planes but they had the craft to put ordnance on target.
This may be where comparison differs. The PTO aircraft were designed (some better than others) and crewed anti ship specialists. The raids were fewer but more intense.

Click to expand...

I get the sense you are a well-meaning, impartial observer in this big stupid debate, but I feel compelled to point out that almost all of that is completely wrong. So wrong in fact, that I need to throw in the towel after this post. But here are some points in no particular order.

• In the Atlantic, the main threat (by far) was actually submarines. The most important aircraft were PBYs, Sunderlands, B-24s (PB2Y) and TBFs in the ASW mode. Sea Hurricanes were adequate to see off the occasional Fw 200..
• Submarines were pretty substantial part of the threat in the Med too. And the Pacific. But only in the Pacific did you also have hard core fleet actions, carrier vs. carrier, battleship vs. battleship.
• The Hurricane was a great fighter in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. By 1941 however, it had really gone past it's "use by" date. Even the Russians didn't want them any more.
• The Sea Hurricane was a completely inadequate carrier fighter, partly because you can't have a carrier fighter with a 400 mile range and a 1 hour combat endurance, and partly because it was just an obsolete fighter that couldn't contend with land based fighters, or especially with the A6M. All they could do is CAP and they were very bad at that, read the history of PQ 18 as an excellent example, they couldn't even shoot down lumbering seaplanes like BV 138s and He 115s.
• The Fulmar was just an inadequate design from the get-go. WW2 propeller engines, especially in the first half of the war, were just not powerful enough to power a 2-man fighter sufficiently to be anything other than a glorified scout. It was sufficient to intercept slow, unescorted bombers at low altitude, but that's not enough for a carrier fighter.
• Don't even get me started on the Skua.
• The Wildcat was a somewhat mediocre design, inferior in performance to the A6M, which through good tactics and training - and leveraging it's better traits, turned out to be a moderate success. It was substantially better both as a fighter and especially as a naval fighter than a Hurricane let alone a Sea Hurricane. It had 2.5 times the endurance and twice the range for one thing. It was also better armed and more agile. It was the Wildcat which broke the IJN air arm, more than any other aircraft. RCAF has grossly exaggerated the deficiencies of the F4F, cherry picking one evaluation over all others, but in reality while there was a controversy in mid-1942, by the end of that year and for most of the next year, they were still successfully relying on the F4F to protect the fleets and escort bombers and more, and did so with success. Using tactics like the Thach weave and other standardized guidelines which became part of the training for all fighter pilots, they made it work. Much like Allied fighter pilots did with Spitfire Mk Vs and P-40s in the Western Desert.
• The Martlet was originally an export version of the Wildcat with a civilian airliner engine. It was far less capable than a Wildcat. And yet even so, it was far more effective than the Hurricane or Fulmar and the RN tried to get as many as they could. Gradually they improved the Martlet but it was always a step behind what the USN was using.
• The Mediterranean Naval Air War (as distinct from the War over the Desert in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia) was definitely not anywhere near as intense as the Pacific War. It was the minor leagues. Nowhere near the same scale as the Pacific War. The Pacific War was more or less continuous, with vicious engagements breaking out every few weeks, with no holds barred, and no quarter asked or given. It had everything the Med convoy fights had plus a lot more. Much bigger and many more surface ships. Much better and more effective torpedoes (on the Japanese side), many more aircraft carriers, and more modern everything.
• The convoy fights like Pedestal were up against almost entirely unescorted, obsolete Italian bombers and / or unescorted (though better) German bombers like the Ju 88. The latter was nearly impossible for a Hurricane to intercept (either over the fleet or over Malta) but more or less average land based fighters like P-40s easily shot them down. Only when the convoy drew within close range of the German air bases and within range of Bf 109s and MC 202s were they under any serious threat that was in any way comparable to the sea battles in the Pacific, and then only for a short time. The RN basically broke under that strain.
• The fact that RCAFson managed to apparently convey the impression that these were comparable in any way proves the futility of this debate.
• The A6M was by far the best naval fighter of the war until the Hellcat arrived in Sept 1943. F4U's were very good but they were land based at first. It was better than all carrier fighters and at least the equal of any land based fighter in the world in 1942.
• The fragility of Japanese aircraft, especially the A6M and Ki 43, is exagerrated. It mattered, but much more in terms of attrition warfare than in specific engagements.
• Similarly, the D3A was the second most lethal ship killer in WW2, the first being the SBD.

