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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

RCAFson said:
Fighters armed with 8 x .303s had shot down several thousand Axis aircraft by Mid 1942, but it was becoming ineffective by then as Lufwaffe aircraft had increased performance and extra armour.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my point. I wasn't saying that armament was never good, but that -- in line with your own comment about its ineffectiveness against uparmored combatants -- by 1942 it was, indeed, akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight, against bombers, apparently.
 
Last edited:

There's another reason why the Sea Hurricane wasn't all it's cracked up to be, then. Think I mentioned something about that earlier in this thread.
 

FAA pilot Henry "Hank" Adlam. The Disastrous Fall and `Triumphant Rise of the Fleet Air Arm from 1912 to 1945 > RCAFson

Of these two, one person actually flew a Martlet.
 

They certainly could have made more Fulmars and they could have made or converted thousands more Sea Hurricanes (god knows they had far more Hurricanes than anyone needed or wanted). There is a reason why 7900 F4F were built, it certainly wasn't foreordained at the time of Pedestal or PQ 18.

Schweiks point about endurance is no point at all. In combat the air cooled P&W or Curtis engine used a lot more fuel than the Merlin and it used more for climb as well. The difference in endurance in actual combat conditions was small.
Click to expand...

Your opinion while clearly of huge significance to you in all of these discussions, means very little to me. In this thread and others, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't care about facts, reality, or data, you just have a pressing need to insist that any and every FAA and RAF aircraft was THE BEST and had no flaws in comparison to other types, including and especially when it's very obvious that the opposite is true.. There is no other way to characterize it. So I definitely don't expect to change your mind about anything. You are impervious to facts, logic, or reason.

The extremely poor combat endurance of the Sea Hurricane was the major issue raised by all of it's critics within the FAA (which seems to be most of the people who wrote down opinions about it). It is mentioned in every single description of the aircraft I have ever read.

For others reading the thread, I suggest, don't rely on my opinion. Read what the pilots and historians said about it. Some direct quotes about the Sea Hurricane from Armoured Carriers:

"Fortunately there was little to separate the Martlet and Hurricane in terms of combat performance, except in the key area of endurance. "

"Ark Royal was offered three Sea Hurricanes in July 1941. Old ex-RAF aircraft, the single-seaters were barely capable of 300kmph at 18,000ft, and although they had the same armament as the Fulmars, they had only half the ammunition capacity and less than half the patrol endurance. Comparative trials showed that the Fulmar II's performance below 10,000ft was rather better than the Hurricane's and so although the latter would have been useful for patrols above the Fulmar's ceiling, the carrier declined the offer."

"16. The short operational endurance of the Hurricane and small amount of ammunition carried must result in frequent turns into wind to land on aircraft which have been in combat, greatly aggravating the position in regard to flying off others or maintaining sections standing by to fly off. "

"Endurance
The Sea Hurricane's range was recorded as about 450 miles. But it was loiter time that meant the most for carrier operations.
Sea Hurricanes carried only enough fuel to sustain themselves for 1 hour at combat power, and 4.5 hours at full-economical settings. The Fulmar and Martlet could stay aloft for 2 hours and 2 hours 45 minutes under combat power, and 6 hours economical.
The consequence of this was carriers being forced to turn into the wind far more often to take-off and land Sea Hurricanes. So they were often held as 'alert' aircraft on the deck while their longer-legged stablemates maintained the CAP."

That is to say, the Sea Hurricane had a 1 hour endurance, the Fulmar had a 2 hour endurance, and the Martlet had a 2 hours 45 minute endurance. Still not great for a navy fighter, but better than a Fulmar and far better than a Sea Hurricane. Since basically everyone in the FAA acknowledged that the Sea Hurricane and Martlet were roughly equivalent in performance (with the latter clearly pulling ahead as later models became available) having a fighter which could remain available for combat almost three times as long, and could fly out to twice the distance, was obviously the better option. That is why the Sea Hurricane was never really developed as a fighter.

The to be charitable, very long and difficult teething period if not to say outright failure of the Seafire and the disappointing performance of the Firefly meant that the FAA needed to continue to use US types like the Corsair and the Hellcat, as well as the later model Martlets, right to the end of the war. With bombers similarly, the antiquated Swordfish and the marginal Albacore (ultimately given up to go back to the Swordfish) gave way to the disastrous Barracuda which meant most FAA ships were flying Avengers for strike and ASW aircraft.

