Wildcat during the Battle of Britain (2 Viewers)

[stona]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bennions-28-7-40.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/berry-31-8-40.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/McMullen-15oct40.jpg
Took me 30 seconds to find these four accounts

Escorts, not bombers.

Meeting Bf 109s at a) 22,000 feet, b) something above 20,000 feet, C) something well below 22,000 feet (lack of oxygen) and d) 20,000 feet is not unusual. It was the exact situation Park was keen to avoid when attacking large formations, if you read my post.

Nowhere did I say that the escorts were not stacked up above the bombers. On Battle of Britain day some of the escorts came in over Dungeness at 24,000 feet according to the Observer Corps. So what? They were not the principal targets.

Also on 15 September, Feldwebel Hermann Neuhoff from III./JG 53 wrote that his orders were to, "Assemble at 6,000 metres over Cap Gris Nez, where you will rendezvous with the bombers". The bombers crossed the Channel at 5,000 m, which is absolutely typical.

You won't find a large bomber formation approaching the English coast above 6,500 metres between July and October 1940. The VAST majority came across at about 5,000 metres

You seem to be under the impression that I think the Wildcat, as it existed in 1940, would have been useful to Fighter Command. It would not and if you read back you will see why I think that.

 

[jmcalli2]

I know the F4F production missed the time frame of the Battle Britain by 6 to 12 months for operational squadrons. But how would the F4F-3 Wildcat/Martlet 1 have fared alongside the Hurricane I and Spitfire II during the Battle?

 

[soaringtractor]

Wouldn't matter were you put them, A&AEE rated their speed at 290mph and climb under 2,000fpm, they would be as useless as P40's in the BoB. Over England, as long as they stay above 200mph and 15,000ft the Luftwaffe bombers would almost be immune to attack.

P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!! Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!! The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!! I keep hearing the Brits were "disappointed in the Mustangs lack of service ceiling with the Allison !!! BULLSHIT !!!! They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!! And the Mustang was faster, climbed Faster, as had just as high if not higher than the P40 !!!! IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!! Them facts of history....again raising hell with the Brits BULLSHIT stories !!!

 

[pbehn]

P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!! Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!! The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!! I keep hearing the Brits were "disappointed in the Mustangs lack of service ceiling with the Allison !!! BULLSHIT !!!! They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!! And the Mustang was faster, climbed Faster, as had just as high if not higher than the P40 !!!! IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!! Them facts of history....again raising hell with the Brits BULLSHIT stories !!!

You are really funny when you turn your mind to it. The Mustang Mk I was a great aircraft but used by the British for army cooperation and armed recon, for obvious reasons.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!! Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!! The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!! I keep hearing the Brits were "disappointed in the Mustangs lack of service ceiling with the Allison !!! BULLSHIT !!!! They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!! And the Mustang was faster, climbed Faster, as had just as high if not higher than the P40 !!!! IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!! Them facts of history....again raising hell with the Brits BULLSHIT stories !!!

You need to tone it down. You can get your point across without being disrespectful. I already gave you a warning once. This is the last.

 

[Shortround6]

Why the Brits in 1940 when they came to North American considered the P40 to be the BEST AVAILABLE fighter OF THAT TIME !!!!!

Best American fighter of the time. and which P-40 in 1940?? the long nose C-15 powered ones or the paper P-40D/E? which didn't fly until the summer of 1941.

P-40 was the best American fighter in production.

The Brits damn well knew what they had in the P40 and they Damn well knew what they were getting when they were OFFERED the new Mustang by Dutch Kindelberger !!!!!

Yep, and the Mustang prototype used a rare engine (one of four made) just like the P-40D/E was going to use, not the engine used in the P-40B/C.

They knew EXACTLY by having the P40 with the SAME Allison engine !!!!

See above. They would not get production P-40s and Mustangs using the same engine for over a year after the contracts were signed.

IF the Brits were surprised then ALL were blind dumb and stupid to the facts. Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!!

No but it did have the two speed Hooker modified single stage supercharger which wound up powering the P-40F.
However the British were not blind dumb and stupid, they were ordering what could be produced at the time period in question. They had ordered 320 Allison powered Mustangs 4 months BEFORE the deal was signed with Packard to make any Merlins at all. Allison produced an awful lot more engines in 1941-42 than Packard did so there was a choice of planes with Allison engines or NO planes, regardless of actual perfromance.

 

[wuzak]

Remember AT THE TIME of ORDERING the Mustang the Merlin engine DID NOT YET have the 2 stage supercharger !!!!! Why the Brits were NOT too concerned about the single stage supercharged ALLISON !!!

