Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Fulmar was an order of magnitude less capable than a Wildcat
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How many Fulmars on RN carriers, compared to how many Zeroes on IJN carriers? 12 vs 18 or 27?
Fulmars might manage under good tactical circumstances, but like the Wildcat, when caught out of sorts they might be easy meat ... and carry one more aviator down with it as well. Hope the fighter directors can vector the few Fulmars airborne efficiently.
IJN long lance torpedoes have a wander left/right of 1km @ 32km range - not exactly the most accurate weapon (goes up to 1.5km at the 40km max range)
They are fine when launched en mass against a long line of ships sailing in line - even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut - but too expensive to use on regular basis. You need to be within 5km to regularly hit a single battleship sized target. Which isn't really different from RN torpedoes.
going back to "kit" the British and Japanese have a real disparity in light cruisers.
They both have a bunch of WW I left overs (although the Japanese built many of theirs in the 20s.)
British built a bunch of 6in armed cruisers (22 before 1940) after they build their quota of 8in cruisers, Japanese build 4 and then swap the turrets to twin 8in leaving them with NO light cruisers with 6in guns that use turrets/enclosed gun houses until 1942.
A lot depends on the British war losses in this hypothetical but the Japanese are at a real disadvantage in in the cruiser catagory. Unlike the Americans, all British cruisers have at least some torpedoes early in the war so again, the British are not a plug in replacement for the Americans. Different weapons, different doctrine, different tactics.
BTW just about all British cruisers newer than the E class (1921-22) have four twin 4in AA guns by the time WW II starts. Only the Japanese heavy cruisers have four twin heavy AA guns. (slow firing 5in). All of their light cruisers had crap for heavy AA. Kind of even things up a bit for the British, won't stop the IJN aircraft but the British have better AA to go against the Japanese planes while the Japanese have crap AA to go against the British aircraft. Both are worse than American AA even before proximity fuses.
The Japanese CLs carried the type 93s which contrary to recent claims were quite lethal out to 20,000+ yardsIts also worth remembering that a good number of the early RN light cruisers were being rearmed as AA cruisers with multiple 4in AA guns and modern LAA. A much better use for them than trying to pretend that they could still operate on the front line going toe to toe with other warships. In the Pacific where aircraft were so important this would only have increased their value.
In this role they performed well. IIRC, the RN vessel that was credited with the most aircraft kills during the war, was one of those converted light cruisers.
You clearly don't understand just what happened with the build of Ark Royal.Nowadays it takes Britain six years to build a Type 45 destroyer. I'm not sure what to think about the tradition. Jackie Fisher, whose revolutionary battleship HMS Dreadnought was completed in about a year (laid down Oct 1905, commissioned Dec 1906) must be turning in his grave at the decline of the RN.
Edit - it took twelve years for postwar Britain from keel laying to commissioning for HMS Ark Royal (R09), so I suppose six years for a destroyer is about on par.
How quick could they get a single seat Fulmar with clipped wings into action?
True but what is the range/endurance of the clipped wing, single seat Fulmar?Hurricane has half the range and endurance of a Fulmar (and I mean the real world, two seat Fulmar)
Ark Royal began the war with 18 Skuas which were briefly augmented by 5/6 Rocs in mid-1940 before they were replaced in turn with more Skuas. Having begun the war with 4 squadrons of Swordfish (total 42 aircraft), the number she carried almost immediately began to fall as one squadron was pulled to help create an air group for Furious which was giving up her training role to become an operational carrier again following the loss of Courageous. By late 1940 the number of Swordfish had settled around the 30 mark in 3 squadrons.re the number of fighters on the RN carriers
After about the time of the Ark Royal was entering service and through the early-war period the standard 'strike group' for the RN fleet carriers was nominally 36x airframes (2x-4x Sqn of either Swordfish or Albacore) - though the RN played mix-and-match for the specific operations. The minimum operational strike Sqn usually had 9x-12x airframes. The actual numbers of airframes onboard at any given time often do not reflect this due to the mix-and-match mentioned above and a chronic shortage (at east until mid-42?) of airframes.
The nominal fighter complement for the Ark Royal was planned to be 24x airframes (2x Sqn of Fulmar as of 1940-41) but I do not know if she ever carried that many operationally.
So maybe think of what the operations in the ATL PRTO would be in order to estimate what the number of strike and fighter airframes could be or would probably be.
Just because the RN reduced the number of fighters and increased the number of strike/ASW aircraft when operating far out in the Atlantic on escort duties, or at night in the MTO when striking Taranto, does not mean they would have used the same ratios on operations in the PRTO.
PS The SeaHurricane was given the ability to use the 45 Impgal DTs at some time in late-'41 or early-'42. This brought the effective range and endurance upto the ~level of the Fulmar on internal fuel only - ie 4 hrs endurance as CAP with reserve for combat.
Not so much, In a day light combat at longer ranges the RN light cruisers will have more guns (even 8 beats 6 guns) fire just a bit faster and have better directors/fire control.The Japanese CL's had plenty of type 93 torpedoes, were well armed, and did very well in combat. This is a reach.
