- Thread starter
- #221
Admiral Beez
Major
Earlier versions didn't either.
If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #222
Admiral Beez
Major
It's true, and good points about the foibles of hindsight. But that doesn't mean those specifying aircraft for the FAA couldn't utilize the trio of competitive analysis, end user needs assessment, and foresight.
Let's start with competitor analysis. In 1937 the AM decides the Nimrod needs to be replaced. What are the other carrier navies now using: the Mitsubishi A5M and Grumman F3F. What prototypes are now flying: the Grumman Wildcat and Brewster Buffalo. Outside of carrier aviation in 1937 you have the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf 109, P-36 Hawk, Ki-27 Nate, Fiat G.50, Macchi C.200 and Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. As for foreign prototypes, the interwar British Foreign Office had departments and in-field liaison officers collecting this very intel - you just have to ask them. It would require supreme levels of myopia and misplaced confidence to think that all these fighter aircraft were wrong, and that no, the future of fighter aircraft lay in heavy, slow dual seat types bereft of forward armament.
The AM might reply to such criticism, "but our needs are different. Those fighters are designed to combat other land based fighter aircraft, when we need to protect the fleet from bombers". Okay, so let's look at what bombers there are in 1937. These include the Dornier Do 17, Nakajima B5N, SM.79 Sparviero and Mitsubishi G3M. All are fast, many close to 300 mph, torpedo-armed strike aircraft. To intercept these you need speed and firepower. A Skua or Roc is not going to cut it.
Next, end user needs assessment, ask the bloody pilots what they need to do the job of fleet air defence against fighter-escorted land based and carrier based bomber attacks. Of course the Midway-like mass waves of dozens of bombers and fighters would not be conceived of in 1937, but the AM need only ask (and war game) RAF bomber crews, like those flying the 250 mph, torpedo-armed Handley Page Hampden how they would attack an RN CV and the AM would quickly hear (and hopefully grasp) from both the defending FAA pilots and the RAF bomber crews the sort of fighter aircraft needed to stop the contemporary bombers. The SM.79 Sparviero has a top speed of 290 mph, you won't catch that with a 223 mph Blackburn Roc with its ridiculous 1,500 ft/min climb rate. In these days before radar you need to get your fighters off the deck and up to combat altitude asap.
Lastly, foresight. Use what you now know through competitor analysis and end user needs assessment in combination with what British aeronautical experts are telling you (when asked) to predict what the FAA of 1938-40 will need. And you're the bloody Air Ministry, tell your aircraft procurement department to walk down the damn hall to the radar department and ask them what they think radar will do for naval aviation in a year or so.
Surely nothing of what the AM has now learned above would suggest that the Roc or Skua would be a suitable FAA fighter. So, we can only conclude that those who conceived of the Roc (and decided to replace the Nimrod with the Gladiator) failed to look around and failed to ask its intended pilots. This is where our change needs to happen; it's 1937, the AM says:
"We need to replace the Hawker Nimrod, let's start by reviewing the domestic and foreign competition, including known prototypes and asking both FAA fighter pilots and RAF bomber pilots what they recommend. And ask Bomber Command to lend us a squadron of their best maritime strike aircraft and most innovative commander so we can test our assumptions against the FAA and an actual RN carrier force. That's our starting point lads, I want a report on both topics, with the Bomber Command trials, and your recommended specifications for the Nimrod's replacement on my desk in 90 days...."
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I haven't read much about the RN in the Second World War. What I have read was the sinking of the Bismarck, the Taranto raid and an action or two in the Mediterranean. I had the impression that RN carriers had only Swordfish or Albacores until about 1943 or so and that's just an uneducated guess. I had the impression that there were no FAA fighters at all embarked on RN carriers. Hence my thoughts of getting ANY fighter onto RN carriers. The Hurricane seemed the best of all the bad options.
Were Sea Gladiators deployed at all?
Were Sea Gladiators deployed at all?