No, the 2 stage engine was not available at the time, but it was under development. The Merlin XX and 45 appeared in the latter half of 1940, improving the Merlin's altitude performance, which was already better than the V-1710's.

 

[wuzak]

P40's useless in the BOB ????? Really ???? Any plane was better than NO plane !!!

Yes, the P-40 was useless in the BoB.

Any plane is better than no plane - in the case of the P-40 it was no plane for the majority of the BoB, and a handful for the last few weeks.


Deliveries of the P-40 (no letter) began in June 1940. Only 200 of these were delivered by September, when production of the P-40 was deferred to speed up deliveries of the Tomahawk I .

The P-40B had its first flight in March 1941.
The first flight of a P-40C, which were built to complete the initial P-40 order, was in April 1941.

The French order H-81A's (equivalent to P-40), were diverted to the UK, the first arriving in September 1940. These were deemed not combat worthy, lacking armour and self sealing tanks. These were the Tomahawk Is.

 

[Shortround6]

As noted in other places, the first 228 Allison V-1710C-15 engines for the US were built and operated under restrictions and were later rebuilt by Allison. The British might have operated them without restrictions but the P-40 of 1940 was not the P-40 of 1941.

 

[fastmongrel]

I think it's easy to say that apart from the P36* no US fighter aircraft was ready for the Battle of Britain. However the USA didn't need to fight they were not at war and not under any immediate threat of invasion. Had the Atlantic been 21 miles wide rather than 2100 miles I am sure a Spitfire or 109 equivalent would have been defending the USA.

* I have often wondered was there any more development left in the P36.

 

[Shortround6]

There was a development of the P-36. It was called the P-40

Development of the R-1820 Cyclone and R-1830 Twin Wasp had temporarily stalled, without competing for the two stage engines going into the F4Fs there was no improvement in power to be had.
The state of the art in air cooling was such that the Allison powered P-36 had over 20% less drag than the twin wasp P-36. You were going to need an awfully good cowl to make up that difference.
And in 1940/41 (once Allison production got going) every P-36 built would be a P-40 not built.

 

[pinsog]

* I have often wondered was there any more development left in the P36.

That's a whole other discussion that has been beaten to death a few times. I believe the P36/Hawk 75 could have served in the BoB and served well in the Pacific until the end of 1942 with the simple addition of a 2 speed P&W 1830. The US tested a single P36 with an 1830 rated for 950hp at 17,000 feet and it did 317 mph, 30 mph faster than the standard P36. A 2 speed P&W would have had 1200 hp up to 4900 ft giving it around 15 mph more speed at that altitude. 6 303's and some seat back armor (I think the French H75's already had armor behind the seat but that is yet another discussion) and I think it would have done as well as the Hurricane in the BoB. I know the P40 was faster, but it just gained too much weight killing its climb rate and I believe the extra weight out front badly affected maneuverability.
This is on of the few things Shortround and I disagree on.

 

[yulzari]

It might be worth remembering that the RAF shortfall was pilots not airframes. The Martlet would bring nothing useful to the BoB however one examines the possibilities. There was much of merit in the Martlet and it continued to serve over Norway to the end of the war but the BoB would not have need of Martlets.

 

[pinsog]

It might be worth remembering that the RAF shortfall was pilots not airframes. The Martlet would bring nothing useful to the BoB however one examines the possibilities. There was much of merit in the Martlet and it continued to serve over Norway to the end of the war but the BoB would not have need of Martlets.

I agree that pilots were the problem, but the question was "how would the martlet/Wildcat do?" Not "was the martlet/Wildcat needed?"

How would a Wildcat have done? Depends on how it was setup. Let's set it up like it should have been. F4F-3 with 2 stage P&W 1830. This is a 330 mph fighter give or take a few mph. Remove tail hook and flotation equipment saving 50 pounds. Remove 4 50's at 75 pounds a piece, that's 300 pounds, remove 450 rounds per gun of 50 ammo, total of 1800 rounds at 50 pounds per 200 rounds is another 450 pounds. Replace with 8 303's and 500 rounds per gun comes to I think 467 pounds for a Hurricane. Fill gas tank half full, 75 gallons instead of 145, saves another 420 pounds. You have removed 1220 pounds total and put back 467 pounds, total savings is 753 pounds. That should aid climb just a little bit. So now you have a plane that is just a little faster than a Hurricane, should probably climb just as well, can out turn an ME109 or Spitfire, can 'bunt' (shove stick forward to dive without rolling on its back) without the engine quitting, radial engine, tough etc. it would have done just fine. Was it needed? No. But it would have done fine.

 

[pinsog]

The British didn't need another fighter, the 2 they had were just fine. All they really needed was to focus all machine guns on both fighters to a single point, say 200 yards and then give every single pilot a 2 week gunnery course with US Navy Commander John Thach.

Well trained pilots in 8 gun Hurricanes with all guns bore sighted to a single point doing high side 90 degree deflection runs on glass cockpit HE111's, JU88's and DO17's would have ended the BoB VERY VERY quickly.

 

[stona]

All they really needed was to focus all machine guns on both fighters to a single point, say 200 yards and then give every single pilot a 2 week gunnery course with US Navy Commander John Thach.
.

Unfortunately the tactical situation in the BoB fighting, in which a couple of squadrons of British fighters might confront 20 or 30 bombers escorted by 150 fighters, very often above them, was rather different to that faced by US pilots in the Pacific.

Try a Thach weave when you are outnumbered by five or ten to one. I was just reading of an incident in which No 74 Squadron found itself in a scrap with 60 Bf 109s! All Malan's eminently sensible guidance for air combat went out the window as each man tried to save himself.

There was a reason that the eight guns on RAF fighters were synchronised in the way that they were. There was a reason that many pilots lacked gunnery training. None of your 'solutions' are really relevant to the Battle of Britain at all.

 

[fastmongrel]

If we are allowed models of Wildcat that didn't exist in July 1940 then I am going to equip my RAF for the Battle with Spitfire MkIXs. Whadda ya mean that's crazy, why is a 1942 Wildcat with 1942 guns not crazy.

 

[pinsog]

Unfortunately the tactical situation in the BoB fighting, in which a couple of squadrons of British fighters might confront 20 or 30 bombers escorted by 150 fighters, very often above them, was rather different to that faced by US pilots in the Pacific.

Try a Thach weave when you are outnumbered by five or ten to one. I was just reading of an incident in which No 74 Squadron found itself in a scrap with 60 Bf 109s! All Malan's eminently sensible guidance for air combat went out the window as each man tried to save himself.

There was a reason that the eight guns on RAF fighters were synchronised in the way that they were. There was a reason that many pilots lacked gunnery training. None of your 'solutions' are really relevant to the Battle of Britain at all.

I said nothing about the Thach weave, i was talking about John Thach's idea and training for attacking bombers. You climb above and ahead of them off to one side, turn toward them, open fire in a 90 degree deflection shot. The fighter has the entire upper wing, engines and full length of the fuselage as a target, the gunners on the enemy planes, IF any of them can bear, have a 90 degree deflection shot head on at a small fighter, virtually impossible.

If every raid had been like the case you describe there would never have been an interception by the British.

The reason the British used the spread pattern was because they didn't teach gunnery. Seriously, have you ever shot a gun? Do you own any? Being able to actually hit the target is sort of the main point when using a gun whether your bird hunting, deer hunting, target shooting, shooting at a soldier with a pistol or rifle, a tank shooting at a tank, a battleship shooting at a battleship or a plane shooting at a plane. Sending up a guy in a plane and saying "oh by the way, you'll see enemy planes today, that button there makes the guns go pow pow pow" is not the best way to win. Every year when I go deer hunting, my son and I go somewhere and shoot our rifles to make sure they are still sighted in. The British didn't do gunnery training for probably a couple of reasons 1. They didn't have time 2. Some idiot who probably never flew didn't think you could hit anything anyway.

How can you think teaching the pilots to be able to lead and hit a target is an idea that wouldn't help???

 

[stona]

British fighters were often climbing to meet the bombers. I can give you any number of examples.

The British did teach gunnery, but there were serious shortcomings in the training that persisted into 1941.

Really you are comparing apples with pairs. When was the USN confronted by 800 enemy aircraft, more than 500 (517 if you need an exact figure) of which were fighters?

 

[pinsog]

If we are allowed models of Wildcat that didn't exist in July 1940 then I am going to equip my RAF for the Battle with Spitfire MkIXs. Whadda ya mean that's crazy, why is a 1942 Wildcat with 1942 guns not crazy.

I'm just answering the original question of the thread. The very first Wildcat F4F-3 had the 2 stage P&W engine. If you read the post I said "replace the 4 50's with 8 303's". If you don't like the original post then don't comment. I also said in an earlier post that I know the F4F Wildcat couldn't have made it to the BoB. I also said they didn't need it, the Spitfire and Hurricane were just fine, they needed gunnery training and all the guns bore sighted to the same spot. The Hurricane with its guns concentrated into 2 tight banks of 4 guns each would have been especially devastating to a bomber if all guns were bore sighted to one spot and flown by a guy that could shoot like John Thach. Can you imagine 40 John Thach's flying Hurricanes with the guns all set at 200 yards in a single squadron making a head on pass at a group of HE111's? The Germans would have run out of bombers pretty quick