FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[GregP]

I have found similar statements and anecdotes, all saying the Corsair could out-roll most other fighters, but never recall seeing it go up against an Fw 190. I am also under the impression the Fw 190 was a VERY good roller until it hit higher speeds, at which time some Allied fighters could stay with or even surpass it. Notably, the P-40 seems to have been a better roller than most other U.S. aircraft. I have seen one memo on the roll capability of the P-40Q, but have not been able to locate it again, and have never seen a roll performance chart for it.

Most aerobatic aircraft have aerodynamic "tricks" that make them have an abrupt stall when some pre-determined angle of attack is reached, and big rudders and elevators to generate crisp snap rolls. But the intent is to generate a rapid snap (flick) roll at relatively low speeds. You don't snap-roll an Su-31 at high speed! An Extra 300 snap rolls at 80 - 140 knots and it is stressed higher than a WWII fighter. I think it is likely that most WWII fighters CAN snap roll at under 100 mph, but the designers know that in the fog of combat, nobody will listen to the airspeed restrictions for a snap roll, so they placard them to be safe.

I'd bet a P-51 could snap-roll at 90 mph without bending, but perhaps not at 180 mph. The issue with the P-51 is whether or not the pilot could un-stall it at a predetermined point, or would he go into the famous 10,000 foot spin. A LOT might depend on the load being carried, the location of the weight, and the power level being carried at the time.

Several combat reports from Navy F6F Hellcats mention snap-rolls or partial snap rolls (vertical reverse) as combat maneuvers. Not too sure if that was approved or just necessary at the time. My copy of the F6F-3 POH does not mention snap rolls at all, but gives instructions for spin recovery from as many as 4 turns in either direction.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

On the other hand, the Army, for example, decided to leave their 76 mm armed Shermans in England on D-day in favor of the 75 mm version despite the 76s much better anti-tank properties in order to simplify logistics

Why was it logistics, given the several hundred M10 and M18 were using the gun? It is remarkable how production was wound down in 1944, 29,262 Shermans built to end 1943, out of 49,234, so the allies had plenty of 1943 Shermans. First 76mm Shermans in January, first 105mm Shermans in February 1944. By the end of May 113 M4 76mm were in England, 127 more were received in June, 168 in July, and 122 in August, a total of 530. Some 1,296 Sherman 76mm had been completed to end May.

The US tank supply line to Europe,
M4 76mm, first production January 1944, first deployment week ending 22 July
M4 105mm, first production February 1944, first deployment week ending 8 July
M24, first production in April 1944 (1, then 24 in May), first deployment week ending 28 December.

Operational tanks, As of period ending 1 July First Army held 764 M4 75mm and 406 M5.
Operational tanks, As of period ending 11/12 August 12th Army Group held 881 M4 75mm, 138 M4 76mm, 64 M4 105mm and 686 M5.

Third Army did not receive any M4 76mm until week ending 26 August, 9th Army until week ending 20 October.

It was not just the guns Sherman protection and combat power related improvements in early 1944:

The 47 degree sloped front plate, there was an increase in thickness (2 to 2.5 inches) plus the elimination of shot traps and the extra slope to improve protection. Thicker glacis. Wet Stowage. All early 1944 76mm Shermans came with superior optics, compared to the 75mm versions, such optics had already been fitted to the M10 and M18. Then, probably during 1944, M18 production was fitted with an even better optics system. The 76mm Sherman production caught up with Tank Destroyer optics again in the second half of 1944 and the 75mm Sherman version, M4A3, still in production was also fitted with similar superior sights at the same time. The first of these 75 and 76mm Shermans arrived in Europe in the autumn of 1944. These improvements was rated as "nearly as good as the Germans", with the US system having a wider field of view, helping situational awareness. Late model M36 had probably even better optics.

 

[EwenS]

The M10 (3 inch M7) used a different gun from the M18 (76mm M1) and different ammunition. About the only thing in common was the calibre

There were only 3 battalions of M18 tank destroyers in Britain by D-Day, all allocated to Patton's US Third Army. These units didn't arrive in Britain until April 1944 and the first of these wasn't issued with its M18s until May 1944. All then were shipped to France from mid-July.

The first M4A1(76) and M4(105) were rushed from the production lines to Britain, arriving before the end of April. So faster than the normal 5 months or so delivery schedule factory door to front line. These were offered to the Armoured units scheduled to land during the early part of Overlord but no one wanted the complication of disrupting training schedules and arranging the carrying of a new stock of ammunition within those units that close to D-Day.

