Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

RCAFson · Feb 23, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
You think P-40F is comparable to a Sea Hurricane? It then becomes a mystery why they benched the Hurricane (no 'Sea') for front line fighter duties in the MTO already by the time of Pedestal.

I also doubt that Spruance, Nimitz or King would want Hurricanes when they were shot down in droves over Singapore and Ceylon and were doing so dismally in Burma.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there was nobody in the world who thought a Hurricane was the equivalent of a P-40F in 1942.

P-40F had the same engine as a Hurricane II, but it was 50-70 mph faster than a Tropicalized Hurricane (depending on which P-40F test you want to go by). The P-40F was In Demand in 1942. Hurricane of any kind was not, it was just something they had.

"Comparable type" to a P-40F would be the Spitfire V, and the Seafire would be flying from carriers very shortly by 1942. The Marines would get F4Us starting in Feb 1943 and the Army already had P-40s (including P-40Fs) and P-38s in Theater, as well as some P-39s which soon went the way of the Hurricane. As we know the Corsair was far superior as a carrier aircraft to either the Sea Hurricane or the (much better but still troubled) Seafire.

The 175 nm strike radius of an F4F would not be improved by an aircraft with half the range. Fortunately for the USN, they did in fact work out external fuel tanks for the F4F, adding an extra 116 gallons of fuel.

It was Admiral Chester Nimitz who called for Merlin engined fighters to be tested for USN carrier suitability.

What does the RAF Hurricane's performance compared to other land based fighters have to do with it's carrier suitability? Was the RAF or USAAC clamoring for the F4F-4? In any event the Hurricane II was being used for front line duties in mid 1942, especially as a strike aircraft.

The SH1B could easily outclimb the F4F-4 and as I demonstrated the H2C/SH2C carrying two 44IG drop tanks using normal climb power could outclimb a 'clean'F4F-4 using full military power. The SH2A/B/C was superior to the F4F-4 in flying qualities in every respect, and was faster at all altitudes.

What does a tropicalized Hurricane have to do with the Sea Hurricane? RAF testing of the P40F showed a maximum speed of 354mph at 20400ft vs 342mph for a H2A at 22K ft and 327mph for a H2C.

The clean combat radius of the F4F-4 was 105nm according to it's SAC data.

The SH1B data card gives it's range with 2 x 45IG drop tanks (1100 miles tanks dropped) and the SH2C would be about 10% less. that would equate to a combat radius of ~250-300nm.

Thumpalumpacus · Feb 23, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
I remember reading a very interesting analysis of WW2 in comparison with our modern military - that US military commanders were routinely 'sacked', replaced or removed from command without necessarily damaging their career. As you note, Halsey himself was replaced and then reinstated. In WW2, officers could be removed, get some time to re-evaluate, maybe serve in a different capacity, or maybe in a different area. This way they helped prevent the congealing of bad policies or entrenched mistakes from bringing on defeat.

I watched a video discussion on exactly this topic a few months ago, about how American commanders -- especially under Nimitz -- were often given second chances. I think Ghormley was denied a second chance because Nimitz had seen the visible evidence of physical strain, while Fletcher was denied any further chances more due to King's animosity than actual performance. I'll try to find the video again if anyone is interested.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
The point being made in the article is that now days removal from a post above the rank of O-6 or so was tantamount to destroying a career, so it was rarely done any more (such as during some of our recent wars) even when it really needed to be. They had a much better system previously.

Right, that was the point made and driven home in the vid I referred to as well.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
As for Fletcher in particular, I believe his removal was part of a sweeping change which included Ghormley. I don't necessarily think Halsey was a better naval officier or leader - his decisions led to some quite bloody outcomes for the US Navy. But that is what the higher ups wanted at the time - more aggression, more blood and guts. Ultimately I guess it payed off. It may also be possible that the same goals could have been accomplished with fewer casualties via a bit more finesse.

This is only personal opinion, with no sources to back it up, but I'll write it all the same: I think Fletcher was removed because withdrawing to refuel off the 'Canal right after debarking the Marines both soured the confidence of the USMC in his willingness to provide support, and also soured King on Fletcher's willingness to support a campaign which King had threatened and then did carry out unilaterally with USN resources.

