Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Right, but the F4Fs didn't seem to be able to smash waves of Vals and Kates when they were escorted by Zeros.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Check out the Martlet operations from the first escort carrier Audacity between June 1941 and her loss in Dec 1941.I would say that F4F would have helped a lot in some of those convoy battles the British had both in the Med and North Atlantic, but they never got enough of them in time. They had a few. F4F IMO is pretty lethal threat to He 111, Ju 87, SM.79 and can at least catch Ju 88s in most cases. I don't know the full combat history of the FAA Martlets but it seems like in the key convoy battles they either didn't have any or had just a handful.
Honestly that's a story I'd like to hear... you got more information on that?There was also an account of an F4F literally beating a G4M out of the sky. The Grumman was out of ammo. The pilot lowered his landing gear and kept bouncing it off the Betty's wing. That might have been at the Battle of the Coral Sea, though.
It had been mentioned that it was the F4F "that did the heavy lifting" holding the line until the hotter planes arrived.
I think both of them played their part to be honest.To some extent that's definitely true, though I think the SBD was probably more important. F4F basically helped prevent catastrophe (in terms of US strike aircraft getting totally decimated or enemy strikes having too easy of a time of it) but they didn't really stop enemy strikes cold or totally protect USN Bombers.
I got it from either a Military Aviation History channel vid, Rex's Hanger or Drachinifel. I accidentally hit the reply button as I was going to take a look.Honestly that's a story I'd like to hear... you got more information on that?
I think both of them played their part to be honest.
They did break 'em up though!Right, but the F4Fs didn't seem to be able to smash waves of Vals and Kates when they were escorted by Zeros.
I got it from either a Military Aviation History channel vid, Rex's Hanger or Drachinifel. I accidentally hit the reply button as I was going to take a look.
I'm leaning to Drach but it's a long video.
I would note that the time limit for Military power for the US was 5 minutes after which the power was reduced to normal.NOTE All speeds are at Military power. TTH are Military then Normal for the Martlets, and Normal for the SeaHurricanes
Some specs for comparison:
________________________Vmax at Altitude______TTH (Time To Height_____Guns
Martlet Mk I____________313 mph at 14,500 ft____6.7 min to 15,000 ft_____4x .50 cal
Martlet Mk II___________ 317 mph at 14,000 ft____7.5 min to 15,000 ft_____4x .50 cal
Martlet Mk III___________307 mph at 14,000 ft____6.8 min to 15,000 ft_____4x .50 cal
Martlet Mk IV___________298 mph at 14,000 ft____9.4 min to 15,000 ft_____4x .50 cal
Martlet Mk V___________ 320 mph at 18,800 ft____ 12 min to 20,000 ft_____6x .50 cal____F4F-4
_______________________305 mph at 11,500 ft
Martlet Mk VIA__________318 mph at 16,750 ft____6.6 min to 15,000 ft_____4x .50 cal____FM-2
_______________________307 mph at__3,700 ft
SeaHurricane Mk IB_____308 mph at 18,000 ft____ 10 min to 20,000 ft_____8x .303 cal___ navalized Hurricane Mk I
SeaHurricane Mk IIC____ 320 mph at 19,500 ft____9.5 min to 20,000 ft_____4x 20mm_____navalized Hurricane Mk IIC
_______________________300 mph at 12,000 ft
NOTE All speeds are at Military power. TTH are at Military then Normal for the Martlets, and at Normal for the SeaHurricanes
The US, some like some other navies, had several different Destroyer designs. This was complicated in 1930s by the naval treaties lapsing.The USN also had some problems in their destroyers as not all of them had high angle 5 inch guns, as in the Porter Class (launched 1935-36):
Somebody in the original writing was doing a bit of cherry picking.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.
Somebody in the original writing was doing a bit of cherry picking.
Nobody was flying around at combat power for between one hour to two hours unless the situation was truly desperate. I would also note that the Martlet didn't have combat power rating in the way that the Hurricane and Fulmar did. The Martlet had a military rating that that was it. The Martlet used 48in or 9lb boost at the most.
Martlet also only carried about 120Imp gallons of fuel without drop tanks. Hurricane carried 97imp gal?
I can believe the Martlet could fly longer, but the difference seems to be pretty amazing. Something in the actual speeds/power settings seems off.
It also depends on wither they had drop tanks or not. The engine/s on the F4F-4 and FM-2 were not that efficient.Right here I see range for the F4F-3 as 860 miles, F4F-4 is shown as 1275 miles, for FM-2 at 1350 miles.
So looks like Wildcats had between one and a half to almost three times the range of a Sea Hurricane, depending on the specific type.
I would note that using well used Hurricane Is for conversion to naval fighters was hardly the best solution over 15 months after the MK II Hurricane went into squadron service in the RAF. This was 6 months after the Germans invaded Russia.The American folding fleet fighter is the ideal aircraft for the job, but here again the productive capacity of the United States is barely sufficient to meet the requirements of their own Navy, which is much behind in modern aircraft owing to the fact that Congress has not allowed them to change their aircraft more than once every five years."
