IJN attacks vs defended islands: Ceylon compared to Midway

[oldcrowcv63]

And I made sure my glasses were clean before I read the passages!!

 

[tomo pauk]

You already have the bacon....

 

[oldcrowcv63]

You already have the bacon....

No Extra Bacon? Bummer! How about donations for the expansion of my Midway library? (Still one book that has not yet arrived)

 

[oldcrowcv63]

From the above:

Symonds Book "Midway" states that 6 IJN aircraft were destroyed by Midway's VMF CAP. He mentions no losses to AAA. I've seen other sources (especially Fuchida) that indicate a score of 4 VB and VTB lost to AAA and 2 IJN VF unaccounted-for. I'd expect the AA losses occurring over or near the island would be the easiest to validate while IJN losses to VMF CAP would be most difficult having occurred at some tens of kilometers from the island.
Cressman says: 1 VT, 1 VB and 1 VF were downed by AAA. Prange cites: 3 VT and 2 VF lost to CAP and 2 VT, 1 VB and 1 VF to AAA. The record is notoriously spotty. for example, Nagumo in the Japanese story said no VT a/c from Hiryu were lost, yet only half the squadron was operational later in the day and other sources say it suffered the worst casualties of the battle over Midway. I suspect the records for the Ceylon raids are more accurate on both sides.

This is another example where the Symonds account, nominally the most lauded by the roundtable list is lacking in substance and detail.

 

[RCAFson]

Been trying to find information on the Sea Hurricane II. Can you point me to any websites or published descriptions you'd recommend? I've got Eric Brown's Wings of the Navy with a description of the SH IIC.

I would like more info as well. My understanding is that it was possible to convert either a Hurricane I or II to Sea Hurricane using a kit, with the real problem being access to airframes. IIRC, the basic conversion only added about 100Lbs. The Sea Hurricane IIC as described by Brown was probably a more extensively engineered aircraft for naval service, than the Sea Hurricane Ib, and IIRC, it had a full naval avionics outfit.

 

[slaterat]

I'm not sure how Somerville would come to the conclusion that the Sea Hurricane was superior to the Zero as I am unaware of any combat between these two types. In any case most Sea Hurricanes were 1Bs which were modified Hurricane Mk Is. These would be equipped with Merlin IIIs and usually Dehavilland props. These Hurricanes were equipped with catapult spools, Navy radios and arrestor hooks. As their weight had not increased much their performance was typical for a Hurricane MkI initial climb rate around 2500 ft/min and max speed around 325 mph TAS at 160000 ft. They would be armed with 8x.303 with around 330 rds/gun.

 

[slaterat]

Former Hurricane pilot Terrence Kelly has written several books on his wartime experiences in the Far East. In his writings he considers the Hurricane an even match for the Navy O and the Army O as he refers to the Zero and the KI 43. Kelly was flying tropicalized Hurricane IIbs. His books are particularly insightful into the air combat surrounding Singapore, Sumatra and Java and the best tactics to employ when flying a Hurricane against the Japanese.

 

[RCAFson]

I would like more info as well. My understanding is that it was possible to convert either a Hurricane I or II to Sea Hurricane using a kit, with the real problem being access to airframes. IIRC, the basic conversion only added about 100Lbs. The Sea Hurricane IIC as described by Brown was probably a more extensively engineered aircraft for naval service, than the Sea Hurricane Ib, and IIRC, it had a full naval avionics outfit.

I think Somerville was basing his comments on pilot reports from the air battles over Ceylon and extrapolating these to the Sea Hurricane. However, he did make a distinction between the Hurricane I and II. RAF reports from Burma and Singapore also rated the Hurricane II as superior to the Zero.

 

[buffnut453]

Although the Hurricane never flew in combat against the Zero over Burma. Need to check my references to see how many times it flew against the Zero over Singapore.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Although the Hurricane never flew in combat against the Zero over Burma. Need to check my references to see how many times it flew against the Zero over Singapore.