As for who was the better commander, that's above my paygrade. I think they each had strengths and weaknesses. Halsey being less risk-averse certainly paid off on 15 Nov (you're not going to see FJF putting BBs into Ironbottom!) but it sure bit him in the ass when the world wondered where he was in Oct 1944. Given that Fletcher had of necessity to husband his forces until new construction came online, I myself think he did a good job of it.

I'd rather have Spruance than either of them, especially if we're talking about finesse. That guy was one thinking mofo.

Thumpalumpacus · Feb 23, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Do you think a Sea Hurricane would have made a good replacement?

American carriers do not carry Imperial gallons of fuel, so that's a big problem.

Seriously, the Grumman had a little more range and with the -4 much more firepower, but what I think any fighter pilot in either plane would have done is exactly what Thach did -- devise tactics to play to your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses. FAA pilots could and did go between the two airframes, I don't doubt USN pilots could as well.

Shortround6 · Feb 23, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
don't think the P-40 would have made a good carrier fighter though, for many of the same reasons that the Hurricane wasn't, and some others. You really needed a purpose-designed carrier aircraft for that job.

Like getting the thing off a carrier deck and back on it.
We can argue about the type of stall or the rudder causing nose down pitch if use heavily or other details. But lets stick with basics for now.

However the P-40F had a 236 sq ft wing, the F4F had 260 sq ft and the Hurricane had 258 (?)

The P-40F had design weight of 8505lbs *, the F4F-4 was 7970lbs and the Hurricane IIC was 7560lbs. edit{ I don't have the weights for the sea hurricanes handy, adjust as needed}

None of them had trick flaps.
Now please note the * as this was when the US was playing games to make things look better than they were (like using only 4 guns with limited ammo for the F4F-4 at times).
The design weight only included about 120 US gallons of fuel (front tank was empty) Full internal fuel, a bit of extra ammo and 23lbs of extra radio got the weight up to 8860lbs and if you want the drop tank you are looking at about 9100lbs.
Basically you need a catapult. You need over twice the deck that the F4F-4 needs. I know they flew them off carriers but they weren't flying combat ops, they were ferrying them to shore bases where they would fill the fuel tanks and put ammo in them get them ready for combat ops.
Something when landing. The P-40 has a higher stalling speed and is going to come in faster and hit harder. P-40 had 7in of landing gear travel. F4F had 12 inches. Granted over 2 inches were used up just sitting on the deck but you had the cushion. I don't know what the Hurricane had for travel but it stalled at a lower speed than the F4F let alone the P-40.
The P-40F stalled at 82 IAS give or take 2mph depending on weight. (that is what the manual says). early Hurricanes stalled at 57mph and later ones in the 60s

Once we can actually get the plane off the deck and back on the carrier when everything goes well we can start arguing about what happens when it doesn't go well. P-40 isn't going to make the cut even when things go well.

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 23, 2023

RCAFson said:
It was Admiral Chester Nimitz who called for Merlin engined fighters to be tested for USN carrier suitability.

Can you show me where he called for "Merlin engined fighters"? Or was he more specific. Take your time.

Bonus question: Can you show me where any American officer or official is asking for Hurricanes by this time of the war? Because they definitely could have had some if they wanted them. The British were already making more than anyone wanted (the Soviets didn't want any more either).

RCAFson said:
What does the RAF Hurricane's performance compared to other land based fighters have to do with it's carrier suitability? Was the RAF or USAAC clamoring for the F4F-4? In any event the Hurricane II was being used for front line duties in mid 1942, especially as a strike aircraft.

The US Navy already had strike aircraft with more than twice the range of a Hurricane and a proven ability to sink ships.
P-40s were also not only better fighters but also better strike aircraft than a Hurricane at this point (they had better range and could carry more ordinance)

RCAFson said:
What does a tropicalized Hurricane have to do with the Sea Hurricane? RAF testing of the P40F showed a maximum speed of 354mph at 20400ft vs 342mph for a H2A at 22K ft and 327mph for a H2C.

The tropicalized Hurricane was the one operating in the Western Desert, and in the East as well in at least some cases.
"H2A" means Hawker Hurricane Mark IIA Series 1, I believe. If that is what you are referring to, I think this is the 8 gun type with the Merlin XX. They made 448 of these.
By comparison, they made 3,050 of the much slower Hurricane Mk IIB and 4,711 Hurricane MK IIC, which was the main type in use by 1942. These had a top speed of 327 mph on a good day. Closer to 300 mph with Tropical gear.

