The P-36 a Zero Killer??? (P-36 Hawk/Hawk 75)

[tomo pauk]

GG, what would be the sources for the RoC figures?

 

[varsity07840]

Based on the fact that my Great Uncle flew a P-38 throughout the Pacific Theater, encountering Japanese and lived to tell about it, would certainly offer impact when he says that he appreciated the P-36.

As far as comparing the P-36 to the F4F, why not? They were both in service at the same time, they are both comparable in size and powerplant and they were both piloted by inexperienced pilots who were up against a battle-tested adversary.

Before everyone rushes to their charts and tables to point out minute differences between the two types, step back for a moment and look at the point being made. The PILOTS are what will make or break the success of the type. There were certainly shortcomings with both the P-36 and the F4F in terms of speed, turning, firepower and so on. In it's initial encounter against Japanese fighters, the F4F did not produce stellar results. It wasn't until they figured out how to engage the Japanese fighters on terms that would give the F4F survivability in a fight, that victories started to mount in favor of the F4F.

This is the point I am making. The P-36 was not a world beater, but if the U.S. Army was stuck with it until a replacement was provided, the pilots of the P-36 would have learned how to engage the Japanese fighters in a real-world learning curve just like the U.S. Navy and Marine pilots did with the F4F.

Remember, the training the U.S. pilots had up to 7 December 1941 was based on prewar data and tactics. This changed quickly over the next several months.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Neither a/c were world beaters but the F4F afforded a pilot armor protection and protected tanks, with heavy firepower, all intended to fight in a modern airwar. Compared to that, the P-36 was a sportsplane
with WWI armament. Sending pilots to war in such an a/c, regardless of their experience would be the same as Japanese pilots flying Ki-27s against modern a/c. I also think your evaluation of Army pilot experience at wars start compared to Navy/Marine pilots is incorrect. It's true that the Army, due to rapid expansion, had a large percentage of pilots right out of flight school in the Philippine and Hawaii, with little or no time in first line a/c. Combined with little or no knowledge of Japanese a/c they were as Bartsch termed it "doomed at the start". Not so with the Navy/Marines. Being a much smaller organization, their cadre consisted
of quite a few long time professionals with many hours of experience. Their level of training even under pre war standards was better than the Army. As an example deflection shooting was taught to all Navy/Marine fighter pilots well before the war, but was
ignored in the Army. They also took to heart what little intelligence was available about the Zero and men like Thatch were already experimenting with tactics to combat it. Finally, after initial encounters with the Zero at Coral Sea( previous fighter vs fighter was against the A5M)
the Navy pilots came away with the impression that the F4F-3 was pretty evenly matched with A6M2, each having it's own superior qualities. More importantly, they didn't think the Zero was the unbeatable enemy described in Army combat reports.Their
opinion of the F4F-4 was not as positive.
It's all there in Lundstrom's "The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat From Pearl Harbor to Midway."

Duane

 

[GrauGeist]

GG, what would be the sources for the RoC figures?

F4F-3 armed with 4 x .50 caliber MGs, in service at the start of hostilities, saw combat at Wake, Coral Sea, etc.
It's RoC data is covered in "American Fighter" by Enzo Angellucci.

A6M2 armed with 2 x 7.7mm MG and 2 x 20mm cannon, in service at the start of hostilities and saw prior combat in China (Manchuria) and the performance reports examined by the U.S. military was dismissed as "unbelievable" and largely ignored.
It's RoC data is covered in the "Great Book of Fighters" by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.

P-36A only saw action at Pearl Harbor, as covered in several posts above. At that time, it was armed with 1 x .50 caliber MG and 1 x .30 caliber MG.
It's RoC data is outlined in "Curtiss Fighter Aircraft" by Francis Dean and Dan Hagerdorn

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Neither a/c were world beaters but the F4F afforded a pilot armor protection and protected tanks, with heavy firepower, all intended to fight in a modern airwar. Compared to that, the P-36 was a sportsplane with WWI armament.

And yet, the A6M had little armor and no self-sealing tanks...explain that, then.
Also, double-check your data regarding the early Wildcat (as referred to in my posts), it was armed with only 4 .50 cal. MG...hardly heavy firepower...
Once they started up-gunning the Wildcat, it's performance took a hit until the FM series brought the four .50 set up back.

