F4F against hurricane?

[ickysdad]

what's your opinion?

[GregP]

I think the F4F was more more rugged, but the Hurricane was faster, climbed better, and had a lower wing loading, even if not by much. Of course, the F4F-4 was a carrier fighter and the Hurricane wasn't. Therein lies a difference in weight.

If I were flying either one over land, I'd take the Hurricane. If I needed to fly off a carrier, there is only one choice betyween the two.In a pinch, I think they're pretty close to each other, with the Grumman being way better at diving and taking punishment in combat, while the Hurricane is probably better all round.

F4F-4:512kph, 625mpm rate of climb, 10363m ceiling, 1464km range, 6 x 12.7mm MG, 3.9 kg/kW power loading, 145.9 kg.sq. m wing loading.

Hurricane Mk. IIB: 550kph, 838mpm rate of climb, 11125m ceiling, 772km range, 8 or 12 x 7.7 mm MG, 3.5 kg/kW power loading, 138.4 kg/sq. m wing loading.

[andyo2000]

quote:Originally posted by GregP


If I were flying either one over land, I'd take the Hurricane. If I needed to fly off a carrier, there is only one choice betyween the two.


Well, maybe only one safe choice.

Over 300 Hurricanes were modified for naval use. 50 of them were CAM fighters, or Catapult Assissted Merchantmen. These Hurricanes, better known as Hurricats, were launched off a rocket-assissted catapult to help defend British shipping against the menacing Fw 200 Kondor. The pilot bailed out after his dogfight, hoping to be picked up by the ship that he saved. Though records of these planes are obscure, it appears they together had 7 confirmed kills in 1942 and '43.

By 1943, smaller carriers of the Royal Navy had eliminated the need for CAM ships. 250 Hurricanes were modified to become Sea Hurricanes, which were regular carrier aircraft. They did well enough but were bulky and difficult to land on carriers. That, and their tendency to sink like a brick if crash landed in water, phased them out of service by 1944.

Interesting that there were plans for a floatplane version of the Hurricane, though they didn't get very far. Any comments?

[ickysdad]

On another board a genleman claims that if the USN had Sea Hurricanes it would have suffered fewer losses against the IJN and the A6M's then they did historically equipped with F4F's. What's yourall's take on this?

[Ricky]

Hi GregP - I'm not convinced about the F4F being more 'rugged' than the Hurricane - the Hurri became legendary in the BoB for its ability to absorb damage...

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On another board a genleman claims that if the USN had Sea Hurricanes it would have suffered fewer losses against the IJN and the A6M's then they did historically equipped with F4F's. What's yourall's take on this?


I would be interested in hearing his explanation for this. I wouldn't discount it, but then it's not something that I'd thought about before.

[Red Admiral]

The Hurricane is simple to build, and easy to repair.

Hasn't the F4F got really narrow undercarriage for a carrier fighter? I've always wondered why the Bf109 gets blamed for this, but the F4F doesn't. Some strange landing doctrine?

There really isn't much between the F4F or Hurricane, but I just tend to prefer the Hurricane.

What sort of drop tanks can the F4F carry, if any?

[DoBravery]

Great topic!

The sources I've seen put the Hurri IIC at 327mph at 18,000 and the F4F at 320mph at 18,000. I think in general their speeds are equal.

I think the Wildcat was better suited against the Japanese. Tactics allowed it to cope with the Zero. I doubt the Hurricane could out-climb a Zero. It would be better to try to out dive it in a Wildcat. If it requires a 1942ish Spitfire to fly and turn at high speeds to kill a Zero, I don't see the Hurri doing better.

Inversely I'd prefer a Hurri in Europe. I've heard of the Martlet doing well, but I think the BF109 has better vertical attributes than the F4F. Additionally by 1942 the Hurricane was fielding 20mm. Great for interception.

Both aircraft had reputations of being tough for their time. All things being equal, I'm biased towards rotarys being tougher.

I'd prefer the Hurri over the Wildcat. I think the British plane is more well rounded, whereas the Wildcat must depend on tactics and wingmen a bit more. There are many variations of armament in which case I like the Hurricane in all except if it has 8 .303cal and the Wildcat has 6 .50 cal.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

Great topic!

The sources I've seen put the Hurri IIC at 327mph at 18,000 and the F4F at 320mph at 18,000. I think in general their speeds are equal.

I think the Wildcat was better suited against the Japanese. Tactics allowed it to cope with the Zero. I doubt the Hurricane could out-climb a Zero. It would be better to try to out dive it in a Wildcat. If it requires a 1942ish Spitfire to fly and turn at high speeds to kill a Zero, I don't see the Hurri doing better.

Inversely I'd prefer a Hurri in Europe. I've heard of the Martlet doing well, but I think the BF109 has better vertical attributes than the F4F. Additionally by 1942 the Hurricane was fielding 20mm. Great for interception.

Both aircraft had reputations of being tough for their time. All things being equal, I'm biased towards rotarys being tougher.

I'd prefer the Hurri over the Wildcat. I think the British plane is more well rounded, whereas the Wildcat must depend on tactics and wingmen a bit more. There are many variations of armament in which case I like the Hurricane in all except if it has 8 .303cal and the Wildcat has 6 .50 cal.




I agree with your comment on the .5 inch, I have a vague recollection of being told that it was better to have a spread rather than concentrated.

I am in Rockport MA is there anything aircraft wise in Boston that I can see tomorrow before returning to UK???

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by simon

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On another board a genleman claims that if the USN had Sea Hurricanes it would have suffered fewer losses against the IJN and the A6M's then they did historically equipped with F4F's. What's yourall's take on this?


I would be interested in hearing his explanation for this. I wouldn't discount it, but then it's not something that I'd thought about before.


Simon,
The gentleman figured that the Hurricane had just such an edge climb ratre wise and superior performance otherwise that it would be able to intercept IJN bombers so much easier and be more of a match for the Zero. That was his reasoning.

[simon]

Hawker Sea Hurricane
Mark: Sea Hurricane Mk I, Ib, II
Primary Role: Carrier-Borne Fighter
First Flight: Prototype Hurricane 6.11.1935
Prototype Sea Hurricane 1941
Date operating with FAA squadrons: 1941-1945+
Manufacturer: Hawker
Engine: Sea Hurricane: 1280 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XII engine
Wing Span: 40 feet (12.20 m)
Length: 31 feet 4 inches (9.82 m)
Max.Weight: Weight: 7,200 lbs combat-loaded (3500 kg)
Speed: Max. speed: 340 mph (530 km/h)
Ceiling: 35,000 feet (9500 m)
Range: 468 miles (740 km)
Ceiling : Rate of climb: 3,150 feet per minute
Armament: Eight .303 calibre Browning machine guns
Two 500-lb bombs or eight rockets
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/seahurricane.htm
(I picked this version because it was the most common of the Sea Hurricanes)

