Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Yeah, USN AA was pretty miserable at that point in the war, two-and-a-half months into our American involvement. I think that's pretty understandable given the state of technology at the time.
Dive bomber accuracy in perspective. (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter davebender
- Start date
Yeah, USN AA was pretty miserable at that point in the war, two-and-a-half months into our American involvement. I think that's pretty understandable given the state of technology at the time.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,776
- Dec 6, 2006
When someone makes the statement 'stopped cold' it implies that all or a large part of the attackers were shot down and that the survivors aborted the mission. That very rarely happened.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I don't think that is true at all. I know you love your British aircraft, but the consensus among the British naval officers, pilots (not just Eric Brown by any means) and others, was clearly that the Sea Hurricane, while helpful in an extreme pinch (ala Cam Ships and early carrier action) was not appropriate at all as a naval aircraft, and it was mainly due to lack of range. There are quotes almost exclusively from Royal Navy and Fleet Air Arm personnel all over that site, and to be found in many other places. Almost no commentary on this by the Americans, incidentally, it's all British or Commonwealth, all pretty much saying the same thing, which is also very clear from the combat record.
Hurricanes also performed very poorly against Japanese fighters (both A6M and Ki-43). It was pretty weak against Bf 109s or MC 202s as well but those were often kept out of the fight due to range. A Hurricane could certainly cope with a Bf 110 or Ju 88C.
The Martlet wasn't as fantastic as Eric Brown thought, I'm sure, and it wasn't the kind of beast that the Hellcat clearly was, but it was a better fighter than all of the other FAA fighters until maybe arguably the Firefly or maybe some of the later model Seafires,
There was certainly an issue with the Wildcat / Martlet that the early peppy fixed wing models (especially from the French and Greek orders) weren't adequately protected, and the later six gun model was clearly too heavy. But it was still better than a Sea Hurricane, it still had much better range, and it could apparently contend with both Japanese and German land based fighters. By the time the FM2 (a little too late) came out this seems to have been sorted out by more powerful rated engine and removing two of the guns again (I don't think they ever really needed six guns).
The biggest problem with the British Martlets is that the US didn't give them enough of them quickly enough, and the reasons for that seem to be a mix of British and US decisions.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
1. No I didn't. Re-read Post # 355.
2. I was using that phrase in conversion with which that phrase was used.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Also, maybe not having any?
I just know someone is going to take that line literally and not figuratively.
What are you replying too with this statement?:
I don't doubt that opinions regarding the Sea Hurricane 1B varied, but at the same time, cherry picking criticisms of the SH1B isn't helpful either. IMHO, the lack of folding wings was the SH1B's biggest flaw, and not it's range, endurance, or performance or overall suitability for carrier operations. It certainly seems to have had a very low operational (non-combat) loss rate.
Fact: The SH1B has a much higher power to weight ratio and lower wing loading than an F4F-4 or folding wing Martlet
Fact: The SH1B has a much higher climb rate than F4F-4 and FW Martlet.
Fact: The Merlin III is more economical during rated power climbs than an F4F-4 and USN testing shows that the SH1B will outclimb the F4F-4 at SH1B's rated power climb even when the F4F-4 is using full military power; this is to be expected, all things considered.
USMC F4F-4s suffered severely at Midway even though they were scrambled in good time to get the bounce on the IJN, whereas at Ceylon the Hurricanes were largely caught during TO or at low altitude by greater numbers of fighters than were present at Midway. USN F4F-4s were also severely handled when caught at a disadvantage during their first encounter at Guadalcanal on Aug 7 1942 when 9 F4F-4s were lost, but the F4F-4s were seldom caught at a disadvantage because USN radar and Australian coast watchers typically prevented that from happening.
We know from USN experience that the claimed ~6hr endurance in an FW Martlet or F4F-4 isn't even close to the endurance achieved by USN pilots even when flying for endurance. The FAA data card for the Martlet IV (F4F-4B) card shows an endurance of only 3.4 hrs at loiter power:
which is inline with USN experience at Midway. Loiter endurance with allowance for combat was only 2.1 hrs.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Grumman only built 324 Wildcats in 1941. This was after 106 in 1940.
They would build 1470 in 1942 but 664 of those were built in Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec.
How much of this was due to problems with the P & W 2 stage engines I don't know.
By the end of 1941 Grumman had put 3/4 different engines in production Wildcats/Martlets.
You had the Wright powered Marlet I, the single stage R-1830 engines used in the F4F-3A and the Martlet II & III and the two stage R-1830s in the F4F-4.
How much difference there was between the R-1830-76 and the R-1830-86 I don't know.
The whole reason behind the F4F-3A was that P & W could not supply the two stage engines fast enough.