Sending pilots to war in such an a/c, regardless of their experience would be the same as Japanese pilots flying Ki-27s against modern a/c. I also think your evaluation of Army pilot experience at wars start compared to Navy/Marine pilots is incorrect. It's true that the Army, due to rapid expansion, had a large percentage of pilots right out of flight school in the Philippine and Hawaii, with little or no time in first line a/c. Combined with little or no knowledge of Japanese a/c they were as Bartsch termed it "doomed at the start". Not so with the Navy/Marines. Being a much smaller organization, their cadre consisted of quite a few long time professionals with many hours of experience. Their level of training even under pre war standards was better than the Army. As an example deflection shooting was taught to all Navy/Marine fighter pilots well before the war, but was ignored in the Army.

This may surprise you, but the Army and the Navy shared the same intelligence regarding foreign (both friendly and non-friendly) aircraft - types, performance, etc.
Another shocker here...the USAAC (later USAAF) had career personnel. Case in point, my Great Uncle who joined a few years before the start of the war...
As far as deflection shooting to increase the odds of Wildcat success against a Japanese fighter: This is along the lines I was mentioning above...learning to increase the chances of survivability against a superior opponent. I.E.: Learning Curve.

They also took to heart what little intelligence was available about the Zero and men like Thatch were already experimenting with tactics to combat it.

Not really...they ("they" being the brass) underestimated the A6M at first. Fortunately, there were a few in the ranks that paid attention to reports filtering back...Thatch was one of them.

Finally, after initial encounters with the Zero at Coral Sea( previous fighter vs fighter was against the A5M) the Navy pilots came away with the impression that the F4F-3 was pretty evenly matched with A6M2, each having it's own superior qualities. More importantly, they didn't think the Zero was the unbeatable enemy described in Army combat reports.Their opinion of the F4F-4 was not as positive.
It's all there in Lundstrom's "The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat From Pearl Harbor to Midway."

Duane

First off, the A6M was first encountered at Wake Island, 8 December through 23 December. The F2A and F4F did NOT do well against the Japanese fighters (though they did a hell of a job attacking the Destroyers) and this, is where the learning curve began.
Doesn't matter how much training a pilot has before entering a combat zone, actual combat is the mother of all instructors.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the sources listing.
A comparison between RoC of the F4F in one side, and P-36 and Zero is a case of TANSTAAFL. You want big punch, lots of ammo, carrier capability, all-around protection? Okay, than forget P-36* and it's RoC - simple as that. The USN wanted those features, and they were well served by F4F.

*and Zero, for that matter (minus carrier capability); the Zero never received fully folding wings

 

[GrauGeist]

The USN wanted those features, and they were well served by F4F.

Agreed, the F4F did a remarkable job holding it's ground and buying time for the U.S. Navy to get better types into battle, considering what it was up against.

 

[Shortround6]

The thing with these super P-36 threads ( and there have been a few) is everybody wants the maneuverability of the pre-war Hawk 75/P-36A but they want improved performance, better protection, better firepower.

Which is basically what the P-40 tried to do. Let us not forget that the XP-40 was 10th production P-36. Most if not all changes were forward of the firewall (except for some early radiator placement under the belly) and changing to to two .50 cal MGs.

The radial Hawks went around 4483-4713lbs empty (no guns,etc) depending on engine and 5692-5922lbs "normal" loaded with a 1209lb 'useful' load (pilot, 105 US gallons gas, oil, one .50/200 round, one .30/600 rounds, radio, oxygen flare pistol)

Early P-40 went 5367lbs empty and 6807lbs with a disposable load of 1440lbs, but the disposable load included TWO .50s/200rpg and TWO .30s/500rpg. and a bit more fuel. By the time you get to the P-40C the empty weight had gone up 400lbs (a lot of it the self sealing tanks and armor/BP glass. and useful load had gone to 1737lb ( more guns/ammo mainly). And that is where the handling and climb rate went. An extra 1500lbs or more of gross weight.

You want a "Zero Killer"????
Or even a Ki-43 Killer????
What are you willing to live without?

The self sealing tanks?
The BP windscreen?
The back armor?
Keep the ONE .50 and ONE .30 armament?