The fact that so little of the reality of all this seems to be apparent, is testament to the tireless propagandizing of RCAFson. His ludicrous claims that the USN suffered fewer attack sorties than the RN hold about as much water as the HMS Hermes hull on April 10, 1942, but it becomes one of those arguments where if you continue, you look as delusional as the guy you are debating. So I'm gonna take a break for a while.

My final thought is, we all have our favorites, our allegieances, and so on, but if you appreciate history, you learn to accept your favorites warts and all, acknowledging the reality for what it was, it just makes it all that much more interesting and fun. Obfuscating the truth is not only pointless, it's just pathetic. It undermines the whole point of fora like this one.

Schweik said:

• The Wildcat was a somewhat mediocre design, inferior in performance to the A6M, which through good tactics and training - and leveraging it's better traits, turned out to be a moderate success. It was substantially better both as a fighter and especially as a naval fighter than a Hurricane let alone a Sea Hurricane. It had 2.5 times the endurance and twice the range for one thing. It was also better armed and more agile. It was the Wildcat which broke the IJN air arm, more than any other aircraft. RCAF has grossly exaggerated the deficiencies of the F4F, cherry picking one evaluation over all others, but in reality while there was a controversy in mid-1942, by the end of that year and for most of the next year, they were still successfully relying on the F4F to protect the fleets and escort bombers and more, and did so with success. Using tactics like the Thach weave and other standardized guidelines which became part of the training for all fighter pilots, they made it work. Much like Allied fighter pilots did with Spitfire Mk Vs and P-40s in the Western Desert.
• The Martlet was originally an export version of the Wildcat with a civilian airliner engine. It was far less capable than a Wildcat. And yet even so, it was far more effective than the Hurricane or Fulmar and the RN tried to get as many as they could. Gradually they improved the Martlet but it was always a step behind what the USN was using.

Click to expand...

The Martlet II/IV were equivalent to the F4F-4A/B and the F4F-4A/B had generally better performance than the F4F-4 under 15K ft (where most carrier combat took place). For a brief comparison of the F4F-4 and F4F-4B see page 3 paragraph 5 of this report:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf

Note the climb rates reported above and remember that the aircraft was tested at full military power.

There are numerous USN adverse reports on the F4F-3/4, and I have quoted from several of these reports. There's the report quoted by Lundstrom (Lundstrom devotes nearly a whole chapter detailing the F4F-4 adverse reports) regarding flight trials by USN carrier pilots of the F4F-4. There's the adverse reports by USN carrier F4F-4 pilots after Midway and the adverse reports by MAG22 pilots based on Midway Island and the side by side tests of the Zero and F4F-4. There's the adverse reports in USN carrier action reports such as CV-6's:

Our fighters, F4F-4's, are completely outclassed by Japanese "0" fighters in speed, climb, and maneuverability.
Action Report: 4-6 June 1942 (Serial 0137)

and Yorktown's:

(c) F4F-4 Airplanes
The fighter pilots are very disappointed with the performance and length of sustained fire power of the F4F-4 airplanes. THE Zero fighters could easily outmaneuver and out-climb the F4F-3, and the consensus of fighter pilot opinion is that the F4F-4 is even more sluggish and slow than the F4F-3. It is also felt that it was a mistake to put 6 guns on the F4F-4 and thus to reduce the rounds per gun. For the opposition now being encountered the combination of 4 guns and 450 rounds per gun is much superior to the 6 guns with 240 rounds per gun. Many of our fighters ran out of ammunition even before the Jap dive bombers arrived over our forces; these were experienced pilots, not novices. It is strongly urged that the Navy be supplied with a fighter that is at least equal of the Zero fighter. It is believed that 4-50 caliber fixed machine guns give sufficient fire power for carrier based fighters, especially in view of the loss of performance involved in adding two additional guns. Battle of Midway: USS Yorktown Action Report


, and there's the adverse report by Nimitz to Admiral King, and numerous others. Your comments above show your woeful ignorance on this topic which you try to disguise by claiming that I cherry picked them to show the F4F-4 in a bad light. Yes, the USN developed tactics to enable the F4F-4 to deal with the Zero, and so did FAA pilots develop tactics to enable the Fulmar, for example, which had a similar climb rate (under ~10K ft) and turn radius to the F4F-4 (and Martlet II/IV) to also cope with superior performing Axis aircraft.

