DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thanks Ewen for the confirmation. I respect your knowledge on all things naval, especially concerning the whereabouts of different ships at any particular moment in time.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks Ewen for the confirmation. I respect your knowledge on all things naval, especially concerning the whereabouts of different ships at any particular moment in time.Sorry if i misinterpreted your post. It didn't read to me that you were referring to a later period.
Saratoga was the only US carrier to serve operationally in the IO. Might have been some transport CVE making trips to India with aircraft though. I've not researched that aspect.
Also worth noting that FAA markings at the time were small blue/white roundels, distinct from large US stars & bars. The large blue/white roundels with US style bars weren't adopted by the BPF until after they arrived in Sydney in Feb 1945. So there really should not have been much doubt in Japanese minds as to which nationality they were fighting. But in the heat of combat ..........
While I agree with you unfortunately from what I have been able to find they had trouble with the full working order bit, no doubt it could go head to head with any allied fighter ''if'' it reached it's design spec's but as it was 380mph top speed, cannons, armor, self sealing tanks was old news by 1944.
View attachment 760030
I'm not sure there were many Hurricane fighter bomber squadrons in Tunisia in 1943 (6 Squadron RAF) but a couple of squadrons were used in ETO flying with eight rockets against shipping, which was successful after a fashion but facing heavy flak they suffered as fighter bombers will. The Hurricane IID was just a stop-gap and losses were not that heavy because German/Italian opposition was limited. The Hurricanes were switched to night-fighting and intruding in the Med and were quite successful. In ETO the Hurricane squadrons had Typhoons by late 1943. Hurricanes were used in the Far East as fighter bombers because they were rugged and could take a lot of damage, and as such were pretty successful. I understand they were not good fighters by 1944 but they had qualities. The Ki-43 was always a mediocre fighter and performed adequately against mediocre opposition. Clostermann is a great raconteur but his facts should be taken with a pinch of salt. His book "The Big Show" is however a Classic!Yes there appear to have been conversations going on about this since 1942, and both RAF command in the UK and some local generals seem to have dismissed it for reasons that aren't quite clear.
They could have had Kittyhawks, I think, by early 1943 at the latest. RAAF and RNZAF seem to have done well with them in Pacific theater into 1944. But the Spitfire VIII was certainly the ideal Commonwealth fighter for the far Eastern theaters, so far as it was available.
I would agree from reading this operational history, the Spitfire VIII seems to have had a demoralizing effect on the JAAF fighter units. Even the Ki-84 units feared them somewhat, due to their excellent rate of climb which kind of turned the tables on the standard JAAF tactics. They had trouble with some other types, especially P-40s, but could typically count on an altitude advantage and (with some separation) the ability to disengage by climbing away from the battle area. That ended with the Spit VIII, and effectively, once it arrived, with the P-51B (which did not have the climb of the Spit VIII, but was by far the fastest fighter in the theater and could disengage at high speed, gain altitude, and come back).
It's interesting to note though that in Burma and India, neither the P-51A, P-47 nor the P-38 units seemed to do particularly well, and F4U and F6F made a brief appearance and didn't seem to exactly dominate either. P-38 units did do well in New Guinea and the Solomons on the other hand, and were ultimately the most feared JAAF opponent there. I'm working on a theory but there definitely seems to be a marked difference in outcomes not just based on aircraft type, but also tactics employed by the specific unit. There were also a handful, and two in particular, very skilled P-38 pilots in the New Guinea / Solomons area (McGuire and Bong).
I don't know all the details or context of Clostermann's remarks but in the Mediterranean, the Hurricane units were suffering badly in 1942 and 1943, and they kept using them as fighter-bombers and with that ill-conceived tank buster rig (which slowed them down dreadfully) into 1944.