- Thread starter
- #224
Admiral Beez
Major
I think you might be right, the Sea Gladiator was only in limited use. I believe only about ninety Sea Gladiators were made, mostly by converting existing RAF aircraft. Here's some info on squadrons..... List of Fleet Air Arm aircraft squadrons - Wikipedia
Fleet Air Arm Squadrons Home Page "First Line Squadrons - Nos.800 to 809 Single-seat fighter squadrons in carriers.Nos.810 to 819 Torpedo bomber squadrons in carriers, later torpedo spotter reconnaissance and torpedo bomber reconnaissance squadrons."
Now that I look, there were only five FAA fighter squadrons between the wars, and of these only three operated the Sea Gladiator, one of which was only partial. The later squadrons, # 805 onwards were formed in 1940 and equipped with the Fulmar or other types.
800 Naval Air Squadron - Wikipedia converted from Nimrods to Skuas, no Sea Gladiators
801 Naval Air Squadron - Wikipedia converted from Nimrods to both Sea Gladiators and Skuas
802 Naval Air Squadron - Wikipedia Nimrod to Sea Gladiators
803 Naval Air Squadron - Wikipedia converted from Nimrods to Skuas, no Sea Gladiators
804 Naval Air Squadron - Wikipedia Nimrod to Sea Gladiators
If we want to replace the Nimrod with something other than the Gladiator we need the interwar FAA and AM to identify the need for a much larger fighter force.
Last edited:
The Sea Gladiator saw a lot of action during the Norway campaign. At various times there were about 30 embarked on Furious and Glorious.
Illustrious, at Taranto. for example, was carrying 24 Swordfish, 14 or 15 Fulmars and 2 to 4 Sea Gladiators. Ark Royal during the Bismarck operation was nominally carrying 24 x Fulmars and 30 Swordfish while Victorious was diverted from working up exercises and carried 6 x Fulmars and 9 X Swordfish; she had a squadron of Albacores allocated to her as well , but had to put to sea before they could reach her.
We have to remember that the FAA only had so much space on it's carriers. The 90 Sea Gladiators ordered for the FAA should be compared to the ~110 USN purchases of the F3F-2/3.
Completely agree, but when did the ministries that ran the armed forces ever ask the operators of the equipment what they thought they needed? These days its more likely, but back in the mid to late 30s when Britain was recoiling from a devastating war and the cost of modernisation was going to be more than previously?
Yes indeed, that is the point. That it didn't was a failure of the above points you make to have been heeded and illustrates the priority the RAF had over the FAA in terms of resources. The reasoning behind a fighter/dive bomber is obvious to those attempting to save money - and don't get me wrong here, I certainly agree that these things you pointed out, Admiral should have happened but didn't - illustrate the priority placed on upgrading the FAA. Having a fighter/dive bomber was eminently more cost effective in terms of useability and space aboard carrier decks.
That the fighter/dive bomber was a terribly incompatible mix in real combat terms clearly didn't occur to the AM. That the pilots themselves welcomed a 'modern' aircraft in the Skua, but universally recognised that it was too slow and cumbersome as a fighter illustrates that they were not consulted.
Again however, we are dealing in doses of hindsight in predicting that they should have done it differently, and a complete lack of the foresight you recommended above as to why they didn't, Admiral.
Shortround6
Major General
Nice theory, lets see how well it works in practice without using a time machine.
There were 3 models of the F3F. The F3F-1 with a 700hp P & W R-1535, the F3F-2 with a 950hp Wright R-1820 and the F3F-3 with the same engine but modified struts. The F3F-2 had a top speed of 255mph and was produced from July of 1937 to May of 1938. The prototype XF4F-2 used a 1050hp single stage single speed R-1830 engine and smaller wings, horizontal and vertical stabilizers than later versions. The airframe was later rebuilt into the XF4F-3 but doesn't fly in this form until Feb 12th 1939, a bit late for the competitive analysis, end user needs assessment
The Do 17 of 1937 was not torpedo armed, Neither was the SM 79 Sparviero. No Do 17 of any year/model carried a torpedo. The Do 217 did but that doesn't show up for years.