So the first 120 M4A1(76) were shipped to France and issued to 2 & 3 Armoured Divisions in First Army just in time for Operation Cobra at the end of July, when they needed more tank killing power to face German armour.

If you haven't already found it the Sherman Minutia site contains a wealth of information about all the Sherman models, production and deployment details.

Sherman minutia homepage

 

[PAT303]

However, in British tests near the end of the war it was noted that the Tempest could out-roll the Spitfire Mk IX & XIV. In the same tests the FW 190 out-rolled every aircraft tested at speeds from 200 to 400 mph. The other aircraft tested included:

The Spit LF's got close to the Butcher bird, the MkIXe LF with the Merlin 66 was specificly developed to counter it.

 

[Macandy]

I have found similar statements and anecdotes, all saying the Corsair could out-roll most other fighters, but never recall seeing it go up against an Fw 190. I am also under the impression the Fw 190 was a VERY good roller until it hit higher speeds, at which time some Allied fighters could stay with or even surpass it. Notably, the P-40 seems to have been a better roller than most other U.S. aircraft. I have seen one memo on the roll capability of the P-40Q, but have not been able to locate it again, and have never seen a roll performance chart for it.

Most aerobatic aircraft have aerodynamic "tricks" that make them have an abrupt stall when some pre-determined angle of attack is reached, and big rudders and elevators to generate crisp snap rolls. But the intent is to generate a rapid snap )flick) roll at relatively low speeds. You don't snap-roll an Su-31 at high speed! An Extra 300 snap rolls at 80 - 140 knots and it is stressed higher than a WWII fighter. I think it is likely that most WWII fighters CAN snap roll at under 100 mph, but the designers know that in the fog of combat, nobody will listen to the airspeed restrictions for a snap roll, so they placard them to be safe.

I'd bet a P-51 could snap-roll at 90 mph without bending, but perhaps not at 180 mph. The issue with the P-51 is whether or not the pilot could un-stall it at a predetermined point, or would he go into the famous 10,000 foot spin. A LOT might depend on the load being carried, the location of the weight, and the power level being carried at the time.

Several combat reports from Navy F6F Hellcats mention snap-rolls or partial snap rolls (vertical reverse) as combat maneuvers. Not too sure if that was approved or just necessary at the time. My copy of the F6F-3 POH does not mention snap rolls at all, but gives instructions for spin recovery froma s many as 4 turns in either direction.

A huge advantage the Corsair had when a pilot flew the wings off it is it didn't bend - It was a extremely strong airframe.
Don't be too 'abrupt' with a Spitfire, it was regularly trip to the fire dump when you got back as the wings would bend

 

[Macandy]

Why was it logistics, given the several hundred M10 and M18 were using the gun? It is remarkable how production was wound down in 1944, 29,262 Shermans built to end 1943, out of 49,234, so the allies had plenty of 1943 Shermans. First 76mm Shermans in January, first 105mm Shermans in February 1944. By the end of May 113 M4 76mm were in England, 127 more were received in June, 168 in July, and 122 in August, a total of 530. Some 1,296 Sherman 76mm had been completed to end May.

The US tank supply line to Europe,
M4 76mm, first production January 1944, first deployment week ending 22 July
M4 105mm, first production February 1944, first deployment week ending 8 July
M24, first production in April 1944 (1, then 24 in May), first deployment week ending 28 December.

Operational tanks, As of period ending 1 July First Army held 764 M4 75mm and 406 M5.
Operational tanks, As of period ending 11/12 August 12th Army Group held 881 M4 75mm, 138 M4 76mm, 64 M4 105mm and 686 M5.

Third Army did not receive any M4 76mm until week ending 26 August, 9th Army until week ending 20 October.

It was not just the guns Sherman protection and combat power related improvements in early 1944:

The 47 degree sloped front plate, there was an increase in thickness (2 to 2.5 inches) plus the elimination of shot traps and the extra slope to improve protection. Thicker glacis. Wet Stowage. All early 1944 76mm Shermans came with superior optics, compared to the 75mm versions, such optics had already been fitted to the M10 and M18. Then, probably during 1944, M18 production was fitted with an even better optics system. The 76mm Sherman production caught up with Tank Destroyer optics again in the second half of 1944 and the 75mm Sherman version, M4A3, still in production was also fitted with similar superior sights at the same time. The first of these 75 and 76mm Shermans arrived in Europe in the autumn of 1944. These improvements was rated as "nearly as good as the Germans", with the US system having a wider field of view, helping situational awareness. Late model M36 had probably even better optics.

Logistics on D Day were critical, and you wanted gun tanks to support the infantry breaking out off the beaches - and the 75mm gun was a much better support gun.
Tanks didn't often fight tanks contrary to popular belief. Most Shermans never fired a single AP round at another tank in anger.

 

[PAT303]

Logistics on D Day were critical, and you wanted gun tanks to support the infantry breaking out off the beaches - and the 75mm gun was a much better support gun.
Tanks didn't often fight tanks contrary to popular belief. Most Shermans never fired a single AP round at another tank in anger.

The British developed the firefly to counter German tanks, from memory it was normal low velocity 75mm Shermans with one or two 17 pounder Fireflys to counter all the different threats encountered.

 

[PAT303]

Don't be too 'abrupt' with a Spitfire, it was regularly trip to the fire dump when you got back as the wings would bend

The Spit could be over G'd because it was so responsive to pilot imput, Winkle Brown talks about it in one of his books.

 

[Macandy]

The British developed the firefly to counter German tanks, from memory it was normal low velocity 75mm Shermans with one or two 17 pounder Fireflys to counter all the different threats encountered.

Indeed, 1 Firefly per Troop of 75's - the 17lb gun had a weak HE round

 

[Macandy]

The Spit could be over G'd because it was so responsive to pilot imput, Winkle Brown talks about it in one of his books.

'The Spitfire was a pilots plane, but it wasn't a warplane'

 

[pbehn]

'The Spitfire was a pilots plane, but it wasn't a warplane'

Most planes require a pilot.

 

[Macandy]

Most planes require a pilot.

It was a designer's pet project, but paid no head to the need to be producible, supportable or able to operate under Auster circumstances.

You could build a Mustang with the same engine in 25% of the time, it was easy to make, tough, durable and easy to maintain. Pretty much every panel of a Spitfire was a continuous curve that needed hand cutting, hand rolling, then hand fitting. No guillotined out panels gang drilled on a multi axis drill press.

 

[pbehn]

It was a designer's pet project, but paid no head to the need to be producible, supportable or able to operate under Auster circumstances.

You could build a Mustang with the same engine in 25% of the time, it was easy to make, tough, durable and easy to maintain. Pretty much every panel of a Spitfire was a continuous curve that needed hand cutting, hand rolling, then hand fitting. No guillotined out panels gang drilled on a multi axis drill press.

I always wondered why only 20,000 were made thanks for the info.

In fact the Spitfire was a peacetime design, if war hadnt been declared it would have been produced in numbers like the Gloster Gladiator 747 and replaced by the Typhoon and Tornado, that was the plan anyway.

 

[SaparotRob]

Sometimes we get focused on the stats of given airplanes and not the actual accomplishments. If Adolph Galland told Hermann Goering he wanted Spitfires, I'm going to assume the Spit was "effing" great. Mr. Galland should know.

Some of our Forum members might not be aware I'm not much of a numbers guy.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

However, in British tests near the end of the war it was noted that the Tempest could out-roll the Spitfire Mk IX & XIV

The tests showed that the Tempest could out roll a Mk.XIV above 350mph, but the Spitfire out rolled the Tempest below 300mph

 

[Shortround6]

The M10 (3 inch M7) used a different gun from the M18 (76mm M1) and different ammunition. About the only thing in common was the calibre

Close,
They did have different barrels, and breeches, and different cartridge cases with different powder charges.

What was the same was the projectiles and the exterior ballistics.
Both guns were going to have pretty much the same accuracy at the same ranges and both guns were able to penetrate the same thickness of armor at the same distance if both are using the same projectile.

The problem for the tank battalion commanders was that the 3"/76mm HE projectiles held a lot less HE than the 75mm HE projectiles fired from the short 75mm guns. And the tanks armed with the 76mm guns held less ammo than the 75mm armed tanks.
A 75mm armed tank was going to be able to stay in action a bit longer (or more than a bit) than a 76mm armed Sherman before it needed resupply. And since 75mm armed Sherman was going to do more damage to pill boxes, field fortifications, buildings and stuff (or even just spray shell fragments around a wood, brushy area) the 75mm armed tank was a lot more useful in a non-tank vs tank battle. The 75mm Sherman also had a much higher rate of fire than the 76mm armed tank.

