- Thread starter
- #381
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat
- Thread starter Schweik
- Start date
The Best sources for kill loss rates are from books that carefully examine the combat reports of both sides, and then compare kill claims to reported losses. Lundstrom's two volume First Team, and works like Shore's Hurricanes over Malta, and Malta the Spitfire Year, are also excellent
The Sea Hurricanes shot down five for one loss (Hurricats got a couple more, IIRC) but they also forced the Luftwaffe to use tight formation attacks and then the AA really went to work on them.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Sure, and as such the Germans suffered heavy losses even as they sank what, 12 ships? The point is that fighters against unescorted bombers should do better than that, in my humble opinion. If the lightweight armament they carried was stymied to a degree by German armor, that indicates to me that the Hurri was not up on the times in terms of armament.
This is especially, to me, significant in the case of the Sea Hurricane, because it was expected that their primary opposition would indeed be bombers, rather than fighters. If you know you're going to be bustin' bombers, you might want a cannon or two on your birds.
- Thread starter
- #385
The main problem with the Sea Hurricane wasn't the armament, it was the endurance. For example the Wiki notes: "[Royal Navy commander]Colthurst decided that the Sea Hurricanes henceforth would fly standing patrols of 25 minutes duration per fighter, to ensure that some were always available to break up Goldene Zange formations, even if they were too slow and ill-armed to inflict many losses. The captain of Ulster Queen resolved to ignore the standing orders to keep station and steer towards incoming aircraft instead.[42] "
Combat performance was also pretty bad, during PQ 18 insufficient in many cases to shoot down unescorted He 111s or even lumbering, unescorted He 115 float planes on several occasions or for example to prevent even slower Blohm and Voss BV 138 flying boats from driving Swordfish away from U-boats they were trying to attack.
Combat performance was also pretty bad, during PQ 18 insufficient in many cases to shoot down unescorted He 111s or even lumbering, unescorted He 115 float planes on several occasions or for example to prevent even slower Blohm and Voss BV 138 flying boats from driving Swordfish away from U-boats they were trying to attack.
The problem with this argument is that the Sea Hurricane had far more performance than a Martlet and if the Sea Hurricane was having problems intercepting Luftwaffe bombers then the Martlet would do a lot worse and we have to balance that with a probable higher kill rate when an interception did happen.
The 4 x 20mm cannon, Sea Hurricane IIC, was just entering service as the Battle for PQ18 was being fought.
- Thread starter
- #387
The Sea Hurricane had inferior or equivalent performance to the Martlet (depending on the specific metric and specific version of each aircraft) and less than half the endurance. The 20mm cannon armed versions didn't do much better in combat, partly because their guns were limited to 60 rounds.
During PQ 18, Sea Hurricanes were not only having problems intercepting Axis bombers, once intercepted they had a very hard time shooting them down. One He 115 (top speed 203 mph) held off four Sea Hurricanes and shot one down. It's only armed with 1 x 7.92mm defensive machine gun. A drum fed MG 15.
By comparison Wildcats shot down several H6K and H8K float planes, the latter with a top speed of 290 mph and an armament of 5 x 20mm cannon (with two turrets) and 5 x 7.7mm machine guns. The H8K was also armored and had some self-sealing fuel tanks. USMC Brewster Buffalos even shot those down.
I don't think the He 115 would have fared well in the Pacific, and obviously neither would the Sea Hurricane. That's why the RN wanted Martlets.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Perhaps. But the discussion is about armament and not performance.
Yet the FAA saw fit to procure Grummans all the same, both Martlets and Hellcats. Apparently they didn't have a problem with .50s, but as your own statements lay out, the .303 had issues dealing with those German bombers. Perhaps the FAA considered the .50 a suitable compromise between weight (hence performance), trigger-time, and hitting power? By 1942, I'd reckon a .303 to really only be suitable against fighters, or unarmored bombers.
Do you happen to know which model Ju-88s were involved in this battle, and what was their armor layout? I'm having trouble finding it, but I'm curious. Was it the A-17 torp bomber variant? My understanding is that the armor was centered around the crew-space, but I could well be wrong.
I appreciate your patience with what might seem dumb questions.
- Thread starter
- #389
It was mostly He 111
It isn't. He's basing that on a single assessment of the Wildcat based on who knows what conditions, and ignoring a half dozen others all of which you can read for yourself here
WWII Aircraft Performance
It isn't. He's basing that on a single assessment of the Wildcat based on who knows what conditions, and ignoring a half dozen others all of which you can read for yourself here
WWII Aircraft Performance
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Odd, given that the Hurricane didn't seem to have much problem downing them in the BoB.
