RAF BoB Fighters OTL ATL v Me-109

[Glider]

The idea that the Fulmar could have been effective in any shape or form in the BOB I find difficult to understand. It was barely faster than the Blenheim and while in theory I can see the case for picking off the stragglers or damaged aircraft there are some problems:-

a) It wasn't fast enough to catch the stragglers. Max speed approx. 270 mph. He111 approx. 270mph, Ju88 315mph, Do17 255mph (I give you that one).
b) What are the German fighters doing while you wait for the Stragglers and damaged aircraft?
c) The Hurricane was heavily outclassed by the Me109 we all accept that, but the Fulmar was worse than the Hurricane by some margin, speed acceleration, agility, climb you name it. The losses would have been huge
d) Its poor climb would have made it very difficult to intercept the bombers in the first place.

The only area where I can see the Fulmar of being of assistance in defending the North of England against attacks from Norway. It would be fast enough to catch an incoming bomber at cruising speed. There are no 109's to worry about and the Fulmars good range and ammunition supply would have been of considerable assistance

 

[RCAFson]

All the Mercury needed was another 5 to 10 liters of capacity, completely new cooling fins with more area and a decent supercharger. Apart from that it was a decent engine just no fighter engine in 1940.

We're talking about an uprated engine for a Gladiator, although it could power the Gloster F.9/37 as well.

 

[RCAFson]

Hmmmm, the full operational weight of the P.4/34 in 1937 included armor, self sealing tanks, 1940 radio gear? it included eight .303 guns in the wings (with cartridge slots) instead of one?




Very nice an true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go quite far enough. It does NOT give the altitudes at which the maximum power for level flight (5min usage) were obtained does it?
on 87 octane it is 840hp at 14,000ft and with 100 octane it is 995hp at 9,250ft. At 14,000ft it will be back to 840hp because the supercharger will simply not supply any more air.

Also the "normal" climb was 825hp at 2650 rpm at 13,000ft with both fuels, just as the max economical cruising power was identical.

I Believe I have stated that the use of 100 octane fuel would improve the performance of a Mercury powered fighter at LOW altitudes but would do nothing for performance without major changes at higher altitudes. Much like the Merlin, 100 octane did nothing above 16-17,000ft. and the Mercury starts 200hp less than the Merlin 2,250 ft lower. Mercury will be at 800hp or below at the Merlins FTH.

It included the full bomb load, bomb racks, 2nd seat and related equipment, so this will more than balance off the conversion to a single seat heavy fighter.

The supercharger gear ratios could have been adjusted to boost power at high altitude, but in any event a Gladiator with a Mercury XV and CS prop would have been a handful for any axis fighter, while the improved climb and ceiling from the CS prop would increase success in interceptions.

 

[stona]

The reality was that as of April/May 1935 the Air Ministry was developing several single seat fighters.

When the Supermarine F37/34 and Hawker F36/34 were bought into line with the F10/35 specification (officially on 28th May 1935) everything but the Gloster F7/30 was out of the running. That included Gloster and Bristol fighters to F5/34 and what Verney described as 'three private ventures' which must have included Martin-Baker projects amongst others.

The Gloster F7/30 was henceforth the official back up in case either of what were to become the Hurricane and Spitfire should fail. Everything else became irrelevant. Quite rightly the Air Ministry did not see a need for more than two eight gun fighters.

I think that history has proved that the Ministry men got it just about right, particularly with the Spitfire.

Cheers

Steve

 

[RCAFson]

The idea that the Fulmar could have been effective in any shape or form in the BOB I find difficult to understand. It was barely faster than the Blenheim and while in theory I can see the case for picking off the stragglers or damaged aircraft there are some problems:-

a) It wasn't fast enough to catch the stragglers. Max speed approx. 270 mph. He111 approx. 270mph, Ju88 315mph, Do17 255mph (I give you that one).
b) What are the German fighters doing while you wait for the Stragglers and damaged aircraft?
c) The Hurricane was heavily outclassed by the Me109 we all accept that, but the Fulmar was worse than the Hurricane by some margin, speed acceleration, agility, climb you name it. The losses would have been huge
d) Its poor climb would have made it very difficult to intercept the bombers in the first place.

The only area where I can see the Fulmar of being of assistance in defending the North of England against attacks from Norway. It would be fast enough to catch an incoming bomber at cruising speed. There are no 109's to worry about and the Fulmars good range and ammunition supply would have been of considerable assistance

Right, so that's why the 1000lb heavier, navalized Fulmar, with low altitude rated engines never shot down ANY axis bombers... A handful of Carrier borne Fulmars, were, in actuality, shooting down axis bombers at a terrific rate compared to the Spitfire/Hurricane even while the BoB was still on.