Wing Span: 11.6m (38 ft.)
Length: 28 ft. 9 in. to 28 ft. 11 in.
Length (FM-2): 8.5m (28 ft. 10 in.)
Height: 3.6m (11 ft. 11 in.)
Wing Area: N/A
Max. Speed (FM-2): 534 km/h (332 mph)
Initial Climb (FM-2): over 2,000 ft/min
Service Ceiling (Typical): 10,670m (35,000 ft.)
Max. Range (Typical): 1448 km (900 miles)
F4F-3:
Four .50 Colt-Brownings in outer wings
F4F-4 & Subsequent variants:
Six .50 Colt-Brownings in outer wings
Bomb Load: F4F-4, FM-1 & FM-2
Underwing racks for two 250 lb. (133 kg) bombs
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/NARG/wildcat.html

A6M2 Zero
One Pilot
One Nakajima NK1C Sakai 12 Engine
Twin-row 14 cylinder Air-cooled Radial
950 hp @ 3,100 rpm
Two 20 mm Cannons
(Type 99 mounted in the wings)
Two 7.7 mm Machine Guns
(Type 97 mounted in the upper fuselage decking)
Max. Speed 332 mph @ 15,000 feet
Cruise Speed 207 mph
Climb to 20,000 ft in 7.5 minutes
Service Ceiling 32,800 ft
Length 32' 8"
Height 12' 7"
Wing Span 38' 4"
Max. Weight 6,164 lbs
Empty Weight 3,704 lbs
Normal Fuel 141 gallons
(103 gal in two wing tanks & 38 gal in a fuselage tank)
Max. Fuel 228 gallons
(with 87 gal belly tank)
Normal Range 1,160 miles
Maximum Range 1,930 miles
http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/a6m2.htm

OK, these are the figures I've been able to find.

So, some observations. The Sea Hurricane has a slight edge in performance over the Wildcats, 8-15mph which is pretty negligable really.

It does apparently have an advantage in climb over the Wildcat, however this does not seem any greater than that of the Zero, infact from other sources I seem to recall that the Hurricane was probably poorer however I have only been able to find the Zeroes sustained climb figures to go by and the Hurricane's initial climb.

Armament. Given the poor/none-existent protection of the Zero, Val, Kate, Nell or Betty, the Hurricane's 8 .303s would be more than adequate, equally the 4 or 6 .50s armament of the Wildcats made up in hitting power for what they lacked in numbers over the Hurricane's .303s. Yes the Hurricane could carry heavier bombs, but that's no use when trying to engage IJN bombers and fighters.

Range. Clear edge to the Wildcat.

Storage. Stored in a Hangar side by side an embarked airgroup of 30 Wildcats would have to be reduced to 28 Sea Hurricanes. I have no idea though of exactly how they were stored, but for comparison it is worth making the point that more Wildcats could be carried than Hurricanes. Plus spares and equipment would be needed to be carried specifically for the Sea Hurricane's Merlin, rather than the all-radial equipped TBD/SBD/F4F and later TBFs and TBMs.

My thoughts are that the Hurricane's performance only gives it any significant advantage over the Wildcat in a boom and zoom engagement, but then it seems inferior in that respect to the Zero, which could out climb and out turn the Hurricane. In a thach weave the Hurricane's speed advantage is so marginal as to be insignificant.

Compared to this tiny advantage, you will have fewer fighters per carrier, and those will be much shorter legged meaning that the carriers would have to close to within a maximum of about 200 miles of each other before a Hurricane equipped USN could launch an escorted attack. Bye-bye element of surprise, bye-bye a lot more strike planes lost in unescorted attacks or bye-bye a lot more US ships.

Overall, I think the USN would be worse off with the Sea Hurricane, not better.

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On another board a genleman claims that if the USN had Sea Hurricanes it would have suffered fewer losses against the IJN and the A6M's then they did historically equipped with F4F's. What's yourall's take on this?

I find that very doubtful. It can't be proved, because Hurricanes and F4F's never fought alongside each other with the same air arm against Japanese fighters. But the actual results in 1942 of RAF/Commonwealth Hurricanes and USN/USMC F4F's against JNAF A6M's was quite opposite to that hypothesis. The Hurricanes did very badly, the F4F's eked out around a 1:1 exchange ratio.

For example in the Japanese carrier raids against Ceylon in April 1942, 6 A6M's were lost, but at least 3 to RAF bomber return fire when shadowing or attacking (unsuccessfully) the IJN carriers. The A6M's downed 27 Hurricanes and 4 Fulmars among fighters, in their offensive operations (see Shores "Bloody Shambles Vol 2"). At Coral Sea and Midway in May and June, the A6M's downed 12 F4F's but lost 14 A6M's in fighter combat (per Lundstrom in "First Team" for USN, throw in USMC F4F's at Midway). The rest of 1942 was generally similar. The Hurricanes did similarly badly in their few meetings with A6M's over Malaya/East Indies. Most of their opposition was JAAF, and they did poorly against them too (less than even even against the obsolescent Ki-27, and very poorly against the Ki-43, similar to v. A6M).

This was Hurricane not Sea H, RAF/CW not FAA, there are always extenuating circumstances etc. etc. but frankly I don't see much basis for that hypothesis. Also we'd have to consider operational losses. The F4F was a real carrier plane, the Sea Hurricane an ersatz one. I believe its record in the FAA v. the "Martlet" (as the Brits called their F4F's) was considerably higher operational attrition rate. And operation losses usually outnumbered combat losses for WWII carrier fighter units.

Joe

[dunmunro1]

I originally suggested that the Sea Hurricane would have been superior to the F4F-4, the standard Wildcat during Midway and Guadalcanal. The F4F-4 is rated at 318-320mph and 1950-2000FPM climbrate. You have posted the figures for the SeaHurricaneIIb. The Hurricane's climb rate was about the same as the A6M2, above 10k ft, and the time to 20Kft is about the same as well, but the climb from 10K to 20Kft favoured the HurricaneII. Over 20Kft the Hurricane had a clear edge in performance over the A6M2, unlike the F4F or any US fighter in mid 1942. As an intereceptor the Hurricane would have a clear edge in performance over the F4F-4 and would be able to climb to altitude much faster when faced with incoming AC, the altitude advantage would in turn allow the Hurricane to engage from above and escape after making a firing pass.

The Hurricane did poorly, historically, against the A6M because many of the Hurricanes were MK1 versions that were recycled from the B of B and because Hurricane pilots were used to being able to outturn their opponents in Europe. In Ceylon the Hurricanes were caught on the ground, and were trying to engage the A6M while climbing from zero altitude. I was also speculating that had Hurricane development continued with the introduction of a folding wing as per the Seafire, that the Hurricane would have remained the standard FAA fighter due to its good carrier landing performance. The Hurricane's performance as a fighter-interceptor was not increased after the MkII was introduced in aug/sept 1940 but there still some room for improvement. A bit more cleaning up of the airflow around the Hurricane would probably have yielded another 10MPH.

cheers

Duncan

[simon]

I have read of a BoB Hurricane pilot who with the assistance of his mechanic was able to gain he estimated an extra 5mph by filing down the Rivet heads if that's what you mean by cleaning up the air frame.

Introduce folding wings (Unless you're talking about the laughable folding wing-tips of the A2M-3 Zero), and you're going to add weight and reduce fuel tankage (Considering the Sea-Hurricane's tankage was largely in the wing base) and if you're going to develop along that lines why not do so for the Wildcat too?