BTW the Do 17 of 1937 might hit 300mph in a dive. In 1937 you had the early Do 17s with unsupercharged BMW V-12 engines. Top speed was in the 220s in level flight.
In 1940 there were under 6 ( I believe 4?) SM 79 torpedo bombers active in the Med. The 290 mph version of the SM 79 didn't show up until 1942/43. The older planes used engines of around 780 hp and were good for about 270mph with the bombs carried internally. The B5N-1 entered production in Nov of 1937
What torpedo armed Hampden in 1937????
Hampdens only entered squadron service in the summer of 1938. And they did not carry torpedoes.
SM.79 speed and armament addressed above.
It is truly amazing what requirements you can up with if you base your enemy threats on planes that won't exist for years.
BTW, The Admiralty and the Air Ministry in 1937-early 1938 were discussing aircraft powered by RR Griffons, Napier Sabres and other engines, the planes were supposed to be ready in 1940-43 depending on which airplane and engine we are talking about.
Once again, the Gladiator was not seen as a replacement for the Nimrod. It was a temporary expedient to be used until the Nimrods actual replacement/s were ready. Like the Fulmar, The Roc was another temporary expedient, to be built and used until the desired much more powerful turret aircraft were built.
and again repeating, the Fulmar was a temporary expedient to fill in until the desired plane (the Griffon powered Firefly) was ready. Due to a few unanticipated delays (like the BoB) the Firefly was much delayed. However any plane that started the design process in 1937/38 would also have been delayed.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It seems there may be some gaps in the histories I've read.
You're probably aware that the Hampden was modded to carry an 18in torpedo. First service use was early 1942. Apparently, the ability to carry a torpedo was part of the design spec:
"In the original conception of the Hampden it
had been mentioned that it did have another
role, that of torpedo bomber under the
Specification of M.15/35.
Seeing the eventual withdrawal of
Hampdens from Bomber Command exper-
iments were carried out at the Torpedo
Development Unit, Gosport in which a
number of aircraft including L4037, L4182,
P5388 and AT139 took part." (Warpaint #57)
Shortround6
Major General
I am well aware of the fact.
With our trusty time machine we can take a squadron of the 1942 Hampdens back to 1937 to perform war game exercises against the British fleet so they can figure out what kind of fighters they really need. Without the time machine such actual exercises were not going to happen.
The Ability to carry torpedoes was included in a number of British bomber specifications of the late 30s (Manchester and Wellington and ?)
However, sometimes that ability required a bit of interpretation.
torpedo's propellers won't fit in the bomb bay. Later on the torpedoes got wooden tail fins to help insure the proper angle of entry into the water. Making fitting them in the bomb bays a bit of a problem regardless of the specification. Hampden may have had to fly with the bomb bay doors open to handle the torpedo?
The British did severely underestimate the amount of time needed to bring some of the new engines and airframes into service.
With our trusty time machine we can take a squadron of the 1942 Hampdens back to 1937 to perform war game exercises against the British fleet so they can figure out what kind of fighters they really need. Without the time machine such actual exercises were not going to happen.
The Ability to carry torpedoes was included in a number of British bomber specifications of the late 30s (Manchester and Wellington and ?)
However, sometimes that ability required a bit of interpretation.
torpedo's propellers won't fit in the bomb bay. Later on the torpedoes got wooden tail fins to help insure the proper angle of entry into the water. Making fitting them in the bomb bays a bit of a problem regardless of the specification. Hampden may have had to fly with the bomb bay doors open to handle the torpedo?
The British did severely underestimate the amount of time needed to bring some of the new engines and airframes into service.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Just to clarify (for myself if nobody else 
) it seems for viable airframe options, in terms of first flight and possible in-service date timeline, we have the following:
Vickers Venom (if development is continued, and navalized)
Gloster F.5/34 (if development is continued, and navalized)
Hawker Hurricane (already in pipeline, and navalized, but only possible if AM is OK with it)
with
Martin Baker MB.2 (if development is continued, and navalized, but running late in the first flight date)
and
Blackburn 'Super' Skua (Skua already in the pipeline as DB, just needing a better engine and minor aerodynamic improvement?)
all as possible UK designed solutions, or
Fokker D.XXI (if foreign design is acceptable, and if navalized)
Grumman F3F (if foreign design is acceptable)
Curtiss P-36/Hawk 75 (if foreign design is acceptable, and if navalized)
(plus maybe other foreign based designs)
The Vmax for most of the above candidates would be somewhere between 260 mph (F3F) and 300 mph* (navalized Hurricane or MB.2) with the 'Super' Skua being the slowest at 230-240 mph.