I was talking specifically about my discussion with him being about the armament deficiencies of the Hurricane. I'm of the opinion that a fighter sent up with arms that won't get the job done is worse than useless, insofar as one is sacrificing expensive pilots with low potential returns.
Thanks for the link, off to do some reading.
- Thread starter
- #391
There were Ju 88s too, I think mainly A-4 type, and a variety of float planes (BV 138, He 115). I don't know if any other specific subtype of Ju 88 were available but PQ 18 took place in summer / fall of 1942 so it's not a very late design.
I think there was a big difference between attacking bombers in big, relatively slow moving formations vs. in faster moving more ad-hoc attacks.
I think there was a big difference between attacking bombers in big, relatively slow moving formations vs. in faster moving more ad-hoc attacks.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I know the different airframes involved, was just curious which one had armor enough to reject eight .303s and assumed that the -88, being the latest, would likely be that one.
Absolutely. On top of your point here, there's also the fact that the combat is happening immediately above the sea rather than at altitude -- such combat forces altitude into any decision-process any of the pilots would be making. You have much less room to recover, and the ground (or sea in this case) doesn't miss.
The BV138 and HE115 were commonly encountered over PQ18 and both aircraft would duck into the ever present cloud cover to escape interception and a Martlet would do worse than the Sea Hurricane in the same conditions. The sole SH loss was to a HE115, and by 1942 these had their defensive armament increased with extra armour added. Condemning an aircraft on the basis of a single combat, is more than a bit weird, to say the least. 33 verified HSHIB kills from June to Sept 1942 versus 9 losses, speaks for itself and several of those losses were from Axis fighters over Pedestal.
Sorry, but that's a lot of nonsense. The HSHIB weighed ~7000lb and had 1440HP. The Martlet II/IV weighed 7750lb and had 1200hp. The Martlets were completely outperformed by the Sea Hurricane. The numbers don't lie and power to weight and wing loading heavily favoured the Sea Hurricane.
The IIC carried 91RPG of 20mm.
- Thread starter
- #394
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Then why did the FAA go with Grummans, Corsairs, and Fulmars as the war went along?
Perhaps Schweik's point about endurance is on point.
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.
The FAA procured what it could get, as they didn't have the luxury to pick and choose. The FAA initially got Martlets because took over French and Greek contracts.
What does a Hellcat, which appeared in mid/late 1943 have to do with a HSH1B which first showed up in early 1941? Maybe absolutely nothing? Even if the Hellcat had poorer performance, like the Martlet, the fact that it had folding wings would make it preferable to a HSH, but of course the Hellcat was far superior to the Martlet and Sea Hurricane. The FAA had no opinion on the .5in and they got them because that's what the Martlet came with. The early .5in were actually pretty miserable with a slow RoF and frequent gun jams, but by mid 1942 these kinks were being worked out.
- Thread starter
- #397
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.
I'm not 'condemning an aircraft over a single combat" - it's just an example. The failure at Pedestal overall is the basis worthy of condemnation. Certainly many RN offiicers felt that way. And unlike with the Wildcat they were not able to find a way to adapt the Sea Hurricane to the conditions.
In real life, in terms of top speed and dive, roll and acceleration, the Martlets were better. The extra weight in the Martlet was largely fuel! The minor edge held by the Sea Hurricane at takeoff rapidly diminished as the Wildcat used up fuel, and the Sea Hurricane had to go back down and land. Also, under Tropical conditions Hurricanes did not achieve spec performance.
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, "
- Thread starter
- #398
FAA pilots didn't necessarily feel that way, for example Henry Adlam noted, after a mock combat with a Seafire:
"Adlam came out of the experience with renewed confidence in his Martlet, largely because he felt the "0.5 calibre shells from six Browning machine guns" (Thus narrowing the Martlet down to a Mk II, III or IV) would present him with a key advantage over the Seafire IIC "
And of course, Spitfires were made with .50 cals in the wings to replace the .303s so I think they did recognize it's merits.
Fulmars? Only 600 built. Sea Hurricanes, about 500 as we've discussed. F4F series about 7900, IIRC including the FM2 which finally achieved HSH1B performance figures in 1944. The Sea Hurricane had fixed wings and the the folding wing was the real big advantage of the Martlet II/IV over the Sea Hurricane, just as the F4F-4 replaced the fixed wing F4F-3, despite the poorer performance of the -4. Right? The Seafire III was only retained because it had folding wings.
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.
Last edited:
The Seafire IIC had 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x. 303mgs.
Seafire IIC had ~1500hp and weighed less than 7000lb, Any Martlet would be completely outperformed by a Seafire IIC and you have to be completely ignorant of basic arithmetic to believe otherwise. Again, power to weight and wing loading tell the story.
