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

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think that data exists, at least no anything I've seen online. For the FAA the MTO was mostly a Fulmar affair, the I/PTO one of the Seafire, Martlet, Hellcat and Corsair. I think the Sea Hurricane wasn't given the opportunity to shine. Replace all the Fulmars in the MTO with Sea Hurricanes and we should see good kill numbers, and maybe fewer carrier hits.

That's what I'm seeing online, a paucity of information. From various bits I see about 35 claims for the type, but that stands the obvious likelihood of being incomplete information and not something I'd go to bat with. I've got an open question at a blog concerning RN aviation ops in WWII

I admit I'd be surprised if its wartime tally approached the Wildcat's, but I'm open to information and amenable to correction.

I don't think that data exists, at least no anything I've seen online. For the FAA the MTO was mostly a Fulmar affair, the I/PTO one of the Seafire, Martlet, Hellcat and Corsair. I think the Sea Hurricane wasn't given the opportunity to shine. Replace all the Fulmars in the MTO with Sea Hurricanes and we should see good kill numbers, and maybe fewer carrier hits.

I've no doubt it was a significant improvement for the FAA.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've no doubt it was a significant improvement for the FAA.

Perhaps not, but the Sea Hurricane offers a faster ROC and top speed over the Fulmar. When HMS Illustrious and Formidable were dive bombed and crippled the strikes were picked up on radar but the Fulmars were too slow to intercept. Mind you, without folding wings each carrier could only carry a few Hurricanes, so that reduces the CAP.

Now, give the FAA a folding wing Sea Hurricane with an engine optimized for naval ops and we're talking true fleet air defence. And hell, let's throw in a four blade prop, and underwing 40mm cannon pods for antiship work.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Perhaps not, but the Sea Hurricane offers a faster ROC and top speed over the Fulmar. When HMS Illustrious and Formidable were dive bombed and crippled the strikes were picked up on radar but the Fulmars were too slow to intercept. Mind you, without folding wings each carrier could only carry a few Hurricanes, so that reduces the CAP.

Now, give the FAA a folding wing Sea Hurricane with an engine optimized for naval ops and we're taking, and he'll, let's throw in a four blade prop and underwing 30mm cannon pods for antiship work.

View attachment 613765

Sure, and that non-folding-wing issue was probably a major driver behind adopting the Martlet given the latter plane's limitations; more planes aboard, with better combat radius, gives more operational flexibility. Not all advantages of a type are in performance, necessarily.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sure, and that non-folding-wing issue was probably a major driver behind adopting the Martlet given the latter plane's limitations; more planes aboard, with better combat radius, gives more operational flexibility. Not all advantages of a type are in performance, necessarily.

The disconnect of the Illustrious class designers is noteworthy. Make a carrier with 22ft wide lifts, without any single seat fighter to operate from it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The disconnect of the Illustrious class designers is noteworthy. Make a carrier with 22ft wide lifts, without any single seat fighter to operate from it.

Agreed. A weapons platform is only as good as its weapons. While I understand the FAA's doctrine about 2-seater fighters (in my layman's understanding, the back-seater was ideally to help navigate back aboard, as well as provide recon eyes), it seems odd to me to accept such performance drawbacks in fighters that would likely be operating in close waters near land-based single-seaters. Perhaps they envisioned operating along with land-based fighters? I don't know.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Agreed. A weapons platform is only as good as its weapons. While I understand the FAA's doctrine about 2-seater fighters (in my layman's understanding, the back-seater was ideally to help navigate back aboard, as well as provide recon eyes), it seems odd to me to accept such performance drawbacks in fighters that would likely be operating in close waters near land-based single-seaters. Perhaps they envisioned operating along with land-based fighters? I don't know.

They clearly had a change of heart with Indomitable, having a wider forward lift. Though the smarter choice might have been to leave the lifts and fold the wings.

At 45ft long and 22ft wide the lifts on the Illustrious class could fit every single engined, prop-powered carrier aircraft ever made, right up to the Fairey Spearfish, Gannet and Douglas A-1 Skyraider. There's nothing wrong with the Illustrious' lift dims.

 

[RCAFson]

That's what I'm seeing online, a paucity of information. From various bits I see about 35 claims for the type, but that stands the obvious likelihood of being incomplete information and not something I'd go to bat with. I've got an open question at a blog concerning RN aviation ops in WWII

I admit I'd be surprised if its wartime tally approached the Wildcat's, but I'm open to information and amenable to correction.


I've no doubt it was a significant improvement for the FAA.