As far as giving Martlets to the British fast enough, in Dec 1941 the US had a total of 181 F4F-3s and 65 F4F-3As, most if not all without self sealing tanks and armor(?)
By the end of Dec the USN had a total of five F4F-4s with folding wings.
Jan 21st 1942 is when the deal between General motors and Grumman and the government is set up. But it is not until April 18th 1942 that Eastern Aircraft gets the contract for 1800 FM-1 fighters.
Don't know where or when any extra Wildcats are to come from.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Sure, but I wasn't supporting his point, only saying that he may have been thinking of that engagement.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Who cherry picked? I just opened armored carriers up and looked up Sea Hurricane. That's what it said because that was the preponderance of opinion. Take it up with the RN and FAA officers who actually fought the war.
I don't necessarily disagree, though that also depends on equipment and loadout. F4F went up heavier in part because it carried more fuel. It won't necessarily have all that fuel still in it once it engages, but it will affect initial climb.
Maybe that's true but it didn't prevent a Martlet from having half again or twice the range and loiter time.
All Allied fighters, pretty much, had a fairly tough time with the excellent Japanese A6M and Ki-43 fighters, and even against Ki-27s, in the early months of the Pacific War and in China. But they were able to figure out tactics to make Wildcats and P-40s, and even to some extent P-39s effective against them and by say mid 1942, they were basically at parity. You can't say this for any version of the Hurricane or Sea Hurricane, and I don't see Wildcats getting slaughtered the way Hurricanes did at Ceylon or in Burma.
At Midway the Japanese lost 42 aircraft in Air Combat, then another 219 when their carriers went down - 292 in total. The US lost at total or 145, some of which went down with the Yorktown. As we know, Midway was a major US victory.
At Ceylon the Japanese lost 7 aircraft (I think it was 6 Vals and 1 Zero), the FAA lost 26, including 16 Hurricanes, 4 Fulmars, and 6 Swordfish that blundered into the fight. Fighter for fighter it was 20-1. That ain't good.
Maybe something like a Thach weave could have worked with Hurricanes or Sea Hurricanes, but if it was tried I haven't heard about it.
I think that depends on things like external fuel tanks, as was previously noted upthread. They also limited loiter time in some cases in the FAA due to pilot endurance. "Only" 3.4 hours ior even 2.1 s still much longer than the Sea Hurricane's 1 hour. The Sea Hurricane was a converted land based interceptor which was turned into basically a point defense fighter for freighters and then Carriers, not a proper naval fighter. That is a FACT.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
yes I know, I credit this largely to some of the "US decisions". The US had their own crisis to deal with, so they were taking most of what was available, Grumman was somewhat slow to tool up to larger scale production so they were smart to set up the additional manufacturing plants, I wonder if it could have gotten started a bit faster?
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Point defense is good enough to drive away an FW 200, but it's not good enough to contend with strikes from Ju 87s or Ju 88s escorted by Bf 109s, or SM.79s escorted by MC 202s, let alone D3A and B5N escorted by A6Ms which fortunately they didn't have to face very much.
But IIRC Hurricane pilots were still having serious problems with Ki-43s in 1944.
But IIRC Hurricane pilots were still having serious problems with Ki-43s in 1944.
It doesn't matter who cherry picked, the point is that the SH1B is unfairly maligned.
In Burma the Hurricane was used primarily as a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter.
But F4F-4s did get slaughtered under some circumstances but I certainly don't consider that as indicative of their overall ability to contend with Zeros. The IJN lost 17 or 18 aircraft over Ceylon including 5 or 6 Zeros, IIRC. The Sea Hurricane could out climb, out dive, out run and out turn an Martlet IV and the F4F-4 only advantage was in speed at high altitude where there was little fighter to fighter naval air combat in 1942 and logically, given the same pilots, should do better against Zeros than the F4F-4 especially since a better climb rate will mean greater chances for engaging with the advantage of height.
IJN losses to causes other than CAP are a bit irrelevant to this topic.
The FAA data cards for the SH1B and Martlet IV don't support the idea that the SH had an endurance of 1hr. How can you look at the data cards and continue to make that assertion:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-IV-ads.jpg
The data cards show that the F4F-4B used 25IG (fuel allowance) for warmup, TO and climb to cruise altitude (15K ft) and then had a loiter endurance of 3.4 hrs on 95IG , which was almost exactly the experience of the 10 F4F-4s during the 'flight to nowhere' at Midway. The SH1B had a fuel allowance of 21IG for warmup, climb to 20K ft and then an endurance of 2.7 hours at 208mph (most economical cruise) on 76IG of fuel at 20K ft vs 695miles for the Martlet IV at 213mph (3.26 hrs) at 15K ft . If the F4F-4 had to climb to 20K ft it's range advantage would be diminished further.