The F4F-3/4 was better armed (when the gun jam issues were sorted out) than the Sea Hurricane IB/ IIA ( not the /C) but it had substantially lower climb rates and was slower under 15K Ft where most carrier combat took place and poorer turn radius, roll rates and substantially lower climb rates, and most of these can be confirmed by simply calculating the wing loading and power to weight ratios. The F4F-4 has about 23% more fuel than a Sea Hurricane IB but weighs about 14% more and uses more fuel at higher power settings, so yes the F4F-4 has better range and endurance (by 10-20%), but not by a factor of 2 and 2.5!

When we compare wing loading and power to weight ratios of the Sea Hurricane IB to the Zero we note that the Zero has a substantial advantage in wing loading, but remarkably has a lower power to weight ratio, than the Sea Hurricane IB under about 11K ft, indicating that the two aircraft would have been very close in climb rates to ~20K ft.

Schweik said:

I get the sense you are a well-meaning, impartial observer in this big stupid debate, but I feel compelled to point out that almost all of that is completely wrong. So wrong in fact, that I need to throw in the towel after this post. But here are some points in no particular order.

• In the Atlantic, the main threat (by far) was actually submarines. The most important aircraft were PBYs, Sunderlands, B-24s (PB2Y) and TBFs in the ASW mode. Sea Hurricanes were adequate to see off the occasional Fw 200..
• Submarines were pretty substantial part of the threat in the Med too. And the Pacific. But only in the Pacific did you also have hard core fleet actions, carrier vs. carrier, battleship vs. battleship.
• The Hurricane was a great fighter in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. By 1941 however, it had really gone past it's "use by" date. Even the Russians didn't want them any more.
• The Sea Hurricane was a completely inadequate carrier fighter, partly because you can't have a carrier fighter with a 400 mile range and a 1 hour combat endurance, and partly because it was just an obsolete fighter that couldn't contend with land based fighters, or especially with the A6M. All they could do is CAP and they were very bad at that, read the history of PQ 18 as an excellent example, they couldn't even shoot down lumbering seaplanes like BV 138s and He 115s.
• The Fulmar was just an inadequate design from the get-go. WW2 propeller engines, especially in the first half of the war, were just not powerful enough to power a 2-man fighter sufficiently to be anything other than a glorified scout. It was sufficient to intercept slow, unescorted bombers at low altitude, but that's not enough for a carrier fighter.
• Don't even get me started on the Skua.
• The Wildcat was a somewhat mediocre design, inferior in performance to the A6M, which through good tactics and training - and leveraging it's better traits, turned out to be a moderate success. It was substantially better both as a fighter and especially as a naval fighter than a Hurricane let alone a Sea Hurricane. It had 2.5 times the endurance and twice the range for one thing. It was also better armed and more agile. It was the Wildcat which broke the IJN air arm, more than any other aircraft. RCAF has grossly exaggerated the deficiencies of the F4F, cherry picking one evaluation over all others, but in reality while there was a controversy in mid-1942, by the end of that year and for most of the next year, they were still successfully relying on the F4F to protect the fleets and escort bombers and more, and did so with success. Using tactics like the Thach weave and other standardized guidelines which became part of the training for all fighter pilots, they made it work. Much like Allied fighter pilots did with Spitfire Mk Vs and P-40s in the Western Desert.
• The Martlet was originally an export version of the Wildcat with a civilian airliner engine. It was far less capable than a Wildcat. And yet even so, it was far more effective than the Hurricane or Fulmar and the RN tried to get as many as they could. Gradually they improved the Martlet but it was always a step behind what the USN was using.
• The Mediterranean Naval Air War (as distinct from the War over the Desert in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia) was definitely not anywhere near as intense as the Pacific War. It was the minor leagues. Nowhere near the same scale as the Pacific War. The Pacific War was more or less continuous, with vicious engagements breaking out every few weeks, with no holds barred, and no quarter asked or given. It had everything the Med convoy fights had plus a lot more. Much bigger and many more surface ships. Much better and more effective torpedoes (on the Japanese side), many more aircraft carriers, and more modern everything.
• The convoy fights like Pedestal were up against almost entirely unescorted, obsolete Italian bombers and / or unescorted (though better) German bombers like the Ju 88. The latter was nearly impossible for a Hurricane to intercept (either over the fleet or over Malta) but more or less average land based fighters like P-40s easily shot them down. Only when the convoy drew within close range of the German air bases and within range of Bf 109s and MC 202s were they under any serious threat that was in any way comparable to the sea battles in the Pacific, and then only for a short time. The RN basically broke under that strain.
• The fact that RCAFson managed to apparently convey the impression that these were comparable in any way proves the futility of this debate.
• The A6M was by far the best naval fighter of the war until the Hellcat arrived in Sept 1943. F4U's were very good but they were land based at first. It was better than all carrier fighters and at least the equal of any land based fighter in the world in 1942.
• The fragility of Japanese aircraft, especially the A6M and Ki 43, is exagerrated. It mattered, but much more in terms of attrition warfare than in specific engagements.
• Similarly, the D3A was the second most lethal ship killer in WW2, the first being the SBD.

