Would the British FAA have been better off with the Brewster Buffalo?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

RCAFson said:
No F2As or any of its variants ever flew a single combat mission from a CV
Click to expand...
They never saw "combat" off a CV, but flew "combat missions." VF-2 flew patrols in the Pacific, look into VS-201 and operations off the USS Long Island (CVE-1) in the Atlantic.
 
Last edited:
The F4F-3A was created to compensate for the slow problematic introduction of the P&W double superchargeed engine. So whatever A/C didn't go to Europe would have been, as I said earlier, completed to USN (-3A) standards. By any Accounting you care to use, the F4F was in service in 1940.
 
Last edited:
F4F-3As were in production in 1940, 30 of which produced in 1940, and intended for Greece ended up in FAA hands in the Western desert and according to the FAA archive website: Grumman F4F Martlet (Grumman F4F Wildcat) aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945 6 more were included in the french order but reached England sometime in 1940. That's enough F4F-3As to equip two USN squadrons. (I had never heard of this small (F4F-3A) batch before so I am not convinced it is accurate). Whether Britain paid for them or not is irrelevant, they were in FAA service. The fact that Britain paid for them does not change the fact that production for the USN was deferred throughout 1940 and 41. US National defense was made weaker by releasing those aircraft to the RN. On December 7, there were barely enough F4F-3 3As to equip the Enterprise and Saratoga squadrons and those of the land based marines. For awhile, at least one USN fleet squadron was equiped with essentially only -3As. Britain may have paid for these aircraft, but so did the USN and USA.

you suggest that the RN FAA was busy modifying the F4F's so they weren't yet available for RN flight decks. At least one squadron is well known to have been operational by December 1940 and earlier: 804 at Hatston.

from the FAA archive website:

"The first Wildcat used by the Fleet Air Arm were 53 Grumman G-36a Martlet I, and 6 Grumman G-36a Martlet III (F4F-3As) diverted from a French order which had not been delivered before the Fall of France in 1940. The aircraft were all delivered to the British Purchasing Commission on 23 August 1940 and transferred to the first FAA unit 804 Hatston on 7 September 1940 (eg AX827), 778 squadron at Arbroath in September 1940 (eg AX826), 759 squadron at Yeovilton in October and November 1940 (eg BJ555) and 802 squadron at Donisbristle on 23 November 1940 (eg AL237). Further aircraft in 1940 were lost when 20 Grumman G-36a Martlet I diverted from an undelivered French orders sank with SS Ruperra which was torpedoed 500 miles NW of Ireland on 19 October 1940."

Further:

"The next Wildcat to be received by the Fleet Air Arm were in Spring of 1941, when 30 Grumman F4F-3a Martlet III ordered by Greek Purchasing Commission in August 1940 for shipment to Greece reached Port Suez in April 1941, then diverted to the Royal Navy under Lend-Lease transfer on 4 April 1941."

These 30 aircraft were F4F-3A's slated for USN service that were diverted to Greece in 1940 and then to the FAA in early 1941.

From Wikipedia:

"The first 30 F4F-3As were released for sale to Greece, after the Italian invasion in November 1940. However, at the defeat of Greece in April 1941 the aircraft had only reached Gibraltar."
 
Last edited:
RCAFson said:
When did the F4F enter CV squadron service in the USN? When did it enter CV squadron service in the RN?
Click to expand...

Although I believe this to be an irrelevant point, as the carrier suitability trials had long been completed by early 1940. With so many F4Fs going overseas to foreign combatants, delivery to USN fleet squadrons was slowed considerably. Nevertheless, the first fleet squadron, VF-4, was F4F-3 and/or 3A equiped at the end of 1940. By the time the first Martlet's arrived in England the F4F was already accepted and proven as a CV capable fighter. In fact the Martlet Is were ostensibly obtained by the French for use from their carriers. If you choose to assign a CV capable aircraft to a land based squadron. It's still "in service." If you prevent your ally's ability to put it into CV service by buying virtually the entire production line of CV capable aircraft, it's still "in service." In other words, you are stretching the meaning of "in service" beyond recognition to suit a point that appears to me to be nothing more than rationalizing a state of affairs you don't wish to accept. To answer your question directly. The first deloyments of which I am aware are those aboard CV-4 (Ranger) and CV-7 (Wasp) in early 1941. AFAIK, the first FAA deployment was aboard the Audacity in September of 1941.
 
