F5F or F4F. Did the U.S. Navy make the right choice?
- Thread starter Draconis
- Start date
McPherson
Banned
In the arctic convoys situation or in North Atlantic sea state 5 or 6 + you have to worry about wind over deck spoiler effect. You plow into that wind with what amounts to a shovel; hence the reluctance of the USN to adopt the expedient. Anyway unless you really need that vertical force shove component as a last push to get the angle of attack lift just right, I think the bi-planes would be alright just rolling off. More about the catapult in a moment.
Hmm. I know RAF Lockheed Hudsons downed the FW 200 Condors like they were tied heifers ready to be butchered; but a Sea Gladiator? Possible, but it would have to be a diving attack instead of just sidling up to the German and hosing his cockpit with turret gun fire from that Boulton Paul power mount at the aft dorsal position. Some really weird stuff air to air going in WW II. An Australian RAAF Hudson stood off nine Zeros for 10 minutes until the Japanese ace of aces, Sakuro Sakai, finally arrived and shot him down by doing the old Russian hammer and anvil drill. It turns out (PUN!) that a Hudson could outturn a Zeke at 200 knots just by applied on and off power to the engines? Must have been Pratts. You could never do that with a Wright.
==================
Catapults.
USN version of a catapult. (Cruiser mounted gunpowder type.)
(^^^)
(^^^) (RN, I think it might be hydraulic.)
Look, it is obvious that catapults on warships, at least in the RN, were as early as 1916 and by 1922 were common fixtures being applied to cruiser sized ships on up, but here is the thing. These early systems are very cranky, being either hydraulic (fire hazard), air bottle, (burst or fizzle, plane overboard hazard), or gunpowder {USN} (explosion hazard) and they are somewhat complex with many critical fail paths built in. IOW, they are likely to fail to launch at least 10-15% of the time.
Now, it makes sense to install them on dedicated USN, RN attack carriers with the early naval monoplane aircraft. Lugging a 1000 kg torpedo or bomb into the air is not easy for a Devastator. OTOH, a biplane (Swordfish) has an easier time of it.
A MAC should be as simple as possible, so if bi-plane fighters and torpedo planes can do the ASW and air defense work required, ditch the catapult. Unneeded weight and complexity. KISS.
Last edited:
A Sea Gladiator, on the level ,has about the speed of a jogging trot more than a Condor and if the Gladiator is climbing and the Condor makes a very gentle loss of altitude it will be long gone before the Gladiator arrives. However it has been driven off, for the moment. If the two meet in combat 6 x.303s from a Gladiator will do the job and it will climb far higher than a Condor can but only if it has the warning time to do so before engaging. More likely the Condor will be spotted and the Gladiator then launched and it will drive the Condor away. Condors will then react by approaching convoys at a greater altitude which will vastly diminish their chances of doing damage but will let them continue to spot for U Boats.
In the context of the day and the resources available it would make sense for MAC ships to have been put in place earlier with a mix of Swordfish and Gladiators. With hindsight there are a few tricks one might employ to give the Gladiator a better chance but it's principal task has to be to drive off Condors. Engaging with them is merely fortuitous. Much the same applies to the Swordfish. Their task is to drive off and deter U Boats and successful attacks are again fortuitous.
Both are available and suited to the small decks. Simple and sound choices for the task in hand. Martlets are too marginal for reliable use from a MAC which is a very different beast to a light Escort Carrier.
In the context of the day and the resources available it would make sense for MAC ships to have been put in place earlier with a mix of Swordfish and Gladiators. With hindsight there are a few tricks one might employ to give the Gladiator a better chance but it's principal task has to be to drive off Condors. Engaging with them is merely fortuitous. Much the same applies to the Swordfish. Their task is to drive off and deter U Boats and successful attacks are again fortuitous.
Both are available and suited to the small decks. Simple and sound choices for the task in hand. Martlets are too marginal for reliable use from a MAC which is a very different beast to a light Escort Carrier.