Or Java. However, from what I've read (primarily Shores and internet citations) The RAF RAAF (and RNZAF) were flying Hurricane IIb or IIc's optimized for ground attack mission. I believe this was also the case over Ceylon, whereas I believe the Sea Hurricane IIB is a different animal with the XX engine and two 20's in each wing. I don't think it's got the two stage supercharger however, that made the F4F-4 an effective stop-gap high altitude interceptor over Guadalcanal. However, it does seem like the SH IIb was most probably a better CV defense weapon than the -4. I think one should probably be careful in representing the hurricane in its many variants as superior to the A6M and define the specific mark. Just saying.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Merlin XX (2-speed single-stage supercharger; the Hurricane never got any of the 2-speed 2-stage Merlins) was every bit as powerful as the two-stage R-1830 at altitude (and more powerful under ~19000 ft). Further, it was a better streamlined thing, with better useage of exhaust thrust. The Hurri IIC was the one with 4 cannons (it was not optimized for ground attack, though), earlier versions of the Mk.II have had 12 .303s.
The ground pounder Hurricane was the Hurri IID (tank hunter with 40mm cannons and extra armor) and the Hurri IV (with Merlins allowed for even greater boost power at lower altitudes, at higher altitudes in the ballpark with Merlin XX)

Sea Hurricane IIC was the adoption of the Hurricane IIC for the needs of the FAA, Sea Hurricane I versions were with Merlin III and 8 .303s, ie. similar to the Hurricane Is of BoB fame. The Merlin III was alowed for a greater boost for FAA needs, thus making 1440 HP at lower altitudes.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

The Merlin XX (2-speed single-stage supercharger; the Hurricane never got any of the 2-speed 2-stage Merlins) was every bit as powerful as the two-stage R-1830 at altitude (and more powerful under ~19000 ft). Further, it was a better streamlined thing, with better useage of exhaust thrust. The Hurri IIC was the one with 4 cannons (it was not optimized for ground attack, though), earlier versions of the Mk.II have had 12 .303s.
The ground pounder Hurricane was the Hurri IID (tank hunter with 40mm cannons and extra armor) and the Hurri IV (with Merlins allowed for even greater boost power at lower altitudes, at higher altitudes in the ballpark with Merlin XX)

Sea Hurricane IIC was the adoption of the Hurricane IIC for the needs of the FAA, Sea Hurricane I versions ware
with Merlin III and 8 .303s, ie. similar to the Hurricane Is of BoB fame. The Merlin III was alowed for a greater boost for FAA needs, thus making 1440 HP at lower altitudes.

Thanks for the clarification Tomo, However, I believe there is some gray in this discussion due to what I gather was common usage of the type (M-IIc) as ground attack. This according to Profile Pubs #24: Hawker Hurricane IIc. Even with the XX engine, performance appears to have been considerably reduced and the plane was evidently thought most useful applied in an interdiction role. So I think you are correct, the model was not optimized per se for a ground attack role (as was evidently the H-IID) but found itself most useful in that capacity (although check out the wikipedia citation below).

Some Interesting side notes in this pub: It cites a H-I equipped with a RR-Merline XX with 8 .303 gun armament that achieved 348 mph at a weight of 6,689 lb. In comparison, the IIc with bombs fuel tanks and 4x cannons could do about 220 mph and was relegated by the Fall of 1941 to dusk or night attacks for its survival. IIc's shipped overseas were apparently equipped with the drag inducing sand filters that also degraded their clean performance. Evidently two cannons were occasionally removed to restore some lost performance. The same source mentions the use of Canadian Built Sea Hurricanes Mark XIIs with 4 cannons on US Carriers, something I had never heard before.

In contrast, Shores in BS, Vol I: Tuesday 13, January 1942, 51 crated Hurricane Mk IIbs (with the 12 LMGs) were arriving in Singapore but these also had the sand filters that seriously degraded their performance. Apparently there was a problem with removing the filter.

Pilot Officer Parker is quoted:

"The extra guns and ammo must have weighed an additional half ton. The Hurricanes were not only slow,… in climb, but also heavy and unwieldy in maneuvers."