However, the endurance for the Martlet IV/F4F-4B was at loiter speed and 120IG less a 25IG fuel allowance = 95IG / 3.4 hrs = 28IG/hr at 15K ft. If we use the HS1B's loiter fuel consumption of 23IG/hr we get a loiter time of 3.3 hrs; 97IG less 21IG fuel allowance = 76IG / 23IG = 3.3 hrs.
Read the data cards carefully as there's a lot of info there that can be analysed to make an accurate comparison.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The Wildcat started heavier. A crap load heavier.
An F4F-3 with armor and self sealing tanks went 7150lbs and that is with 300rpg and 110 US gallons (92.6 imp) of internal fuel.
Or about what a Hurricane IIA weighed.
The wing went up about 290lbs between the F4F-3 and the F4F-4, in part because of the fold, impart because of the added gun bay/s (this does not include the weight of the guns, just the structure). They pulled out 90lbs worth of floatation gear but empty weight of went up about 350lbs.
The F4F-3 could carry 147 US gallons of fuel and here is where I am running into a problem. The capacity of fuel seems to change between US specifications and British specifications.
British data sheets often say 136imp gallons of fuel which would be over 160 US gallons according to standard conversions. and more than an F4F-3 held without protected tanks?
Somebody kept copying the early data when filling out the new data sheets?
Not if you compare the same things. You don't get twice the range/loiter time on only 30-40% more fuel.
Maybe if the Sea Hurricane wasn't dragging and anchor behind it.
A Land Hurricane MK IIA was supposed to fly 500 miles, no reserves, no combat allowance but at 20,000ft and using 29 gallons to start, take-off and climb to 20,000ft.
At most economical that would take over 2 hours.
Now somehow the Wildcat II (that is what the data card says) with it it's range of 795 miles (on 133 Imp gallons of internal fuel?) has a loiter time of 3.95 hours !!!!!!!
Please note that the Wildcat II is supposed to have used up 25 gallons taking off and getting to 15,000ft. With combat allowance it is supposed to have an endurance of 2.6 hours.
BTW the Land Hurricane IIA (best case) is faster, climbs much better and has a take off run to 50 ft almost 2/3s that of the Wildcat. Obviously the carrier equipment would cut into that.
You mean like the SHIBs during Operation Pedestal? Where they successfully defended the convoy against a far greater scale of attack than that faced by any of the USN carrier TFs during 1942. The losses to the convoy only occurred after the RN carriers were forced to turn back due to the Sicilian Narrows. During the last day's Axis attacks the SH1Bs were contending with massed raids escorted by Axis fighters. The SH1Bs were allotted the high altitude CAP duties due to their superior climb rate.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Thank you. The Sea Hurricane data cards are not at wwiiaircraftperformance.
Apparently the later data cards for the Wildcats show the 120imp gallon fuel capacity which is about where it should be for 144-147 US gallons.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
BUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh man. Ahahahahah. Yeah, thanks. I needed a laugh. Why don't you start another thread on that one, although I think it's been debated on here before.
You are right though Sea Hurricanes fending off a mismatch of 1930s vintage German bombers and Italian converted airliners and seaplanes is for more pivotal than Coral Sea, Midway, and the battle of Leyte Gulf. You just need to let the world know about this glorious triumph! There is a nasty rumor that Pedastal was a catastrophe for the Royal Navy in spite of the feeble opposition they faced.
Right. Such a great climb rate. And they were up there for hours. HOURS!
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ok, I think you know better. But this too calls for another thread. I'll start one. Because if I answer this farce, I'll get accused of derailing the thread.
One attack alone included 37 'outdated' JU-88's escorted by 21 '1930's' ME-109F's.
Before that on the same day at noon 50 Italian SM.84 and SM.79 torpedo bombers attacked with 8 CR-42 biplanes
and 38 '1940' CR.202 and RE.2001 fighters. All seen off with one merchant ship hit.
The Axis forces had at their disposal over 750 combat aircraft including 353 Stuka and JU-88 bombers - all 1930's vintage so
nothing to worry about of course. Add in 94 medium bombers of other types and 90 torpedo bombers plus 247 fighters for
escort while you are at it.
The air cover fighters for the convoy - 74 Hurricanes, Martlets, and Fulmars.
Rumour has it that Malta received over 35 more Spitfires plus supplies to keep going due to the convoy which was a strategic win
for the Allied cause. Logistic and strategic wins beat tactical wins every time - a definite fail for the axis - or so rumour has it.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I've been through all this in detail before, and I've opened another thread to discuss this because it will definitely be a total derail for this one. I'll reply there.
Sigh…