The crucial factor is range here, you are halving the ability of the carriers to carry out an escorted strike (Like they tried at Midway) or an interception (Like they tried at Midway), it is an interesting thought but fundamentally flawed. If you accept the logic of splitting the carrier fighter groups between escorts and interceptors (SeaHurricanes and Wildcats), you still at least halve capabilites as even accepting some kind of ingenius storage solution as you would have 1 dive bombing group (30 Planes), a Scout bombing group (30 planes), a torpedo bombing group (30 planes) and the last, fighting group would have to be split between intercepting (15 Sea Hurricanes) and Escorting (15 Wildcats), halving the effectiveness of each.

If you replace Wildcats with Sea Hurricanes completely you half the range of your air-compliment, since the strike aircraft are not likely to operate out of fighter escort range. That puts victory at Midway almost totally out of reach as you lose most of the US advantages.

That said Joe, AFAIK the Japanese losses over Midway Atoll were all attributed to AAA fire, not the Marine's Wildcats or Bufalloes, not disparaging the Marine's efforts, they tried hard but they were caught out (Climbing for position) and were horrifically out-numbered, (About 10-1). They tried and their efforts were heroic, but they did not achieve a single kill.

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by dunmunro1

I originally suggested that the Sea Hurricane would have been superior to the F4F-4, the standard Wildcat during Midway and Guadalcanal.

The Hurricane did poorly, historically, against the A6M because many of the Hurricanes were MK1 versions that were recycled from the B of B and because Hurricane pilots were used to being able to outturn their opponents in Europe. In Ceylon the Hurricanes were caught on the ground, and were trying to engage the A6M while climbing from zero altitude.


I think the problem is taking simple paper analysis, and then assuming anything in history that deviates from it must have been caused by "other" factors. There were other factors, always are, the problem is arbitrarily assigning them the weight needed to say essentially we don't need know the history, just the paper stats.

As I said Ceylon was an example. Hurricanes did no better against the JAAF Ki-43's in many engagements. The other significant A6M engagement I can recall was January 22 over Singapore, 2 A6M's downed for loss of 5 Hurricanes and 2 Buffalo's. F4F's were sometimes caught at a disadvantage against A6M's including in the carrier battles, but it evened out to 1:1 in many engagements. There's no historical evidence that the Hurricane (units as a whole) were competitive with Japanese fighter units (as a whole) in this period. Assuming the Brit/CW pilots were not far inferior to the USN and USMC ones, it points to a pretty big inferiority in the true fighter combat effectiveness of the Hurricane v. the Wildcat. It may not all show up in simple stats.

That's a big problem because the range of the J fighters, A6M in particular meant they were ominpresent on escort and sweep, and highly persistent (could fight a long time without breaking due to fuel). A fighter not competitive with the A6M could achieve nothing against the Japanese air/sea, whole lesson of the opening months of Pac War. This is in contrast to FAA experience in Europe where the enemy fighters were short legged and effective interception of unescorted bombers was the key capability. In Pac in 1942 the Hurricane performed so poorly in fighter combat it justifies great skepticism about its viability to replace the F4F, IMO, even allowing for version to version differences.

The tactics thing has some validity, but I'm not assuming a time machine to teach optimum tactics. In 1942 the F4F's actually didn't often use specialized anti-A6M tactics either. Thach used his Weave at Midway, but that was his division, it didn't flow through the training system and become common til 1943 (this is easily seen by descriptions of combats in Lundstrom). One reason the F4F did better than any other Allied fighter in 1942 against the A6M was that it wasn't totally outclassed in a normal dogfight, which paper stats aside, the Hurricane demonstrably was. Of course F4F's sought altitude advantage as all fighters did in all air wars, so did A6M's as you pointed out.

Joe

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by simon


That said Joe, AFAIK the Japanese losses over Midway Atoll were all attributed to AAA fire, not the Marine's Wildcats or Bufalloes,

I'm speaking of the whole Battles of Coral Sea and Midway. Per Lundstrom (reconstructions of each combat from both sides) the USN F4F's downed 14 A6M's in air combat for the loss of 10 F4F's in air combat in those two battles. I'm throwing in the 2 landbased USMC F4F losses at Midway Atoll assuming they didn't down the 1-2 A6M's lost in that air combat. I'm assuming some of the 13 Buffalo's downed got those. But I'm speaking of the F4F, not the Buffalo. Another F4F was downed by A6M's at Wake Island in December 1941, so very close to even to that point for those two types.

And again if you take all of 1942 the A6M v. F4F score is even to within a few planes at somewhere around 80 each. Very big difference from Hurricane v. A6M and Ki-43 which was high single digit:1 in favor of the Japanese.

Joe

[dunmunro1]

This discussion started on another board as we were discussing alternatives to the FAA aquiring Martlets. In European waters the Sea Hurricane did very well even against frontline axis fighters. In Asia the Hurricane was typically fighting at a tactical disadvantage and the squadrons involved were not veterans, nor were they withdrawn but typically fought until wiped out, so they could not benefit from their combat experience by formulating proper tactics. Carrier based AC typically have radar warning of incoming enemy AC and can be vectored to intercept with an altitude advantage, or they engage while at altitude while escorting raids. If the carriers survive the initial encounters and withdraw the surviving pilots will typically sit down and decide how to best counter the enemy AC. it's worth noting that RAAF Spitfires had trouble initially with the A6M and this was due to using incorrect tatics as RAF/RAAF AC typically could outturn their opponents and were not used to fighting in the vertical. Going low and slow against a Hurricane was typically suicidal for a luftwaffe pilot with a high wingloading AC but the A6M was able to turn the tables.

Anyways, the initial pre-production Hurricanes had retractable tail wheels and better landing gear doors. These were removed in production AC but would have added about 10mph to the Hurricanes' speed. Also, I was postulating that a folding wing Hurricane would have been re-engineered for more fuel capacity and to reduce airframe weight to compensate for other weight increases. The standard Sea Hurricane was typically fitted with drop tanks to increase the range and endurance.

cheers

Duncan

[GregP]

Some comments about the two protagonists:

The Hurricane was a very good land-based fighter for the time it was designed. It has a liquid-cooled engine, and was not stressed for carrier landings.

The F4F was built VERY strong, had an air-cooled radial, and was stressed for carier landings.

A carrier plane in the late 1930s to early 1940s was better off with an air-cooled radial since there was no coolant to lose, so they didn't lose any pilots to leaky radiators.

The F4F had no trouble with the narrow gear because carrier decks are very flat and smooth, unlike actual turf, and they had the advantage of catching an arrestor wire to pull the plane straight as it stopped.

The Hurricane was susceptible to coolant system damage in battle. It wasn't a big issue because the Hurricane was fighting over home ground. If they had damage, they could land anyhwere and be repatriated ... kind of like the Bf 109 when it was fighting over Germany. It had no trouble with short range when the fight was over the home aerodrome.

So, as I stated before, the F4F was the better Naval fighter and the Hurricane was the better fighter if you didn't have to land on a carrier.

If they ever completely navalized the Hurricane for carrier use, it would have lost a lot of performance due to the additional structure and things like arrester hooks.

I maintain that ANY carrier plane is sturdier than ANY land-based counterpart since it has to be stressed for the task. The F4F was and the Hurricane was not. I said sturdier. I didn't say better.

