Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?

[33k in the air]

Skuas are to fighters as paperclips are to staplers.

Poor Clippy. He just can't catch a break.

 

[yulzari]

Overall both aeroplanes were about as useful, albeit with differing strengths. The Martlet arriving in production some years after the Hurricane and both were marginally effective fighters by 1942 but the best that were in allied service at the time. Soon overtaken by later production types and neither had the capacity to get much better as fighters unless modified to the point where they would be different airframes anyway. Nevertheless their deck landing qualities suited them to smaller carriers so they both soldiered on to the end of the war in such niche roles such as escorting Tarpons bombing a U Boat base in Norway in Operation Judgement on the 5th of May 1945 whilst Sea Hurricanes ceased production in mid 1943 as folding wing Martlets allowed easier storage but were being withdrawn from operational service beforehand. As a naval aeroplane the Martlet was superior in terms of storage aboard ship. In the air there was little to choose between them. The Hurricane itself remained in front line service in Burma and in minor areas. New Hurricane MkIVs being the given the task of protecting Cyprus in 1946.

My conclusion is that one would choose the Martlet over the Sea Hurricane purely due to having folding wings. Until the folding wing versions arrived one was as good as the other and Sea Hurricanes were an effective quick fix at the time.

 

[Admiral Beez]

My conclusion is that one would choose the Martlet over the Sea Hurricane purely due to having folding wings.

Until the folding Seafire is introduced, the folding Martlet was the only monoplane fighter operated by the FAA that could fit down the 36 by 36.6 feet T-shaped lifts of HMS Hermes. See my mock-up below where the non-folding Seafire's wing root gets caught when the nose is pushed backwards to clear the edge.

I shoved way too many folded Martlets into the hangar, forgetting that it wasn't a perfect rectangle. And where's the fuel for such a huge CAG? Silly me.

Here's my second attempt.

But really even twenty-two Martlets is over the top, so I think we'll settle on eighteen or twenty, or half again if we're including the TSRs.

Of course, there was always the Buffalo trialed by the FAA! Even non-folding, its 35 ft span fits fine. Ignore my square lift.

And if we're going to square the lift, then we can fit Fulmars. But with no catapult and a slow moving, short deck.....?

In conclusion, the folding wing Martlet is the ideal fighter for HMS Hermes, had she survived post-Midway to refit and reequip her CAG.

 

[Shortround6]

Let me see if I understand this.
Take about 20% of the folding wing Martlets in the entire RN, stick them on a 25kt carrier with a somewhat short flight deck and limited fuel supply.

18 Martlets will take 2,448 imp gal to fill the tanks.
Only 90 folding wing Martlets had been supplied to the RN before the Hermes was sunk.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let me see if I understand this.

I knew I'd trigger your compulsion to tell us why something would not, could not or should not have occurred. But in this case I'm just mucking about in Photoshop and sharing my work rather than proposing anything solid - this isn't the What'if Forum. My point is that the folding Martlet vs. the Sea Hurricane is the only option for Hermes.

Had Hermes survived into 1943 I could see her with a trio or quartet of folding Martlets as they became more widely available, to serve alongside a half dozen Swordfish or Albacores.

 

[Shortround6]

My point is that the folding Martlet vs. the Sea Hurricane is the only option for Hermes

Other options include just shooting it with a torpedo and using the crew on other ships.

Or using it somewhat like it was being used, flying some spotter/recon aircraft around to help look for German surface raiders, or using it as an aircraft transport to move aircraft.

There were a number of options for using the Hermes,

Junior fleet carrier was not one of them.

Edit/addition.

Of course, there was always the Buffalo trialed by the FAA! Even non-folding, its 35 ft span fits fine. Ignore my square lift.

Now you have to get the Buffalo to land on a Carrier and survive. Operational life of the USN F2A-3s was around a month without contacting the enemy.
Chronic landing gear and arresting hook failures.

Just because they did land or trial a plane on carrier doesn't mean they should have or continued to do so.
The Early Buffaloes had landing gear problems, they tried to fix them, then they stuck in heavier engines, armor, fuel tank protection and other details.
Landing gear problems came back (if they ever left).

 

[RCAFson]

Until the folding Seafire is introduced, the folding Martlet was the only monoplane fighter operated by the FAA that could fit down the 36 by 36.6 feet T-shaped lifts of HMS Hermes. S

Not exactly...

The Skua would fit comfortably. An air complement of say 6 Swordfish and 6-12 Skuas would be a good fit. The Skuas can intercept and shoot down most recon aircraft and can also do daylight ASW and Recon as well.