Remember that a non-navalized Fulmar is much lighter, faster aircraft with a higher ceiling.

As you state a non-Naval Fulmar with a higher altitude rated engine could have been used as a long range patrol fighter, and it could have replaced and/or supplemented the Hurricane/Spitfire in areas beyond the reach of the 109. Probably a very useful for Patroling the Bay of Biscay to deter the FW-200 and in the eastern Med where it could have provided some air cover all the way to Crete, while flying from Egypt.

 

[parsifal]

lets not either kid ourselves, neither short change these second string fighters. with regard to the Fulmar, it had no chance whatsoever of acting in the air superiority role. F-15 it was not. But I agree to an extent with RCAFson....it had runs on the board as far as destroying bombers, AND, it demonstrated that it could operate and survive in a moderately hostile environment. You wouldnt trade your Hurricane or Spitfire for a Fulmar, but if you were coming up short of those two, but still had the pilots, the Fulmar could take some of the load.

A better option, which Ive suggested a couple of times now is a twin engined version of the Fulmar. Id love some of you technical types to have a go at estimating its performance with two merlins fitted......

 

[stona]

lets not either kid ourselves, neither short change these second string fighters. with regard to the Fulmar, it had no chance whatsoever of acting in the air superiority role. F-15 it was not. But I agree to an extent with RCAFson....it had runs on the board as far as destroying bombers, AND, it demonstrated that it could operate and survive in a moderately hostile environment. You wouldnt trade your Hurricane or Spitfire for a Fulmar, but if you were coming up short of those two, but still had the pilots, the Fulmar could take some of the load.

A better option, which Ive suggested a couple of times now is a twin engined version of the Fulmar. Id love some of you technical types to have a go at estimating its performance with two merlins fitted......

The Fulmar would have been withdrawn from the BoB in days. It had no chance of surviving in that environment. The primary objective of Fighter Command, as re-iterated on several occasions by both Park and Dowding, was to shoot down the Luftwaffe's bombers. The Fulmar would have been unable to climb to reach them, then have struggled to catch them, and finally been cannon fodder for the escorting Bf 109s.
This fate was only narrowly avoided by the Hurricane and to a lesser extent the Spitfire, both of which largely out perform the Fulmar.

A twin engine Fulmar derivative might be an interesting 'what if' but in 1939/40 such a suggestion would have been met with a 'why?' The Air Ministry had effectively just axed the Whirlwind.

Cheers

Steve

 

[cherry blossom]

One aircraft which I have not seen discussed is the Reggiane Re.2000. According to Wikipedia Reggiane Re.2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

"In December 1939 a British commission, led by Lord Hardwick and Air Ministry representatives, came to Italy to purchase (along with marine engines, armaments and light reconnaissance bombers) 300 Re 2000s. The Director of Aircraft Contracts confirmed the British order in January 1940."

Realistically, I don't think that the aircraft would be delivered in time even assuming different Italian political choices. There were fairly severe problems associated with leaking fuel tanks and unreliable engines. The only possible combat application that seems plausible to me is the use of the long range Re.2000GA version, which was not actually available in the time frame, to protect shipping against Fw 200 Condors (sort of competes with the Fulmer for that role).

The first Reggiane Re.2001 prototype seems to have flown in May 1940 but I don't know when the second prototype with the redesigned wing first flew. Assuming that the British encouraged rapid development, is it possible to imagine either a Merlin engined Re.2001 analogue or a R-1830 powered Re.2002 analogue being ready for the BoB? The R-1830 seems to be shorter, narrower, lighter and more powerful than the Piaggio P.XI RC 40. There would still be a problem in fitting a decent armament

 

[RCAFson]

The Fulmar would have been withdrawn from the BoB in days. It had no chance of surviving in that environment. The primary objective of Fighter Command, as re-iterated on several occasions by both Park and Dowding, was to shoot down the Luftwaffe's bombers. The Fulmar would have been unable to climb to reach them, then have struggled to catch them, and finally been cannon fodder for the escorting Bf 109s.
This fate was only narrowly avoided by the Hurricane and to a lesser extent the Spitfire, both of which largely out perform the Fulmar.

A twin engine Fulmar derivative might be an interesting 'what if' but in 1939/40 such a suggestion would have been met with a 'why?' The Air Ministry had effectively just axed the Whirlwind.