I stated earlier: Actual Sea Hurricane kill-combat loss rate for PQ18, Harpoon and Pedestal was 33-9. I'd guesstimate that total kills versus combat losses was about 50-60 - ~15. Those are all kills verified via comparisons of Axis and FAA records via Shores et al. I also stated earlier that F4F production totaled ~7900 versus 600 Fulmars and ~400-500 Sea Hurricanes and it would be rather amazing if either aircraft had as many kills as a fighter with 13 -16 times the production.

 

[RCAFson]

Perhaps not, but the Sea Hurricane offers a faster ROC and top speed over the Fulmar. When HMS Illustrious and Formidable were dive bombed and crippled the strikes were picked up on radar but the Fulmars were too slow to intercept. Mind you, without folding wings each carrier could only carry a few Hurricanes, so that reduces the CAP.

Now, give the FAA a folding wing Sea Hurricane with an engine optimized for naval ops and we're talking true fleet air defence. And hell, let's throw in a four blade prop, and underwing 40mm cannon pods for antiship work.

In the above examples, RN radar didn't detect the raid in time for an adequate GCI response, and in both cases there was a shortage of Fulmars and other naval aircraft in the MTO, so the blame shouldn't be placed solely on the Fulmar.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I stated earlier: Actual Sea Hurricane kill-combat loss rate for PQ18, Harpoon and Pedestal was 33-9. I'd guesstimate that total kills versus combat losses was about 50-60 - ~15. Those are all kills verified via comparisons of Axis and FAA records via Shores et al. I also stated earlier that F4F production totaled ~7900 versus 600 Fulmars and ~400-500 Sea Hurricanes and it would be rather amazing if either aircraft had as many kills as a fighter with 13 -16 times the production.

Fair enough, and thanks for the info. I'm interested most in the comparison of the Sea Hurri vs the Wildcat/Martlet.

It would seem the two types had similar kill-loss ratios once combat was engaged.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In the above examples, RN radar didn't detect the raid in time for an adequate GCI response, and in both cases there was a shortage of Fulmars and other naval aircraft in the MTO, so the blame shouldn't be placed solely on the Fulmar.

Good point, and if we swap out Fulmars for Hurricanes we'll have even fewer aircraft, so a worse GCI response. What the MTO needed was AFD carriers that had their full 48-56 unit CAGs with an emphasis on fighters. Each of Formidable and Illustrious should have sailed with >36 Fulmars.

 

[slaterat]

Good point, and if we swap out Fulmars for Hurricanes we'll have even fewer aircraft, so a worse GCI response. What the MTO needed was AFD carriers that had their full 48-56 unit CAGs with an emphasis on fighters. Each of Formidable and Illustrious should have sailed with >36 Fulmar

That is quite contrary to the FAA practice. The fact is that the Fulmar's performance, particularly its poor rate of climb, was not up to the role of defending the fleet in 42. That is precisely the reason the hooked Sea hurricane was created. The Sea Hurricane/Fulmar duo was used in a high/ low air defense pairing. The system was a compromise but it worked quite well in Harpoon and Pedestal. I suppose the FAA might of preferred a force comprised solely of Martlets had they been available in sufficient numbers, which they weren't until 43 .

 

[RCAFson]

That is quite contrary to the FAA practice. The fact is that the Fulmar's performance, particularly its poor rate of climb, was not up to the role of defending the fleet in 42. That is precisely the reason the hooked Sea hurricane was created. The Sea Hurricane/Fulmar duo was used in a high/ low air defense pairing. The system was a compromise but it worked quite well in Harpoon and Pedestal. I suppose the FAA might of preferred a force comprised solely of Martlets had they been available in sufficient numbers, which they weren't until 43 .

Under 10-12k ft there was very little difference in Fulmar II and Martlet II/IV climb rate. A Fulmar II that "pulls the plug" might even out climb a Martlet.

As demonstrated by HMS Victorious, in warm climates, AFD carriers with small lifts could operate a small permanent deck park of Sea Hurricanes.

 

[Schweik]

Fulmar was a disaster as a carrier fighter and the Sea Hurricane was too, just look at PQ 18

 

[RCAFson]

Fulmar was a disaster as a carrier fighter and the Sea Hurricane was too, just look at PQ 18

There weren't any Fulmars on HMS Avenger and the Sea Hurricanes performed well, but were hampered by their .303MG armament against armoured TE bombers.

 

[Schweik]

I never said there were Fulmars on the Avenger - I was referring the inability of the problems with the Sea Hurricanes to intercept and shoot down lumbering second tier bombers and float planes, the problems they had with the poor flight endurance etc.

As for being hampered by .30 cal guns, a much more limited (2 gun) .30 cal armament didn't seem to be a problem for Ki-27s and early Ki-43s faced with Chinese and RAF bombers.

 

[Schweik]

And same for the A5M

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

There weren't any Fulmars on HMS Avenger and the Sea Hurricanes performed well, but were hampered by their .303MG armament against armoured TE bombers.