The fact that so little of the reality of all this seems to be apparent, is testament to the tireless propagandizing of RCAFson. His ludicrous claims that the USN suffered fewer attack sorties than the RN hold about as much water as the HMS Hermes hull on April 10, 1942, but it becomes one of those arguments where if you continue, you look as delusional as the guy you are debating. So I'm gonna take a break for a while.

My final thought is, we all have our favorites, our allegieances, and so on, but if you appreciate history, you learn to accept your favorites warts and all, acknowledging the reality for what it was, it just makes it all that much more interesting and fun. Obfuscating the truth is not only pointless, it's just pathetic. It undermines the whole point of fora like this one.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with you on all points!
I was just trying to steer the conversation back to the comparison of theater operations and away from using stats to prove an inferior airplane was a world beater. As to all the other threats, it would have taken a few more pages to address and I was running out of steam. How so many forum members can write such long and scholarly tomes is beyond my abilities. As to specifics, I fully confess to babbling thoughts off the top of my head. I'll leave fact checking to you guys... and I won't argue.

My favorite Allied fighter is the Brewster Buffalo. You want to talk about "warts and all"?

CR42 rocks

Damn.... with fruit prices going up I thought I could get some here but it looks like all the cherries have been picked.......

Schweik said:

I get the sense you are a well-meaning, impartial observer in this big stupid debate, but I feel compelled to point out that almost all of that is completely wrong. So wrong in fact, that I need to throw in the towel after this post. But here are some points in no particular order.

Click to expand...

Then why did you start this thread in the first place?

Schweik said:

In the Atlantic, the main threat (by far) was actually submarines. The most important aircraft were PBYs, Sunderlands, B-24s (PB2Y) and TBFs in the ASW mode. Sea Hurricanes were adequate to see off the occasional Fw 200..

Click to expand...

The FW 200 was a very dangerous plane to attack. Well defended and armed and armoured for its time. Much tougher nut to crack than any IJN bomber.

Schweik said:

The Hurricane was a great fighter in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. By 1941 however, it had really gone past it's "use by" date. Even the Russians didn't want them any more

Click to expand...

Hurricanes claimed more than 6000 ea destroyed in WW2, more than any other allied fighter. Front line service from the very beginning of the war to the end.

Schweik said:

The Sea Hurricane was a completely inadequate carrier fighter, partly because you can't have a carrier fighter with a 400 mile range and a 1 hour combat endurance, and partly because it was just an obsolete fighter that couldn't contend with land based fighters, or especially with the A6M. All they could do is CAP and they were very bad at that, read the history of PQ 18 as an excellent example, they couldn't even shoot down lumbering seaplanes like BV 138s and He 115s

Click to expand...

The sea Hurricane was quite successful as a fighter and was used in this role until 44. Positive K/D ratios, winning critical battles. The safe landing of 10 hurricanes from 46 Squadron on the Glorious by RAF pilots who had never landed on a carrier before proved how well the Hurricane was suited to naval ops. Your endurance figure is a crock. No one flies at combat power for an hour. A merlin XX will consume 100 gallons/hour @ 3000 rpm and 9 lbs boost. A more realistic mission profile like the one, for the martlet, would be 15 mins combat, 30 gallons, 1.5 hours loiter 45 gallons, leaving 20 gallons for warm up and takeoff.

Schweik said:

The Fulmar was just an inadequate design from the get-go. WW2 propeller engines, especially in the first half of the war, were just not powerful enough to power a 2-man fighter sufficiently to be anything other than a glorified scout. It was sufficient to intercept slow, unescorted bombers at low altitude, but that's not enough for a carrier fighter.

Click to expand...

The Fulmar did offer other advantages, decent endurance, good ammo load, and folding wings. Although I have not come across the numbers for all FAA aircraft I have read the the old Fulmar shot down more ea than any other FAA aircraft with 122 kills.