Sorry, too much. You are following the Clostermann rules of evidence. Hurricanes were not a death trap in 1942. They were flying fighter bomber and night intruder sorties successfully. They could not compete against the Fw190 in aerial combat but could against the Bf109E/F and any Italian fighter of the period. They were adequate naval fighters in the Convoy battles of 1942 (especially Harpoon and Pedestal)and scored their last kills in May 1944. Spitfire Vs were also suffering in 1941-43 but the fact is that the Germans only ever attacked them in the ETO when they had a significant advantage of height and territory. German fighters failed to gain significant success when facing bomber formations escorted by Spitfire Vs. Spitfire Vs also did extremely well in the Malta battles 1942 facing the Bf109F/G. Again I feel some of the remarks follow the line of the Tiger Tank versus the Sherman tank. One had a big gun and the other didn't but Shermans destroyed an awful lot of Tiger tanks, and were faster, more manoeuvrable, easier to produce and more reliable mechanically. As I say Clostermann doesn't do "facts" he does opinions that others accept as facts. He was a good fighter pilot with no real command or tactical experience flying exclusively in the ETO in 1943-45. And he was to blame for the loss of Mouchotte according to pilots in 341 Squadron.Case of too much Merlin, not enough Sabre production - a typically sad British industrial 'cock-up' - if there ever was one.
Hurricanes were a death trap in the ETO, by 1942, & Spitfire Vs were not far behind. Clostermann correctly stated these facts,
& by 1944, even the best performing Merlin Spitfires were being relegated to unsuitable fighter-bomber roles in the 2nd TAF.
Realistically, only the Mustang & Mosquito were making good use of the Merlin (plus the Lancaster, technically if not tactically).
Edit; According to D.N. James, in his book 'Hawker An Aircraft Album' on page 73, late production Hurricanes did indeed have a
"...universal wing" & yes, they were sent to Burma.
The Typhoon was ALWAYS faster than the Spitfire, including the Mks VIII and IX. The LFVb was a good fighter adapted for low-level combat. Very manoeuvrable. I haven't come across evidence of Spitfire LFVbs escorting Typhoons but if you can give me evidence of who said this (name, squadron), and when ( I assume we are talking about the Winter of 1943-44) I am happy to accept the fact. If it's another Clostermann "gem" (and I think it is) then..... Incidentally not all LFVb/c had cropped wings and from what I have seen most squadrons would have some mixed with normal wingtips. Spitfire Vs were very much "last-years model" by the time Clostermann encountered them in 602 Squadron. The Spitfire LFVb was used by ADGB squadrons in the main to defend against hit-and-run raiders.Right, the clipped/cropped/clapped jobs, whose pilots, when doing escort duty for bomb-laden Typhoons heading hard & fast to France,
would call up the Tiffie-jocks & beg them to throttle back, so they didn't get left behind...
Don't sulk. If you make generalisations then you deserve to be called out. The discussion was fine and made a lot of good points until you got out over your skis. I was enjoying it immensely and learning stuff too. The Hurricane was not a good interceptor after 1941 when faced with high-end German fighters. It suffered greatly in the Far East from poor tactics and maintenance, however despite unrealistic claims American fighters weren't exactly heading the first division either. Nobody thought the Hurricane was the best choice when a Spitfire or Typhoon was available, certainly not in 1943 but it did well and scored a tremendous number of victories against German, Italian and Japanese opponents. In most battles it was also outnumbered and in some outclassed in technical terms but it did well. Suck it up and move on.I guess we will. The idea that the Hurricanes stopped the Japanese advance is dubious, IMO.
It seems that it's impossible for some people to admit that any RAF aircraft was ever less than ideal in any way. But regardless of the feelings of some people, I'm not going to play along with that.
The Hurricane was clearly lacking in many categories by 1942, whether in Burma, or Egypt, or God forbid Northern France, and it was in serious trouble as a war machine in 1943. It certainly wasn't stopping the Japanese as a fighter in Burma / India, and contrary to tropes repeatedly posted in here, all those Hurricanes didn't get shot down while flying CAS.
How many Ki-43s were required to replace one Ki-84 in the bomber-busting role between 20000 and 30000 ft?The reason for the poor climb rate was probably the small prop. Until the advent of the Ki-100, most IJAAF pilots considered the Ki-43-II their best fighter, and rightly so. In mock trials, the Ki-100 out-climbed and out-turned the Ki-84 so badly, even after swapping pilots, that they claimed, in an extensive series of tests across two flying schools, that one Ki-100 could defeat 3 Ki-84s...:
The Hurricanes were switched to night-fighting and intruding in the Med and were quite successful. In ETO the Hurricane squadrons had Typhoons by late 1943.
Hurricanes were not a death trap in 1942. They were flying fighter bomber and night intruder sorties successfully. They could not compete against the Fw190 in aerial combat but could against the Bf109E/F and any Italian fighter of the period.