No amount of "I like the Hurricane better" (and I DO) will change that statement. By the time the Hurricane and F4F were designed, enough was known about structures, stress, and strain that no land-based fighter was designed with enough excessive strength to be a carrier plane without major modifications.

The Brirish DID restress the Spitfire into the Seafire and Spiteful, and those planes were heavier and not as good performers as their land-based Spitfire counterparts with similar engine ratings.

[dunmunro1]

Not to beat this to death but the Sea Hurricane had arrestor hooks and was stressed for catapult launching.

Versions
Mk I One Hurricane Mk I conversion; Catapult spools and arrester hooks
Mk IA 50 Hurricane conversion; catapult spools only; specially produced for
CAM fighter scheme - launched from CAM ships
Mk IB 300 Mk I (merlin III) and 25 Mk IIA series 2 conversions; Catapult
spools and arrester hook (MAC-ship service)
Mk IC Hurricane Mk I conversion with four-cannon wings; catapult spools
and arrester hook
Mk IIC Arrester hook and naval radio equipment
Mk XIIA Canadian built navalised Mk XII, with Packard Merlin XXIX engine

From:

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/seahurricane.htm

cheers

Duncan

[seppalar]

Fellows,

both the Hurricane and the F4F were reworked biplane fighters. Putting major effort into improving either one would be pretty much wasted. By the time in question aircraft and engine technology had advanced so much that a new fighter would have an insurmountable edge over either of these types, no matter how much you fixed them.

By the time a Hurricane could be totally navalised the F6F would be the fighter it was up against on the Allied side and the A6M5 owuld be the Japanese antagonist, no Hurricane ever had a performance to compete with either of these types.

Rick Seppala

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by dunmunro1

This discussion started on another board as we were discussing alternatives to the FAA aquiring Martlets. In European waters the Sea Hurricane did very well even against frontline axis fighters. In Asia the Hurricane was typically fighting at a tactical disadvantage and the squadrons involved were not veterans, nor were they withdrawn but typically fought until wiped out, so they could not benefit from their combat experience by formulating proper tactics. Carrier based AC typically have radar warning of incoming enemy AC and can be vectored to intercept with an altitude advantage, or they engage while at altitude while escorting raids. If the carriers survive the initial encounters and withdraw the surviving pilots will typically sit down and decide how to best counter the enemy AC. it's worth noting that RAAF Spitfires had trouble initially with the A6M and this was due to using incorrect tatics as RAF/RAAF

Again you seem to take history, and be intent on explaining it away to get back to the paper comparison. Reading Shores v. Lundstrom (Hurricanes v. JAAF/JNAF and F4F v. JNAF with real losses of both sides), I don't see that the Hurricane's tactical situation was consistently so different than the F4F's to explain that huge difference in exchange ratio, high single digit:1 v. 1:1, against weaker (JAAF) opposition for the Hurricane. Especially in the carrier battles F4F's often fought A6M's without altitude advantage and had good and bad days, whereas Hurricanes there is really *no* encounter in that period when Hurricanes beat the Japanese, of many including ones with no apparent huge disadvantage. It's too big a difference not to suspect a greater effectiveness of the Wildcat that may defy easy stats.

For one example, the F4F's low short nose meant a pilot could track at high deflection angles where a long nosed fighter couldn't see the target. And the USN trained in deflection shooting unlike any other air arm; but partly because their planes could do it better, not exacly "plane", not exacly "pilot", and isn't a stat.

It's true the RAAF Spits also did poorly v. the Japanese even in 1943 defending Darwin, and not only initially. Per Japanese loss records they stayed decidedly on the short end of that exchange ratio for the whole campaign. They only shot down one Japanese fighter, a JAAF Ki-43, for sure v. 20+ air combat losses of their own. The 202nd Air Group of the JNAF also lost 3 A6M's in this period but not over Darwin per some sources. It's true again tactics is a part, but also again I'm not assuming a tactics time machine plus different planes, just different planes. And you can read the references on USN in WWII, specialized anti-A6M tactics were not widespread til 1943. Also I think the Spit's performance against JNAF even in 1943 (when per some conventional wisdom it had lost all its good pilots, though that's obviously not so) suggests it, esp the Spit V may have been a somewhat overrated plane too.

I think the other hidden probably questionable assumption is that the European Axis opposition against which Hurricanes did reasonably (the Hurricane certainly had a negative real exchange ratio v, the Luftwaffe though) was inferior to the JNAF of 1942. I'm not sure that's true, how do we know that? Also, strictly contemporaniously the best European Axis fighters, Bf-109F units in the Med, had a quite favorable real exchange ratio against Hurricanes also.

The FM-2 was a somewhat improved Wildcat but still underwhelming on paper. But FM-2's claimed 29 Ki-61's without loss, and while they claimed no Ki-84's they actually defeated a mixed group (of the 73rd Sentai) with 19th Sentai Ki-61's 8:0 per Japanese records Jan 8 '45. FAA FM-2's downed at least 3 Bf-109G's without loss in 1945. This was again, esp at that time in the war, a good deal a function of the decline of Axis pilots, but still I think also indicates that the Wildcat is probably underrated. The FM-2's fighter to fighter claimed exchange ratio was higher than the F6F or F4U in the 1944-45 period.

Joe

[GregP]

Sea Hurricanes were streeed for one launch, not for continuous carrier operation. They would not have survived carrier ops for long, nor were they intended to do so. They were a simple expedient to address a temporary problem with lack of air cover in the mid-Atlantic.

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Sea Hurricanes were streeed for one launch, not for continuous carrier operation. They would not have survived carrier ops for long, nor were they intended to do so. They were a simple expedient to address a temporary problem with lack of air cover in the mid-Atlantic.

Greg, sure you are not thinking of the Hurricats? These were launched of CAM ships.

[GregP]

Could be, Kutscha. I am unaware of any fully navalized Hurricanes that regularly operated fom carriers during WWII.

I confess I haven't much followed the period between WWII and the Korean war except for the devlelopment of jets.

It's apparently a serious omission, and something to look up when I get the time.

[Kutscha]

Greg, Sea Hurricanes regularly operated from carriers.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/800index.htm

[andyo2000]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

By 1943, smaller carriers of the Royal Navy had eliminated the need for CAM ships. 250 Hurricanes were modified to become Sea Hurricanes, which were regular carrier aircraft. They did well enough but were bulky and difficult to land on carriers. That, and their tendency to sink like a brick if crash landed in water, phased them out of service by 1944.



bump

[dunmunro1]

Hurricane Production ended in 1944 and the last batch of Sea Hurricanes was produced in 1943, which, I think, explains why they were phased out of FAA service.

cheers

Duncan

[dunmunro1]

quote:Again you seem to take history, and be intent on explaining it away to get back to the paper comparison.