Four guns, not six. Condor crews, seeing a biplane, may have thought it would be a Swordfish.
The Gladiator did not, AFAIK, have any pilot or fuel tank protection (Finnish machines had a somewhat unfortunate record). In a tail chase, I'd back the Condor.
McPherson
Banned
You have a little more speed, a little more climb, but you trade in some firepower. OTOH this thing (^^^) can also dive bomb and carry depth charges. Just sayin'.
Slight snags in going out of production in 1938 and half of the war was over before it could be deployed in the MAC role.
You have a little more speed, a little more climb, but you trade in some firepower. OTOH this thing (^^^) can also dive bomb and carry depth charges. Just sayin'.
McPherson
Banned
Details. If you are the RN FAA, MACs are on the table along with too much Guinness and you're looking for cheap surplus planes or show an interest in the F4F biplane model rejected by the USN, then...
Well if you need a faster biplane fighter bolt a 930hp Bristol Perseus engine from a Skua or Roc onto a Gladiator in place of its Mercury.
I think it's asking too much to expect Grumman to produce another line of airplane in the original biplane F4F obsolete type as they're are busy producing the monoplane F4Fs. However the British could maybe have got their hands on the F3Fs that the U.S. Navy still had. Through some kind of diplomatic persuasion and/or horse trading.
We want a biplane fighter that can fly off of and land on the MACs and is fast enough to catch a Condor. The F3Fs could do that. I think you had a good idea in post#186. No need to hang bombs or depth charges on the F3F. That's what Swordfish are for. The British could maybe have stuck another gun or two on the F3F. Preferably a HMG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier#'Triple_Twelve'_oil_tankers
I included the link to the Wikipedia article again for anyone who may want to read the full article. But I'll add this excerpt regarding the MAC ships and how they could have been implemented earlier to help close the Mid-Atlantic Gap.
"In 1940, Captain M. S. Slattery RN, Director of Air Material at the Admiralty, proposed a scheme for converting merchant ships into aircraft carriers as a follow-up to the CAM ship project.[1][2] Slattery proposed fitting a flight deck equipped with two arrester wires and a safety barrier onto an existing merchant ship hull. The resulting 'auxiliary fighter carrier' would be capable of operating six Hurricane fighters while retaining its cargo-carrying ability. The stumbling block for Slattery's proposal turned out to be objections from the Ministry of Supply that combining the merchant and aircraft carrier roles would be too complicated.[2] While this would turn out to be over-stated, it seems to have had the effect of diverting attention away from the idea of hybrid merchant-warships towards the alternative of converting merchant ships into fully-fledged warships designated 'auxiliary aircraft carriers', the first of which, converted from the captured German cargo ship Hannover, entered service as Empire Audacity (later HMS Audacity) in June 1941.[2][3]
The hybrid concept re-emerged early in 1942 when, in the face of mounting losses from U-boat attacks, it became apparent that escort carriers building in the US could not be delivered quickly enough in the numbers required.[4] Various people have been credited with re-inventing the idea, including Captain B. B. Schofield RN, Director Trade Division, and John Lamb, Marine Technical Manager of the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company.[5][6][7] Sir James Lithgow, Controller of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair and joint-owner of Lithgows Ltd, the Clyde-based shipbuilders, also helped overcome Admiralty reservations about MACs. Lithgow is said to have sketched a rough design for one on the back of an envelope and offered to convert two ships about to be built at his family's shipyard on condition that "I am not interfered with by the Admiralty".[8] While the timing of Lithgow's possibly apocryphal intervention is uncertain, his deputy, Sir Amos Ayre, the Director of Merchant Shipbuilding, was certainly discussing the requirements for MACs by May 1942.[9] Ayre himself credits Sir Douglas Thomson of Ben Line and the Ministry of War Transport with having first suggested the idea.[6]"...........from the Wikipedia article.