Schweik said:

The Wildcat was a somewhat mediocre design, inferior in performance to the A6M, which through good tactics and training - and leveraging it's better traits, turned out to be a moderate success. It was substantially better both as a fighter and especially as a naval fighter than a Hurricane let alone a Sea Hurricane. It had 2.5 times the endurance and twice the range for one thing. It was also better armed and more agile. It was the Wildcat which broke the IJN air arm, more than any other aircraft. RCAF has grossly exaggerated the deficiencies of the F4F, cherry picking one evaluation over all others, but in reality while there was a controversy in mid-1942, by the end of that year and for most of the next year, they were still successfully relying on the F4F to protect the fleets and escort bombers and more, and did so with success. Using tactics like the Thach weave and other standardized guidelines which became part of the training for all fighter pilots, they made it work. Much like Allied fighter pilots did with Spitfire Mk Vs and P-40s in the Western Desert.

Click to expand...

By sentenece, true, false, false, false false and false

Schweik said:

The Martlet was originally an export version of the Wildcat with a civilian airliner engine. It was far less capable than a Wildcat. And yet even so, it was far more effective than the Hurricane or Fulmar and the RN tried to get as many as they could. Gradually they improved the Martlet but it was always a step behind what the USN was using

Click to expand...

The Martlet were just as effective as the F4F below 15,000 ft and in FAA service the Fulmar and the Sea Hurricane were much more effective than the Martlet.

Schweik said:

The Mediterranean Naval Air War (as distinct from the War over the Desert in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia) was definitely not anywhere near as intense as the Pacific War. It was the minor leagues. Nowhere near the same scale as the Pacific War. The Pacific War was more or less continuous, with vicious engagements breaking out every few weeks, with no holds barred, and no quarter asked or given. It had everything the Med convoy fights had plus a lot more. Much bigger and many more surface ships. Much better and more effective torpedoes (on the Japanese side), many more aircraft carriers, and more modern everything

Click to expand...

This quote displays almost a total ignorance of the war in the Mediterranean, which was along drawn out bloody affair with continuous action for more than three years. Malta was the most bombed place on the planet for much of that time.

Schweik said:

The convoy fights like Pedestal were up against almost entirely unescorted, obsolete Italian bombers and / or unescorted (though better) German bombers like the Ju 88. The latter was nearly impossible for a Hurricane to intercept (either over the fleet or over Malta) but more or less average land based fighters like P-40s easily shot them down. Only when the convoy drew within close range of the German air bases and within range of Bf 109s and MC 202s were they under any serious threat that was in any way comparable to the sea battles in the Pacific, and then only for a short time. The RN basically broke under that strain.

Click to expand...

Show me any proof you have that p 40s shot down more Ju 88s than Hurricanes. In Pedestal alone Hurricanes shot down 9 or 10 Ju 88s , while the Martlets got 1. The Ju 88s the Hurricanes had trouble catching were mainly the high altitude snoopers, that with a slight dive would very shortly be over safe ground in Sicily. Allison engined P40s were in capable of reaching the altitude necessary too catch these Ju 88s. A Kittyhawk I 's absolute ceiling was less than 30,000 ft. it took 33 minutes just to climb to 28, 000 ft. A tropical Hurricane IIa can reach 30,000 ft in 17.2 minutes with an absolute ceiling of 34,000 ft.

Schweik said:

The fact that RCAFson managed to apparently convey the impression that these were comparable in any way proves the futility of this debate

Click to expand...

Once again ,why did you start this thread?

Schweik said:

Similarly, the D3A was the second most lethal ship killer in WW2, the first being the SBD

Click to expand...

Show me your numbers and sources.

Thanks looking forward to your replies.

slaterat said:

The FW 200 was a very dangerous plane to attack. Well defended and armed and armoured for its time. Much tougher nut to crack than any IJN bomber.

Click to expand...

I would argue that there was little difference between the Fw200 and the IJN bombers in vulnerability. It had a well known structural weakness in the fuselage, its defence in most versions was based on Mg's, its operating altitude was surprisingly low and its loss rate was quite high considering the number of combats it had.

Hurricanes claimed more than 6000 ea destroyed in WW2, more than any other allied fighter. Front line service from the very beginning of the war to the end.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't stop it being well past its sell by date in 1942. remembering that the RAF considered it totally obsolete in Burma by 1944

The sea Hurricane was quite successful as a fighter and was used in this role until 44. Positive K/D ratios, winning critical battles.

Click to expand...

The Hurricane wasn't used as a fighter in 1944, it was only kept in front line service in Burma because of its effective use as a low level bomber

The Fulmar did offer other advantages, decent endurance, good ammo load, and folding wings. Although I have not come across the numbers for all FAA aircraft I have read the the old Fulmar shot down more ea than any other FAA aircraft with 122 kills.

Click to expand...