*I subtracted 10-15 mph for navalization and such, no SSFT or armour as of 1938 service entry date?)
) it seems for viable airframe options, in terms of first flight and possible in-service date timeline, we have the following:Vickers Venom (if development is continued, and navalized)
Gloster F.5/34 (if development is continued, and navalized)
Hawker Hurricane (already in pipeline, and navalized, but only possible if AM is OK with it)
with
Martin Baker MB.2 (if development is continued, and navalized, but running late in the first flight date)
and
Blackburn 'Super' Skua (Skua already in the pipeline as DB, just needing a better engine and minor aerodynamic improvement?)
all as possible UK designed solutions, or
Fokker D.XXI (if foreign design is acceptable, and if navalized)
Grumman F3F (if foreign design is acceptable)
Curtiss P-36/Hawk 75 (if foreign design is acceptable, and if navalized)
(plus maybe other foreign based designs)
The Vmax for most of the above candidates would be somewhere between 260 mph (F3F) and 300 mph* (navalized Hurricane or MB.2) with the 'Super' Skua being the slowest at 230-240 mph.
*I subtracted 10-15 mph for navalization and such, no SSFT or armour as of 1938 service entry date?)
M.15/35 was not proceeded with, but led through another cancelled specification to 10/36 which combined the requirements of both specs to produce the Botha and Beaufort. The spec that produced the Hampden, B.9/32 didn't actually stipulate the carriage of a torpedo, but the intent was there to do so and the basic design for the HP.52 was also shared with a design drawn up for a Swedish requirement for a torpedo carrying floatplane that was not built. The torpedo was to be carried externally under the fuselage rather than how the TB variants were modified.
Yes. The TB variants had the lower gunner's cupola modified to enable the torpedo to sit underneath the aircraft, which proved useful when the Monoplane Air Tail, fitted to the rear of the torpedo to stabilise its entry into the water was introduced. In this picture of the surviving Hampden TB.I at the RAF Museum Cosford the prominent V shaped cutout in the reduced size lower cupola can be seen.
Like the Hampden TBs, the Wellington also had to be specially modified to carry torpedoes, which involved removing the nose turret, but two torpedoes could be carried internally with the bomb bay doors closed, but the rear of the bomb bay was modified with a cutout, as was the doors, to enable the torpedoes to be fitted with MATs.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey nuuumannn,
Do you know why the nose turret was removed from the Wellington??
Do you know why the nose turret was removed from the Wellington??
FAA does not need to look abroad to see how a fast bomber might look. The Fairey Battle was 1st flown in early 1936, and introduced in mid 1937. With 250+ mph, it was faster than the future Blackburn Skua or the future Gloster Gladiator. There is no point of one fooling himself that perspective enemy will not field something as fast if not faster in short order.
The 210+ mph Martin B-10 was introduced in late 1934, 1st flew in early 1932. Heck, B-17 prototypes were flying before 1938.
In Spanish civil war, as early as late 1936, saw Tupolev SB taking part. 240+ mph for early models.
The 210+ mph Martin B-10 was introduced in late 1934, 1st flew in early 1932. Heck, B-17 prototypes were flying before 1938.
In Spanish civil war, as early as late 1936, saw Tupolev SB taking part. 240+ mph for early models.
- Thread starter
- #236
Admiral Beez
Major
It doesn't matter that torpedoes weren't yet fitted. The Hampden would still serve well in the fleet defence exercises I propose for determining the needs of the Nimrod's replacement. Dummy torpedo runs and high altitude strikes will suffice.