 

[Shortround6]

Had Hermes survived into 1943 I could see her with a trio or quartet of folding Martlets as they became more widely available, to serve alongside a half dozen Swordfish or Albacores.

If she had survived until 1943 she should have been kept in the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean. Actual fighters would have been unnecessary in 1943.
Or demoted to aircraft ferry or training ship.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Overall both aeroplanes were about as useful, albeit with differing strengths. The Martlet arriving in production some years after the Hurricane and both were marginally effective fighters by 1942 but the best that were in allied service at the time. Soon overtaken by later production types and neither had the capacity to get much better as fighters unless modified to the point where they would be different airframes anyway. Nevertheless their deck landing qualities suited them to smaller carriers so they both soldiered on to the end of the war in such niche roles such as escorting Tarpons bombing a U Boat base in Norway in Operation Judgement on the 5th of May 1945 whilst Sea Hurricanes ceased production in mid 1943 as folding wing Martlets allowed easier storage but were being withdrawn from operational service beforehand. As a naval aeroplane the Martlet was superior in terms of storage aboard ship. In the air there was little to choose between them. The Hurricane itself remained in front line service in Burma and in minor areas. New Hurricane MkIVs being the given the task of protecting Cyprus in 1946.

My conclusion is that one would choose the Martlet over the Sea Hurricane purely due to having folding wings. Until the folding wing versions arrived one was as good as the other and Sea Hurricanes were an effective quick fix at the time.

I'm sorry but having twice the range and endurance also matters, a lot, for a naval fighter. And I suspect Martlet was a bit better in air to air combat but that is debatable.

Lets remember the earliest FAA Martlets were fixed wing. Also a lot of the FAA Martlets didn't have the 2 stage supercharger so weren't necessarily high altitude, including the FM-2.

The way I'd break it down is that Sea Hurricane is basically a slowish point defense fighter, Martlet / Wildcat is a slowish carrier fighter. Both are capable of tangling with land based fighters, albeit at a slight disadvantage, and most can catch most bomber aircraft.

Once the folding wing are available, you can fit more Martlets which is nice, but FAA never seemed to have enough of them to fit out a whole compliment anyway.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not exactly...

The Skua would fit comfortably. An air complement of say 6 Swordfish and 6-12 Skuas would be a good fit. The Skuas can intercept and shoot down most recon aircraft and can also do daylight ASW and Recon as well.

I kind of agree with this. Skua has the tempting trait of wearing two hats (three if you count recon). Range is about the same as a Fulmar.

 

[Shortround6]

A problem with the Wildcat/Martlet is that it did change over the years. The changes may have been small on the outside but they did affect things.

The FM-2s dropped down to 117 US gallons to about 130 gallons depending on where in the production run they were so the extra range vs the Hurricane mostly goes away.
Granted they had drop tanks but the Wildcat was a bit on the heavy side. An FM-2 with 126 us gal went just under 7500lbs and with two drop tanks it was just under 8300lbs.
The F4F-4s and FM-1 were heavier, with two drop tanks they were over 8750lbs. They flew them off small slow carriers but did they use the drop tanks?

You had 3 different engine set ups, combining the early Cyclone engines with the two speed P & W here.
the 1200hp take-off two speed engines.
the 1200hp take-off two stage engines
the 1300/1350hp take-off 2 speed engines.

The very early ones were lighter but they little protection.

None of these showed the large increase in power than many other fighters got.
But we do have to be careful judging what they could do when. An FM-2 getting off an escort carrier with drop tanks in 1944/45 with a reduced ammo load may be different than an F4F-4 trying to do the same thing in 1942/43. Top speed would be very close and the F4F-4 would perform better at higher altitudes.

It worked, but only barely as an air superiority fighter 1942/early 1943. The Hurricane might not have been any better. For Salerno they wanted Seafires to handle the German and Italian aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not exactly...

The Skua would fit comfortably. An air complement of say 6 Swordfish and 6-12 Skuas would be a good fit. The Skuas can intercept and shoot down most recon aircraft and can also do daylight ASW and Recon as well.

Good point. My bad, I meant to say the only single-seat monoplane fighter. You're right the Skua would fit nicely, and your proposed CAG makes sense.

 

[SaparotRob]

Did FAA pilots use tactics like the Thach weave or were the circumstances different?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did FAA pilots use tactics like the Thach weave or were the circumstances different?

I don't think the FAA ever engaged Zeros in large formations, at least not until late in the war when the IJN pilots were inexperienced.