Part of being a good fighter plane is bringing the right weapons to the battle. As we say here in Texas, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

If the Hurricane's armament was insufficient to down more than a handful of unescorted torpedo bombers while losing four of their own in the process, I'd say that says something about the Hurricane's utility as an air-superiority fighter at that point in the war.

 

[GregP]

Thumpalumpacus,

You are asking for kill and loss data that have been chased around by many people without actual success since WWII. The U.S.A. has some fairly reliable kill and loss data for WWII simply because the U.S.A. invested time and effort into a study of same AFTER the war. The USAAF/C came up with the "Army Air Forces Statistical Digest of World War II" dated Dec 1945 and the U.S. Navy came up with "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics Wolrd War II" dated 17 Jun 1946. Both are vailable in pdf form online. These studies were done using the avilable information and combat reports at that time, and are likely the best that can be done since nobody else to date has done anything better except to try to sew doubts about them somehwat unsuccessfully. They remain the best source for combat statistics for the U.S.A., and do NOT show individual kills and losses. You can find those for the USAAF in "USAF Study 85," but that document is not readable as text and must be painstakingly entered line by line if you want to get anything useful from it electronically. It IS available online as a pdf, but a text OCR program cannot read it since it is a copy of a report printed with a dot matrix printer that was sometimes a bit out of line. You can read it manually, but it just doesn't translate well digitally.

I have not come across any primary source documents for the entire war for any other nation that are anywhere near as comprehensive as these two reports are, but there are some partial reports. In the UK, they seem to be obsessed with the Battle of Britain or operations in some specific battle or battle set, and not with the war as a whole. Fair enough but not very useful unless you are looking at that particular battle or action. Good luck coming up with ANY primary source documents from the USSR. There are a couple of places to look for German claims, but the German records are incomplete due to war damage and some lost records. Some people claim to have data about actual German aircraft production (I know, unrelated to victory claims), but they only have the allocated werknumers for approved production, not the acutal production deliveries. Its like a list of allocated serial numbers; not actual deliveries.

I have a pretty good tabulation of what I have found over 40+ years of looking, but actual totals of victories are a tough thing to find. You CAN find things like actual totals for some single mission or single ongoing action.

Kill-to-loss ratios for air combat are a thing of some national pride and I seriously doubt the accuracy of the numbers. In the U.S.A., if a plane was damaged during air combat, stayed aloft during the fight, but suffered an engine failure on the way home after the action, it was likely recorded as an operational loss since it didn't happen during actual combat. But the damage that caused the loss DID happen in combat, and it SHOULD be a combat loss. Breaking out what really happened, even from these well produced reports can be difficult.

The subject of what actualy constitutes a "kill" is also a subject of debate. Some people say that if a plane was shot at, damaged, and forced to land during combat, but was later recovered and repaired ... it was not a kill. I say bunk. The job of the fighter pilot in combat was to knock enemy aircraft out of the mission and/or to disrupt the attack in progress. Sending a plane down is exactly that, achieving the mission. Yet the debate rages in some arenas and a lot of people are obsesed with matching up recorded kills with the losses the enemy actually reported. This despite the fact that both Hitler and Stalin were reliably reported to only be happy with positive combat reports. Handing either one of these two guys a bad combat loss report could result in death or, at least, demotion. So, just how reliable WERE the reported loss figures and what exactly did they call a "loss?" The definitions used at the time are largely lost to history.

Good luck finding hard data for "Sea Hurricanes" broken out from just "Hurricanes." Actually, good luck finding hard data on just "Hurricanes" that encompass the entire war. I've been trying but, to date, have only what might be termed partial success myself.

Cheers.

 

[RCAFson]

Part of being a good fighter plane is bringing the right weapons to the battle. As we say here in Texas, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

If the Hurricane's armament was insufficient to down more than a handful of unescorted torpedo bombers while losing four of their own in the process, I'd say that says something about the Hurricane's utility as an air-superiority fighter at that point in the war.

3 of the Sea Hurricanes were lost to 'friendly fire'. The cloud cover also made for very difficult interception conditions and Avenger's small flight deck made it hard for her to put many fighters up at one time. OTOH, no Sea Hurricanes were lost due to landing accidents despite the conditions.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

3 of the Sea Hurricanes were lost to 'friendly fire'. The cloud cover also made for very difficult interception conditions and Avenger's small flight deck made it hard for her to put many fighters up at one time. OTOH, no Sea Hurricanes were lost due to landing accidents despite the conditions.

I defer to your knowledge regarding the cause of Hurri losses (and I appreciate the info), but that doesn't obviate my main point, which is that they weren't very effective in PQ18. Didn't shoot down very many attackers, nor deter them from launching attacks.