How does a ki-43 shot down an interceptng Spitfire V? The KI-43 has 1 0r 2 12.7mm MGs and is about 300MPH, the Spitfire V Trop has 2 20mm cannon,4 303 MGs and is about 350MPH. The fact is that a KI-43 cannot shoot down a Spitfire unless the Spitfire pilot places his plane at an extreme tactical disadvantage, such as attempting to turn with the Ki-43 at low speed. Similarly, a F4F cannot shoot down a 109G unless the 109G pilot sacrifises his advantages of speed and climb rate. P-38s that engaged Japanese aircraft using similar tactics usually ended up in trouble as well. I'm not attempting to explain away history, I'm attempting to understand it. I've done some very preliminary research on RAF squadrons in SE Asia and typically the pilots were flying clapped out AC, with only rudimentary maintainence, and usually engaged at a tactical disadvantage. Carrier AC, tend to have excellent maintainence and usually engage at altitude, where it is possible to disengage if needed. I suspect the longer range and longer firing time of the .5 MG had a lot to do with the F4F's success. The .303MG did not have enough range and it's limited firing time probably discouraged defection shooting in favour of trying low angle close range shooting while trying to match the targets speed.

cheers

Duncan

[Mark J]

Duncan is right
The RAF considered the English channel as the front line and the rest of the war as sidelines, so they got second rate aircraft in the outer campaigns. P-36's, Hurricanes and the odd Gladiator. They wern't new machines either. Tired, second hand planes with long service sheets. The pilots were either raw reqruits or tired old hands from the BoB who knew how to fight against 109's with NEW planes. Servicing was also a problem in the tropics, spare parts being a bigger headache. And lets not forget the initial lack of radar in the Asian theatre.
Hurricanes did very well with a grass field, regular maintanance, early warning of intruders and with pilots that had a known tactical approach to battle. That was in Europe. In asia they had very dusty or very muddy airfields, maintanance was difficult meaning low or poor servicability, early warning was not available so planes were often caught on the ground or climbing and the pilots were faced with new fighting tactics.
Wildcats had up to date facilities, early warning and pilots of equal caliber who had the chance to adapt their battle tactics.
The only reason Australia got Spitfires was because the Aussie's nearly punched Churchill on the nose to get them! Similer problems faced the Spitfires as well.
Thats why the Hurricanes didn't face up well against Zero's. They couldn't, not without proper servicing, early warning and the insistance of maintaining obsolete tactics.
I like both planes, Wildcat and Hurricane but the Wildcat was a purpose built naval fighter and the Hurricane a purpose built point defence land based fighter. Both did their specific tasks very well.
Now, if in 1942, the Hurricane was to come up against the A6M over the English channel, then I think the Hurricane would have done a better job.
cheers

[ickysdad]

Wildcats always having first line facilities??? They didn't at Henderson Field during the long Guadalcanal campaign. Please don't forget that the F4F held it's own even during '42 when alot of the IJN's best pilots were still around ,Australians in Spitfire V's were still coming out behind in early '43 after Coral Sea, Midway , and Guadalcanal. Further Australians tested a Spitfire V against a P-40E and found them to be about equal.

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by dunmunro1

quote:Again you seem to take history, and be intent on explaining it away to get back to the paper comparison.

How does a ki-43 shot down an interceptng Spitfire V? The KI-43 has 1 0r 2 12.7mm MGs and is about 300MPH, the Spitfire V Trop has 2 20mm cannon,4 303 MGs and is about 350MPH. The fact is that a KI-43 cannot shoot down a Spitfire unless the Spitfire pilot places his plane at an extreme tactical disadvantage, such as attempting to turn with the Ki-43 at low speed. Similarly, a F4F cannot shoot down a 109G unless the 109G pilot sacrifises his advantages of speed and climb rate. P-38s that engaged Japanese aircraft using similar tactics usually ended up in trouble as well. I'm not attempting to explain away history, I'm attempting to understand it. I've done some very preliminary research on RAF squadrons in SE Asia and typically the pilots were flying clapped out AC, with only rudimentary maintainence, and usually engaged at a tactical disadvantage. Carrier AC, tend to have excellent maintainence and usually engage at altitude,

How does it happen? It did happen, and *after* the Spit units at Darwin say they revised their tactics. The only raid on Darwin by the JAAF was June 20, 1943, one of the last raids. The Spits, using their new hit and run tactics claimed 5 "Zero's" and 9 bombers for 2 losses of their own, vindicating some of their earlier defeats. Actually only 1 Ki-43 of the 59th Sentai and 1 Ki-21 were downed. The 59th claimed 9 fighters and 6 probables. As mentioned this Ki-43 victory by the Spits was the only incontrovertable one of that campaign over a J fighter.

So maybe some of the weightings you give to factors in a theoretical analysis need revision in view of actual results. The whole idea that "hit and run" without following enemy a/c into turns is really possible, tends to be based on summary accounts, and *claims*. Reading actual accounts of combats in view of real outcomes, the picture tends to change.

The thing about carrier fighters having altitude advantage really doesn't make sense. Coral Sea/Midway were carrier battles, both sides were carrier fighters, both sides couldn't consistently have altitude advantage. And there was no time for tactics adjustment. Yet out of that starting gate the USN Wildcats scored 14 real victories over A6M's (plus 2 over A5M's) to 10 losses in a number of combats with no consistent altitude, numbers or other advantage, too unrecognizably different from the Hurricane's record for arguments such as a/c condition to be convicing. You suggested the USN use Sea Hurricanes. Any prudent decision maker would have to reject that, not risk everything on theoretical explanations to turn the Hurricane's dismal actual record around. And again you are inserting a change of specialized hit and run tactics that neither Hurricanes nor Wildcats consistently used in 1942, besides again all fighters, before perhaps 1:1 thrust/weight third generation jets, craved altitude advantage.

In general I recommend more research over what you've done preliminarily. Two good books are Lundstrom's "The First Team" about the Wildcats early in the war, and Shores "Bloody Shambles" about the Allied land air arm fighters. Both deal in real losses of both sides, not claims which distort many people's view of WWII air combat even to this day. Read them and see if the superiority of the Wildcat over the Hurricane as a fighter-fighter machine v the A6M doesn't tend toward the obvious.

Joe

[ChrisMcD]

I know 'Winkle' Brown is biased in favour of Grumman, but his comments on carrier suitability may be of interest.

Sea Hurricane
"Short on range, with the ditching propensities of a submarine, harsh stalling characteristics, a very mediocre view for deck landing and an undercarriage that was as likely as not to bounce it over the arrester wires.

Wildcat
"I would still assess the Wildcat as the outstanding naval fighter of the early war years. It's ruggedness meant that it had a much lower attrition rate than either the Sea Hurricane or Spitfire. With its excellent patrol range - I actually flew one sortie of four and a half hours - and fine ditching characteristics. This was, for my money, one of the finest shipboards aeroplanes ever created."

As far as I can make out, the Sea Hurricane Mk II with four 20mm cannons was ideal for dealing with Italian bombers in the Med and did a very good job.

But, RAF and FAA pilots were trained to dogfight, rather than dive and zoom - which would be a disaster with a Zero. What is depressing is that it appears to have taken a long time for this to be worked out!

[Ricky]

Next question - would the RAF have done better in the BoB if they had Wildcats (Martlets)?[:p]

[simon]

Next answer, no.

[Ricky]

:D

You can't end a controversial question that easily!

Why not?

Ok, so the Wildcat was not as good an interceptor performance-wise, but it did have the .5 guns, which would give it an edge...