The USN was behind the RN in application of radar, both in installation and more importantly in how to use it properly. The Battle of Cape Mattapan was a textbook example of the use of radar in a night surface action. A year and a half later the USN produced an absolute clown show in the use of radar at Savo Island. If you read "Fighters Over the Fleet " you will also see that British were a least a year ahead of the American in fighter direction.I think you are heavily overstating the limitations of the Ju 87. They sunk quite a few ships in convoys in 1941-1942 which weren't in any dock, including quite small ones. They also managed to maul British aircraft carriers.
The later US destroyers do seem to have been better armed than most other nations, aside from their terrible torpedoes, US was a little ahead on naval warfare in many ways IMO, (certainly in terms of the carrier fleet, and radar on the battleships). But even US ships were still highly vulnerable to Japanese bombers in 1942 as we know, and were still taking losses in 1943. More guns and the proximity fuse really started to make a difference in the later war but by then the tide had already turned.
That sounds like early war exaggeration. Similar to B-17s shooting down half a dozen Zeros at a time. Attached is an example of an early war (for the Americans) puff piece. The P-40 and B-17 are crushing the opposition.There was also an account of an F4F literally beating a G4M out of the sky. The Grumman was out of ammo. The pilot lowered his landing gear and kept bouncing it off the Betty's wing. That might have been at the Battle of the Coral Sea, though.
Aircooled engines like the R1830 can be quite economical in a low power cruise, but they consume far more fuel in rated power climbs and at or near full throttle than a liquid cooled Merlin. At Midway, 4 June 1942, 10 F4F-4s flew escort on Hornet's SBDs. During their entire flight they used low power cruise settings and they never encountered enemy aircraft. All ten ditched in an average of 3.5 hours from TO. Based upon fuel consumption charts the actual endurance difference between a Sea Hurricane 1B and an F4F-4 or a folding wing Martlet II (F4F-4A) or a Martlet IV (F4F-4B) is about 30min, if they fly a similar mission profile.I don't think anything is off. That website is a patriotic leaning Royal Navy fan page, very detailed and tends to be accurate. But it's hardly the only source on this. And it quotes numerous British naval officers from during the war on this exact issue - the flight endurance of the Sea Hurricane being so low that they had to constantly turn the carriers into the wind and couldn't keep up with the needs of launching and recovering other aircraft. They were terrible for CAP for this reason.
There is a long account on there somewhere of the harrowing ordeal of one of the northern convoys and the trouble they had with the Sea Hurricane over this problem.
The Martlet may have only had 20% more fuel but the R-1830 was supposed to be a particularly fuel efficient engine. Do you know what the relative fuel consumption was at cruising power or military power? I don't have the manuals for either aircraft.
Regardless, I don't think armoredcarriers is cherry-picking or lying about anything. If anything they tend to boost British military hardware on the site somewhat optimistically.
Showing the range for the Sea Hurricane IB here (modified Hurricane IIA) at 505 miles.
range for Sea Hurricane IC (modified Hurricane IIC) as the same, 505 miles
Sea Hurricane IIC at 452 miles with two 44 gallon drop tanks!
Right here I see range for the F4F-3 as 860 miles, F4F-4 is shown as 1275 miles, for FM-2 at 1350 miles.
So looks like Wildcats had between one and a half to almost three times the range of a Sea Hurricane, depending on the specific type.
Lundstrom in his First Team volumes analysed USN AA performance during the 1942 carrier battles. He estimates that USN AA only shot down 10 IJNAF aircraft at Coral Sea, Midway and Eastern Solomons. At Santa Cruz, where USN ships were more numerous and carried heavier close range armament including the 40mm bofors, he estimates 25 IJNAF aircraft were downed by AA. In every battle, Lundstrom's data shows that 5in AA was very ineffective and really not a factor at all as most kills were by close range fire. However, what is especially noteworthy is that the USN claimed over 200 AA kills during these four battles vs Lundstrom's estimate of 35. Hence the myth of the 5in gun and USN tachymetric AA fire control.Against ships with tachometric directors and true dual purpose guns, the Stuka was little more than an aerial target.
Fortunately for the Luftwaffe, the RN didn't have either on its Destroyers.
The performance of the Mk37 and Mk30 5" mount as fitted by the USN to some old RN Cruisers they refitted was so much better than anything the RN had in service, the RN placed an order for 142 ships sets to switch it to the RN's standard Destroyer armament, but Pearl Harbor got in the way and it was off the Lend Lease table.
But why no Tachymetric directors on RN Destroyers?
Lessons not learned.
The RAF didn't have dive bombers or torpedo bombers, it's approved method of attacking ships was using medium bombers dropping bombs from altitude. An against such targets, firing box barrages using a 2 axis director was seen as perfectly adequate, they obligingly flew in on a constant bearing and altitude. But dive bombers moved in 3 axes at once. TTP's could minimise the risk of dive bombers to ships, but it needed a cool nerve, sea room, and speed. Against fast moving ships with sea roam, the Stuka was fairly useless, most of its successes was against ships either in or around harbours or tied up alongside.
Even against slow targets at sea, they weren't all that good, see the effort to sink HMS Terror, a slow lumbering Monitor.
Best Destroyers any of the assorted assorted combatants entered the war with for fighting off air attacks? The USN's Fletcher Class proved to be magnificent ships, by 1942, they started acquiring l20mm and 40mm guns too making them formidable adversaries for aircraft.