Last edited:
Martlet Is were mostly ex- G36 French Wildcats that had been ordered at the end of 1939, Grumman received a French order for 81 aircraft of model G-36A, to equip their new Joffre-class aircraft carrier: Joffre and Painlevé. The main difference with the basic model G-36 was due to the unavailability for export of the two-stage supercharged engine of F4F-3. The G-36A was powered by the nine-cylinder, single-row R-1820-G205A radial engine, of 1,200 hp (890 kW) and with a single-stage two-speed supercharger. The substitution of the two stage supercharger with a single stage unit affected the perforamce of the type.

The G-36A had French instrumentation, radio, and gunsight. The throttle was modified to conform to French pre-war practice: the throttle lever was moved towards the pilot, (i.e., backward), to increase engine power. The armament was was six 7.5 mm (.296 in) Darne machine guns (two in the fuselage and four in the wings). The first G-36A was flown on 11 May 1940. The order as received by the FAA were basically as above, less the armament, and with unnaceptable control sticks, safety gear. It was found that these a/c leaked fuel profusely.....

After the defeat of France, all contracts were taken over by Britain, but they were deleivered to the FAA in their French configuration. They were immedialtely referred to Blackburn, to attempt to convert them to FAA standards, but this did take time (though a few were converted and used to equip 804 sqn by August) . The throttle was modified again, four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) guns were installed in the wings, and most traces of the original ownership removed.The Martlets were modified for British use by Blackburn, which continued to do this for all later marks. The final Martlet Is were not fully converted until March 1941, and they continued to be probelematic because many of them continued to leak fuel and simply were deemed unsuitable for frontline carrier operations because of the lack of wing folding. This did not prevent them from being embarked on the Audacity, but it is interesting to note that this small carrier which was rated to embark 16 a/c normally, could only accomodate 6 of the non-wing folding versions of the Martlet Is.

British gunsights, catapult spools, and other items were installed on the martlet Is by Blackburn. After initial attempts to fit British radio sets, it was decided to use the much superior American equipment.

The first ones entered service in August 1940, with 804 Naval Air Squadron, then stationed at Hatson in the Orkney Islands. The Martlet Mk I did not have a wing folding mechanism, and was therefore only used from land bases (with the one exception....Audacity).

In 1940, Belgium also placed an order for at least 10 Martlet Mk 1s. These were to be modified with the removal of the tailhook, however, after the surrender of Belgium, none were delivered and by May 10, 1940, the aircraft order was transferred to the Royal Navy. These had similar issues as the g-36, though not quite as bad. Six were taken over by the RN....these are probably the versions mentioned on the FAA website.

Martlet Is were not in any way 1st line amaterial because of a number of reliability and stowage issues. Martlet IIs were not delivered until September 1941, and it is interesting to note that it was some time after this that the Martlet II was first embarked and used in as
1st line capacity. I am given to understand that the USN also had issues with its early F4s, mostly to do with the amrmament and fuel system. The f4 is often toutyed as a 1939-40 design, but in reality it cannot be considered ready for frontline operations until mid 1941. This makes it in reality a newer type than the Zero, which had been entereing squadron service since Jaauary 1941. Its also a reason why the Fulmar should not be compared to either of these two....it was fit for combat on fleet carriers more than a year before its US counterpart.
 