Using these cargo ships as simple aircraft carriers would not have prevented then from still carrying cargo. And the conversions were not very complex jobs. It would seem this rather brilliant idea should not have been allowed to languish for two years.
I included the link to the Wikipedia article again for anyone who may want to read the full article. But I'll add this excerpt regarding the MAC ships and how they could have been implemented earlier to help close the Mid-Atlantic Gap.
"In 1940, Captain M. S. Slattery RN, Director of Air Material at the Admiralty, proposed a scheme for converting merchant ships into aircraft carriers as a follow-up to the CAM ship project.[1][2] Slattery proposed fitting a flight deck equipped with two arrester wires and a safety barrier onto an existing merchant ship hull. The resulting 'auxiliary fighter carrier' would be capable of operating six Hurricane fighters while retaining its cargo-carrying ability. The stumbling block for Slattery's proposal turned out to be objections from the Ministry of Supply that combining the merchant and aircraft carrier roles would be too complicated.[2] While this would turn out to be over-stated, it seems to have had the effect of diverting attention away from the idea of hybrid merchant-warships towards the alternative of converting merchant ships into fully-fledged warships designated 'auxiliary aircraft carriers', the first of which, converted from the captured German cargo ship Hannover, entered service as Empire Audacity (later HMS Audacity) in June 1941.[2][3]
The hybrid concept re-emerged early in 1942 when, in the face of mounting losses from U-boat attacks, it became apparent that escort carriers building in the US could not be delivered quickly enough in the numbers required.[4] Various people have been credited with re-inventing the idea, including Captain B. B. Schofield RN, Director Trade Division, and John Lamb, Marine Technical Manager of the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company.[5][6][7] Sir James Lithgow, Controller of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair and joint-owner of Lithgows Ltd, the Clyde-based shipbuilders, also helped overcome Admiralty reservations about MACs. Lithgow is said to have sketched a rough design for one on the back of an envelope and offered to convert two ships about to be built at his family's shipyard on condition that "I am not interfered with by the Admiralty".[8] While the timing of Lithgow's possibly apocryphal intervention is uncertain, his deputy, Sir Amos Ayre, the Director of Merchant Shipbuilding, was certainly discussing the requirements for MACs by May 1942.[9] Ayre himself credits Sir Douglas Thomson of Ben Line and the Ministry of War Transport with having first suggested the idea.[6]"...........from the Wikipedia article.
Using these cargo ships as simple aircraft carriers would not have prevented then from still carrying cargo. And the conversions were not very complex jobs. It would seem this rather brilliant idea should not have been allowed to languish for two years.
"However, captains of Hurri-cat equipped merchant ships complained that they were slow at un-loading.
It would be easy to re-open Grumman production lines at a shadow factory. Consider the dozens of Grumman Goblins built by Canadian Car and Foundry during the 1930s and the thiusands of Grumman airplanes built by General Motors during WW2."
We must be careful not to conflate the Hurricane catapulting CAM ships and the mini-escort carrier MAC ships.
I don't think they would have opened a new line just to build a 100 or so obsolete airplanes. Even though they would have been a good match for the MACs I believe other production choices had higher priorities. Would it have been possible to "hot up" the Gloster Gladiator biplane fighter so as to be able to catch the FW-200s?
It would be easy to re-open Grumman production lines at a shadow factory. Consider the dozens of Grumman Goblins built by Canadian Car and Foundry during the 1930s and the thiusands of Grumman airplanes built by General Motors during WW2."
We must be careful not to conflate the Hurricane catapulting CAM ships and the mini-escort carrier MAC ships.
I don't think they would have opened a new line just to build a 100 or so obsolete airplanes. Even though they would have been a good match for the MACs I believe other production choices had higher priorities. Would it have been possible to "hot up" the Gloster Gladiator biplane fighter so as to be able to catch the FW-200s?