One had a big gun and the other didn't but Shermans destroyed an awful lot of Tiger tanks, and were faster, more manoeuvrable, easier to produce and more reliable mechanically.
The Typhoon was ALWAYS faster than the Spitfire, including the Mks VIII and IX.
The Hurricane was not a good interceptor after 1941 when faced with high-end German fighters.
I am not going to argue that the Hurricane wasn't outclassed by the 109E, but the conclusions drawn by the pilots in the cited example don't paint such a clear picture.Hurricane was not a good interceptor when faced with plain-vanilla German fighters, and already in 1940. See here for 30-40 mph disadvantage vs. the 109E, as judged by RAF, plus the climb deficit.
I am not going to argue that the Hurricane wasn't outclassed by the 109E, but the conclusions drawn by the pilots in the cited example don't paint such a clear picture.
Seeing as how the report is dated from May 1940, I wonder what fuel and boost levels the Hurricane was using? Did the RAF have supply of 100 octane fuel in France
at that time?
View attachment 763683
The Emil outclassed the Hurricane in 1940, as well.I think the Hurricane was competitive everywhere in the world well into 1941. Only the Bf 109F really outclassed it in 1941. Hurricanes did well in the BoB and in France, IMO.
The Hurricane seemed to do OK during the BofB and slaughtered the Me110, on occasion. The Hurricane 1 was at a disadvantage against the 109E at higher altitudes, at lower altitude the Hurricane could more than hold it's own, and when 12lb boost was introduced there was little difference in speed below about 12k ft.Hurricane was not a good interceptor when faced with plain-vanilla German fighters, and already in 1940. See here for 30-40 mph disadvantage vs. the 109E, as judged by RAF, plus the climb deficit.
For someone that says to other forum members to 'don't sulk' and to 'suck it up and move on', you will certainly have the numbers and sources that back up the claims, right?
IIRC, that comparison was against a Hurricane 1 with a 2position VP prop and before 12lb WEP was allowed.I am not going to argue that the Hurricane wasn't outclassed by the 109E, but the conclusions drawn by the pilots in the cited example don't paint such a clear picture.
Seeing as how the report is dated from May 1940, I wonder what fuel and boost levels the Hurricane was using? Did the RAF have supply of 100 octane fuel in France
at that time?
View attachment 763683
The report does state that a constant speed airscrew was fitted to the HurricaneIIRC, that comparison was against a Hurricane 1 with a 2position VP prop
I am not going to argue that the Hurricane wasn't outclassed by the 109E, but the conclusions drawn by the pilots in the cited example don't paint such a clear picture.
Seeing as how the report is dated from May 1940, I wonder what fuel and boost levels the Hurricane was using? Did the RAF have supply of 100 octane fuel in France
at that time?
View attachment 763683
The Emil outclassed the Hurricane in 1940, as well.
Although probably only bested by the 109E and Spitfire Mk. I at that time, it was certainly competitive with anything else available
The Ki-43-II manual has the 360 turn time at 11 seconds both ways, probably around 13 seconds sustained.
So 13 seconds 360s, at least, for the Ki-43 at low speeds, vs the P-51D that was around 20 seconds left, even with flaps, and probably 22-23 seconds right, at the critical lower available speeds: That is nearly 10 seconds worse than a Ki-43, which can thus easily choose its frontal approach angle, if it spotted the P-51 diving...
That would be quite dangerous for the P-51, at least if the Oscar had a more decisive armament... And the Oscar armament was not that bad, as it had an explosive round that compensated for the low 550 rpm rate of fire of its 13 mm guns (550 due to synchronisation: 800 rpm in the wing).
Compared to that, the Ki-84 360 had a 17 seconds left turn time left, and 19 seconds right (A consideration of Ki-84 performance, IJAAF mid-44 document Showa 19), probably around 19 seconds sustained and 21 seconds right sustained: Barely any better than the P-51D...
Real top speed, with Japanese fuels, and its unique automatic full-time MW-50 injection system (engaged at any speed above 400 km/h), was between 400 mph and 410 mph (640-660 km/h), so a full 30-40 mph slower than the P-51D, with hardly any advantage in turn rate...
The Typhoon was ALWAYS faster than the Spitfire, including the Mks VIII and IX.
OK, but no 12lb boost.The report does state that a constant speed airscrew was fitted to the Hurricane