It's certainly interesting history Pars, perhaps you'd provide a reference for the above? The only fuel issues of which I am aware were the ones attendant to the installation of the self sealing tanks and those occurred IIRC in late '41 and early 1942. It does appear to answer the question of why the FAA, in possession of a perfectly suitable CV capable aircraft, didn't use it for roughly a year. That suggests a nearly criminal level of irresponsibilty absent your history. It was also my understanding that the Martlet's use on Audacity were the folding wing versions and that the reason for the small number was the lack of a hanger leaving only the deck park space available of which there wouldn't have been much. Not disputing your statement, just didn't know they were Martlet I's. For example:

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/history/f4f.html where they are reported as Mk IIs.

So, considering I listed four FAA squadrons using the Martlet Is before the end of 1940, they were still in service, although from what you are saying, the USN BIS trial reports weren't worth the paper they were printed on. Moreover, the USN deployment by VF-41 and VF-7 in early 41 were at best premature and at worst, an excercise in futility with an A/C not yet suitable for CV service. I would definitely like to see those cruise reports.
 
Last edited:
I am not all that familiar with the USN intro duction and difficulties. I would stand corrected if you have the details about their prewar 9ie pre december '41) deployment. I also did not check about the naudacity deployment, so these may have been wing folding versions, though I am reasonably certain they were not.

The FAA certainly had teething troubles with the Martlet I and I do know that precluded their use on carriers to a very significant extent. FAA had great success with the later Martlett in all its Marks. Martlet Is chalaked up a very impressive kill loss ratio of over 59:1, whilst overall the type managed about 50:1 exchange rate according to one source.

My main sources are books on the FAA by David Brown and Norman Polmar. Ive also got various squadron histories and a few other bits and pieces....yes I am an FAA nut, I confess.......
 

According to Tillman, Wildcat: The F4F in World War II, 2nd Edition,p.11, the F4F-3 completed carrier trials after November 1940 and entered CV squadron service in Jan 1941. Tillman also states: "...the F4F-3A (production model of the X4F-6) was powered by the Twin Wasp and by the end of 1941 the marines had recieved 65 of the 95 ordered to that time. 30 intended for Greece were taken by the British as Martlet IIIs..." So the F4F-3A entered service after the F4F-3 and did not delay the F4F-3 into service.
 
Last edited:

Tillman's quote appears to be inaccurate or misleading on a number of accounts. While the marines may have received a few of the 65 F4F-3As that were produced for the USN, they certainly didn't get all. As I said before, in late 1941-42 VF-6 was flying nearly an entire squadron of F4F-3As according to Lundstrom in First Team. the above quite doesn't really tell you when the -3A's were actually received except by the end of 1941, so with your Tillman quote it remains an open question. I'll be checking my own sources and seeking others when I return home next week. On page 52 Lundstrom states the USN squadrons and PH facilities had about 17 F4F-3As and another 16 enroute as cargo, so roughly half the 65 were in Navy custody, not marine. As to when they were produced, as I said, that's an open question. The ones for Greece that ended up in FAA hands were evidently produced no later than February 1941 and the text in Wikipedia suggested November 1940 as when they were "released for greek purchase suggesting they were already produced. As I recall, Don Linn in the F4F In Action states the -3A model was produced due to delays in the -3 engine procurement to get aircraft into USN hands. Not sure what you mean about the F4F-3A "delaying the F4F-3 into service." Don't recall ever suggesting that. It is either a typo on my part or a misread on yours.
 
According to Lundstrom page 13(?) the 65 F4F-3A began to be delivered in March 41. No indication when the first batch of 30 were delivered. Only somewhat earlier. 4 F4F-3As were lost on dec 7 and the 16 enroute as cargo to PH had apparently been stripped from VMF squadrons on the west coast.
 
Last edited:

The Martlet only rarely encounted fighter opposition, but even if only 4 Martlets were lost, that would imply total kills in the area of 200-250 which is very unlikely.