 

[varsity07840]

GrauGeist said:

And yet, the A6M had little armor and no self-sealing tanks...explain that, then.
Also, double-check your data regarding the early Wildcat (as referred to in my posts), it was armed with only 4 .50 cal. MG...hardly heavy firepower...
Once they started up-gunning the Wildcat, it's performance took a hit until the FM series brought the four .50 set up back.

The A6M had no armor. What's to explain? The Zero had better performance with less horsepower and better armament.
The Japanese theory was why have armor if you're the aggressorwith superior performance? (4) .50 cal guns, especially unencumbered by syncronization was considered pretty heavy at the time. The first FW190's had (4)7.9mm. (4) .50s was considered good enough in the pacific. Consider the F8F-1.

GrauGeist said:

This may surprise you, but the Army and the Navy shared the same intelligence regarding foreign (both friendly and non-friendly) aircraft - types, performance, etc.
Another shocker here...the USAAC (later USAAF) had career personnel. Case in point, my Great Uncle who joined a few years before the start of the war...
As far as deflection shooting to increase the odds of Wildcat success against a Japanese fighter: This is along the lines I was mentioning above...learning to increase the chances of survivability against a superior opponent. I.E.: Learning Curve.

The difference between the Army and the Navy was what they did with the little intelligence they had. The fact that it was distributed down to squadron level in the Navy and that some senior pilots set about developing counter tactics may explain why Navy pilots
were somewhat better prepared. This was BEFORE the war. And, the art of deflection shooting was a Navy practice well before the F4F came along and it's combats with the Zero.

Finally, if you re-read my post you'll see that I wrote about the NAVY'S first encounter with the Zero was at Coral Sea and from that combat they formed an opinion. Wake was a MARINE show. Almost all of the F4Fs were destroyed on the ground the first day and combats for several days later were against unescorted bombers. By the time Zeros showed up there were only 2 F4Fs left and were quickly overwhelmed by superior numbers in what I believe was one fight. Under those circumstances, I doubt that it would have made any difference if the Japanese planes were A6Ms or A5Ms, or that the Marines had time to sit around and discuss the enemy's performance. THERE WERE NO F2As AT WAKE.

Duane

 

[Shortround6]

Consider the F8F-1.

The F8F-1 used guns firing at 1100-1200rpm not guns firing at at 750-850 rpm.

It also used a different mix of ammo. By late 1944 the Army and Navy were using belts of ammo made up of mostly M8 API instead of belts of AP+ Incendiary + tracer.

Granted four .50s are not as bad as some claim but do not use the F8F as an example.

 

[Glider]

GrauGeist said:

And yet, the A6M had little armor and no self-sealing tanks...explain that, then.
Also, double-check your data regarding the early Wildcat (as referred to in my posts), it was armed with only 4 .50 cal. MG...hardly heavy firepower...
Once they started up-gunning the Wildcat, it's performance took a hit until the FM series brought the four .50 set up back.

There was a lot more to the detriment of performance of the F4-F4 apart from the extra 2 x 0.5. The RN were more than happy with 4 x 0.5 and the P51 B/C did all right with 4 x 0.5.

The A6M had no armor. What's to explain? The Zero had better performance with less horsepower and better armament.
The Japanese theory was why have armor if you're the aggressorwith superior performance? (4) .50 cal guns, especially unencumbered by syncronization was considered pretty heavy at the time. The first FW190's had (4)7.9mm. (4) .50s was considered good enough in the pacific. Consider the F8F-1.

I admit that I thought the first production Fw 190 had 2 x 20mm and 4 x 7.62 quickly changed to 4 x 20mm and 2 x 7.62 but could be wrong.

 

[HBPencil]

Would you be so kind to describe in what condition were the Hurri II and Buffalo, like armament installed, fuel, ammo, protection?

Sorry for my slow reply.
I've dug up my copy of the book and here's what it said:

"Sunday, 1 February... the Hurricane was tested during the day by Sqn Ldr Frank Carey (CO of 135 Squadron) in a mock dogfight over Mingdalon with a 67 Squadron Buffalo flown by Sgt Gordon Williams. The Buffalo's performance at 20,000 feet and above was actually found to be superior, whilst at 16,000 feet the two aircraft seemed evenly matched. Below that level the Hurricane undoubtedly had the edge. The result thereby cast an interesting light on the oft-maligned Brewster fighter."