I'm sorry if anyone other than RCAFson finds any of this offensive, the US also had many failed designs. We have talked about the TBD Devastator. The Vindicator was a marginal (at best) strike aircraft. The F2A may have worked out for the Finns but the Buffalo was a disaster for the US Navy and not much better for the British. The US Mk 13 etc. torpedo was one of the worst procurement fails of the entire war, and etc. I don't have to go through the whole list. Frankly the Wildcat / Martlet wasn't that great, it's just that there wasn't much competition for it in the Allied sphere. It was clearly inferior to the A6M except in the crucial aspect of suitability for attrition war.

The fact that Allied pilots including some of our relatives and ancestors had to contend with not always the best kit in their struggle to survive and overcome the enemy is one of the more interesting aspects of studying something like WW2. But if every discussion about specific kit turns into a war in which any admission of flaws or design failures is treated like an attack on patriotic values then we can't actually have the kinds of discussions we like to engage in here.

You and slaterat managed to bore everyone to death with your highly creative and relentless cherry picking in this thread. I really didn't have the time available to get that far into the weeds any more with someone who clearly isn't interested in the truth, but I have finished a big project and have more time now. And I do in fact remember the spurious claim by RCAFson trying to compare Japanese strikes against the RN vs. the USN, pretending the strike on HMS Hermes was vastly larger than it was. I'm ready to argue all of those points if necessary.
 
All nations produced eagles, and produced flying pigs. Slapping flags over a discussion of aircraft kinda misses the point. I don't think I'm unusual in thinking that much of the difference came down to the pilots, and even that isn't about what flag they served, but how cognizant they were in some terribly chaotic conditions.

That said, equipment does matter.
 
You are right, and it's absolutely a bit of both. Situational awareness was of huge importance. Training was of huge importance. We tend to forget about things like health (having dysentery or malaria made it really hard to fly! But some people had to anyway) and comfort (arctic cold, tropical heat and humidity, biting insects, all take a toll on things like sleep).

Maintenance, the availability or viability of things like radio, ammunition, fuel, all major issues.

But indeed, there were also some limits to what you could do in a given aircraft. An I-153 is hard pressed against a Fw 190, no matter how good the pilot is.
 

Exactly. A fighter plane is a weapons system, and that weapons system includes airframe, powerplant, armament, avionics, and operator(s). Just as the speed of a convoy is limited by its slowest ship, so too is a weapons system limited by its weakest link.
 
Schweik said:
If you read the accounts, this was not the only means by which they survived. Admitteldy the BV 138 was fairly heavily armed. The He 115 certainly wasn't.
Click to expand...

I have read the accounts. There was only the single instance where a BV138 or HE115 survived without escaping into cloud.



Sure you are. Yeah, so Malta fell and the Axis won WW2 - Not! What "failure at Pedestal" are you talking about? Malta survived because the HSH1B won the battle for air supremacy over the Convoy.



Nonsense. Martlet II/IV = ~7750lb and ~1200hp versus ~7000lb and ~1440hp with both aircraft having similar frontal area and wing area. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which aircraft performs better.

Martlet II/IV performance is well documented and both were slower and climbed slower than the HSH1B.


Assessments from a race conducted by the Royal Navy found that even the Seafire was at best 9 knots faster than the Wildcat:

Erik Brown noted: "The Wildcat [was] faster and more maneuverable than the Sea Hurricane, "
Click to expand...

Seafire IIC/M46 (the first operational Seafire) = 342mph at 20700 ft in instrumented Boscombe Down testing= faster than any variant F4F and much faster than a II/IV which were both less than 300mph at any altitude. HSH1B = 315mph at 7500ft and 308mph at ~18K ft., again faster than the Martlet II/IV and of course a much higher climb rate.