Cheers

Steve

The RAF were limited by the Hurricane/Spitfire's range in terms of where they could base the fighters and still allow them to make a successful interception. A long range, long endurance, fighter like a denavalized Fulmar could be based well away from the coast, be scrambled when Luftwaffe aircraft are first detected and then be vectored to an interception over a much longer distance than the Spitfire/Hurricane, and finally return to inland bases, well away from the damaged bases that 11 Group was forced to use.

Speed - yes slower than a Hurricane but at ~300 mph at 20,000 ft (with a Merlin XII) still more than sufficient to catch a loaded bomber crusing in formation.
Climb - given it's larger wing area (and thus more lift) it's climb rate (at ~8700lb) with a Merlin XIII should be similar to a Hurricane I with a Merlin III.


You are really being too hard on the Hurricane - it was never cannon fodder for the 109 during the BoB and mainly suffered higher losses than the Spitfire because 11 Group was based so near to the 109's bases forcing it to fight while climbing and from a constant altitude disadvantage and the constant theat of being bounced by the escort. 11 Group was mainly composed of Hurricane squadrons but Spitfires (or even the vaunted 109) would have suffered much same loss rates under the same circumstances.

Fighter combat is mainly about altitude advantage and using that to win the combat. If this wasn't the case then the F4F-4, which was a real dog compared to the Zero would have been blown from the sky but it didn't happen that way, did it? The Defiant was withdrawn, not because of it's performance but because it couldn't be used successfully as a daylight fighter because it had no forward firing guns.

The BofB came down to how many firing passes the RAF fighters could make, per luftwaffe raid, and the kill rate per firing pass versus losses suffered by the interceptors. It might actually be that high climb rate, uprated Gladiators operating from 11 Group bases might have done better than the historical fighters ( I suppose this could be determined mathematically) in making interceptions and thus firing passes, even though the kill rate per firing pass might have been lower.

 

[stona]

I have consistently argued here and elsewhere for the Hurricane. I do not believe it was outclassed by the Bf 109 E, but the Messerschmitt was a better fighter. Nonetheless on 1/9/40 11 Group comprised 14 Hurricane squadrons and only 6 Spitfire squadrons. Contrary to the myth it was the Hurricane that bore the brunt of the battle.

Raids were detected as they formed up over the French coast. Interceptors were vectored to the raids as their course (and altitude) were established from 11 Groups airfields. I can't make sense of the suggestion that formations of Fulmars could have been vectored onto raids from bases further back. The detection ranges and timings don't support your proposition. Aircraft had to be vectored to within visual range of a raid, about a maximum of three miles. The course of the raid had to be accurately plotted to enable this. It only took a raid about ten to fifteen minutes to cross the Channel. Attempts by the so called Duxford Wing to make interceptions from 12 group almost invariably failed.

Cheers

Steve

 

[nuuumannn]

I'm sorry, Parsifal, but you have not addressed the big difference between Malta and UK; the sheer numbers of Bf 109s operating at any one time. Aozora's right, there are few instances of Fulmars in combat with Bf 109s and those that there are were not nearly in anything like the numbers over the UK in 1940. How can you expect the Fulmar to do any better than the Defiant in the same circumstances as the turret fighter found itself in? The Fulmar was slower by a considerable margin, had a lower rate of climb and ceiling.

 

[RCAFson]

I have consistently argued here and elsewhere for the Hurricane. I do not believe it was outclassed by the Bf 109 E, but the Messerschmitt was a better fighter. Nonetheless on 1/9/40 11 Group comprised 14 Hurricane squadrons and only 6 Spitfire squadrons. Contrary to the myth it was the Hurricane that bore the brunt of the battle.

Raids were detected as they formed up over the French coast. Interceptors were vectored to the raids as their course (and altitude) were established from 11 Groups airfields. I can't make sense of the suggestion that formations of Fulmars could have been vectored onto raids from bases further back. The detection ranges and timings don't support your proposition. Aircraft had to be vectored to within visual range of a raid, about a maximum of three miles. The course of the raid had to be accurately plotted to enable this. It only took a raid about ten to fifteen minutes to cross the Channel. Attempts by the so called Duxford Wing to make interceptions from 12 group almost invariably failed.

Cheers

Steve

Yes, 11 Group was the only group where the Hurricane squadrons substantially outnumbered Spitfire squadrons; in all the others there was a rough parity. So yes, the Hurricane bore the brunt of the battle from 11 Group's forward bases.