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Time to bring the Mosquito back into the discussion! NOT! [}:)]

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

LOL - don't tempt fate Lightning...;)

[simon]

The poorer climb and overall performance of the Wildcat means that the fighter controllers would have to scramble Wildcat squardons much earlier than a Hurricane squadron. The Battle of Britain was very hard on the controllers, they played constant guessing games with the Luftwaffe with regard to whether a raid was real or a feint to draw the fighters up early.

The pilots would be more fatigued from constant scrambling and flying, recieving much less rest than their Hurricane or Spitfire counterparts and fuel would be wasted scrambling for feints and decoys.

The .303 was adequate for the Battle of Britain as the Luftwaffe planes, especially the bombers had little armour and extensive glazing. The 8 x .303s of the Hurricane give you twice the opportunity to hit something important than the 4 x .50s of the F4F3 Wildcat (The 6 gun F4F4 wouldn't see service until much later), OK less chance of damaging it, but against the unarmoured glazed nose of, say an He111 the crew and components are going to be more badly injured or damaged by the bullets of 8 machineguns than 4.

Lastly, going back to performance, if the Ju88 was difficult for the Hurricanes and Spitfires to catch in a chase it would be virtually impossible for a Wildcat.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by simon

The pilots would be more fatigued from constant scrambling and flying, recieving much less rest than their Hurricane or Spitfire counterparts and fuel would be wasted scrambling for feints and decoys.
Although once up they could stay up on patrol for yonks - very useful, especially in the early days of protecting Channel shipping...

(sorry, I do know that you are right[B)])

[simon]

They'd have to stay up for ages in order to stand a chance of intercepting anything, meaning the pilots would be increasingly fatigued and fuel wasted mounting tiring standing patrols (Which was exactly what the RAF was hoping to get away from with the introduction of Radar).

Anyway I know you know I'm right :D, you're just being argumentative for the fun of it!

[Double T]

Ground-crews at Guadalcanal wired the blowers wide-open to improve climb and interception times. It meant overhauling the engines at a much-higher frequency, however.
I don't think theres any comparison between the damage inflicted by .50 caliber to .303 caliber. It's light artillery fer Petes' sake. I'll take the four .50 cal over eight .303 cal EVERY time.
Question now being did the RAF have better interception response time from RADAR than the USMC Wildcats on Guadalcanal with Australian and New Zealand coastwatchers?
Hmmm.
I think the Wildcats might've given 'Emils quite a scrap in a bounce.

Tim

[Red Admiral]

quote:I think the Wildcats might've given 'Emils quite a scrap in a bounce.

But most of the time the -109s will have the drop on the F4F. And they can turn faster and go quicker.

8x7.7mms are probably better if not equal to 4x12.7mms. Both just punch holes through things, just a case of bigger hole vs. more holes. 8 guns give more chance of hitting and causing damage against unarmoured targets.

Response time? 3mins rings a bell.

[dunmunro1]

IIRC, the RAF examined the .5" Browning and actually concluded that 4 HMGs was a better armament than 8 LMGs, however, IIRC, the HMG had a much higher stoppage rate and so was rejected.

There"s an interesting article here:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

about the effectiveness of various WW2 aircraft weapons.

The F4F-4 would have been badly outclassed above 20k ft where much of the fighting took place in the BofB, The HurricaneII was given priority for the new Merlin XX engine to improve it's climb and performance at altitude.

cheers

Duncan

[ChrisMcD]

To quote my hero again (E.Brown, Wings of the Navy).

" I was to engage in many mock combats with RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires and was soon convinced that the Martlet (I think he had an ex-French G-36A) was a formidable fighting aircraft, capable of holding its own in every phase except that it was slower than its RAF opponents in the dive. However, this shortcoming was more than compensated for by its steep climb, excellent turning circle and completely innocuous stalling characteristics. The pilot had a better all round view and, of course there were those 'fifty caliber machine guns which were to prove possibly the best fighter weapons of the war."

This is the version with the single-stage, two-speed supercharger, so not a great performed at height.

I know fighter versus fighter combat got steadily higher as the BoB progressed - but in the anti-bomber role (as intended for the Hurricane) with those 'fifty calibers the Wildcats would have made a real mess out of the Heinkels and Dorniers.

There would have been a lot less of the 'badly shot up ones' that limped home!

[dunmunro1]

It's my understanding, that the first Martlets were F4F-3s with fixed wings, no armour or self-sealing tanks and had a two speed supercharger which was not fitted in the F4F-4. These F4F-3s were, therefore, much lighter than the F4F-4 but were not really combat ready by RAF standards. If you were to strip the armour and selfsealing tanks from a HurricaneII you would also be able to further improve performance but I doubt most pilots would agree to those changes.

cheers

Duncan

[Double T]

Good point Duncan. (Welcome by the way.)
Of course were it a priority, wouldn't they be able to field-modify to add armor and self-sealing tanks?
Chris:
I agree the Marlets would have been foxes in the henhouse if they got to the Heinkels and Dorniers. Stukas for dessert. The .50s would have resulted in less cripples I agree.
Good discussion guys.

Tim

[Double T]

Red Admiral:
I understand your rationale... yet the trend during the war was most definitely towards heavier, and more destructive cannon-type ordnance.
If the BMG.50 cal was an outstanding 'light-artillery' round, the german 30mm--as was fitted to the nose of the Me262 was possibly the 'heavy-weight champ' when it came to bomber-killers.
The RAF needed heavier-hitters than .303 'small-arms' ammunition.

Tim

[R Leonard]

And, of course, we all know that the first airplane shot down by an F4F was a Ju88 on 25 December 1940; flying out of Hatson, Lieut. Carter and Sub-Lieut. Parke from 804 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. BHM Kendall, RN, commanding) intercepted their prey over Scapa Flow and shot it down near Loch Skail.

Rich

[ickysdad]

Well I admire Captain Brown very much but in one part of his book I noticed he states the Hurricane didn't dive as fast ,in another it dove faster? Actually I think the Wildcast rolled much better,the Hurricane in initial dive acceleration did better ,but the F4F would very soon pull ahead as well as getting into the dive quicker.
Also remember JoeB's excellent synopsis.
This all started as a debate about wether the US had any planes that could stand up to European fighters in 1940. I felt like the F4F was a fair match for the Hurricane. The P-40E meanwhile was just as fast as the Spitfire of the BoB & Me. 109E all 3 around 350-355 MPH though the P-40's altitude would be at 15K where this speed was achieved ,the Spit & '109 at about 22K.The P-40E could outroll & outdive both while also being able to outturn the '109 though to be fair both could easily outclimb the P-40. The P-39 prototype fully fueled and armed could hit 390 MPH and climb at 4000 FPM. So the US certainly had aircraft that could hold thier own.

[ickysdad]

I think in response to what JoeB said something may be hidden in plane performance ,it seems that both the Huirricane & Spitfire V both had enough going for them to beat the Zero in BNZ tatics but it seems even when they done this the Zero's still prevailed while the Wildcats always held thier own with or without special tatics. I was wondering if maybe it could be a cae where the RAF fighters maybe didn't handle as well in a dive or at high speeds like the Wildcat did? Look at the P-47 , P-51, and F4U it's my understanding that the 2 USAAF fighters were faster in a dive than the Corsair but the USN handled far better in a dive. We also always hear that the '109 was outturned by the Mustang however,as I understand it, at low speeds ,low altitudes the '109 could outturn it.
I maybe wrong on this but maybe something to think about??????