Eric Brown documents the performance in Wings of the Navy and he states these numbers:

"With the arrival of folding-wing Martlet Mk IIs to replace
our fixed-wing Mk Is during the summer of 1941. No 802
Squadron began preparations to embark aboard the tiny
escort carrier HMS Audacity, a converted German merchant
vessel of 5,600 tons. The Martlet Mk II had been tested at
Boscombe Down where it had been found to weigh about
1,000 to (454 kg) more than the Mk I, but then. apart from
the somewhat heavier Twin Wasp engine. it had wing-
folding, with the inevitable weight penalty that such imposed,
and toted an extra pair of 0-5-in Colt-Browning M-2s.
Understandably, this extra weight had some affect on per-
formance and Boscombe Down testing revealed a maximum
speed in MS gear of 254 knots (471 kmh) TAS as 5,400 ft
(1 647 m) and the same speed in FS gear at 13,000 ft (3 965
m), a range of 773 nm (1 432 km) being achieved at 15,000 ft
(4 575 m) cruising at 143 knots (265 kmvh) IAS at full
throttle in weak mixture and MS gear."

254knots = 292mph.

The Martlet I also had no armour or SS fuel tanks and flew only a handful of combat sorties. Brown states that he flew the Martlet II from HMS Audacity.

Eric Brown, (Duels in the Sky, P.210) states that the Hurricane IIC could out roll, out turn and out dive the F4F-4. The Hurricane IB would do even better. above 15K ft the F4F-4 was a bit faster than the HSH1B but this is almost academic because combat at these altitudes was rare, especially given it's poor climb rate, and the F4F-4 wasn't available to the FAA. In 1943 and 1944/5 the FAA received the FM1 and FM2.
 

Fairey had limited production facilities and the Fulmar plant had to close to retool to build the Barracuda, So no, they could not build more Fulmars and the same is true for Sea Hurricanes as it would have meant diverting aircraft from other duties and the UK/Canada didn't have enough surplus capacity to do this. In 1942 every Allied fighter was in short supply and only the USA was in a position to supply the needed capacity as it's production expanded rapidly in 1943/44.


The fact that you can't do simple arithmetic to work out power to weight ratios and wing loading is not my problem.




Yet, not a single PQ-18 HSH1B ran out of fuel or suffered a serious deck landing accident. The primary problem was really Avenger's limited ability to launch and recover aircraft. A Sea Hurricane IA (Hurricat), after Avenger departed, flew a combat sortie, engaged aircraft at full throttle (shooting down an HE111 in several firing passes) and then flew 240 miles to a Soviet airfield for total time in the air of 2:25. (some sources state 2:45)


2 hours at full throttle for a F4F/Martlet??? C'mon don't waste my time.
 
Last edited:
No, not 2 hours. I agree, it would be ridiculous to assume it had the same endurance as a Fulmar when we know the F4F had longer range. The quoted figure is 2 hours and 45 minutes. Go look at the site yourself. Do you think they are part of a conspiracy? I believe it is a UK site.

To be precise, the quote mentioned combat power which is not the same as full throttle.
 

According to the FAA data sheets:

Loiter endurance of a Wildcat IV = F4F-4B= Martlet II with 120IG of internal fuel (SS tanks) =______ 3.4 hours at 181mph at 15k ft.
Economical endurance of a Wildcat IV = F4F-4B= Martlet II with 120IG of internal fuel (SS tanks) = 2.9 hours at 238 mph at 15k ft.

Economical endurance of a HSH1B with 97IG internal fuel =_________________________________________ 2.7 hours at 208mph at 20k ft.

So, yes an advantage for the Martlet, but not a huge advantage.

Fulmar endurance of 6 hours is with the 60IG slipper DT!!!
 
Last edited:
Obviously it all depends on the precise throttle settings etc., overload fuel etc., and you will try to find the most advantageous looking ratio you can. But I remain unconvinced. That armored decks website is basically made up of testimonials from veterans who actually flew the planes. So again, I don't think they are making up their numbers. Which also state that both the Martlet and the Fulmar could fly for 6 hours at 'economical' throttle settings.

I repeat what they said: 1 hour combat flight endurance for the Sea Hurricane, 2 hours for the Fulmar, 2 hours 45 minutes for the Martlet.