The Sea Hurricane Ib arrived in squadron service in mid-1941.True but what is the range/endurance of the clipped wing, single seat Fulmar?
And how soon can you get it?
Fulmar had a 342 sq ft wing, it is going to need a lot clipping to change the speed much. You don't need to clip it for carrier stowage.
Both planes use the same engine (basically)
The Hurricane is the fastest answer to get a better performing carrier fighter in the same catagory as the Wildcat.
Hurricane carried 116 US gallons of fuel, Wildcat carried 144-147.
Give the Hurricane the Merlin XX engines instead of Merlin IIIs used in around 800 Sea Hurricanes.
indeed, FAA 805 squadron flew the Buffalo from land bases. Though, I believe the FAA tested and rejected the Buffalo as a carrier fighter, shown here on trials.A personal view I admit is that anyone who thinks that a Fulmar can even think of going up against a Zero, in combat is smoking something. Its worth pointing out that the RN preferred the Buffalo to the Fulmar.
805 was flying whatever it could lay its hands on in 1941!indeed, FAA 805 squadron flew the Buffalo from land bases. Though, I believe the FAA tested and rejected the Buffalo as a carrier fighter, shown here on trials.
Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA
Hi all, Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA, how would that work for the Royal Navy. Given the large numbers of Hurricanes coming off production lines in Britain and Canada in 1941, and the realisation they are no longer able to face of the Germans, apart from sending loads to Russia, how...ww2aircraft.net
What is so delusional?Give me a f'n break, what an utter crock. That's one of the most delusional posts I've ever seen on this board and that is really saying something.
Not for want of trying. But it was due to a mix of things.It is noteworthy that from the Nimrod of 1931, Camm's first carrier fighter, it took almost a quarter century before Hawker would field a folding wing fighter, and that the postwar Sea Fury.
To be fair, there was the folding wing Hawker Osprey.
View attachment 742066
What is so delusional?
The wander of a torpedo is a function of the ability of engineers to design and have mass produced a control system that can both detect the variance and accurately correct for it. Guns, e.g. IJN 20cm Type 2 guns have a dispersion pattern of up to 360m @ 20km (180m left/right) through air as a medium. For a torpedo to have up to 500m wander @ 20km given the denser medium of water and complexity of the control system is entirely understandable.
Torpedoes are great weapons, but precision guided when using mechanical gyros, they are not.
p.s. You can find wander information for most of IJN WWII torpedoes on the Navweaps site
p.p.s. Note: I didn't include errors in speed/course of target or current in my statement on torpedo accuracy,
View attachment 742158
There isn't much wing to clip before you start having to modify the ailerons.
True but what is the range/endurance of the clipped wing, single seat Fulmar?
And how soon can you get it?
Fulmar had a 342 sq ft wing, it is going to need a lot clipping to change the speed much. You don't need to clip it for carrier stowage.
Both planes use the same engine (basically)
The Hurricane is the fastest answer to get a better performing carrier fighter in the same catagory as the Wildcat.
Hurricane carried 116 US gallons of fuel, Wildcat carried 144-147.
Give the Hurricane the Merlin XX engines instead of Merlin IIIs used in around 800 Sea Hurricanes.
Lets be careful about the effectiveness of US AA fire in the early part of the war as it is usually overstated and studies later in the war caused massive downward revisions of the claims made for it especially 5" claims before the arrival of proximity fuzes in early 1943.Both are worse than American AA even before proximity fuses.
Not for want of trying. But it was due to a mix of things.
1. Few new fighter competitions in the 1930s & early 1940s. After the Nimrod & Osprey, the next fighter competition was that which produced the Skua, then the Fulmar and then we come to N.8/38 & N.9/38 and their successors.
2. A preference by the RAF to use noted suppliers of naval aircraft like Fairey & Blackburn
3. When it did tender it wasn't selected to go forward.
4. By the latter part of the decade its involvement with the Hurricane and its successor the Typhoon were seen as the company's priority by the Powers that Be.
Hawker tendered for:-
O.27/34 but that was won by Blackburn with the Skua
N.5/38 (2 seat fighter for FAA) and N.6/38 (turret fighter for the FAA) but both Specs went nowhere.
N.8/39 (2 seat front gun fighter for the FAA) and N.9/39 (2 seat turret fighter for the FAA). Everyones initial designs were rejected and there was a change of requirements at the end of 1939 and, after a second round of tendering in Dec 1939/Jan 1940, Fairey was selected to to develop the Firefly & Blackburn to work on further development of a proposal that eventually became the Firebrand.
N.11/40 Hawker tendered a project, P.1009, for a folding wing version of the Typhoon but Blackburn won with Firebrand.
The next time that the RN arranged a fighter competition their requirements under Spec N.7/43 were pooled with those of the RAF in Spec F.2/43 that eventually led to the Sea Fury.
All these requirements called for aircraft with folding wings.
The problem is that most of the details of these projects that Hawker was involved with have either disappeared altogether or remain buried in what will now be the BAe Systems archives somewhere awaiting some keen author to delve into them.