[dunmunro1]

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Good point Duncan. (Welcome by the way.)
Of course were it a priority, wouldn't they be able to field-modify to add armor and self-sealing tanks?
Chris:
I agree the Marlets would have been foxes in the henhouse if they got to the Heinkels and Dorniers. Stukas for dessert. The .50s would have resulted in less cripples I agree.
Good discussion guys.

Tim


Thanks, it looks like an interesting forum. I could see armour being retrofitted but I'd guess that tanks are pretty integral to the plane and it would be hard to do in the field. I think the flat trajectory of the .5" and its better penetration made quite a difference.

cheers

Duncan

[Red Admiral]

quote:I understand your rationale... yet the trend during the war was most definitely towards heavier, and more destructive cannon-type ordnance.

The early war cannon were slower-firing and less powerful than late war. Britain did shift towards the cannon camp, arming the Hurricane IIB wiht 4x20mm. However earlier examples would not be quite as effective as massed batteries of machine guns.

[bearoutwest]

quote:Britain did shift towards the cannon camp, arming the Hurricane IIB wiht 4x20mm. However earlier examples would not be quite as effective as massed batteries of machine guns.

When machine-gun armed Sea Hurricanes encountered the Bv138 over the Artic, they would generally use up their ammunition shooting up the heavily armoured German scout planes without downing them. The Sea Hurricanes would then be often out of ammunition and circling, or on the deck re-arming when the He 111 and Ju 88 attacked.

Similar things were happening in the Mediterranean, with Sea Hurricane's machine-gun fire damaging but failing to down the Ju 88s. The Hispano cannon which the early Hurricanes used experimentally, as early as the Battle of Britain, were fundamentally the same as used later in the Hurricane IIc, Spitfires, Typhoons, etc. The only difference is the early 60 round ammunition drums were replaced by 100-120 (or more) round ammunition belts.

The effectiveness of massed machine guns (8 Brownings or later 12) could considered useful against a smaller fighter, but after 1941 would be pretty much negated by the heavier armour being carried by bombers. With a 60 round cannon, the average pilot would have less chance of hitting anything, but anything hit by the 20mm round would suffer greater damage. I don't think there's much difference in effectiveness between missing with all 60 rounds of cannon fire or hitting with 200 rounds of 0.303 inch ammunition but failing to bring down the attacking bomber.

...geoff

[Ricky]

Nice to see you again Geoff!

quote:Originally posted by bearoutwest
[br I don't think there's much difference in effectiveness between missing with all 60 rounds of cannon fire or hitting with 200 rounds of 0.303 inch ammunition but failing to bring down the attacking bomber.
Aside from mending the damage and replacing the trousers of the bomber crew...

[bearoutwest]

Thanks Ricky,
I'm usually here, happily lurking in the background until I can throw in my 4 cents worth.

I think I'd almost happily trade the damage done by 200x 0.303-inch m-g rounds on my heavily armoured (let's say) Ju 88 torpedo bomber, and the new stains on my newly brown colour trousers - for a 21-inch torpedo hit on a juicy escort carrier or a fat tanker. Besides, just think of the number of trouser replacements required on an escort carrier from a close miss by a torpedo.

Sorry, couldn't resist the toilet-humour. ;)

I think this is a really interesting thread, but seems to have fallen into the F4F v Sea Hurricane comparison trap. What I'd like to see are peoples' thoughts on the scenario of: if the USN had decided way back in 1938 to cancell the F4F project, and concentrate on a fully navalised Sea Hurricane, with 4x or 6x 0.5-inch Browning HMGs (remember that this was the preferred armament on the Belgian produced Hurricanes - so it's not out of the question). What sort of tactical changes would the USN pilots and controllers have had to implement to make this work to its best effectiveness.

We know the Sea Hurricane didn't have the range of a F4F, and the wings wouldn't have folded as effectively. If we consider that the US Navy would have found a way to fold the wings of the bigger Hurricane, so let's say you could put 2 Sea Hurricanes instead of 3 F4Fs on the same sized carrier. Given these restrictions, but also given that the US would have had 4 years (1938-1941) to develop and refine its tactics, what could a fleet of USN Sea Hurricanes have achieved in 1942?

Your thoughts please?

...geoff

[DoBravery]

I think the Hurrie would have substituted the Wildcat in combat against the Zero without any significant difference.

Due to the shorter range of the Hurrie, I think there would have been a gigantic tactical difference.

Imagine if at the Battle of Midway because of the Hurrie's range, US carriers had to close the distance more before launching the historically timely dive-bomber strike that caught the Japanese by surprise.

Maybe they launch without escort; maybe the bombers avoid the out of place zeroes anyway; or maybe the US waits a few moments too long.

I also wonder whether the development of the Hellcat would have suffered had there not been the Wildcat.

Perhaps the US Navy simply accomodates the Corsair instead of a Grumman aircraft.

[ickysdad]

As far as combat per Hurricane verse Zero as opposed to Wildcat verse Zero though look at what JoeB's posting have illuminated the Wildcat always held it's own even without special tatics and before the degradation of IJN pilot quality ,the Hurricane didn't. The Spitfire V didn't hold it's own even in early '43 and still had problems even when they changed thier tatics.

[Double T]

The US Navy and Grumman had a close relationship. Grumman put the "F" in Fighter.
The Chance-Vought Corsair was a great aircraft, but it took the USN awhile to warm-up to it. They didn't like it's carrier-landing characteristics. They gave it to the Marines in the meantime.

Tim

[ChrisMcD]

I'm with Ickysdad on this one.

I think that the Wildcat was by far the better carrier fighter because Grumman were experts at their craft and the Brits always made short legged fighters!

Simon will not doubt have an opinion, but as I remember the 0.5 Browning was considered for the RAF, but ran into reliability problems that led to delays (not sure whether it was heating or g-load problems).

We are talking about the start of the war and knocking down notoriously lightly built fighters, but I would still plump for the 0.5's

There does seem to be a difference between the speed that the USAF and USN learnt to cope with the Japanese love of dogfighting and the RAF (RAAF?). Is this because a lot of the USAF thinking (I have no idea of the USN philosophy) was towards long range high altitiude bomber interception (ie Lightning) or emphasis on ground attack (ie P-40) but very little on dogfighting. So, if you know that you have not develped dogfighters you presumably have a mindset that will examine other tactics more readily?