IIRC, the Sea Hurricane outscored the Martlet during Pedestal.
 

I have given you approximate dates for F4F-3 CV acceptance trials, and they were conducted in very late November and December 1940. AFAIK, no USN CV trials were conducted before these dates and the aircraft built to the French order did not conduct CV acceptance trials prior to their being received by the FAA after France fell. For various reasons, including the need for many mods to make them acceptable for FAA service, the FAA did not conduct CV trials on these aircraft until the Spring of 1941. Consequently, the aircraft was not CV rated until 1941.

Tillman states that VF-4 based at NAS Norfolk, received a single F4F-3 on Nov 26 1940, making it the first VF squadron to receive the F4F-3, but this was prior to the aircraft being approved for CV service.

BTW you might be interested in this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fulmar-ii-versus-f4f-4-under-10-000-ft-29212.html
 
Last edited:
The Fleet Air Arm aircraft went on to make many kills. For example, the Greek delivered Wildcat were involved in convoy patrols, one Martlet piloted by Sub Lt R Griffon shot down a S.79, forced two others to jettison bombs, then hit by return fire attacking a fourth, dived vertically into sea 50m n of Ras el Milh on 28 December 1941.


During 1942 the ratio of victories to losses for air combat for the F4F was 59 :1, and for the whole war the official figure for the F4FJFM was 69 :1. A large proportion of these victories was obtained against bombers and transports, but the figures show that the Wildcat was not unsuccessful, especially in the first half of the war in the Pacific, when the Grumman design was the sole carrier-based fighter operating with the USN.

Grumman F4F Martlet (Grumman F4F Wildcat) aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945
 
Last edited:

The FAA Archive also states: The Fulmar played important roles in the early defense of Malta and the defense of Ceylon, and went on to account for nearly 1/3 of the aircraft shot down by the FAA in WWII
IIRC, the Fulmar accounted for something like 120 kills, and if we take into account kills made by other fighters such as the Skua, GSG, HSH, Seafire and IIRC even the Roc made at least one kill, a kill ratio greater than 50-1 for the Martlet is not possible, since at least a 1/2 dozen were lost in combat, and an overall 69-1 for the F4F in USN/FAA 1942 service is fantasy.
 
Just going by what the FAA Archives own website states.....
 
Last edited:
By October 31, 1940, the FAA had received 81 Martlets. The first Martlet kill was on December 25, 1940. January, 1941, VF 7 replaces it's F3F1s with F4F3s. March , 41, the FAA receives it's first Martlett IIs. Early problems with Wildcats are fuel gauges inaccurate after SS tanks installed and the SS tank liners dissolving and stopping up fuel lines and gun stoppages when full loads of ammo carried. Field modifications are carried out.
 
A bit hamstrung withouth references and relying on inadequate web sources. Based on your post, My basic feling is Tillman while good in some respects may not be a reliable source for the this kind of information. When ever the carrier trials took place, the Grumman production line was occupied producing aircraft for foreign sales during 1940. That is very likely to have slowed down the delivery of USN F4F-3 -3A A/C and the CV acceptance process as well. Although there wer a few -3s in hand and they would likely have been undergoing a fairly rigorous period of testing from thei first appearance perhaps even Including CV work. The whole issue bears further investigation.

Considering the foregoing, it seems a bit odd that the FAA continued to accept deliveries of the M-1 into late 1940 and the FAA archive web site states the Four squadrons previously listed accepted their M-1s prior to the end of 1940. With an aircraft so unsuited I am a bit surprised the delivery of the last batch wasn't deferred until Grumman had solved the problems. M-1s were still arriving in GB into the late Fall of 1940 as shown by the loss of 20 at sea.
 