- Thread starter
- #237
Admiral Beez
Major
Don't focus so much on the fitted armament, as I stated above, some of those were torpedo-armed, and some were close to 300 mph, not all of them. My intent above was to list fast level and torpedo bombers that the Nimrod replacement would need to be prepared to encounter.
The fleet of 1937-38 needs to be protected from the bombers then in service. Creating fighters that cannot exceed the performance of the known bombers was a bad move. What bomber was the 223 mph Blackburn Roc supposed to catch?
Shortround6
Major General
Now toss out the ones with high stalling speed, or poor stalling characteristics.
Toss out the one/s with poor lateral stability.
Toss out the ones with weak landing gear or weak attachment points/structure.
Toss in the maybe bin the ones with fixed pitch props. maybe you can catapult them but what happens when the deck officer gives the plane a wave-off while landing and our "naval" fighter with gear and flaps down tries to accelerate while using about 2/3rds of its power and a prop of very low efficiency.
Super Skua is like trying to modify and SBD into an actual fighter using a engine with a bit more power. 10-20% more power and plating over the hole where the rear seater was does not turn a plane into a fighter plane.
Now throw out the ones that do not have an existing production line when the decision is made. See Fulmar, order placed in Mid 1938, Production planes start to be delivered in Jan 1940. They already had a flying prototype, Fairey already had a factory of decent size.
Some them fail on several counts.
Toss out the one/s with poor lateral stability.
Toss out the ones with weak landing gear or weak attachment points/structure.
Toss in the maybe bin the ones with fixed pitch props. maybe you can catapult them but what happens when the deck officer gives the plane a wave-off while landing and our "naval" fighter with gear and flaps down tries to accelerate while using about 2/3rds of its power and a prop of very low efficiency.
Super Skua is like trying to modify and SBD into an actual fighter using a engine with a bit more power. 10-20% more power and plating over the hole where the rear seater was does not turn a plane into a fighter plane.
Now throw out the ones that do not have an existing production line when the decision is made. See Fulmar, order placed in Mid 1938, Production planes start to be delivered in Jan 1940. They already had a flying prototype, Fairey already had a factory of decent size.
Some them fail on several counts.
Shortround6
Major General
The "contrarianisms " show that it is very easy in hindsight to criticize using planes that didn't exist or didn't perform as claimed in the time period being discussed.
If the fleet needs to be defended in 1937-38 you need a plane in production in 1937-38. Not a plane that won't show up until 1940.
There aren't enough Hampdens available to perform your exercise, even with dummy torpedoes (or even no torpedoes) until early fall of 1938. Conduct the exercise, analyze it and form your specification/requirement and it is late 1938,
Guess What?
Specification N.5/38 was for a two seat fighter and N.6/38 was for a turret fighter. The Turret fighter was a replacement for the Roc as the Roc was the result of specification O.30/35 issued Dec 31st 1935. It did take until the 28th of April 1937 for the Air Ministry to order 136 Rocs. But Blackburn was too busy to build them so detail design and manufacture was sub contracted to Boulton Paul. First Roc was flown in Dec of 1938.
It doesn't matter what your exercise or trials show was needed if they are conducted in 1938, they aren't going to affect the Roc. They knew it wasn't going to work by the time flight trials were over but built them anyway to avoid disrupting Boulton Paul and earmarked most of them for target tugs before they were built.
You are not going to get a replacement for the Roc (to replace the Nimrod instead of using the Gladiator) unless you begin work much earlier than 1937-38.
Tomo's suggestion about using the Blenheim as a benchmark is a good one, as least they existed in squadron service in 1937. Starting in March.
as for "as I stated above, some of those were torpedo-armed, and some were close to 300 mph, not all of them. "
All of them were only going to get close to 300mph in a dive. Of the four only two carried torpedoes in the 1930s and the two that did were Japanese and not well known in the west, they were also the slowest of the ones listed at around 230mph , not 300mph. @30 is still too fast for the Roc but using incorrect numbers to bolster your argument is going to lead to correction/contrarianism.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
It seems to have gotten part of VTOL right: Von't Take Off Loaded