So the question seems to be which mark Hurricane was at Ceylon and was it equipped with the filter? Shores says IIb which I assume meant 12 guns. Perhaps it was/would have been a match for the A6M without the filter. But I expect it wouldn't have been so lauded if the offending filter was attached.

Finally from wikipedia:

"Hurricane IIC

The Hurricane IIA Series 2s armed with four 20 mm (.79 in) Hispanos become the Mark IIC in June 1941, using a slightly modified wing. The new wings also included a hardpoint for a 500 lb (227 kg) or 250 lb (113 kg) bomb, and later in 1941, fixed 40 gal (182 l) fuel tanks. By then performance was inferior to the latest German fighters, and the Hurricane changed to the ground-attack role, sometimes referred to as the Hurribomber. The mark also served as a night fighter and "intruder.""

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Also, if the Sea Hurricanes promoted by RCAFson as Mark IIBs are actually Canadian built former Mark XX models They evidently have the two stage superchargers in their Packard built Merline XX engines. If that's the actual source of the Sea Hurricane IIb, it's performance must be a significant improvement over the F4F-4 in all respects except perhaps a marginal range deficit. But I don't know the timing of its introduction.

 

[RCAFson]

This video discusses the origins of the Sea Hurricane, it's early use, and the history of Sea Hurricane 1B Z7015. Some noteworthy points:

Z7015's Canadian Connection

slow mo carrier landings

interviews with an actual WW2 pilot of Z7015 (also an author of some note)

film footage of a Blackburn Roc carrier landing (misidentified as a Skua)

info on Sea Hurricane production and conversions


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vNH0rYGqVE

Some of the statements regarding the FAA and it's attitude towards fighters is plainly wrong, as per the documents from armoured carriers website:
Fulmar: Development â€" Armoured Aircraft Carriers in World War II

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the clarification Tomo, However, I believe there is some gray in this discussion due to what I gather was common usage of the type (M-IIc) as ground attack. This according to Profile Pubs #24: Hawker Hurricane IIc. Even with the XX engine, performance appears to have been considerably reduced and the plane was evidently thought most useful applied in an interdiction role. So I think you are correct, the model was not optimized per se for a ground attack role (as was evidently the H-IID) but found itself most useful in that capacity (although check out the wikipedia citation below).

Problem was that Hurricane II also received more guns ammo vs. the Hurri I, and that cuts in the speed and RoC. The situation deteriorated when it received 4 cannons and even heavier ammo load. The bolded part is right on the money - the Hurri IIC was no longer competitive as a 'pure' fighter, so it got bombs attached to it in order to be used as a fighter bomber.

Some Interesting side notes in this pub: It cites a H-I equipped with a RR-Merline XX with 8 .303 gun armament that achieved 348 mph at a weight of 6,689 lb.

Might be true.

In comparison, the IIc with bombs fuel tanks and 4x cannons could do about 220 mph and was relegated by the Fall of 1941 to dusk or night attacks for its survival. IIc's shipped overseas were apparently equipped with the drag inducing sand filters that also degraded their clean performance. Evidently two cannons were occasionally removed to restore some lost performance. The same source mentions the use of Canadian Built Sea Hurricanes Mark XIIs with 4 cannons on US Carriers, something I had never heard before.
In contrast, Shores in BS, Vol I: Tuesday 13, January 1942, 51 crated Hurricane Mk IIbs (with the 12 LMGs) were arriving in Singapore but these also had the sand filters that seriously degraded their performance. Apparently there was a problem with removing the filter.
Pilot Officer Parker is quoted:
"The extra guns and ammo must have weighed an additional half ton. The Hurricanes were not only slow,… in climb, but also heavy and unwieldy in maneuvers."

A table that lists performance of different Hurricanes, also the cost in performance with tropical filter installed, open it separately:

So the question seems to be which mark Hurricane was at Ceylon and was it equipped with the filter? Shores says IIb which I assume meant 12 guns. Perhaps it was/would have been a match for the A6M without the filter. But I expect it wouldn't have been so lauded if the offending filter was attached.

