Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
F4F-3 armed with 4 x .50 caliber MGs, in service at the start of hostilities, saw combat at Wake, Coral Sea, etc.GG, what would be the sources for the RoC figures?
And yet, the A6M had little armor and no self-sealing tanks...explain that, then.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.The USN wanted those features, and they were well served by F4F.
Consider the F8F-1.
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.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.
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.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.
Would you be so kind to describe in what condition were the Hurri II and Buffalo, like armament installed, fuel, ammo, protection?
``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?)
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.
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.
Fine, so the Marine Corp is now a seperate entity from the Navy...anything to split hairs and stand on the head of others.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
Curtiss is still in business...Curtiss-Wright corporation...they did like many other comanies did after the war, they merged.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.
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