The 3in armed M10 TD had about the same advantages and disadvantages as the 76mm armed tank compared to the 75mm armed tank except that the 3in ammo was larger and bulkier meaning less could be carried and the turret lacked power traverse which means a lower rate of engagement.

 

[pbehn]

Sometimes we get focused on the stats of given airplanes and not the actual accomplishments. If Adolph Galland told Hermann Goering he wanted Spitfires, I'm going to assume the Spit was "effing" great. Mr. Galland should know.

Some of our Forum members might not be aware I'm not much of a numbers guy.

As I understand it that wasnt a ringing endorsement of the Spitfire by Galland, but a fair appraisal of the differences between the Spitfire/ Hurricane and Bf 109. The Bf 109 could break contact by going into a dive, but that isnt what you can or should do if required to close escort a bomber formation, which is what Goering was telling Galland and others to do.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They also didn't issue the HVAP (improved AP) ammunition as much to the Tank battalions whereas the TDs got a bit more of it (though not as much as they could have had).

The 3 inch and 76mm guns were useful against enemy armor and not terrible against personnel or AT guns, (they also had a bit longer effective range and often came with better optics both of which helped a lot against AT guns) but the typical German tank or self propelled gun (Pz IV or StuG III) was fairly easily knocked out by the 75mm gun. This is why it was deemed sufficient in North Africa and in Sicily and Italy where they rarely saw the heavy tanks. Only when more of the heavier PZ V and VI and equivalent assault guns / tank destroyers started appearing here and there did the 75mm prove to be inadequate.

But against a Pz IV, and even against a Panther, the M4 tanks were much better in flanking attacks and from shorter range. And in this role again, the 75mm is enough, even against a Panther, unless they were at long range. Long range tank duels were a bad idea for Allied tanks in general, even the Firefly wasn't so good for this kind of thing as their ROF wasn't that high and they didn't have the best optics. TDs, including M10, M18, M36 and Achilles were more effective partly due to the open tops, they had better situational awareness (quicker to spot enemy AFV, quicker to shoot and scoot, and less bold in going places they shouldn't go where they were at risk of panzerfausts etc.) But they typically weren't going to engage in a tank duel either unless they got the first shot, i.e. attacking from ambush.

Sherman tanks during Cobra and afterward started getting up-armored with concrete, sandbags, and (by far most effective) cut out pieces from other tanks. Patton disapproved of the concrete, logs and sandbags and strictly forbade them, but had a large number of his tanks up-armored by welding glacis or side armor plates to the bow and turret, which apparently did not overload the drive train of the M4. This is a big part of the reason for their success in various engagements in later 1944 and early 1945.

The (W) wet ammunition stowage made a big difference too, especially to panzerfaust and panzershreck (etc.) attacks.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

From a post somewhere out there:

The exception to the sandbag armor practice was Patton's Third Army, which devised by far the best armor-protection package for its tanks. In the summer of 1944, the Third Army's ordnance officers had convinced Patton that sandbags were worthless and detrimental to the tank's suspension and powertrain, so Patton expressly forbade the use of sandbags in his units. Even Patton could not resist the clamor for better protection in the wake of the Battle of the Bulge, so he demanded that his ordnance officers come up with a better solution. The method was obvious--weld on more armor plate. The source was equally obvious--the numerous German and American tanks littering the Ardennes battlefield. In February 1945, Patton ordered that all M4A3 (76mm) in his units be fitted with additional front hull armor as well as turret armor if possible.

With the Third Army's ordnance battalions already overworked, much of the work was handed over to three Belgian factories near Bastogne. The tanks of three armored divisions (the 4th, 6th, and 11th) were modified in this fashion, an average of 36 tanks per division out of their 168 Shermans. The program was both technically successful and very popular with the tank crews blessed with the appliqué armor. A 6th Armored Division tanker recalled how shortly after his M4A3E8 had been fitted with the armor in February 1945, his tank was hit by a 75mm round from a German armored vehicle, which knocked a piece of the appliqué armor from the hull but did not penetrate. This program was continued in March 1945 after Patton acquired a group of salvaged M4 tanks from the neighboring Seventh Army to cannibalize for armor plate.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

My understanding though is that the applique armor was already being used during Cobra, so not after the BoB.