12 Group's big wing tactics were a hindrance but a short range fighter will have more problems with interceptions as there is much less ability to recover from controller mistakes caused by initial errors in forecasting enemy movements.

 

[RCAFson]

I'm sorry, Parsifal, but you have not addressed the big difference between Malta and UK; the sheer numbers of Bf 109s operating at any one time. Aozora's right, there are few instances of Fulmars in combat with Bf 109s and those that there are were not nearly in anything like the numbers over the UK in 1940. How can you expect the Fulmar to do any better than the Defiant in the same circumstances as the turret fighter found itself in? The Fulmar was slower by a considerable margin, had a lower rate of climb and ceiling.

If a Fulmar finds a 109 below and in front, it will soon be a dead 109. The Defiant cannot attack in the same tactical circumstance - the Defiant is simply unable to utilize the most successful of all fighter tactics (an 8 gun Defiant - 4 in the wings and 4 in the turret might have worked); diving from above, leading to it's demise.

 

[Glider]

Right, so that's why the 1000lb heavier, navalized Fulmar, with low altitude rated engines never shot down ANY axis bombers... A handful of Carrier borne Fulmars, were, in actuality, shooting down axis bombers at a terrific rate compared to the Spitfire/Hurricane even while the BoB was still on.

Remember that a non-navalized Fulmar is much lighter, faster aircraft with a higher ceiling.

As you state a non-Naval Fulmar with a higher altitude rated engine could have been used as a long range patrol fighter, and it could have replaced and/or supplemented the Hurricane/Spitfire in areas beyond the reach of the 109. Probably a very useful for Patroling the Bay of Biscay to deter the FW-200 and in the eastern Med where it could have provided some air cover all the way to Crete, while flying from Egypt.

However the bombers shot down by the Carrier Fulmars were almost always
a) unescorted
b) at a lower altitude
c) incoming in a loaded condition, not running away presumably after dropping their bombs at full lick, being alone with a fighter after them.

There are a number of cases where Hurricanes found it difficult to catch a Ju88 going for home. A Fulmar wouldn't stand a chance of catching it.

 

[tomo pauk]

During 1940, Hurricanes were hard pressed to beat the LW hardware, and were happy recipients of the new Merlin (XX) that reduced much of performance advantage held by Bf-109E. After that said, Hurricanes pretty much did their job back then.
Assuming that warmed-up biplanes and/or over-sized fighters with same Merlins would've emulated what Hurricane did during BoB is wishful thinking.

 

[parsifal]

I'm sorry, Parsifal, but you have not addressed the big difference between Malta and UK; the sheer numbers of Bf 109s operating at any one time. Aozora's right, there are few instances of Fulmars in combat with Bf 109s and those that there are were not nearly in anything like the numbers over the UK in 1940. How can you expect the Fulmar to do any better than the Defiant in the same circumstances as the turret fighter found itself in? The Fulmar was slower by a considerable margin, had a lower rate of climb and ceiling.

The concentration of 109s over a point target (malta) was arguably greater than that likely to occur over any of the numerous battles occurring in SE England, despite the greater numbers of 109s present in the theatre over england, because Malta was a point target, England was an area target. that was one of the weaknesses of the German assault in 1940, its failure to concentrate. They didnt make that mistake over Malta.

The initial deployment of FKX consisted of 40 109s and 36 110s. by April ther were a further 46 109s and 36 110s. There were few losses for the fighters up to that time. That means Malta was being hit by up to 80 109s and say 70 110s. after that, some elements of the LW were redeployed to other parts of the TO, but until April, Malta was subjected to the full force that FKX could throw at them.

In comparison, for the entire area of SE England, there were about 600 me 109s and about 200 Me 110s. You can basically divide the area into three, based roughly on the range capabilities of the 109, and looking from say somewhere north of England around to say the Welsh border....very roughly, but good enough. That means on average, if the air fronts were receiving equal distributions of resources (which they werent, thats not the purpose of this exercise), a large formation of Fulmars in England might expect to face a maximum of roughly 150 Me 109s, however because the German raids were never concentrated, there may be, at any time in any sector, 3 or four raids happening at any time. so, typically, over England your defenders might be confronted with a german fighter force of 30-40 Me109s, however, because of the range limitations of the 109, and the slow speeds of the attacking bombers, as the german you would be forced to either shuttle your fighters back and forth, or, as the the historical case was the norm, leave some of your bomber formations unprotected.