 

[Shortround6]

The Hermes was neither fish nor fowl.
She had the hanger and elevators but her lack of fuel storage was crippling.
She had 7,000 gal imp of fuel and was planned for 13,000 gal in the refit. I don't think she got it.
However the British were fitting
10,000 gal on the Audacity,
20,000 gal on the Activity.
74,000 gal on the Pretoria Castle
36,000 gal on the Archer, and Avenger
42,000-52,800 gal on the Attacker class.

even the Merchant Aircraft Carriers had 5,000 gals for the 4 planes they carried on deck.

I don't know if this was US gallons or Imp gallons but without a more extensive refit than was planed she could not support even a small air group for very long.
With her own short endurance and 25kt speed she is not a good candidate for 'raids'.
She had just been out grown.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Good point. My bad, I meant to say the only single-seat monoplane fighter. You're right the Skua would fit nicely, and your proposed CAG makes sense.

At 225 mph max, far too slow, even against bombers, to be reliable defense for a carrier.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Hermes was neither fish nor fowl.
She had the hanger and elevators but her lack of fuel storage was crippling.
She had 7,000 gal imp of fuel and was planned for 13,000 gal in the refit. I don't think she got it.
However the British were fitting
10,000 gal on the Audacity,
20,000 gal on the Activity.
74,000 gal on the Pretoria Castle
36,000 gal on the Archer, and Avenger
42,000-52,800 gal on the Attacker class.

even the Merchant Aircraft Carriers had 5,000 gals for the 4 planes they carried on deck.

I don't know if this was US gallons or Imp gallons but without a more extensive refit than was planed she could not support even a small air group for very long.
With her own short endurance and 25kt speed she is not a good candidate for 'raids'.
She had just been out grown.

She stayed in service because what else did you have? Training and ferry, as you mentioned above, are the best fit for her even in 1940-41.

Do you have any info on her ammo stowage? That too would give insight into her utility as a front-line carrier.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A problem with the Wildcat/Martlet is that it did change over the years. The changes may have been small on the outside but they did affect things.

The FM-2s dropped down to 117 US gallons to about 130 gallons depending on where in the production run they were so the extra range vs the Hurricane mostly goes away.
Granted they had drop tanks but the Wildcat was a bit on the heavy side. An FM-2 with 126 us gal went just under 7500lbs and with two drop tanks it was just under 8300lbs.
The F4F-4s and FM-1 were heavier, with two drop tanks they were over 8750lbs. They flew them off small slow carriers but did they use the drop tanks?

Yes I believe they did, at least in the USN. They are frequently mentioned. From what I gather the capacity for the two 58 gallon tanks was considered key to the viability of the FM-2.

This brings up another issue though of how many drop tanks are even available, especially in a high threat environment where the fighter may need to engage (and drop the tanks most likely)

You had 3 different engine set ups, combining the early Cyclone engines with the two speed P & W here.
the 1200hp take-off two speed engines.
the 1200hp take-off two stage engines
the 1300/1350hp take-off 2 speed engines.

The very early ones were lighter but they little protection.

None of these showed the large increase in power than many other fighters got.
But we do have to be careful judging what they could do when. An FM-2 getting off an escort carrier with drop tanks in 1944/45 with a reduced ammo load may be different than an F4F-4 trying to do the same thing in 1942/43. Top speed would be very close and the F4F-4 would perform better at higher altitudes.

It worked, but only barely as an air superiority fighter 1942/early 1943. The Hurricane might not have been any better. For Salerno they wanted Seafires to handle the German and Italian aircraft.

They had a ton of trouble with the Seafires at Salerno, though in part due to one of the carriers from what i gather.

Both, or all three planes varied a good bit depending on specific version, loadout etc. IMO Seafire is just a better point defense fighter than the SH, one which can contend with first line Axis land based fighters into 1944. I think the higher altitude supercharger makes the F4F more viable than the ones with low alt engines, because that also extends the range. Having seen them flying at air shows, my completely unscientific perception is that the FM-2 is more potent than either earlier F4F or Hurricane. It seems to be very 'peppy' and easily loops, climbs very well etc. Rate of climb is much improved over a regular Wildcat. But it lacks the higher altitude performance.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

At 225 mph max, far too slow, even against bombers, to be reliable defense for a carrier.

I'd say it's ok for the 'second tier' defense, against basically flying boats and real long range types, though the speed is a valid point. Even Fulmar is better in this sense. Folding wing Martlet probably best.

 

[Shortround6]

She stayed in service because what else did you have? Training and ferry, as you mentioned above, are the best fit for her even in 1940-41.

Do you have any info on her ammo stowage? That too would give insight into her utility as a front-line carrier.

Nothing on ordnance storage.

They were designing her in 1917-18 but held up construction for several years while they figured out the last details. She wasn't completed until 1923/24 and some of her problems may date from that period. Engines had roughly doubled in power between 1917 and the early 20s.