They also have a lot of interesting testimonials, like this:

"Hurricanes! Scramble the Hurricanes!" The fitters in the cockpits pressed the starter-buttons, and the four Merlins opened up with a blast of sound and a gust of blue smoke. As we scrambled up the wings, the crews hopped out the other side, fixing our straps with urgent fingers. Connect R.T.; switch on. Ten degrees of flap. Trim. Quick cockpit check. The ship was under full helm, racing up into wind— and we were off and climbing at full boost on a northerly vector to 20,000 feet, heads swivelling. Down to 12,000; alter course; climb to 20,000 again. And there they were, a big formation of 88' s below us. One after another we peeled off and went down after them. They broke formation as they saw us coming, and Brian and I picked one and went after him. He turned and dived away, and we stuffed the nose down, full bore, willing our aircraft to make up on him. At extreme range we gave him a long burst; bits came off and smoke poured out of one engine, and then he vanished into the thickening twilight. We hadn't a hope of catching him and making sure; already he had led us away from the convoy; and so, cursing our lack of speed, we re-formed, joined up with Steve and Paddy, the other members of the flight, and started to climb back to base.
— Hugh Popham, RNVR: Sea Flight - The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot "

Now this guy seems to be saying, even with an altitude advantage, Hurricanes couldn't catch Ju 88s in a dive. And yet I've seen you claim they had great dive performance. But pilot after pilot after pilot has stories like that. Who should I believe?

Slipper drop tanks are not normally conducive to combat.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
I didn't say they specified them. I said they bought them, and that decision must have some reason behind it. What do you think it is?
Click to expand...

The USN allowed the sale to France (and then LL to the UK for the Martlet II which was the first ordered by the FAA) but insisted on standardized armament and so it was .5in BMGs or nothing.

Even Eric Brown, who was in love with the Martlet and often fails to distinguish between the Martlet I and early Martlet II, with no SS tanks, armour or folding wings, noted that the early .5in BMGs were less reliable than the .303 BMG.
 
RCAFson said:
The USN allowed the sale to France (and then LL to the UK for the Martlet II which was the first ordered by the FAA) but insisted on standardized armament and so it was .5in BMGs or nothing.
Click to expand...

The French Wildcats were shipped without armament, with the plan to put 7.5(?) mm guns upon arrival, no? The Brits installed .50s themselves on those planes, so far as I remember reading about.
 

I really wish you could perform simple arithmetic and forget the fairy tales. I am sorry to be sharp but this is getting tedious in the extreme. Aircraft engines burn fuel in predictable quantities which were measured and used for range and endurance data. Use the numbers available.

So the Hurricanes climb to 20K ft at full boost ( about 6.5-7min to 20K ft), dive to 12K ft, then climb to 20K ft (= ~10min total climbing) ...how well do you think a Martlet II/IV or F4F-4 would do in that scenario, given their lethargic climb rate that left USN pilots cursing their F4F-4s ability to climb? How much fuel would they waste in the ~25min of climbing that they would have to do?

In any event the JU88 was fast in a dive but a Hurricane could catch them, but given the visibility it's not surprising that it got away. However, a Martlet would never have made that interception to begin with.

Fulmar range and endurance:
Boscombe Down trials:
"Fuel consumption trials were carried out with N4021, which showed a maximum still air range of approximately 950 miles from a total fuel capacity of 155 gallons. This was obtained with a weak mixture at 5000 ft using 1600 rpm and 2 lb/sq.in boost. The speed was 142 mph IAS, which was a little lower than the best speed for comfortable control. This was achieved at 150 mph IAS with 1650 rpm and 1.2 lb/sq.in, but the range was slightly reduced at 925 miles. The maximum endurance was 6.18 hours. Further consumption trials were made with X8641, fitted with a jettisonable 60-gallon overload fuel tank under the fuselage near the wing trailing edge. The maximum still air range was found to be 1100 miles at 5000 ft and 140 mph IAS (1750 rpm, 0 lb/sq.in boost) with an endurance of 7 hours"

The above figures are no reserve range. With a standard reserve and allowance for TO and climb endurance was 5.5hrs with the 60IG tank and 4.5hrs with internal fuel at 152knots (~175mph).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
5K
z42
Z
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
247
fubar57
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
WW2 aero engine fuel consumption comparison
Replies
19
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
J
fiatG.55 combat history
Replies
0
Views
700
Jerrybandit67
J
Menu
Log in
Register