There is no difference in the tactical concentration of fighters over Malta, and typically what you might find over England. What would have to happen for this not to occur is for the Germans to concentrate their forces, but if they do this, as the defender in a hypothetical where there are insufficient first line fighters, you simply can counter that by also concentrating your limited resources. In that situation your second line forces dont need to get involved....its only when forces are too weak and too strung out to cover the entire front that you are forced to use them.

Its simply not true that there were few instances of combat between 109s and Fulmars. it happens on a nearly daily basis over Malta. I am choosing my words VERY carefully here. Combat does not mean, necessarily, direct dogfighting between 109s and Fulmars, that hardly ever happened, not because of a lack of trying by the LW, or because there were not plenty of German fighters about (to say nothing of the italians, which ought not be discounted in this, its just that they are not as important as the Germans), its simply that direct combat between Fulmars and 109s was avoided, by the defenders, and later by the Germans themselves, as they switched their fighers to Jabo operations over Malta. The Fulmars either stayed on the deck, but more usually (based on the claims made for them and the Hurricanes), were airborne but stayed away from the 109s, and went after the bombers. (I know of one instance of a fulmar chasing a Ju87 into the flak zone, and continuing his pursuit in this dangerous area, because he knew the enemy fighters would not follow him into that area. He was shot down by friendly fire.....thats still combat with a 109...before he entered the flak area, 109s were hot on his tail..., but the cause of the loss was due to friendly fire) They used their range/endurance advantages to great effect. The 109s would run out of puff, start to head home, and then the Fulmars would go to work. thats still combat, its just not "my d*ck is bigger than yours" type combat that says a fighter must engage another fighter, or else its not in combat. Fighter versus fighter enagagements were rather pointless, except when air supeiority is being fought over. accept that the enemy has air control, and fighter engagements are not worth doing, and the brits found out a year later over france.

all the things you say about the Fulmars performance are correct. it was slower, had a llower operating altitude.Counts for nought in the scenario i would use them. You might also add that they were heavily armed and stable as a gun platform, surprisingly agile and effective as a bomber destroyer with a considerable advantage in range and endurance over any of the se fighters used in 1940. Use or create situations that work to those strengths, and you have something to work with. not so the defiant. Why, mostly because it was based on a faulty concept

 

[vikingBerserker]

IIRC Fulmars from carriers also engaged Bf 109s 110s during a couple of convoy escort missions to Russia.

 

[Shortround6]

It included the full bomb load, bomb racks, 2nd seat and related equipment, so this will more than balance off the conversion to a single seat heavy fighter.

Really? It did 284 mph with a pair of 250lb bombs hanging off the bottom of the plane? The Hawker Henley, a slightly smaller, lighter aircraft built to the same specification only managed 294mph with the bombs in the bomb bay. The Hurricane II lost 20mph when carrying a pair of 250lbs bombs. If that held true ( or close to it) then the P.4/34 would have been just about as fast (within 10-12mph?) as a MK I Hurricane if the Hurricane I had been equipped with bomb racks and a pair of 250lb bombs. Something doesn't sound right.

The supercharger gear ratios could have been adjusted to boost power at high altitude, but in any event a Gladiator with a Mercury XV and CS prop would have been a handful for any axis fighter, while the improved climb and ceiling from the CS prop would increase success in interceptions.

The Mercury XV was already the high altitude Mercury engine, adjusting the supercharger gear ratios for even more altitude performance would have cut into the low altitude performance. Mercury's only came with single speed superchargers.
The "high" altitude (fully super charged) engines were "rated" at 725hp with 87 octane fuel, the low altitude ( moderately supercharged engines) were rated at 82 hp for take-off on 87 octane fuel and 870hp at 4500ft instead of 840hp at 14,000ft.
The two speed Pegasus even with 100/130 fuel (better than the fuel used in the BoB ) was rated at 1065hp at 1250ft in low gear and 965hp at 13,000ft in high gear from 28.7 liters (longer stroke did limit RPM).
Juggling supercharger gears isn't going to gain much over 13-14,000ft. Bristol was already pushing the basic supercharger about as far as it would go.

 

[parsifal]

IIRC Fulmars from carriers also engaged Bf 109s 110s during a couple of convoy escort missions to Russia.

yes, but they didnt do particualalry well. The raid over Kirkenes is perhaps the best example, from memory, 9 Fulmars escorting 20or so albacores, intercepted by about 12 109s and a similar number of 110s, at least that number available, not all achieved an interception(there were two raids, one on Kirkenes and one on petsamo), 3 fulmars lost than the albacores decimatred, for 1 110 claimed and 1 probable 109)

 

[vikingBerserker]

Yes, I believe that's what I was talking about.