[ickysdad]

Chris,
I think performance can be very deceptive for instance in the Do. 335 verse P-38 thread it was stated that the Do. 335's top speed was higher but thaT AIRCRAFT had severe problems when it got up to higher speeds where as the P-38 didn't,a so-called advantage isn't so if you really can't use it. Was the Zero really more manuverable than the P-40 ,P-39, F4F, or just about any other fighter? It did at low alt's & low speeds . I also know that F4F's & P-40's could roll well at high speeds ,the Zero couldn't and am wondering if the USAAF/USN aircraft had significant advantages over the Zero whereas the RAF craft also had an advantage over the Zero but maybe not as dramatically so, however I'm not really for sure about the Hurricane's or Spitfire's handling at over 300 MPH compared to USAAF/USN fighter craft. The USAAF/USN fighters all seem to be happiest at speeds over 300 MPH couple that with the fact that almost all of them dive better than thier counterparts ,the US planes seem to be able better to stay at thier happiest speeds. Further it seems that just maybe we look at speed but not acceleration ,sustained climb but not zoom climb, turning but not rolling and there is some evidence that zoom climb ability maybe more important verse sustained climb and rolling more so than sustained turning ability.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Ickysdad,

By dogfighting, I tend to assume a low speed manouverability competition where the lighter aircraft with the lower wing loading will have an advantage. If you start to dogfight there is a very real risk of bleeding off energy (aka delata v or speed and heigh)t unless you are an expert)

I quoted the Buffalo figures because I was surprised how good it looked on paper - but Eric Brown also commented on its nice low speed handling and manouverability. I would suggest that it was the last American fighter to be designed to that concept.

So yes, I would say that as a classic dogfighter the Zero was superior to all later American fighters if it could lure them into a dogfight. My point being that a lot of the later American fighters were designed to do other tasks and were superior to the Zero when the proper tactics were used. So you could argue that the American design philosophy was superior

Conversely the Japanese were so fixated on dogfighting that they were careless about how how ailerons heavied up at speed (but so were the Germans and Brits and there was a crash programme to sort out the Spitfires ailerons during the BoB). You could also comment on their aircraft's low overall weights, lack of armour and self sealing tanks etc.

So, to answer your second question, the Brits woke up fast to the benefits of high speed handling and did a lot of work on upgrading the Spitfire (metal sharp tipped ailerons etc.) and finding an alternative to the Hurricane that led to the Tempest.

I think it is a question of basic design philosophy, I believe that at the start of the war the British, Germans and Japanese all assumed that the first objective of a fighter was to outfight other fighters and they were using a retrospective WWI view of dogfighting as the way to do it. The Brits and the Germans quickly woke up - hence the sudden interest in cannons etc.

If I am right, in saying that bomber interception (Ah isolationism) was a major USAAF design objective, then speed of interception, diving and climbing speed would all be given a higher priority than pure manouverability - and I would say that they were right.

I would suspect that the early model Hurricanes and Spitfires would have been better advised to avoid dogfighting with Japanese fighters. What surprises me is that there is very little evidence of any learning process taking place until the air battles over Darwin - certainly Celon is a very sorry story. I would hope that the Australian view is better informed on this than me!

[ickysdad]

Well MHO is that in comparing the Hurricane & Wildcat and looking at thier records against the Zero what happens is that yes the Hurricane can probably outturn the Wildcat,barely,but this fact doesn't help it against the Zero which can outturn both. The Hurricane I'm sure can outroll the Zero but probably not as well as the F4F even to the point of not having enough of this important advantage when engaging the Zero whereas the F4F probably had a considerable advantage over the IJN fighter. The Hurricane is faster and climbs better than the F4F but is still only equal to the Zero in those areas,maybe. The Hurricane can outdive the Zero but is it's advantage the same as the Wildcat's in those areas over the Zero?
I guess what I'm trying to say about the Hurricane is that it's equal to the Zero in a couple of areas and has an advantage in a couple of others though maybe it's not enough whereas the Wildacat is inferior to the Zero in the areas(though not overly inferior in speed) the Hurricane is equal to the Zero in but has very clear cut advantages in 2 area where the Hurricane MAY only have slight advantages over the IJN plane. I'm not for sure about this it's just maybe an analysis .

[Flo]

:D The biggest advantage the USNs Wildcats had was they were USN! That is to say that they were well maintained, piloted by very well trained, highly experienced, professional naval aviators who knew they were going to war two years or more before it happened.
On the latter- their navy fought a 'shadow' or cold war against the German Kriegsmarine for over a year before Pearl. Pacific air groups weren't directly involved, but anyone with military or naval experience knows just how much focus the possibility of a conflict affords. :(
As a carrier fighter the Hurricane had good and bad points. Poor approach manners, possibly (although the RAF managed to land on Glorious' deck without any modification without incident.) Appaling ditch characteristics. Poor range. No navigator( ;))
On the plus side it was an excellent fighter, interceptor, fighter-bomber and recce platform. It was well armed, tough, easily repaired. In RN service it complimented longer ranged Fulmar fighters and Barracuda torpedo bombers with similar engine fits.
Naval aviators (personal opinion only-don't expect masses of supporting data if you want to flame me :p) tend to flatter their aircraft. As a FAA fighter it was exemplary. In USN service the increased performance vs Wildcats would have compensated for its' poorer sea legs. Better? Worse? That depends how long you want to speculate it would have been in USN service. If they had them from 1937, with the prefered 4x.50cal USN loadout and carrier mods the Americans would have done very well with their hot new English ride. As an alternative to their well established 'Cats in late '41, probably not. The F4F was a generation ahead of the Hawker and a better carrier aircraft.

[Dcazz7606]

Hi GregP - I'm not convinced about the F4F being more 'rugged' than the Hurricane - the Hurri became legendary in the BoB for its ability to absorb damage...

I read somewhere in the past that the canvas construction behind the pilot actually helped because cannon shells would pass through without exploding.

[ickysdad]

:D The biggest advantage the USNs Wildcats had was they were USN! That is to say that they were well maintained, piloted by very well trained, highly experienced, professional naval aviators who knew they were going to war two years or more before it happened.
On the latter- their navy fought a 'shadow' or cold war against the German Kriegsmarine for over a year before Pearl. Pacific air groups weren't directly involved, but anyone with military or naval experience knows just how much focus the possibility of a conflict affords. :(
As a carrier fighter the Hurricane had good and bad points. Poor approach manners, possibly (although the RAF managed to land on Glorious' deck without any modification without incident.) Appaling ditch characteristics. Poor range. No navigator( ;))
On the plus side it was an excellent fighter, interceptor, fighter-bomber and recce platform. It was well armed, tough, easily repaired. In RN service it complimented longer ranged Fulmar fighters and Barracuda torpedo bombers with similar engine fits.
Naval aviators (personal opinion only-don't expect masses of supporting data if you want to flame me :p) tend to flatter their aircraft. As a FAA fighter it was exemplary. In USN service the increased performance vs Wildcats would have compensated for its' poorer sea legs. Better? Worse? That depends how long you want to speculate it would have been in USN service. If they had them from 1937, with the prefered 4x.50cal USN loadout and carrier mods the Americans would have done very well with their hot new English ride. As an alternative to their well established 'Cats in late '41, probably not. The F4F was a generation ahead of the Hawker and a better carrier aircraft.

In performance the F4F-3 was the equal of the Hurricane even after the addition of protected tanks & armor. Against the Zero the Wildcat had it's good days & bad days but ther Hurricane only had bad days.

[Ricky]

Did the Hurricane ever fight the Zero? I thought the Hurri was mostly out Burma way which was IJA territory.

[ickysdad]

Did the Hurricane ever fight the Zero? I thought the Hurri was mostly out Burma way which was IJA territory.


I know they did when Nagumo staged his Indian Ocean raids in early 1942.