True but misleading. I don't have the numbers to agree or disagree with the number of kills it was credited with but wouldn't be surprised if the number of fighters claimed, didn't reach double figures, because most of its combats were against unescorted bombers.

By sentenece, true, false, false, false false and false

Click to expand...

To be honest I find this a totally condescending response which doesn't do you justice. People can argue till the cows come home which was the better in combat but what cannot be argued is that the Wildcat in all its forms had a much better range and that is absolutely critical in a naval fighter

Show me any proof you have that p 40s shot down more Ju 88s than Hurricanes. In Pedestal alone Hurricanes shot down 9 or 10 Ju 88s , while the Martlets got 1. The Ju 88s the Hurricanes had trouble catching were mainly the high altitude snoopers, that with a slight dive would very shortly be over safe ground in Sicily. Allison engined P40s were in capable of reaching the altitude necessary too catch these Ju 88s. A Kittyhawk I 's absolute ceiling was less than 30,000 ft. it took 33 minutes just to climb to 28, 000 ft. A tropical Hurricane IIa can reach 30,000 ft in 17.2 minutes with an absolute ceiling of 34,000 ft.

Click to expand...

A detailed breakdown of the Air War over the Desert would almost certainly support the statement that P40's shot down more Ju88 than the Hurricane, but I have a life to live.

Glider said:

I would argue that there was little difference between the Fw200 and the IJN bombers in vulnerability. It had a well known structural weakness in the fuselage, its defence in most versions was based on Mg's, its operating altitude was surprisingly low and its loss rate was quite high considering the number of combats it had.

Click to expand...

The FW200 had armour and SS tanks. Are you saying that armour and SS tanks were useless? Eric Brown considered that a head-on attack to kill the pilots was the safest way to shoot down the FW200.

Which doesn't stop it being well past its sell by date in 1942. remembering that the RAF considered it totally obsolete in Burma by 1944
The Hurricane wasn't used as a fighter in 1944, it was only kept in front line service in Burma because of its effective use as a low level bomber

Click to expand...

The Sea Hurricane served as carrier borne fighter into 1944 and scored kills in 1944. What exactly does Burma have to do with the naval air war?

True but misleading. I don't have the numbers to agree or disagree with the number of kills it was credited with but wouldn't be surprised if the number of fighters claimed, didn't reach double figures, because most of its combats were against unescorted bombers.

Click to expand...

A large number of Fulmar kills are confirmed in the various books detailing the airwar in the MTO and over Malta. This is a partial list of kill claims:
Fulmar II versus F4F-4 under 10,000 ft.

A detailed breakdown of the Air War over the Desert would almost certainly support the statement that P40's shot down more Ju88 than the Hurricane, but I have a life to live.

Click to expand...

The P40 was not carrier capable. Sea Hurricanes shot down a number of Ju-88s.

RCAFson said:

The FW200 had armour and SS tanks. Are you saying that armour and SS tanks were useless? Eric Brown considered that a head-on attack to kill the pilots was the safest way to shoot down the FW200.

Click to expand...

No I am saying that both had their strengths and weaknesses and they evened out. In the Fw 200 the main issues was the structural weakness and low practical operating height of only 10,000 ft. At least one was shot down by a Hudson.
That said I wasn't aware of any armour on the Fw200 apart from the normal pilots seat.

The Sea Hurricane served as carrier borne fighter into 1944 and scored kills in 1944. What exactly does Burma have to do with the naval air war?

Click to expand...

Simple really. A Sea hurricane was heavier than an RAF Hurricane and would have had a worse performance, and the RAF considered the Hurricane obsolete.

As for the use of the Sea Hurricane in 1944, yes a few were in service but as far as I am aware not in area's where they were likely to meet single engine fighters.

A large number of Fulmar kills are confirmed in the various books detailing the airwar in the MTO and over Malta. This is a partial list of kill claims:

Click to expand...

I thank you for the list which seems to confirm my guess re the success of the Fulmar against fighters, remembering that these are claims awarded and almost certainly optimistic.
2 x 110
1 x 109
2 x CR42

The P40 was not carrier capable. Sea Hurricanes shot down a number of Ju-88s.

Click to expand...

I know the above.
However the statement of yours that I was replying to, was showing proof that the P40 shot down more Ju88's than the Hurricane and I am confident that a search through that series would supply the evidence you asked for.

Glider said:

The Hurricane wasn't used as a fighter in 1944, it was only kept in front line service in Burma because of its effective use as a low level bomber

Click to expand...

The "Sea Hurricane" was used as a fighter till 44, you are misquoting what I said. I agree on its extended use in Burma though.