You cherry picked the slowest possible test for the P-40F.
This test shows a top speed of 370 mph with sway braces and 374 without.
This test shows 364 mph at 8450 lb with sway braces and wing bomb shackles.
This test shows 370 mph at 20,400 ft and 347 mph at 30,000 (which is still 20 mph faster than the best speed for a Hurricane IIC and faster than any version of the Wildcat at optimal altitude)

RCAFson said:
The clean combat radius of the F4F-4 was 105nm according to it's SAC data.

The SH1B data card gives it's range with 2 x 45IG drop tanks (1100 miles tanks dropped) and the SH2C would be about 10% less. that would equate to a combat radius of ~250-300nm.

In the real world, the Wildcat had TWICE THE RANGE of the Hurricane and Sea Hurricane. As noted by the Royal Navy pilots who flew it, and the officers who commanded them.

You are here comparing the radius of a Wildcat "clean" with the maximum range of a Hurricane with drop tanks. Do you think that is an honest comparison?

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 23, 2023

Shortround6 said:
Like getting the thing off a carrier deck and back on it.
We can argue about the type of stall or the rudder causing nose down pitch if use heavily or other details. But lets stick with basics for now.

However the P-40F had a 236 sq ft wing, the F4F had 260 sq ft and the Hurricane had 258 (?)

The P-40F had design weight of 8505lbs *, the F4F-4 was 7970lbs and the Hurricane IIC was 7560lbs. edit{ I don't have the weights for the sea hurricanes handy, adjust as needed}

None of them had trick flaps.
Now please note the * as this was when the US was playing games to make things look better than they were (like using only 4 guns with limited ammo for the F4F-4 at times).
The design weight only included about 120 US gallons of fuel (front tank was empty) Full internal fuel, a bit of extra ammo and 23lbs of extra radio got the weight up to 8860lbs and if you want the drop tank you are looking at about 9100lbs.
Basically you need a catapult. You need over twice the deck that the F4F-4 needs. I know they flew them off carriers but they weren't flying combat ops, they were ferrying them to shore bases where they would fill the fuel tanks and put ammo in them get them ready for combat ops.
Something when landing. The P-40 has a higher stalling speed and is going to come in faster and hit harder. P-40 had 7in of landing gear travel. F4F had 12 inches. Granted over 2 inches were used up just sitting on the deck but you had the cushion. I don't know what the Hurricane had for travel but it stalled at a lower speed than the F4F let alone the P-40.
The P-40F stalled at 82 IAS give or take 2mph depending on weight. (that is what the manual says). early Hurricanes stalled at 57mph and later ones in the 60s

Once we can actually get the plane off the deck and back on the carrier when everything goes well we can start arguing about what happens when it doesn't go well. P-40 isn't going to make the cut even when things go well.

I agree with pretty much all that except to note that the P-40 did have variable flap settings so they could do landing or takeoff flap settings. I don't think it would be safe to land one on a carrier regardless. Not sure about taking off with full fuel either. I know the Spitfire had only 'up' or 'down' (i.e. Landing) flap settings, which caused some problems with the early Seafires though I gather they sorted that out (I read something about their putting in wood blocks in some of the early tests. Presumably they came up with something better than that.)

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 23, 2023

Shortround6 said:
It also didn't show up in combat until the Spring/Summer of 1944. While deliveries started in Sept 1943 not a one was involved in USN operations in Marshal Islands in Jan 1944, First use of the Wildcat VI with the British was with #881 Squadron aboard the HMS Pursuer in July 1944.

BTW with full ammo the FM-2 held 1720 rounds.

What source do you have for the FM-2 climbing at 3670fpm and what condition was it in.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-climb.jpg

That is with 117 gallons of fuel, 4 guns with 1,600 rounds.

Worth noting that both the FM-2 and the Hurricane were still produced in 1944. I'll leave it to you which one you would rather have at that point.

WARSPITER · Feb 23, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Worth noting that both the FM-2 and the Hurricane were still produced in 1944. I'll leave it to you which one you would rather have at that point.

To be honest, at that time of the war compared to other aircraft, probably neither.

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 23, 2023

WARSPITER said:
To be honest, at that time of the war compared to other aircraft, probably neither.

Well, they had this thing called an escort carrier...

WARSPITER · Feb 23, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Well, they had this thing called an escort carrier...

What does a ship for transporting 4 cylinder Fords have do with it ?

