Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA

Fatboy Coxy said:

OK, trying to keep things in chronological order, the British establish the British Direct Purchase Commission, in January 1940, creating it from the existing British Purchasing Commission, which had been in place since pre-war. So I assume they were able start work pretty quickly. Fall of France, June 1940, and importantly for this discussion, Belgium, sees the RAF appraise the 32 undelivered Belgian aircraft, which are a de-navalized F2A-2, now called the B-339, with the arrestor hook and liferaft container removed, the tail slightly extended, and most importantly an engine 200 hp less than the F2A-2, with a corresponding drop in performance. Then the RAF added their bits to it, making it even heavier and slower. And accepted secondhand rebuilt engines to spec. This was becoming a dog, but this was the RAF looking for alternative land based fighters. Our search is for a carrier based fighter.

Now, big question, can the FAA accept a fighter without armour and self sealing tanks in 1940, which is what the Skua lacked, in theatres other than the Mediterranean, as an accomplice to the Fulmer which was entering service. If so, the US version F2A-2 could have been quickly ordered, at the beginning of 1940, hopefully production running straight after the US Navy order, which as I said, being delivered in 1940.

Click to expand...

The chronology needs a bit of work.

In part because the US swapped of some production batches to speed up some of the export batches.
In 1939 there were 11 planes built.
In 1940 there were 42 US planes and 166 export planes built
in 1941 there were 108 US planes built and 201 export planes built.
In 1942 you had 1 US plane and 21 export planes.

The British actually have a history that goes back to Aug of 1939.
They prepare a contract for 120 aircraft comparable to the F2A-2.
Poland orders 250 aircraft in Augest 1939 but that goes nowhere.
October 1939 the British air ministry says the Buffalo is not suitable for the RAF.
It took until Dec to get the 11 F2A-1 to the US navy at which point the rest are released to Finland. I will leave them out except to say that it took until Feb to them built.
Dec 1939 sees the Dutch order 40 planes.
Jan 1940 sees the British actualy sign the contract for the 120 planes, It is later changed to 170 planes.

April 1940 sees one Dutch plane built with 6 more completed in May.
May sees France take over the Dutch contract.
May 1940 see 2 339Es built for the British
June 1940 sees 22 more built for the British
July sees 9 more built at which point the production line is shut down to change over for the F2A-2.
Sept 1940 sees 6 F2A-2 built, followed by 26 in October with 10 finished in Nov, One more is finished in Jan 1941.
Production switches back to the 339E in Dec with Dec with 40 planes and 38 more in Jan 1941.
Feb 1941 sees 22 British 339Es built
March sees production split with 19 339Es and 18 339Ds for a Dutch East India order.
April sees 35 339Es built and 9 339Ds
May sees the last of the 339Es completed. 27 339Ds are completed, 8 F2A-1s are converted to F2A-2 standard.
June sees the last of the 339Ds completed.
July sees the first F2A-3s completed.

That pretty much covers the possible planes for British delivery.

A complication for upgrading the export orders is if Curtiss will be allowed to export the R-1820-G200 engine or if the export planes are stuck with the R-1820-G100 engines.
Or even if Wright can even build enough R-1820-G200 engines to go around.
Please note the R-1820-G200 used next to no parts in common with the G100 engine and one account seems to confuse to the two. Pilots (and mechanics) were trying to run the G100s at the rpm (power level) that the G200s would run at, which lead to oil leaks and other problems.

Main sources, War Production Board Report, Canada section, AIR 19/524, AIR 22/285, WS-378 1940 to 1942. USAAF Statistical Digest. And a number of references dealing with Hurricane versions etc. A key part of RAF deployments from the middle to end 1941 was not what could be shipped out but what could be recalled when the USSR fell in time to defend Britain.
ll CCF listed are mark I and the Hurricanes arrived in Britain as engineless airframes. Merlin engines and propellers were taken from Fairey Battles to give the RCAF 30 Hurricane I late 1941/early 1942. CCF had "slave" components to do fight testing. Most mark II airframes arrived in Britain without an engine. The late 1941 pause is usually put down to shortage of key components. The Hurricanes released to the RCAF consisted of 30 out of 60 airframes in store (RCAF wanted all 60), there were also 50 Sea Hurricanes being built and meant for CAM ships which the RCAF was tasked with care and feeding and leaving them on the east coast.
On 27 August 1941 Canada ordered 400 Hurricanes, 100 for the Netherlands East Indies, 300 for China, this changed to 72 for the Netherlands East Indies, 328 for the USSR, to use Merlin 28 and US built propellers and shipped across the Pacific. By the time production started it was 400 mark XII RCAF, but in 1943 it was 250 RCAF and 150 RAF, the 150 giving rise to the claim of the mark XI (Merlin 28 RCAF equipment), these 150 PJ serial airframes were stripped so as to be the same standard as CCF mark II production.

UK production, mark I continued to June 1941, mark II from August 1940. UK exports report starts April 1940. The 12 exports in October 1940 returned as the ship was damaged. As of 22 August 1941 of the 273 Hurricanes sent to the Mediterranean (Malta) 175 had been flown onto the Middle East.

Try not to use the K5083 web site, especially for Canadian production. No such thing as mark X and XI with Packard Merlins.

The Hurricane I sent to Australia was the country's entire modern fighter force in December 1941.

Pre first protocol aircraft (1st protocol date 1 October 1941) UK shipped to USSR, 200 Hurricane, 141 Tomahawk, 10 Airacobra, 4 Mustang, plus 59 Tomahawk from US (Includes the P-40C) August/September 1941, while 36 Hurricane survivors from 151 wing were handed over. Tomahawk from UK 48 in August, 93 in September 1941.

After the Japanese attack Hurricanes on the way to the Middle East and Iraq were diverted, also operations Cross and Churn took Hurricanes at Takoradi to the Far East. Plus Middle East Hurricanes were ferried to India. US figures

P-40 production for 1941 was 2,246, P-40E began production in June 1941, Kittyhawk I in August, all E or Kittyhawk I from August. Looks like the first official US fighter exports to USSR in December 1941. Missed from the table, Tomahawk exports, 1st order,
Aug-40, 1
Sep-40, 22
Oct-40, 76
Nov-40, 1

2nd Order.
Oct-40, 49
Nov-40, 158
Dec-40, 186
Jan-41, 122
Feb-41, 10
Mar-41, 220
Apr-41, 35
May-41, 54
Jun-41, 152
Jul-41, 45
Aug-41, 30
Sep-41, 19

A major problem for the Indian troops in Malaya during 1941 was the continual replacement of (partially) trained men with new recruits as soldiers were needed in other theatres.

EwenS said:

Remember the RN only got full control of the FAA in May 1939. On 5th July 1939 they issued new specs for two fighters N.8/39 (2 seater) and N.9/39 (turret fighter). By the end of the year their thinking had changed based on war experience to date, leading to all sorts of industry confusion. Long story short, Jan 1940 the design that resulted in the Firefly was chosen, the turret fighter dropped and a new design for a single seater selected from Blackburn that emerged, in completely different form from that initially envisaged and even a different role, as the Firebrand. And from that time a requirement for an interim design, based on the Spitfire also arose. But of course the RAF has priority for Spitfires, leading to an order for the Martlet from the US.

I doubt the FAA would have accepted a new aircraft without armour and self sealing tanks for entry in 1940 or later. This was becoming standard on RAF aircraft around the same time.

Armor Protection and Self-Sealing Tanks

When did armor protection and self-sealing tanks become standard on fighter aircraft? For instance, the Gloster Gladiator did not have either, if I'm not mistaken, nor did the Seversky P-35, and I'm not sure, but I don't think the Curtiss P-36 did, either, so it looks like it was immediately...

ww2aircraft.net

Click to expand...

Not really relevant to this thread, but your comment about the Firebrand raises the interesting question about how much influence the RN vs the RAF had in pre/early-war aircraft design for the FAA. One of the big complaints levied on the RAF is that it had too much influence on aircraft design for the FAA, which drove multi-role aircraft like the Skua. However, the Firebrand came well after the RN took total control of FAA aircraft requirements...and yet they persisted with, IMHO, the stupidest merging of roles. It makes me wonder whether the RN actually had more responsibility than is usually credited for the bad decisions made when the RAF owned the FAA?

Was that before Firebrand was an interceptor only or after they spliced in the 18in section of wing to fit the torpedo?
Yep, lets build an interceptor torpedo plane

Of course in the Spring of 1942 when the Firebrand first flew most people figured that the fleet/base interceptor role had already been taken over by the Seafire so Blackburn had to swap the role to strike aircraft or write the whole project off.

Shortround6 said:

Was that before Firebrand was an interceptor only or after they spliced in the 18in section of wing to fit the torpedo?
Yep, lets build an interceptor torpedo plane

Of course in the Spring of 1942 when the Firebrand first flew most people figured that the fleet/base interceptor role had already been taken over by the Seafire so Blackburn had to swap the role to strike aircraft or write the whole project off.

Click to expand...

Exactly...it shows the same kind of muddled thinking that led to the Skua. It beggars belief that any staff could think, even in 1942, that a combined fighter/torpedo bomber was a good idea. It's ludicrous!

Well, it was no worse than the often quoted 5200lb load for the B-26 (and some times for the B-25).