Glider said:

Which doesn't stop it being well past its sell by date in 1942. remembering that the RAF considered it totally obsolete in Burma by 1944

Click to expand...

I don't ever recall saying that the Hurricane wasn't obsolete in 1944, as a fighter, in fact it was. So was the Zero by then as well.

Glider said:

To be honest I find this a totally condescending response which doesn't do you justice.

Click to expand...

Given some of the other condescending comments posted in this thread I find my comment quite mild, but I do agree that it is below my standards and I will endeavor to do my best to keep it civil, even when others show disrespect.

Glider said:

A detailed breakdown of the Air War over the Desert would almost certainly support the statement that P40's shot down more Ju88 than the Hurricane, but I have a life to live.

Click to expand...

If you stand by your statement you should support it, otherwise it is rather hollow. I have supplied proof of Sea Hurricanes shooting down 9 Ju 88's in Operation Pedestal alone. I have a copy of "Hurricanes Over the Sands" which covers 8 of 14 hurricane Squadrons in the DAF and a quick count shows around 100 Ju88 kills. How many Ju 88s do you think Hurricanes shot down in 1940 over Europe? How many over Malta form 40-42? How many from the other 6 Hurricane squads over the dessert?

Here is the original quote from Schweik referring to the Ju 88 that is proven untrue.

Schweik said:

The latter was nearly impossible for a Hurricane to intercept (either over the fleet or over Malta) but more or less average land based fighters like P-40s easily shot them down.

Click to expand...

Glider said:

No I am saying that both had their strengths and weaknesses and they evened out. In the Fw 200 the main issues was the structural weakness and low practical operating height of only 10,000 ft. At least one was shot down by a Hudson.
That said I wasn't aware of any armour on the Fw200 apart from the normal pilots seat.

Click to expand...

Here is some information on the FW 200 and how to attack them, you will see that it was quite well armoured , as well as having the advantage of 4 engines .

Glider said:

No I am saying that both had their strengths and weaknesses and they evened out. In the Fw 200 the main issues was the structural weakness and low practical operating height of only 10,000 ft. At least one was shot down by a Hudson.
That said I wasn't aware of any armour on the Fw200 apart from the normal pilots seat.

Click to expand...

All naval strike aircraft operated at low altitude, but the Condor could and did conduct higher altitude bombing missions, but these were not terribly effective.

Simple really. A Sea hurricane was heavier than an RAF Hurricane and would have had a worse performance, and the RAF considered the Hurricane obsolete.

Click to expand...

And yet the Sea Hurricane easily outperformed the Martlet II/IV and the Sea Hurricane IIC was about even with an FM2.

As for the use of the Sea Hurricane in 1944, yes a few were in service but as far as I am aware not in area's where they were likely to meet single engine fighters.
I thank you for the list which seems to confirm my guess re the success of the Fulmar against fighters, remembering that these are claims awarded and almost certainly optimistic.
2 x 110
1 x 109
2 x CR42

Click to expand...

Fulmars shot down a number of fighters, as confirmed by various works on the naval airwar in the ET0/MTO and the total kills is very close to the claims list. The role of the Fulmar was to shoot down or drive off threats to the fleet.

I know the above.
However the statement of yours that I was replying to, was showing proof that the P40 shot down more Ju88's than the Hurricane and I am confident that a search through that series would supply the evidence you asked for.

Click to expand...

Given JU88 losses to Hurricanes during the BofF and BofB alone, that seems unlikely.

slaterat said:

Positive K/D ratios, winning critical battles.

Click to expand...

I'm struggling to think of one "critical" battle the Sea Hurricane won.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I'm struggling to think of one "critical" battle the Sea Hurricane won.

Click to expand...

Pedestal for one.

RCAFson said:

Pedestal for one.

Click to expand...

I'd say the seamen fought that one through, with an able assist from the air. Should be noted that 13 vessels were sunk despite the Sea Hurricanes being present. I think the sailors get the credit for that one.

RCAFson said:

All naval strike aircraft operated at low altitude, but the Condor could and did conduct higher altitude bombing missions, but these were not terribly effective.

Click to expand...

I have yet to find such an example. The normal operating height seems to have been 10,000ft. There were cases when they flew higher but that was normally due to the weather. I did find one that was shot down on a 'normal' bombing mission against a land target but the height wasn't mentioned. These were rare as the aircraft and specially trained crews were more valuable on maritime missions. Also reliability is often mentioned as a key issue.

Most of my information is from Eagles over the Sea Volumes 1 and 2. I am still trying to read them but there is a lot of good information

And yet the Sea Hurricane easily outperformed the Martlet II/IV and the Sea Hurricane IIC was about even with an FM2.

Click to expand...

And once again we can argue about performance but the single biggest difference between the two is range, where the Wildcat in every version has a much greater range, something no one has tried to disagree with. A critical factor in carrier combat.
The Wildcat was a carrier aircraft with all the other advantages and as for actual combat performance FM2's were being deployed in the front line right to the end of the war. In fact I think I am right in saying the they shot down two Me109G fighters over Norway towards the end of the war.

Fulmars shot down a number of fighters, as confirmed by various works on the naval airwar in the ET0/MTO and the total kills is very close to the claims list. The role of the Fulmar was to shoot down or drive off threats to the fleet.

Click to expand...

Which explains why most of the combats were against unescorted bombers. Few, very few were against fighters.
I am looking and have found a D520 where the French pilots reported that he had been shot down by a Hurricane, However no Hurricanes were in the area and the Fulmar pilots had reported combat. Have you found anything?

Given JU88 losses to Hurricanes during the BofF and BofB alone, that seems unlikely.

Click to expand...

You could well be right on this.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I'd say the seamen fought that one through, with an able assist from the air. Should be noted that 13 vessels were sunk despite the Sea Hurricanes being present. I think the sailors get the credit for that one.

Click to expand...

Those ships were sunk after the carriers turned back. IIRC, no ships were sunk (except HMS Eagle via submarine) whilst under the carriers CAP.

Glider said:

I have yet to find such an example. The normal operating height seems to have been 10,000ft. There were cases when they flew higher but that was normally due to the weather. I did find one that was shot down on a 'normal' bombing mission against a land target but the height wasn't mentioned. These were rare as the aircraft and specially trained crews were more valuable on maritime missions. Also reliability is often mentioned as a key issue.

Most of my information is from Eagles over the Sea Volumes 1 and 2. I am still trying to read them but there is a lot of good information

And once again we can argue about performance but the single biggest difference between the two is range, where the Wildcat in every version has a much greater range, something no one has tried to disagree with. A critical factor in carrier combat.
The Wildcat was a carrier aircraft with all the other advantages and as for actual combat performance FM2's were being deployed in the front line right to the end of the war. In fact I think I am right in saying the they shot down two Me109G fighters over Norway towards the end of the war.



Which explains why most of the combats were against unescorted bombers. Few, very few were against fighters.
I am looking and have found a D520 where the French pilots reported that he had been shot down by a Hurricane, However no Hurricanes were in the area and the Fulmar pilots had reported combat. Have you found anything?


You could well be right on this.

Click to expand...

This is an excerpt from Hughes' Flagship to Murmansk but in the book the prior pages state that the attacking FW200 aircraft were at 15000ft and conducting level bombing attacks:
( https://www.world-war.co.uk/scylla_story.php ) starting here:
"It is now August 1943, and Scylla is escorting convoys between the UK and Gibralter..."

Again, the Sea Hurricane had 97IG of fuel versus 120IG for a Martlet II/IV / F4F-4 but the F4F-4 is considerably heavier and has to use Military Power to exceed even the Fulmar II's climb rate. Consequently, their actual range in combat didn't greatly exceed the Sea Hurricane. This is just a matter of arithmetic and looking at fuel consumption rates at various power settings at all but econ cruise, shows that in combat there's really not much difference, especially if both aircraft have to climb above 15K ft.

The FM2 is not an F4F-4 and the FM2 was specially lightened with a much more powerful engine and has the almost the same power, fuel capacity, and weight as a Sea Hurricane 1B but with the advantage of folding wings.

Yes, in 1942 a Fulmar (from HMS Eagle IIRC) shot down a D520 during an engagement with Vichy AF fighters.

FM2 vs Sea Hurricane 1B:

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


https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/wp_20141126_001-jpg.277620/

RCAFson said:

Those ships were sunk after the carriers turned back. IIRC, no ships were sunk (except HMS Eagle via submarine) whilst under the carriers CAP.

Click to expand...

In other words, the Hurricanes missed a significant part of the battle that they helped decide?

Thumpalumpacus said:

In other words, the Hurricanes missed a significant part of the battle that they helped decide?

Click to expand...

The CAP prevented any merchant ship losses prior to the carriers having to turn back due to the proximity of Sicily. The battle was decided by the Sea Hurricanes because had Axis AF strike aircraft sank even one or two merchant ships prior to the carriers turning back then Malta might have been starved into submission.