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 23, 2023

WARSPITER said:
To be honest, at that time of the war compared to other aircraft, probably neither.

Interestingly, 8 x FM-2 Wildcats clashed with 8 x Bf 109G-14s during a raid against German ships in a Norwegian fjord near Trondheim in 1945. The Wildcats were from the HMS Searcher (one of those infamous "Escort Carriers" given to the British under Lend-Lease) and were escorting TBF Avengers.

The British pilots claimed 3 victories plus 2 damaged. Actual German losses from 10./III/JG5 were 3 Bf 109s (2 G-14 and 1 G-6) and another which crash landed on returning to base and was written off. Two more 109s also crash landed. You can read about it here. and a longer article here

One of the FM2s had it's tail either shot or knocked off in a collision.

Shortround6 · Feb 24, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-climb.jpg

That is with 117 gallons of fuel, 4 guns with 1,600 rounds.

Worth noting that both the FM-2 and the Hurricane were still produced in 1944. I'll leave it to you which one you would rather have at that point.

Thank you
Plane with 117 US gallons of fuel, 97.4 Imp gallons, 400rpg. 10 gal of injection fluid.

I would also note that a Hurricane IIA in 1941 had cooling troubles during US tests but could climb at 3200fpm at sea level and 3200fpm at 5,000ft and at 3,000fpm at 10,000ft and do it at part throttle, 2850rpm and 9lbs boost. Kind of makes you wonder what it could do at 3000rpm and 12lbs boost or 14lbs of boost????

RCAFson · Feb 24, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Can you show me where he called for "Merlin engined fighters"? Or was he more specific. Take your time.

Bonus question: Can you show me where any American officer or official is asking for Hurricanes by this time of the war? Because they definitely could have had some if they wanted them. The British were already making more than anyone wanted (the Soviets didn't want any more either).

The US Navy already had strike aircraft with more than twice the range of a Hurricane and a proven ability to sink ships.
P-40s were also not only better fighters but also better strike aircraft than a Hurricane at this point (they had better range and could carry more ordinance)

The tropicalized Hurricane was the one operating in the Western Desert, and in the East as well in at least some cases.
"H2A" means Hawker Hurricane Mark IIA Series 1, I believe. If that is what you are referring to, I think this is the 8 gun type with the Merlin XX. They made 448 of these.
By comparison, they made 3,050 of the much slower Hurricane Mk IIB and 4,711 Hurricane MK IIC, which was the main type in use by 1942. These had a top speed of 327 mph on a good day. Closer to 300 mph with Tropical gear.

You cherry picked the slowest possible test for the P-40F.
This t

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Can you show me where he called for "Merlin engined fighters"? Or was he more specific. Take your time.

Bonus question: Can you show me where any American officer or official is asking for Hurricanes by this time of the war? Because they definitely could have had some if they wanted them. The British were already making more than anyone wanted (the Soviets didn't want any more either).

The US Navy already had strike aircraft with more than twice the range of a Hurricane and a proven ability to sink ships.
P-40s were also not only better fighters but also better strike aircraft than a Hurricane at this point (they had better range and could carry more ordinance)

The tropicalized Hurricane was the one operating in the Western Desert, and in the East as well in at least some cases.
"H2A" means Hawker Hurricane Mark IIA Series 1, I believe. If that is what you are referring to, I think this is the 8 gun type with the Merlin XX. They made 448 of these.
By comparison, they made 3,050 of the much slower Hurricane Mk IIB and 4,711 Hurricane MK IIC, which was the main type in use by 1942. These had a top speed of 327 mph on a good day. Closer to 300 mph with Tropical gear.

You cherry picked the slowest possible test for the P-40F.
This test shows a top speed of 370 mph with sway braces and 374 without.
This test shows 364 mph at 8450 lb with sway braces and wing bomb shackles.
This test shows 370 mph at 20,400 ft and 347 mph at 30,000 (which is still 20 mph faster than the best speed for a Hurricane IIC and faster than any version of the Wildcat at optimal altitude)

In the real world, the Wildcat had TWICE THE RANGE of the Hurricane and Sea Hurricane. As noted by the Royal Navy pilots who flew it, and the officers who commanded them.

You are here comparing the radius of a Wildcat "clean" with the maximum range of a Hurricane with drop tanks. Do you think that is an honest comparison?