As you can see there's no reference to anything like fuel or ammo load so I guess we can't really ever know. However, given that the war was well under way I think it'd be fair to assume that the Buffalo, and probably the Hurri, were of standard spec (e.g had amour, guns installed etc.)
As for the pilots, Frank Carey was a veteran of the BoF and BoB with at least 18 victories; while at the same time Sgt Williams had, at most, a month of Ops under his belt.

 

[GrauGeist]

As far as the F2A being at Wake, that was a faux pas on my behalf, they almost were, with VMF-221 but TF-11 recalled before executing a relief effort for fear of being overwhelmed. VMF-221 ended up at Midway Island, delaying their enevitable showdown with the IJN by 7 months. Multitasking caused me to mix that in there by accident.

However, Wake's VMF-211 F4F-3s did engage Japanese A6M2 aircraft. One Capt. Elrod, of VMF-211 was awarded the MoH posthumously for his downing two A6Ms during the second Japanese invasion effort.

This was 6 months before the battle of Coral Sea.

The insistance that the U.S. Navy being ahead of the Army due to intel recieved is nonsense. The reports were coming from Chennault, who passed it along to Washington. From there, it was shared among the Army and the Navy.

 

[RpR]

Most books say the P-36A had one .50 and one .30 and the P-36C had one .50 and THREE .30 cal guns. ---- For this one I used the Wiki. I realize it is not the best source but that is what it said for guns .
P-36A (Model 75L)
USAAC version, P-36A-3 mounted four .30 in (7.62 mm) machine guns in the wings in addition to fuselage armament -- Although on second look it contradicts itself so it is my fault for using something I usually do not.
My book on the Hawk is fifty miles from where I am.

ONE experimental P-36D had TWO .50s and four .30s. Was this plane at Pearl Harbor?
Most sources say that the planes at Pearl Harbor were P-36As with the one.50 and one .30 ---- I will not argue that but as I was responding a person who said the Hawk was not lacking in firepower thanks for your input.

Four P-36s got airborne from Wheeler Field and shot down (between them) two B5N1s. The few P36s that got airborne from Haliewa made no contact with the Japanese forces. Unless the pilots complaining about the lack of fire power were Lts Sterling, Sanders, Thacker and Rasmussen, the ONLY US pilots flying P-36s to make contact with the Japanese forces in ANY theater, it seems that the complaints of being under-gunned (especially with one .50 and five .30s) have little bases in fact. If the four pilots mentioned were, indeed flying P-36As with ONE .50 and ONE .30 then their complaint may be justified. The P-36 never made contact again with enemy forces in US service. ---- That comment, and it is a generic comment the book says pilots said, is from a forty year old P-40 in Action book also fifty miles from me.
But I have read similar statements in other journals over the fifty plus years I have been reading books on WWII aircraft.

British Mohawks with (usually) six .303 guns did fight the Japanese for quite some time.



yeah, it got so slow that the slowest P-40 was around 20-25mph faster than the fastest P-36. Granted most the later P-40s couldn't climb for spit unless using WER. If you are trying to blame the Curtiss for the problems with the P-40 it would be nice to see some references. ---- Speed, even though it was not as fast as expectations, was still better than most Japanese fighter it faced. Had it still had the handling of the P-36 it would probably have beaten the Japanese planes it face more often than it did.
I am not saying that the P-40 was not good, I am responding to posters who said people are making excuses for the P-36 blah, blah, blah.
Do not try to play obtuse word games with me.
Get the book on the Curtiss Aircraft Company. Why it went from being the company with largest military order to ceasing to exist. It will tell you all you need to know.
I am not the free Wiki, if you want me to do web searching for you I can send you my address and you can send me some money.
I read my first book on WWII aircraft back in the fifties and have read more than a few since. I do not have a photographic memory but when something is stated repeatedly one tends to remember it fairly well. (I used to check out, back when libraries actually had such books, piles of books on aircraft, as I was not born into a rich family and that was my source for much reading so I cannot simply go to my huge private library.)