McPherson
Banned
The point about reopening the Grumman bi-plane line or making one out of Canada is that there is a case for Libya, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia and anywhere you have rough unimproved airfields and terrible flying conditions and where close air support is a desperate necessity. The British have to have cheap rugged planes. One of the things that made the P-40 attractive long past its sell date, besides politics, was that it was a single engine simple bomb truck that could operate globally. the Grumman F3F can be modified to take the Pratt R-1830 and to carry a pair of gondola .50s. or over the wing (harder to service) but the thing as an RAF/FAA purchaser I would look at, is;
1. I can make it in Canada.
2. I can DIVE BOMB with it.
3. It has a high lift and short take off run.
4. It operates off flattops right now.
5. It operates off grass or clay or whatever pasture land I can find... RIGHT NOW.
IOW, this is 1938 and for a bi-plane, it is not shabby nor is it ineffective against the Italians, Japanese OR THE GERMANS. Same goes for the Sea Gladiator.
Two thoughts;
1) Just recently reading some random article, forget the site, that made reference to the SBC Helldiver. Two place biplane, divebomber, ASW use, top end pushing 250 MPH with a French variant that upped forward armament...potential main armament of a USN version of the MAC. Supposedly in use until '42, so, available...
2) "careful not to conflate"...screw conflating, let's move directly to combining. How about a MAC with a with a last legs Hurricane on a single use catapult for those occasions when you just absolutely need to pluck a condor.
3) ((old age - can't count)) In some ways, aren't the Sangamons the ultimate MACs?
1) There were many biplanes that could have done the ASW job. The Swordfish was adequate enough. Others could have too just so long as the airplane of choice could operate from a 400' by 58' deck moving at only 12 knots while likely pitching and rolling in the North Atlantic swells.
2) I agree that perhaps quickest approach is while flying continual patrols in daylight with the Swordfish or equivalent airplane have a Hurricane ready to launch via a catapult. @McPherson had some doubts about this approach. But I think it's practical because launching Hurricanes would only need be done occasionally as compared to the continual ASW patrolling (weather permitting) of the biplanes.
3) The Sangamon class escort carrier was fine. However with each one built you took a fleet oiler or tanker out of cargo service. The thing about the Merchant Aircraft Carrier ships is they were still carrying needed cargo on the vital North Atlantic convoy runs. They were simply cargo ships with a flight deck which gave them a much better capability than the crazily desperate CAM ships. The MAC ship concept was very efficient approach to provide ASW capability. It should have been implemented years sooner with more being put into operation.
The idea could have been available sooner than that.
The Aircraft Carrier Story 1908 – 1945, Guy Robbins
Page 86
In 1923 the DNC suggested ‘Mercantile Aircraft Carriers’ using grain ships and oil tankers. The Ten Year Programme of 1924 had recommend small 10,000 tons carriers for commerce protection (the emphasis was against air attack, not submarines), but this was seen as a ‘luxury’. The Admiralty intended to build four MAC ships and equip Armed Merchant Cruisers with aircraft when war began, but funds were not available.
Air Power and the Royal Navy 1914 – 1945, Geoffrey Till
There were three methods of producing carriers for this purpose. The first, also suggested in the First World War, was “for merchant vessels to be fitted and equipped for carrying machines of suitable type.” Shortly after the war the idea was taken up by DNC, who prophetically suggested “Mercantile Aircraft Carriers,” even to the extent of using grain ships and oil tankers for the purpose. In correspondence with the Chief of the Air Staff, he also outlined proposals for Mail Steamer Carriers capable of operating between 25 and 50 aircraft, which he thought would be “very valuable in convoys.” But little was done about this idea, largely for reasons of cost. It was nonetheless the Admiralty’s declared intention to build and equip four Merchant Ship Carriers and a force of Armed Merchant Cruisers (AMC), with aircraft, once war had begun.
Of course, the ships are one thing, having the aircraft and aircrew is another...
Rather than Canadian Car and Foundry building F3F's for MACs perhaps they could do a run of these? Though I still think up engine Gladiators are the obvious choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Car_and_Foundry_FDB-1