Click to expand...

est shows a top speed of 370 mph with sway braces and 374 without.
This test shows 364 mph at 8450 lb with sway braces and wing bomb shackles.
This test shows 370 mph at 20,400 ft and 347 mph at 30,000 (which is still 20 mph faster than the best speed for a Hurricane IIC and faster than any version of the Wildcat at optimal altitude)

In the real world, the Wildcat had TWICE THE RANGE of the Hurricane and Sea Hurricane. As noted by the Royal Navy pilots who flew it, and the officers who commanded them.

You are here comparing the radius of a Wildcat "clean" with the maximum range of a Hurricane with drop tanks. Do you think that is an honest comparison?

Nimitz specifically named the only P40 variant fitted with a Merlin engine. So yes, he specifically asked for Merlin engine fighters.

The Soviets could have refused the Hurricanes and yet they didn't... Hawker (and CCF) had no lack of orders for the Hurricane II in 1942 and PQ-18 was carrying H2 series aircraft to the USSR whilst being defended by SH1Bs in Sept 1942. The F4F-4/FM1 ceased production before the Hurricane.

I showed UK tests for the P40F and compared it with UK tests for the H2 series.

I've showed real world examples of multiple F4F-4s running out of fuel after ~3.5 hours flight at most economical, loiter, throttle settings which conforms closely with the data available for the F4F-4 and the similar folding wing variants of the Martlet. There's no data to show that the SH1B would run out of fuel after 1.75 hours with similar loiter throttle settings. This statement: "the Wildcat had TWICE THE RANGE of the Hurricane and Sea Hurricane" is just words. It's apparent that this statement is false and doesn't conform to any test data or real world examples. We are dealing with facts about piston engined aircraft that conform to the laws of physics and they burn fuel at specific rates under specific conditions. it's not possible for a Wildcat with 120IG of internal fuel to have twice the range of a SH1B or even a SH2C with 97IG of internal fuel when flown under identical or similar test conditions. The data cards for the SH1B and FM2/Martlet 6 show nearly identical ranges when flown with the nearly the same (97IG/98IG) fuel load.

You stated a strike range of the F4F-4 as 175nm, I replied that the USN SAC combat radius of a 'clean' F4F-4 was 105nm.

I gave the range of the SH1B and SH2C with drop tanks as an example of how it's range could be increased just as the F4F-4's range was increased with drop tanks.

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 24, 2023

They had cooling problems in some Australian tests I read about too (apparently they only ever had one). In fact I've read a fair bit about cooling problems in general with Hurricanes

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 24, 2023

RCAFson said:
Nimitz specifically named the only P40 variant fitted with a Merlin engine. So yes, he specifically asked for Merlin engine fighters.

I think it's abundantly clear that Nimitz only mentioned a specific variant of one aircraft, which was the most advanced single engined US fighter operational at the time, it was equipping 5 entire US Fighter Groups in the Mediterranean by late 1942 and eventually one in the Pacific as well. The only other choice would be a P-38, which was definitely too big for an aircraft carrier. He obviously didn't mention Merlin engines and clearly, obviously, never said anything about a Hurricane or any other British plane, which would be patently ridiculous.

Especially since even the British were no longer using the Hurricane as a fighter by that point, and were asking for more Martlets to replace their Sea Hurricanes.

If Nimitz were to ask for a British plane, I'm sure it would have been a Spitfire, since the US was actually using some. However there is zero evidence that the US navy ever considered using Spitfires, let alone Hurricanes.

But you persist with this loony claim. I don't find this, or a bunch of other frantic arguments you are making in this thread remotely credible.

And I'm pretty sure you know this isn't credible, but you are dogged, so I'll just keep pointing out the obvious fallacy.

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 24, 2023

RCAFson said:
Nimitz specifically named the only P40 variant fitted with a Merlin engine. So yes, he specifically asked for Merlin engine fighters.

The Soviets could have refused the Hurricanes and yet they didn't... Hawker (and CCF) had no lack of orders for the Hurricane II in 1942 and PQ-18 was carrying H2 series aircraft to the USSR whilst being defended by SH1Bs in Sept 1942. The F4F-4/FM1 ceased production before the Hurricane.

I showed UK tests for the P40F and compared it with UK tests for the H2 series.