care to post a link? Please note that one site "dedicated to the Hawk" seems to be a bit "fanboy" and one of the "proposed" engines didn't make it into service until late summer of 1943.
The P-40s handling got worse as it aged. Adding self sealing tanks and armor ( with the US p-36s did NOT have) would affect climb and handling, adding guns and ammo would affect climb and handling. Beefing up the structure and landing gear to handle the increased weight of protection and increased firepower will also affect climb and handling ( and early P-36s had a few structural problems even at their lighter weight). ---- HAWK 75:-- PROMISE UNFULFILLED? -- Most persons with first hand accounts are long dead so all info on the net is either copying what was already printed, even when accounts contradict each other, or as you call it "fanboy".
--
People who think you can shove two stage supercharged R-1830s or Wright R-2600s into a P-36 airframe and keep the P-36s handing characteristics must think they can repeal the laws of physics. ---- I do not really disagree with you , as having worked on cars for many years when ever I hear " all you gotta do is..." I realize that I am probably speaking to some one who is speaking of what some told him, or what some one told some one who told him.
But ---- engineers ran the calculations on Carol Shelby's Daytona Cobra and said it would never go over 150 mph, which was incredibly wrong, so I do not automatically wave off a "all you gotta do" as, I have found, once in awhile things can be far more simple than they one thinks.

BTW. The 2nd fastest P-40 ever after the "Q" model was an airframe used by P&W for engine development of the R-1830. Problem is that had unprotected tanks, no guns, no armor and didn't set it high speed run figures until around Sept, of 1942 which is way too late to think about production ( in service in the spring/summer of 1943?)

``

 

[varsity07840]

The F8F-1 used guns firing at 1100-1200rpm not guns firing at at 750-850 rpm.

It also used a different mix of ammo. By late 1944 the Army and Navy were using belts of ammo made up of mostly M8 API instead of belts of AP+ Incendiary + tracer.

Granted four .50s are not as bad as some claim but do not use the F8F as an example.

I'm not so sure about that. The prototype F8F flew in 1944 and the M3 wasn't standardized until April '45, after production had begun. Retro fit later? Possible, but I don't know of F4Us getting that treatment.

Duane

 

[RpR]

If one wants to see how a theoretical improved P-36 might have done over the ones used; compare a F4F-4 to a FM2.

One of the classic WWII aircraft magazines recently had such an article stating why it was perhaps the best Navy fighter vs. Japanese fighters of WWII.

If I get home, and remember, I will list which magazine it was.

 

[varsity07840]

As far as the F2A being at Wake, that was a faux pas on my behalf, they almost were, with VMF-221 but TF-11 recalled before executing a relief effort for fear of being overwhelmed. VMF-221 ended up at Midway Island, delaying their enevitable showdown with the IJN by 7 months. Multitasking caused me to mix that in there by accident.

However, Wake's VMF-211 F4F-3s did engage Japanese A6M2 aircraft. One Capt. Elrod, of VMF-211 was awarded the MoH posthumously for his downing two A6Ms during the second Japanese invasion effort.

This was 6 months before the battle of Coral Sea.

The insistance that the U.S. Navy being ahead of the Army due to intel recieved is nonsense. The reports were coming from Chennault, who passed it along to Washington. From there, it was shared among the Army and the Navy.

As I posted previously, Wake's MARINES did engage Zeros and were wiped out in the process. Whether anyone could actually confirm Elrod's victories is another subject. My point was that given that all VFM 211's pilots were dead or POWs, there's little reason to believe that their combats were a learning experience for future F4F piolts to benefit from. Who were the VFM211 survivors going to tell about the vaunted Zero? It was left up to NAVY pilots at Coral Sea to effectively evaluate the Zero vs F4F
situation.

Duane

Duane

 

[GrauGeist]

As I posted previously, Wake's MARINES did engage Zeros and were wiped out in the process. Whether anyone could actually confirm Elrod's victories is another subject. My point was that given that all VFM 211's pilots were dead or POWs, there's little reason to believe that their combats were a learning experience for future F4F piolts to benefit from. Who were the VFM211 survivors going to tell about the vaunted Zero? It was left up to NAVY pilots at Coral Sea to effectively evaluate the Zero vs F4F
situation.

Duane

Duane

Fine, so the Marine Corp is now a seperate entity from the Navy...anything to split hairs and stand on the head of others.

So here ya' go: You're right...everything you say is awesome. Now go give yourself a gold star, you've earned it.

As far as my original statement goes, I'll stand by it. If the Army did not have a backup for the P-36 during the opening year of the war, the P-36 could have adapted to the challenge as the pilots learned how to beat the Japaneseo, just like the Navy (and yes, Marines) did with the Wildcat. The P-36 DID have shortcomings, yes, but so did it's adversaries. It didn't have armor and self sealing tanks, well, neither did the A6M...it did not take much to light the Zero up. Same goes for the G4M and other Japanese types.

And to the comment Bob made:

Get the book on the Curtiss Aircraft Company. Why it went from being the company with largest military order to ceasing to exist. It will tell you all you need to know.

Curtiss is still in business...Curtiss-Wright corporation...they did like many other comanies did after the war, they merged.

 

[gjs238]

Curtiss is still in business...Curtiss-Wright corporation...they did like many other comanies did after the war, they merged.

From the inscrutible Wikipedia:
Curtiss-Wright came into existence on July 5, 1929, the result of a merger of 12 companies associated with Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company of Buffalo, New York, and Wright Aeronautical of Dayton, Ohio,[2]

 

[GrauGeist]

Curtiss-Wright Corporation - Home

Like I said, they merged as many companies have done over the years, but are still in business.

There were also quite a few aircraft makers that merged after WWII, as well. Grumman merged with Northrop, Consolodated merged with Vultee and then was bought by McDonnell Douglas, who are also the result of a merger. And the list goes on

 

[GregP]

Reference post #54. The magazine was Flight Journal and the gentleman who wrote it was Barrett Tillmann. I sent a letter to the editor to say how wrong Mr. Tillmann was and go a nice reply back. Barrett often digs into the arcane in order to generate an interesting story ... it's how me makes money.

For the most part I like his stuff, but the FM-2 was just another Wildcat with slightly better performance. They don't figure the F4U-4 as a completely different aircraft, and it had a bigger power difference than the FM-2 did from the F4F. The same can be said of other fighters, too. The F8F-2 bearcat had more HP than the XF8F-1, and it is never figured differently from the rest of the Bearcats. Likewise the late P-47's had WAY more than an extra 150 HP over their earlier cousins, but nobody ever seems to want to make them into a new species.

I my book, all the Wildcats are grouped together. You can take a very selected group and figure all the statistics you want, but statistics are founded on the premise that all members of the group have an equal chance of being selected for the sample. If not, the statistics are no good.

A specially-selected 10% sample of a population is meaningless ... it was specially selected to start with. The Finns did well with the Buffalo, but take any 60%+ sample of Buffalos, including the Finns, and they show rather badly. The Finns operated less than 10% of Buffalos and are a textbook example of how not to choose a random sample.

Let's just say I think the article on the FM-2 was good for starting a fire, but not for much else. But Barrett DID get to sell another article. His bias shows pretty thinly through the text. Perhaps he is not into mathematics and doesn't know better, but if you want a good sample, make it a true random sample, not a specially-selected sample designed to support your claim.

That's the way politicians do statistics, not people wanting to show something that is true.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm not so sure about that. The prototype F8F flew in 1944 and the M3 wasn't standardized until April '45, after production had begun. Retro fit later? Possible, but I don't know of F4Us getting that treatment.

Duane

They had been working on high cycle rate .50 cal guns (1200rpm goal) since the about time they boosted the the M2 up to 800rpm, Colt /Springfield worked on the T21 starting in 1940, High standard worked on the T22 series ( E1 through E6) starting in early 1942. Frigidaire worked on the T-25 series and submitted the first gun to Aberdeen in March of 1944. The E3 version was submitted for test in July of 1944 and it was this gun that standardized in April 1945. High Standard also was working on a "kit" that would allow conversions of existing M2s (the T-25/M3 series had to be built from new) that was the T-27 series in 1944/45, the T-26 series had been an unsuccessful project designed at Aberdeen.
In 1943/44 they may not have known when the 1200rpm .50 cal guns were coming but they knew they were coming. The "improved" M2A1 gun (T-36 project) had been approved for 31,336 guns in 1944 but production was stopped after about 8,000 due to the rapid progress of the T-25E3