1st make a low level torpedo run with a MK 13 torpedo (with 3200lbs of bombs inside the bomb bay)
2nd go slow so the torpedo has some hope of not breaking up when hits the surface of the water.
3rd get out of the area of short range AA so you can do a max speed climb.
4th once you have climbed to 7500ft or so return to the target area.
5th commence a high speed level bomb run while bomb aimer lines up the bombsight.
6th drop the two 1600lb AP bombs (which have less HE than a 500lb bomb) straight and level. You need the 7500ft drop height to make sure they gain enough speed to pierce 5 in of armor steel.
7th, try to escape.

Shortround6 said:

Well, it was no worse than the often quoted 5200lb load for the B-26 (and some times for the B-25).

1st make a low level torpedo run with a MK 13 torpedo (with 3200lbs of bombs inside the bomb bay)
2nd go slow so the torpedo has some hope of not breaking up when hits the surface of the water.
3rd get out of the area of short range AA so you can do a max speed climb.
4th once you have climbed to 7500ft or so return to the target area.
5th commence a high speed level bomb run while bomb aimer lines up the bombsight.
6th drop the two 1600lb AP bombs (which have less HE than a 500lb bomb) straight and level. You need the 7500ft drop height to make sure they gain enough speed to pierce 5 in of armor steel.
7th, try to escape.

Click to expand...

Into the valley of death charged the 600...ok, 5 or 6 but you get my point.

Well, I can see four 20mm cannon for Flak suppression on the torpedo run (maybe?).
but The thing had already bombed as an interceptor. even the MK I with the 2305hp Sabre engine was lucky if it out climb a Hurricane I.

Reportedly, Cpt Frank Allen, 19th Bomb Squadron, 22nd BG, while in charge of the USAAF torpedo school in Australia, responded to a report of a Japanese carrier in the area by loading his B-26 with 3 x 500 lb bombs, a 250 gallon auxiliary tank, a torpedo, and several cases of extra mg ammo. He aledgedly took off from his home field and landed at an auxiliary field near the coast, to await confirmation of the sighting. Lucky for him, it was a false alarm.

The early B-26, with 20 bomb stations in the front bomb bay, and 10 in the rear bomb bay, could carry in theory 5800 lbs of bombs, but with a max take off weight of 36500 lbs, that doesn' leave you with much room for fuel.

Greg Boeser said:

Reportedly, Cpt Frank Allen, 19th Bomb Squadron, 22nd BG, while in charge of the USAAF torpedo school in Australia, responded to a report of a Japanese carrier in the area by loading his B-26 with 3 x 500 lb bombs, a 250 gallon auxiliary tank, a torpedo, and several cases of extra mg ammo. He aledgedly took off from his home field and landed at an auxiliary field near the coast, to await confirmation of the sighting. Lucky for him, it was a false alarm.

Click to expand...

yes but........
He might have been able to hit another ship (cruiser or destroyer?) after dropping the torpedo.
He may have been able to execute a 180 degree turn and return to the carrier in a short period of time and NOT have to climb to suitable altitude for using the 1600lb bombs (of which they probably didn't have any in all of Australia anyway).
The three 500lb bombs offer a better chance of a hit and they will do more damage on a lightly armored target anyway.

More paper and ink has probably been wasted on the 1600lb bomb than damage the bomb ever caused the enemy.
(the later P-61s were supposed to able to carry four 1600lb AP bombs, what the the heck night fighters were doing trying to carry large armor piercing bombs I have no idea)

Fatboy Coxy said:

Now, big question, can the FAA accept a fighter without armour and self sealing tanks in 1940, which is what the Skua lacked, in theatres other than the Mediterranean, as an accomplice to the Fulmer which was entering service. If so, the US version F2A-2 could have been quickly ordered, at the beginning of 1940, hopefully production running straight after the US Navy order, which as I said, being delivered in 1940.

Click to expand...

In 1940 the FAA got its hands on a number of Belgian B-339s after the fall of that country to Germany. This export version of the F2A 'Buffalo' proved to be a disappointment when evaluated at RN Air Station Hatston in July 1940: Once vital pilot armour was fitted, its performance and maneuverability deteriorated significantly. Its best speed was 270mph at 6000ft.

FAA Observer David Brown wrote that 804 Squadron FAA pilots assigned to test the Buffalo announced they'd rather continue flying Sea Gladiator biplanes. Any suggestion of placing a production order with Brewster was quietly dropped.

I highly recommend this site

I guess I'll move my ideas to purely using some borrowed/stolen from the RAF in Malaya, as training aircraft

Fatboy Coxy said:

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

An overview of the design considerations and evolution of the Grumman Martlet fleet fighter before and during World War II.

www.armouredcarriers.com

I highly recommend this site

Click to expand...

Agreed, AAC is the site to visit to learn about Brit carriers and the planes they flew.