I've showed real world examples of multiple F4F-4s running out of fuel after ~3.5 hours flight at most economical, loiter, throttle settings which conforms closely with the data available for the F4F-4 and the similar folding wing variants of the Martlet. There's no data to show that the SH1B would run out of fuel after 1.75 hours with similar loiter throttle settings. This statement: "the Wildcat had TWICE THE RANGE of the Hurricane and Sea Hurricane" is just words. It's apparent that this statement is false and doesn't conform to any test data or real world examples. We are dealing with facts about piston engined aircraft that conform to the laws of physics and they burn fuel at specific rates under specific conditions. it's not possible for a Wildcat with 120IG of internal fuel to have twice the range of a SH1B or even a SH2C with 97IG of internal fuel when flown under identical or similar test conditions. The data cards for the SH1B and FM2/Martlet 6 show nearly identical ranges when flown with the nearly the same (97IG/98IG) fuel load.

You stated a strike range of the F4F-4 as 175nm, I replied that the USN SAC combat radius of a 'clean' F4F-4 was 105nm.

I gave the range of the SH1B and SH2C with drop tanks as an example of how it's range could be increased just as the F4F-4's range was increased with drop tanks.

I didn't make up the 175 mile radius for the F4F.
Nor did I make up the range for the F4F or the Hurricane. Multiple sources give numbers you don't like, and yet they are facts from real wartime documents.

F4F-3 maximum 880 miles with 110 gals or 1280 mile range with 147 here
F4F-4 maximum 765 with 110 gals or 925 mile range with 144 gals here (144 gals fuel)
British Martlet I data sheet here showing 870 mile range with 136 gals + 29 gal fuel allowance
British Martlet II data sheet here showing 850 mile range with 136 gals + 29 gal fuel allowance
British Wildcat II data sheet here showing 795 miles with 133 /25 gals
British Wildcat III range 890 miles here with 133 / 23 gals

Hurricane Mk IIA data sheet showing 500 mile range here with 97 / 29 gals
Sea Hurricane IB data sheet showing 550 mile range here with 97 / 21 gals, or 1050 miles with 187 gallons and 22 fuel allowance.

1050 miles sounds good but 187 gallons sounds like... an awful lot! More than 500 extra lbs. More like ferrying. I don't think they were flying combat missions with that much gas in external tanks (as much as the internal tank holds!) but correct me if I'm wrong.

The FM-2, which did routinely carry external tanks, is not a point of comparison with the Sea Hurricane because by the time it existed the Sea Hurricane was no longer flying!

This claim, and several others, is cherry picking, bending the truth, and engaging in flights of fancy. I'm not going to speculate as to why the arguments are constructed this way, but it's clear that they are not anchored in reality.

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 24, 2023

Shortround6 said:
Thank you
Plane with 117 US gallons of fuel, 97.4 Imp gallons, 400rpg. 10 gal of injection fluid.

I would also note that a Hurricane IIA in 1941 had cooling troubles during US tests but could climb at 3200fpm at sea level and 3200fpm at 5,000ft and at 3,000fpm at 10,000ft and do it at part throttle, 2850rpm and 9lbs boost. Kind of makes you wonder what it could do at 3000rpm and 12lbs boost or 14lbs of boost????

Hmmm... how far up do they still get +14 lbs boost? How about with 187 gallons of fuel?

Wild_Bill_Kelso · Feb 24, 2023

So I've still got one battle to go, but I think we can already see very clearly, that contrary to the claim referenced in the OP, the Sea Hurricanes at Pedestal did not face "a greater threat than any faced by the US Navy in 1942"

Pedestal was a rough run, no doubt about it. But it did not compare with many of the sea battles in the Pacific.

And I think we can put this claim gently to bed. It was interesting to research it and look into the details of all these battles. But the data is clear.

The "massive Axis air armada of 600 planes" at Pedestal turns out to in reality be less than half that actually involved in the battle, with only 40 modern fighters, maybe 20 or 30 distinctly lesser types, and bombers which are not in the same league as the IJN types in terms if sinking ships. I'll dig into that a bit more tomorrow.

The most formidable groups of enemy fighters the Pedestal defenders faced added up to 63 modern fighters in four waves (21 Bf 109s, 16 Bf 109s, 14 MC 202, and 12 Re 2001)

Compare this to 82 A6M2s at Coral Sea, 93 A6M2s at Midway, 92 A6M3s at Eastern Solomons, and 101 A6M3s at Santa Cruz. And I'm not counting A6M2-N or A5M in this total.