Last edited:
I am doubtful about the claim kill ratios for the Martlet as well, but, in the same breath, I dont think its effectiveness for the FAA should be under-estimated. It represented a big step up in performance, reliability, range and effectivenes for the FAA (as was the Sea Hurricane), once its bugs were sorted out. But it is unrealistic to expect that the Martlet could have made any measurable difference to the FAAS overall position in 1940. The simple fact are the martlet was not ready for large scale carrier usage until 1941.

Acknowledging the obvious value of the martlet doesnt diminish the effectiveness or importance of the Fulmar in any way. Fulmars were an outstanding success, and the basic concept was further developed and improved upon in the subsequent Firefly, which in many respects was the most successful fighter bomber in FAA servcie during the war. Most importantly Fulmars were ready, reliable, packed a heavy punch and multi role capable from early 1940, and thats a critical issue. The RN was at war from September 1939, and went to war unddermanned, and with poorly performing fighters. Trouble was, there was nothing in the pipeline...US or British that could fill that gap in 1939. Certainly not the F2A or the Wildcat, not in late '39 or '40. Not all that problem can be laid at the feet of the aircraft.....the RN simply did not have the pilots to put a dedicated single purpose fighter on the decks of its carriers at that time. Even if a relaible, wing folding with proper working armamanet had been available there were simply not enough pilots to fly them.....there are reasons why Fulmars were Fighter/recons, and Skuas were Fighter/D/B, and Swordfish rated as TSR (with D/B thrown in for good measure later on)......FAA a/c just had to be capable of doing more than one thing
 
It looks like the first F4F-3A was completed in November 1940 and entered trials that month. So the first 30 F4F-3As (eventually released to Greece and subsequently the FAA) would have been produced sometime between that (late) November 1940 and March 1941.

The Grumman F4F Wildcat

It also looks like a trickle of deliveries of F4F-3s were being delivered to the USN for testing starting in February, 1940. Carrier suitability trials would have started with extensive land based testing, assuming it was done in a manner similar to 20 years after WW2.

Ren, I've got a number of sources that state the F4F-3 began to equip VF-41 and VF-7 in December 1940, and at least one source indicates this actually began in November, 1940. I can imagine there is confusion between delivery and the start of squadron CV work-ups which evidently occurred starting in January 1941. That's actually pretty fast from squadron acceptance to embarked ops, which suggests to me there was some push involved, which, based upon the delay due to foreign orders, I can very well understand. I think there may be more going on here on both sides of the Atlantic than meets the eye or is to be found in the popular accounts.

The initial aircraft of the French G-36A variant off the assembly line was first flown in the US on 5/10/40. The FAA archive website claims FAA squadrons began receiving their Martlet-Is in September 1940 (one site even claims late August for the first delivery).

Based on web-cited compilations, I am guessing that well over 100 G-36 and F4F-3 variants came off the Grumman assembly line in 1940 with the bulk of those going overseas. The distribution of the French order, considering what's been said about pilot shortages, I assume was split between providing airframes to training squadrons (Squadrons 759 778 ) for its student FAA pilots and as the FAA archive site states the rest went to equip two apparently operational landbased FAA squadrons (802 804).
Tillman claims the Audacity Martlets were Mark II folding wing. I can see without a hangar, the fixed wing -Is could have been stored for use in a permanent deck park and simply moved about to allow flight ops to proceed as was typically done on USN CVs, so it is conceivable that Audacity's limited space did not preclude use of the few A/C she carried even if they were fixed wing as claimed by Wikipedia and the FAA archive website. It looks like even in the case of the F4F/Martlet we are back to an argument of what could have been done vs the wisdom of what was actually done. The stark example of the B-339 experiment on the Eagle suggests to me that more could have been done had the stars been oriented properly. IIUC, the Martlet III(B)s of the original Greek order (an essentially 1940s or early '41 product) did not possess arresting gear, yet they appear to have been used quite effectively from land bases in the Western desert after their arrival around April 1941 a mere month after the crisis in the Med that spurred the experiment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
872
Ivan1GFP
I
Menu
Log in
Register