Hopefully others are more 'fit' to answer this

Also, if the Sea Hurricanes promoted by RCAFson as Mark IIBs are actually Canadian built former Mark XX models They evidently have the two stage superchargers in their Packard built Merline XX engines. If that's the actual source of the Sea Hurricane IIb, it's performance must be a significant improvement over the F4F-4 in all respects except perhaps a marginal range deficit. But I don't know the timing of its introduction.

No Merlin XX was ever outfitted with 2 stage superchargers. The designations of ww2 Merlins with 2 stage S/C was 60 and 70 series, eg. Merlin 63 or 72.
The US production of 2 stage Packard Merlins was insufficient for the main costumer, the P-51B/C until perhaps late 1943. Not sure when it was installed in anything else, maybe mid 1944 in Spitfire 16?
For example, the 10th V-1650-3 engine (= engine with a 2 stage S/C) were manufactured in May 1943. The V-1650-1 (called Merlin 28 in many sources) was with single stage supercharger.

 

[RCAFson]

Also, if the Sea Hurricanes promoted by RCAFson as Mark IIBs are actually Canadian built former Mark XX models They evidently have the two stage superchargers in their Packard built Merline XX engines. If that's the actual source of the Sea Hurricane IIb, it's performance must be a significant improvement over the F4F-4 in all respects except perhaps a marginal range deficit. But I don't know the timing of its introduction.

My understanding of Sea Hurricane nomenclature is that Hawker Sea Hurricane I = Merlin III engine.
HSH 1A = Hurricat, catapult only
HSH 1B = Catapult and arrestor gear fitted to Hurricane 1 (8 x .303mgs)
HSH 1C = HSH 1B with 4 x 20mm cannon

HSH IIA, B, C = HSH with Merlin XX (or equivalent Packard Merlin) and 8 x .303, 12 x .303, or 4 x 20mm cannon, respectively, as per RAF Hurricanes. Some HSH II A/B types were built in Canada. It was common for some of the IIBs to have the outer 4 guns removed to boost performance.
Sea Hurricane IIC: some of these were new builds rather than conversions.

Somerville noted that he only had 1 HSH II along with 11 HSH IIs on strength in Indomitable in April 1942.

A HSH 1B, even with a Merlin III at 12lb boost, still had a much superior (~6900lb and 1310hp)power to weight ratio over the F4F-3 (7550lb and 1200hp) or -4 (7970lb and 1200hp).

 

[RCAFson]

Thanks for the clarification Tomo, However, I believe there is some gray in this discussion due to what I gather was common usage of the type (M-IIc) as ground attack. This according to Profile Pubs #24: Hawker Hurricane IIc. Even with the XX engine, performance appears to have been considerably reduced and the plane was evidently thought most useful applied in an interdiction role. So I think you are correct, the model was not optimized per se for a ground attack role (as was evidently the H-IID) but found itself most useful in that capacity (although check out the wikipedia citation below).

Some Interesting side notes in this pub: It cites a H-I equipped with a RR-Merline XX with 8 .303 gun armament that achieved 348 mph at a weight of 6,689 lb. In comparison, the IIc with bombs fuel tanks and 4x cannons could do about 220 mph and was relegated by the Fall of 1941 to dusk or night attacks for its survival. IIc's shipped overseas were apparently equipped with the drag inducing sand filters that also degraded their clean performance. Evidently two cannons were occasionally removed to restore some lost performance. The same source mentions the use of Canadian Built Sea Hurricanes Mark XIIs with 4 cannons on US Carriers, something I had never heard before.

In contrast, Shores in BS, Vol I: Tuesday 13, January 1942, 51 crated Hurricane Mk IIbs (with the 12 LMGs) were arriving in Singapore but these also had the sand filters that seriously degraded their performance. Apparently there was a problem with removing the filter.

Pilot Officer Parker is quoted:

"The extra guns and ammo must have weighed an additional half ton. The Hurricanes were not only slow,… in climb, but also heavy and unwieldy in maneuvers."

So the question seems to be which mark Hurricane was at Ceylon and was it equipped with the filter? Shores says IIb which I assume meant 12 guns. Perhaps it was/would have been a match for the A6M without the filter. But I expect it wouldn't have been so lauded if the offending filter was attached.

Finally from wikipedia:

"Hurricane IIC

The Hurricane IIA Series 2s armed with four 20 mm (.79 in) Hispanos become the Mark IIC in June 1941, using a slightly modified wing. The new wings also included a hardpoint for a 500 lb (227 kg) or 250 lb (113 kg) bomb, and later in 1941, fixed 40 gal (182 l) fuel tanks. By then performance was inferior to the latest German fighters, and the Hurricane changed to the ground-attack role, sometimes referred to as the Hurribomber. The mark also served as a night fighter and "intruder.""

My understanding is that all FAA aircraft involved in Operation TORCH carried USA markings because it was felt (wrongly!) that the Vichy French were less likely to oppose USA rather than Commonwealth forces. Somehow Aircraft profile 24 got this mixed up and assumed that these were USN HSHs. However, AFAIK, some the these HSHs were Canadian built, but AFAIK, no Canadian built HSHs carried 4 x 20mm, as stated by Profile 24, although it is possible that some Cdn built aircraft were converted to the HSH IC or IIc.

220mph for a IIC with 2 x 250lb bombs is wrong. Mason states that Vmax for the IIB with 2 x 250lb bombs was 287 mph at 17800 ft but Vmax at SL was only 217mph and 237mph at 5000ft (I suspect these speeds are with continuous rather than combat power). Flying from the UK in 1941, the Hurricane didn't compare well to the Spitfire, but then what other Allied fighter did?

Mason gives the Vmax of the:
IIA as 342 at 17500ft and 340 at 20k ft and 8.2 minutes to 20k ft.
IIA trop as 334 at 17500ft and 333 at 20k ft and 10 min to 20K ft.
IIB as 330 at 17800ft and 328 at 20k ft.
IIC as 329 at 17800ft 328 at 20k ft.
HSH IIC as 317 at 17500ft and 311 at 20k ft with a time to 20k of 8.1 minutes.

The extra 4 x mgs and ammo on the IIB weighed about 200lbs.

The Secret Years gives the IIB/IIC Vmax with 2 x 45IG DTs as 310/306mph at ~20K ft. Same source states IIB Vmax as 330mph at 20,800ft.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

My understanding is that all FAA aircraft involved in Operation TORCH carried USA markings because it was felt (wrongly!) that the Vichy French were less likely to oppose USA rather than Commonwealth forces. Somehow Aircraft profile 24 got this mixed up and assumed that these were USN HSHs. However, AFAIK, some the these HSHs were Canadian built, but AFAIK, no Canadian built HSHs carried 4 x 20mm, as stated by Profile 24, although it is possible that some Cdn built aircraft were converted to the HSH IC or IIc.

You know I wondered whether he was talking about Torch but in the text on page 9 he says: "By the eve of the Sicilian landings (Mid July thru mid August in 1943)," followed by a discussion of the RAF usage of Hurricanes which is then followed by:
"around this time, US Navy Detachments … aboard US Carriers were also flying Hurricanes." That's almost a year after Torch…

Don't know quite what to make of it.

 

[VBF-13]

Lord (famous from his brilliant account of the Titanic) presumably has access to an esteemed academic (Morison) who had written what was to the time purported to be the most up to date and 'accurate' quasi-official history of USN operations in WW2 gleaned from many eyewitness sources, as well as the nearly contemporary account of two acknowledged aviation expert eyewitnesses to the battle and chooses not to use them? I will be shocked to the point of being speechless but NOT I repeat, NOT postless. I will report it.

OK.

 

[RCAFson]

You know I wondered whether he was talking about Torch but in the text on page 9 he says: "By the eve of the Sicilian landings (Mid July thru mid August in 1943)," followed by a discussion of the RAF usage of Hurricanes which is then followed by:
"around this time, US Navy Detachments … aboard US Carriers were also flying Hurricanes." That's almost a year after Torch…

Don't know quite what to make of it.

I know the USAAF didn't go out of it's way to advertise it's use of Spitfires in the ETO, so maybe the USN hushed up it's use of the HSH...but I really doubt it.