Many of the raids against Pedestal were not even intercepted by CAP, and yet the often missed their targets anyway.

The Italian and German bombers were not specialized naval aircraft but were adapted to the role, and were not comparable to the Japanese strike aircraft. The Italians were clearly having problems with their torpedoes and the Germans barely had any. Only the Ju 87 came close (and these could only attack at close range) and there were only about 30 available.

And after one day of heavy fighting, the large number of land based Spitfires and Beaufighters from Malta took over defense of the convoy.

The majority of the losses at Pedestal were in fact from torpedo boats, submarines, and a night raid.

RCAFson · Feb 24, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
I didn't make up the 175 mile radius for the F4F.
Nor did I make up the range for the F4F or the Hurricane. Multiple sources give numbers you don't like, and yet they are facts from real wartime documents.

F4F-3 maximum 880 miles with 110 gals or 1280 mile range with 147 here
F4F-4 maximum 765 with 110 gals or 925 mile range with 144 gals here (144 gals fuel)
British Martlet I data sheet here showing 870 mile range with 136 gals + 29 gal fuel allowance
British Martlet II data sheet here showing 850 mile range with 136 gals + 29 gal fuel allowance
British Wildcat II data sheet here showing 795 miles with 133 /25 gals
British Wildcat III range 890 miles here with 133 / 23 gals

Hurricane Mk IIA data sheet showing 500 mile range here with 97 / 29 gals
Sea Hurricane IB data sheet showing 550 mile range here with 97 / 21 gals, or 1050 miles with 187 gallons and 22 fuel allowance.

1050 miles sounds good but 187 gallons sounds like... an awful lot! More than 500 extra lbs. More like ferrying. I don't think they were flying combat missions with that much gas in external tanks (as much as the internal tank holds!) but correct me if I'm wrong.

The FM-2, which did routinely carry external tanks, is not a point of comparison with the Sea Hurricane because by the time it existed the Sea Hurricane was no longer flying!

This claim, and several others, is cherry picking, bending the truth, and engaging in flights of fancy. I'm not going to speculate as to why the arguments are constructed this way, but it's clear that they are not anchored in reality.

The F4F-3 and F4F-4 specifications are not tests. Real world testing couldn't replicate those claims.

The Martlet data sheets show 133 or 136IG internal fuel (denoting no self sealing tanks) capacity when the F4F-4 was a heavier aircraft that had 120IG (this has been pointed out to you numerous times), and to have twice the range of the H2A/HS1B they would have to show 1000 or 1100 miles range on internal fuel at 20K ft and they don't show that. Just having the Martlet/Wildcat climb to 20K ft would subtract about 5 to 10% of it's range.

The FM2 and SH2C (in carrier service) overlapped in time for almost a year.

We know the fuel consumption of the various engines and again, what you are trying to claim just isn't possible when both aircraft are flying under similar conditions.

US testing of the Hurricane IIA:

Range = 680 miles at 15k ft,

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Level.pdf

Anyways, this is getting repetitive.

Shortround6 · Feb 24, 2023

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Hmmm... how far up do they still get +14 lbs boost? How about with 187 gallons of fuel?

14lbs could be held to 6,000ft no RAM.
in high gear they could use 16lbs of boost and do it at 12,500ft no ram.
This is for the Merlin XX engine.
I don't think Sea Hurricanes got the engines from the Hurricane IVs.

Not sure what the boost level has to do with fuel capacity.
Many of the Sea Hurricane IIS were fitted for a pair of 44imp gal drop tanks. The standard 43-44imp gal drop tanks that many Hurricane IIs used.
But you don't use combat power when carrying drop tanks.
FM-2s sure weren't climbing at over 3000fpm when carrying a pair of drop tanks.

For the FM-2 you had 3 stages of development in the engines.
Early engines were limited to 1300hp.
Later engines could make 1350hp (they got a new crankshaft, so you can't just tweak a setting). It was the new crankshaft that allowed 2700rpm instead of 2600rpm.
Engines got the water injection later, the -56 engines (old crankshaft) were given water injection but kept the 2600rpm limit while the -56A engines had the new crankshafts.
How much water injection helped the old engines I don't know, Since the supercharger gears didn't change the supercharger impeller was turning a bit slower on the 2600rpm engines.
You can see the lines on the chart.

Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

Master Sergeant

Major

Major

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads