I think that you forgot the most important thing, which is that he’s obviously very inventive, and that goes a long way to making the so watchable, especially in such a widely contended subject..!..!..!.. I just hope, that they carry on, carrying on, so that we can enjoy their videos..!..!..!..
The Fleet Air Arm sang (to the tune of Any Old Iron) ‘Any old iron, any old iron, Any, any, any old iron; Talk about a treat Chasing round the Fleet Any ole Eyetie or Hun you meet! Weighs six ton, No rear gun Damn all to rely on! You know what you can do With your Fulmar Two; Old iron, old iron!’
As a school boy, I had in my class one of Stan Orr's sons. Stan was the Fleet Air Arm's leading Fulmar ace, but was so modest he never mentioned his activities without being asked. I recall asking him if he had been involved in the Toranto Raid. His reply was "Oh, I was there or there abouts."
Very typical of that generation. So many went out and did their duty only to never return home to their families, that those who did come home were very modest about their heroism. Survivor guilt played a part in it I think.
I sure enjoyed that video. It help to put War into perspective and the tactics that are needed in many different areas of the world and the actual job that you are performing in a war. I'm going to watch all of your videos now.
That was really great. I enjoyed your clever use of a corkboard containing all the various 'chapters' that you then would focus on, with the scale model (did you make that? That's pretty good work) beautifully displayed. Great narration and research as well. I look forward to seeing more!
Yes, well done vid, like the format. The Fulmar was available when badly needed. For a while 3 Gladiators on HMS Eagle were the total of Naval Fighters in the Med. 9 Aces were created in Fulmars, and your reported loss ratio, well, says more. Many of it's victims were italian float search planes and SM-79 and SM82 bombers. Unfortunately many Fulmar losses were due to return fire, many good Hi-scoring pilots were lost this way.
Glad you enjoyed the video, William! Yes, almost all the sources I looked at seemed to agree that the Fulmar was actually quite a stable flier, and pilot accounts did seem to praise its abiltiy against bombers (even though they all wanted more speed!)
Nice video mate! I really enjoyed your assessment of the Fulmar. I honestly didn't know anything about it and was certainly surprised to see it's kill stats and even more surprised to see it be the highest killer in British Naval service.
For once, UA-cam's algorithm actually worked correctly and showed me content I was interesting (you were recommended with Drachinifel's video "The Development of US Navy Tactics (1895-1939) - From Small Beginnings..." in case you're wondering). Must be a miracle, or another sign of the end times. I have no idea how you only have 366 (well, 367 now) subscribers. You deserve far more. Looking forward to whatever new historical content you make in the future.
I found all of this information on various aeroplanes built by Fairey Aviation prior to doing my apprenticeship at Fairey's in 1957 as very interesting:... Great
It sounds like the Fulmar, was WWII’s version of the Harrier Jump Jet, which “was Poo Pooed by everyone”(to quote Melchet), until they were given their chance, and then they performed admirably, and astounded those people that were watching carefully..!..!..!..
The Battle wasn't a dive bomber. The RAF didn't want a dive bomber and refused to use them even when given some by the Americans (eventually they sent the American planes to Burma). RAF doctrine wasn't to provide close support for front line troops but to hit rear areas and supply convoys. Thus the Battles were shot down trying to destroy bridges and the like, but from level flight. The RAF argued that dive bombers were too vulnerable to enemy fighters - it was probably more that they weren't a British invention. They argued that close support for front line troops would only cause friendly troops to be bombed. The fact that dive bombers did offer pin point accuracy so they could support frontline troops seemed to escape them.
Watch the wartime film "Ships with wings" which features the Fulmar quite a bit. The (last surviving) Fulmar at the FAA museum in Yeovilton also depicts the navigator with a Tommy gun.
Only problem is we can't just dismiss the Fulmar's quite amazing war record, which is not negotiable, and focus only on its faults. On a set of balances, pros vs cons, that _record_ weighs pretty heavily. Maybe more a reflection on the excellent aircrew than the plane though.
That's absolutely right, Twirlyhead. While the Fulmar was far from perfect, its crews did see success, especially against bombers in the Mediterranean, as mentioned in the video. I guess the main reason the Fulmar is regarded as a poor aircraft (even though it really wasn't that bad, especially with a skilled crew), is because its performance was so far behind other front-line fighter and attack planes of the day. Still, as you say, the skill of its crews and the use of shipboard radar to guide the planes alowed the Royal Navy to make the most of the Fulmar.
The naval equivalent of the Air Force's Beaufighter, a plane that has been eclipsed in history by the Mosquito. The Beaufighter was considered heavy and slow for a fighter but made up for this in ruggedness and reliability. By the end of the war, some 70 pilots serving with RAF units had become aces while flying Beaufighters.
What always surprises me is the British reliance on eight .303 caliber machine guns instead of four or six of the more potent .50 caliber. On the other hand, many.303 aircraft were fitted with pairs of 20 mm cannon. From pea shooters to serious weapons.
Right! I love the Fulmar. One of the most wrongly maligned aircraft ever. So - The thinking behind a lot of the Fulmars supposed flaws was actually very sound reasoning and only became a problem with hindsight. The second crewman, for eg, was a very good idea when you can’t have a look at the ground for landmarks if you get lost. “Ooh I recognise that wave there! I know where I am now” said no naval aviator ever. Another important point is the RN concept of armoured carriers which had less space for aircraft so needed its limited planes to be multi purpose. Hence the second crewmen/observer /RT op. His lack of fixed MG was due to the already overly heavy design. By the way, They probably had Lanchesters and not Thompson’s but if anyone knows different please let me or ‘Armoured Carriers’ know as we’ve been researching that element. (Fulmar observers would also through bog roll at attackers, too:) Despite the lack of defensive MG very few (about four) Fulmars were shot down in dog fights with other fighters (and not by a Zero ever btw). Most were lost to defensive fire from German bombers due to the lack of power of the rifle calibre .303s meaning that the Fulmars had to close to suicidal ranges to defeat the armour plating. Some were fitted with .50s but they were found to seize up in the cold. Fulmars weight and performance was in part ( big part) due to the ruggedness needed to land on carrier decks. For comparison, the Seafire losses due to deck accidents were five times that of combat losses. Also, the large fuel tanks that were needed as well as large amounts of ammo added to the weight. This was because naval aircraft were expected to stay aloft/loiter for long periods mainly because you didn’t want the carrier having to change course and steam into the wind and away from the convoy/fleet constantly to refuel and re-arm its planes. One final point, during Pedestal, no merchantmen were lost while the FAAs Fulmars were defending the fleet (with Martlets and Sea Hurries) from air attack by the RA and Fleigerkorp X (SS Deucalion had been hit but only sank later after the ‘Heavies’ had turned back to Gib). Great video though. Well done. (I love fulmars ‘cos they are a bit like me. Long and heavy and outdated by strangely effective:)
Thanks for watching Richard, and for providing so much extra information on the Fulmar! You make an interesting point on the FAA requiring multi-purpose aircraft due to a lack of space on their carriers - I hadn't even considered it, to be honest! And, yes, a lot of the seemingly bizarre design choices, such as the second crewman and heavy airframe, do seem to make sense when considering what the Navy was expecting of the Fulmar. I guess the real shame is that they added all those features, but just didn't have a powerful enough engine to make the aircraft a truly high-performance fighter. Still, the Fulmar was a successful plane in spite of its flaws, and it really does deserve a better reputation than it has.
@@partsofhistory595 Hey, thanks for replying back! Well, I’m just dead happy that someone took the time to put the Fulmar out there. You get folk doing the whole ‘Top Trump’ type argument which is just annoying. There’s so much more to any aircraft than its stats. Like the Helldiver was an all round better plane stat wise than the Dauntless yet the pilots all preferred the older kite. Same with Faiey Swordfish and Albacores (aka ‘Applecores:).
Well, Richard, I'm hoping to tell the stories of a lot more forgotten aircraft and unsung heroes like the Fulmar, and other machines that haven't really been recognised yet. I find they're far more fascinating than telling the same old stories about already famous planes, or just listing statistics (although it is surprising that the Fulmar isn't better known among those who compare kill counts, given that was the FAA's top scorer in WWII). I'm glad to hear how much you enjoyed my video, and and I hope my future content won't disappoint!
same thing happened with the short sterling ......it had to carry bombs and paratroopers while having tiny wings to fit somewhere ..........the 1930s designs were all about value for money and getting a versatile aircraft is the desire even now
The pilots who flew the Fulmar thought it had only one fault, and that was it's woeful top speed not its agility. If they didn't get a kill on the first pass they very rarely got a second chance.
What made the Fulmar successful was the effective use of Radar and an effective Radar fighter direction strategy the dive bomber heritage and her rugged construction was a major advantage in Boom and Zoom tactics It was no dogfighter but it was never meant to be.
@@richardrichard5409 ""Despite being obsolete by 1939, the Swordfish achieved some spectacular successes during the war. Notable events included sinking one battleship and damaging two others of the Regia Marina (the Italian Navy) during the Battle of Taranto, and the famous attack on the Bismarck, which contributed to her eventual demise. By the end of the war, the Swordfish held the distinction of having caused the destruction of a greater tonnage of Axis shipping than any other Allied aircraft.[1] The Swordfish remained in front-line service until V-E Day, having outlived multiple aircraft that had been intended to replace it in service.""
surely it would have made a better torpedo bomber ? but I have always thought that one of Churchill's think tanks should have said "can we make a carrier borne version of the Beaufighter for attack and the FB Mosquito as a fighter "
It was a good aircraft when it was designed but just lost out to newer designs that were more focused on the fighter role. The second crewman was to be a navigator, the weather conditions in the North Sea and North Atlantic made that a reasonable addition.
I still don't see why it had to be so big. P51 Mustangs had a long range and weren't so big. You could put a second man behind the pilot and it would not add that much weight. They gave the navigator an office.
Nice video with good analysis! Question: given that the Royal Navy was so close to mainland Europe around the islands and in the Mediterranean, why didn’t the German Air Force concentrate on exploiting the waffle in adequacy of the royal navy’s air defense at the beginning of the war in order to knock out as many shifts as possible? It seems to me that they missed a huge opportunity that would’ve paid off tremendous dividends especially in north Africa.
Great to hear you enjoyed the video, William! Regarding your question, I guess the best reason I can think of for why the Germans didn't focus on the British fleet in the early war is that, most likely, they believed victory in the Battle of Britain (and air superiority over the English Channel) would kill two birds with one stone, by creating a path for invasion, and by making the Royal Navy so vulnerable to air attack that it would either retreat to safety elsewhere in the empire or be destroyed if any ships attempted to defend Britain. Of course, there were still opportunities to inflict damage on the navy after the Battle of Britain was lost, but it seems that most of the Luftwaffe’s anti-shipping arm was moved to long-range attacks against convoys, and the RAF’s interceptors dissuaded any large-scale raids on ports or shipyards. However, you’re absolutely right in that the Royal Navy was lagging behind in air defence, and, had the Germans concentrated on sinking ships in the Mediterranean before (or even immediately after) the Battle of Britain, the losses would likely have had a severe effect on the British, both in North Africa and with convoy defence. Hopefully that goes some way to answering your question, William. I may not be a professional historian, but the scenario you posed is certainly interesting, and one I think I’ll look into further!
@@partsofhistory595 The pointy make her excellent, thank you. I would add one more point that had the Germans succeeded in destroying the Royal Navy‘s presence in the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal would’ve been a very limited usefulness and ships coming from India would probably have had to focus on going around Africa instead.
Simple answer is that the Luftwaffe did do exactly that. The period of ‘Phoney War’ is misleading as it only refers to France/Western Europe land campaign. At sea the war was raging from day one. Fleigerkorp X were the German anti-shipping experts ( and were supposed to be arming the Graff Zeppelin when it was completed) and they, along with other korps, were attacking British shipping from the start. Notably along the NE coast against the coalers, the channel (Kanalkampf) and, once France and Norway fell, against Atlantic convoys. In the Med the large Italian AR was supposed to deal with the British Med fleet but that’s another story. When Kesselring arrived with FKs II and X they aggressively attacked the RN. So, when ever they had opportunity the Luftwaffe attacked the RN from the start but the Royal Navy would initially be covered by land based RAF planes eg Scarpa Flow was well defended by RAF based planes as were Thames Estuary, Portsmouth and Southampton. Condors (FW200) attacked convoys and shipping that had no carriers covering them until (as mentioned in the video) CAM ships and escort carriers (HMS Argus the exception) were developed.
The Americans hit the spot with their sturdy carrier aircraft. U.K. struggled to get a useful plane that wouldn’t fall apart on the first landing attempt. Funnily enough the very sturdy heavy lift STOL Swordfish biplane stayed in use throughout WW2. Nothing else could do their job until helicopters came along.
Also I believe the Brits were the first to successfully operate Corsairs from carriers , with the Americans having lots of trouble figuring it out until the Brits came along and taught them their modified techniques.
It was due to the Gladiators(i.e. the pilots) who fought with this weapon It was their sacrifice that achieved to kill total So loved by the armchair generals
Not interested in the video production whizz bangs, just the Fulmar. With hindsight It was the wrong plane but in the right place at the right time. Used to maximum effect by the ever creative RN Fleet Air Arm.
Well it is often the case with so-called mediocre planes that they are actually highly specialized designs, indeed over-specialized designs, created for very specific circumstances that never materialized. The lesson? Opt for good, flexible designs rather one designed with one specific purpose in mind.
That's right, Bernard. It certainly looks like aircraft designers are learning the pitfalls of being too specialised, especially today with the focus on 'multi-role' combat aircraft over specifically designed planes for one role. And yes, skilled crews went a long way towards helping the Fulmar succeed!
@@bernardwills9674 Defiant would have been excellent had it been used to intercept un escorted German bombers attacking the UK, which at the time of the specification that was written for the aircraft was the only viable attack option that was remotely foreseeable. Nobody expected German Fighters to be based in the Pas de Calais area within 9 months of the war starting.
Non is right but then no Fulmar was shot down by a Zero. Some where destroyed on the ground. A fulmar was shot down by a Japanese Dive bomber (Val?) that had dropped its bomb and got on a Fulmars tail.
What the Fairy Firefly that was a good fighter and as the Germans did not have aircraft carriers the Navy did not need a fighter in the Atlantic but in the Mediterranean it was not the case
There was a Fairey hangar at my local airport from which maroon-painted Fireflies were being flown out in the late '50s. It seems that these planes were intended for pilotless radio-controlled drone use and would be shot down by missiles over the sea off the Welsh coast. Although the Firefly design dated from early in the war, it took years to get it into service, as was the case with the Barracuda.
I don't know what they were thinking when developed this....thing, Building an aircraft so slow in 1940(!) is simple suicidal, they were lucky that italian higher-ups were ABSOLUTELY idiotic in their denying to the Navy support aircrafts, imagine if a fighter such as the Reggiane would've been produced, the battles in the MTO would've turned in a nightmare for the infortunate FAA pilots
Thanks for watching, Timothy! I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to as the 'Corsair's fleet air arm', but if you mean talking about the Corsair, I did feel that the Corsair had to be mentioned in the Fulmar's story, as it was one of the aircraft types bought by the Fleet Air Arm to replace the Fulmar.
@@partsofhistory595 Strictly limiting the Corsairs numbers to the navel air arm count, considering the US used it as a land fighter could be interpreted as massaging stats to make a point. Considering it wasn't used mainly as a seaborne aircraft by the primary user until the end of the conflict. As a "land" craft in the Pacific it still presented as a near navel aircraft considering the style of conflict it was involved with at the time. Air superiority over the island campaign, along with protection of fleets. Different landing capacity yes. But absolutely different role?
@@partsofhistory595 Also, the nature of the combat faced by the Corsair and the Fulmar are just a bit different in nature. As you mentioned in the video. But, that's more so discussed after the statistical analysis.
All in all, I think you do an excellent job of discussing it, but some of the stats for the other planes aren't given needed context. So it comes across as overly positive to the Fulmar.
The reason I only mentioned the Corsair's stats in the FAA was as a way to illustrate the fact that, in British service, the Fulmar scored more kills. Yes, had I considered the Corsair's overall statistics, it would be far superior, but I only presented the Corsair's FAA kills to show its performance operating off the same carriers, on similar missions, crewed by similar (sometimes even the same) pilots as the Fulmar, as opposed to doing a statistical comparison of the two aircraft overall. I probably should have made this clearer in the video (and I'll try to do so next time), but hopefully this clarifies what I was trying to get across!
As mentioned by William Koppos in his comment, nine pilots made ace in the Fulmar. From what I can find, the highest-scoring Fulmar pilot, Graham Hogg, was credited with 12 kills.
Navigators without access to Tommy guns also used a rather unique defense against enemy fighters on their tail............ toilet paper. Not joking. Throwing out sheets of toilet paper at speeds over 200 mph resulted in what appeared, to a pursuing fighter, to be tracer rounds coming back from the Fulmar, which would hopefully induce the enemy pilot to evade the "defensive fire" and at least throw off his aim, if not persuading him to break off. It's also worth noting that the Merlin powered 3 of the great fighters of the war, the Hurricane, Spitfire, and by license the Mustang, yet every aircraft powered only by a single Merlin that carried more than a single airman, turned out to be mediocre at best, and were sometimes complete failures. The engine was always operating on the upper edge of the envelope compared to the weight of planes it was installed in; adding a second or third airman put the plane's performance well out of the envelope for effective speed and maneuver. The Battle and the Fulmar were examples of this characteristic.
That air-to-air kill ratio is impressive, bordering on legendary! Of all the Fleet Air Arm's ridiculous aircraft, the fulmar isa rare bird!
You're getting a lot of mileage out of simple graphics and that is impressive! Well thought out and well assembled video m8
Thanks Stephen, glad you enjoyed the video!
I think that you forgot the most important thing, which is that he’s obviously very inventive, and that goes a long way to making the so watchable, especially in such a widely contended subject..!..!..!..
I just hope, that they carry on, carrying on, so that we can enjoy their videos..!..!..!..
Thanks for covering the design an operational history of the Fairey Fulmar .Great work.
The Fleet Air Arm sang (to the tune of Any Old Iron)
‘Any old iron, any old iron,
Any, any, any old iron;
Talk about a treat
Chasing round the Fleet
Any ole Eyetie or Hun you meet!
Weighs six ton,
No rear gun
Damn all to rely on!
You know what you can do
With your Fulmar Two;
Old iron, old iron!’
As a school boy, I had in my class one of Stan Orr's sons. Stan was the Fleet Air Arm's leading Fulmar ace, but was so modest he never mentioned his activities without being asked. I recall asking him if he had been involved in the Toranto Raid. His reply was "Oh, I was there or there abouts."
That's really interesting, Ross! He must have had some interesting stories to tell (when he was in the mood to tell them, of course!)
Very typical of that generation. So many went out and did their duty only to never return home to their families, that those who did come home were very modest about their heroism. Survivor guilt played a part in it I think.
Happy to see the release of the first of your docu style vids! I like this format and I like the editing of this vid!
Thanks Lys! Great to hear you enjoyed it!!
This is good quality stuff… up there with the best on UA-cam!
More of these types of videos, please. They are truly among some of the best military aviation documentaries on UA-cam…..SERIOUSLY
Video length and detail excellent. You're on to something here and I look forward to more. Subbed.
I sure enjoyed that video. It help to put War into perspective and the tactics that are needed in many different areas of the world and the actual job that you are performing in a war. I'm going to watch all of your videos now.
Thanks Buck, it's great to hear you enjoyed the video, and I hope you like the other ones too!
I like the atmosphere of your video's. No flashy stuff. Just pleasantly presented info.
I had never heard of the Fulmar before. This was great. You’ve got my subscription!
Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for subscribing!
That was really great. I enjoyed your clever use of a corkboard containing all the various 'chapters' that you then would focus on, with the scale model (did you make that? That's pretty good work) beautifully displayed.
Great narration and research as well. I look forward to seeing more!
Yes, well done vid, like the format. The Fulmar was available when badly needed. For a while 3 Gladiators on HMS Eagle were the total of Naval Fighters in the Med.
9 Aces were created in Fulmars, and your reported loss ratio, well, says more. Many of it's victims were italian float search planes and SM-79 and SM82 bombers.
Unfortunately many Fulmar losses were due to return fire, many good Hi-scoring pilots were lost this way.
Glad you enjoyed the video, William!
Yes, almost all the sources I looked at seemed to agree that the Fulmar was actually quite a stable flier, and pilot accounts did seem to praise its abiltiy against bombers (even though they all wanted more speed!)
Very well done video and the thinking behind the design choices of the aircraft. Subbed.
Brilliant video and great use of the pictures and graphics. Really well done! Looking forward to more planes I never heard about!
Glad to hear you liked it, ehoch muephi! Yes, there certainly will be more unusual aircraft coming soon!
Nice video mate! I really enjoyed your assessment of the Fulmar. I honestly didn't know anything about it and was certainly surprised to see it's kill stats and even more surprised to see it be the highest killer in British Naval service.
A very well put together video. I'll be recommending you to my friends and I've subscribed. Thanks
For once, UA-cam's algorithm actually worked correctly and showed me content I was interesting (you were recommended with Drachinifel's video "The Development of US Navy Tactics (1895-1939) - From Small Beginnings..." in case you're wondering). Must be a miracle, or another sign of the end times. I have no idea how you only have 366 (well, 367 now) subscribers. You deserve far more. Looking forward to whatever new historical content you make in the future.
great history of the aircraft and in context of its time and the thinking behind is design. thank you.
Earned my subscription with that. Very nice work.
Thanks for subscribing, Raymond, and it's great to hear you liked how the video turned out!
A fair and honest appraisal of this now forgotten plane. Excellent.
Great upload-thanks
I found all of this information on various aeroplanes built by Fairey Aviation prior to doing my apprenticeship at Fairey's in 1957 as very interesting:... Great
very informative and well done thankyou
Fantastic content!
Very interesting. Thanks for your take.
Very interesting. Thank you
It sounds like the Fulmar, was WWII’s version of the Harrier Jump Jet, which “was Poo Pooed by everyone”(to quote Melchet), until they were given their chance, and then they performed admirably, and astounded those people that were watching carefully..!..!..!..
Really enjoyed that.
I knew a bit about the Fairey Battle but nothing about the Fulmar.
Thanks for watching, Shane, and glad to hear you found it both educational and enjoyable!
Excellent: this channel could become the air equivalent of Cone of Arc’s “Cursed by Design”
I also love the Firefly.
Excellent video. I would surely like to see you make a video on Percival aeroplanes such as the Proctor and/ or Petrel.
I'd love to know why 14 people marked this video down. No pleasing some folk! Looking forward to your next release.
The Battle wasn't a dive bomber. The RAF didn't want a dive bomber and refused to use them even when given some by the Americans (eventually they sent the American planes to Burma). RAF doctrine wasn't to provide close support for front line troops but to hit rear areas and supply convoys. Thus the Battles were shot down trying to destroy bridges and the like, but from level flight. The RAF argued that dive bombers were too vulnerable to enemy fighters - it was probably more that they weren't a British invention. They argued that close support for front line troops would only cause friendly troops to be bombed. The fact that dive bombers did offer pin point accuracy so they could support frontline troops seemed to escape them.
a very underated aircraft in most ways. but still did a job. great video more of the same please.
Glad you enjoyed the video, Thomas, and yes, there are certainly more like this on the way!
@@partsofhistory595 no worries.
Great video, 👍
The Fulmar was a real trailblazer in an age when so many seniors were depending on battleships for war.
Very interesting video thank you for sharing.
Thanks Tony, glad you liked it!
Surely the fact that all production of smaller faster fighters was need for homeland defense early in the war was another factor, I’d think.
Very interesting!
Outstanding!
Great to hear you enjoyed the video, Guapo Returns!
Watch the wartime film "Ships with wings" which features the Fulmar quite a bit. The (last surviving) Fulmar at the FAA museum in Yeovilton also depicts the navigator with a Tommy gun.
Thanks Bert, glad you enjoyed the video! I'll certainly take a look for 'Ships with Wings', it seems pretty interesting!
Good stuff.
Got to say dam good stuff have a sub and look forward to more
Great to hear you enjoyed the video Matthew!
Not a problem bud spent years in aviation circles met lots of old naval pilots many now passed but they would have loved this
Only problem is we can't just dismiss the Fulmar's quite amazing war record, which is not negotiable, and focus only on its faults. On a set of balances, pros vs cons, that _record_ weighs pretty heavily. Maybe more a reflection on the excellent aircrew than the plane though.
That's absolutely right, Twirlyhead. While the Fulmar was far from perfect, its crews did see success, especially against bombers in the Mediterranean, as mentioned in the video. I guess the main reason the Fulmar is regarded as a poor aircraft (even though it really wasn't that bad, especially with a skilled crew), is because its performance was so far behind other front-line fighter and attack planes of the day. Still, as you say, the skill of its crews and the use of shipboard radar to guide the planes alowed the Royal Navy to make the most of the Fulmar.
The naval equivalent of the Air Force's Beaufighter, a plane that has been eclipsed in history by the Mosquito. The Beaufighter was considered heavy and slow for a fighter but made up for this in ruggedness and reliability. By the end of the war, some 70 pilots serving with RAF units had become aces while flying Beaufighters.
What always surprises me is the British reliance on eight .303 caliber machine guns instead of four or six of the more potent .50 caliber. On the other hand, many.303 aircraft were fitted with pairs of 20 mm cannon. From pea shooters to serious weapons.
Right!
I love the Fulmar. One of the most wrongly maligned aircraft ever.
So - The thinking behind a lot of the Fulmars supposed flaws was actually very sound reasoning and only became a problem with hindsight. The second crewman, for eg, was a very good idea when you can’t have a look at the ground for landmarks if you get lost. “Ooh I recognise that wave there! I know where I am now” said no naval aviator ever.
Another important point is the RN concept of armoured carriers which had less space for aircraft so needed its limited planes to be multi purpose. Hence the second crewmen/observer /RT op. His lack of fixed MG was due to the already overly heavy design. By the way, They probably had Lanchesters and not Thompson’s but if anyone knows different please let me or ‘Armoured Carriers’ know as we’ve been researching that element. (Fulmar observers would also through bog roll at attackers, too:)
Despite the lack of defensive MG very few (about four) Fulmars were shot down in dog fights with other fighters (and not by a Zero ever btw). Most were lost to defensive fire from German bombers due to the lack of power of the rifle calibre .303s meaning that the Fulmars had to close to suicidal ranges to defeat the armour plating. Some were fitted with .50s but they were found to seize up in the cold.
Fulmars weight and performance was in part ( big part) due to the ruggedness needed to land on carrier decks. For comparison, the Seafire losses due to deck accidents were five times that of combat losses. Also, the large fuel tanks that were needed as well as large amounts of ammo added to the weight. This was because naval aircraft were expected to stay aloft/loiter for long periods mainly because you didn’t want the carrier having to change course and steam into the wind and away from the convoy/fleet constantly to refuel and re-arm its planes.
One final point, during Pedestal, no merchantmen were lost while the FAAs Fulmars were defending the fleet (with Martlets and Sea Hurries) from air attack by the RA and Fleigerkorp X (SS Deucalion had been hit but only sank later after the ‘Heavies’ had turned back to Gib).
Great video though. Well done.
(I love fulmars ‘cos they are a bit like me. Long and heavy and outdated by strangely effective:)
Thanks for watching Richard, and for providing so much extra information on the Fulmar!
You make an interesting point on the FAA requiring multi-purpose aircraft due to a lack of space on their carriers - I hadn't even considered it, to be honest!
And, yes, a lot of the seemingly bizarre design choices, such as the second crewman and heavy airframe, do seem to make sense when considering what the Navy was expecting of the Fulmar. I guess the real shame is that they added all those features, but just didn't have a powerful enough engine to make the aircraft a truly high-performance fighter.
Still, the Fulmar was a successful plane in spite of its flaws, and it really does deserve a better reputation than it has.
@@partsofhistory595 Hey, thanks for replying back!
Well, I’m just dead happy that someone took the time to put the Fulmar out there. You get folk doing the whole ‘Top Trump’ type argument which is just annoying. There’s so much more to any aircraft than its stats. Like the Helldiver was an all round better plane stat wise than the Dauntless yet the pilots all preferred the older kite. Same with Faiey Swordfish and Albacores (aka ‘Applecores:).
Well, Richard, I'm hoping to tell the stories of a lot more forgotten aircraft and unsung heroes like the Fulmar, and other machines that haven't really been recognised yet. I find they're far more fascinating than telling the same old stories about already famous planes, or just listing statistics (although it is surprising that the Fulmar isn't better known among those who compare kill counts, given that was the FAA's top scorer in WWII). I'm glad to hear how much you enjoyed my video, and and I hope my future content won't disappoint!
same thing happened with the short sterling ......it had to carry bombs and paratroopers while having tiny wings to fit somewhere ..........the 1930s designs were all about value for money and getting a versatile aircraft is the desire even now
The pilots who flew the Fulmar thought it had only one fault, and that was it's woeful top speed not its agility. If they didn't get a kill on the first pass they very rarely got a second chance.
What made the Fulmar successful was the effective use of Radar and an effective Radar fighter direction strategy the dive bomber heritage and her rugged construction was a major advantage in Boom and Zoom tactics It was no dogfighter but it was never meant to be.
LOL at 2:00 - the Royal Navy crack motor boat squad arrive. ;-)
...and the Fairy Swordfish [aka the Stringbag] sunk more shipping than any other aircraft
Apart from all the coastal command Liberators, Sunderlands, Hudsons, Whitleys, B17 etc.
@@richardrichard5409 ""Despite being obsolete by 1939, the Swordfish achieved some spectacular successes during the war. Notable events included sinking one battleship and damaging two others of the Regia Marina (the Italian Navy) during the Battle of Taranto, and the famous attack on the Bismarck, which contributed to her eventual demise. By the end of the war, the Swordfish held the distinction of having caused the destruction of a greater tonnage of Axis shipping than any other Allied aircraft.[1] The Swordfish remained in front-line service until V-E Day, having outlived multiple aircraft that had been intended to replace it in service.""
It looks like a stretched spitfire with a panoramic roof to carry tourist passengers.....
Très bien.
surely it would have made a better torpedo bomber ? but I have always thought that one of Churchill's think tanks should have said "can we make a carrier borne version of the Beaufighter for attack and the FB Mosquito as a fighter "
It was a good aircraft when it was designed but just lost out to newer designs that were more focused on the fighter role. The second crewman was to be a navigator, the weather conditions in the North Sea and North Atlantic made that a reasonable addition.
I still don't see why it had to be so big. P51 Mustangs had a long range and weren't so big. You could put a second man behind the pilot and it would not add that much weight. They gave the navigator an office.
Nice video with good analysis! Question: given that the Royal Navy was so close to mainland Europe around the islands and in the Mediterranean, why didn’t the German Air Force concentrate on exploiting the waffle in adequacy of the royal navy’s air defense at the beginning of the war in order to knock out as many shifts as possible? It seems to me that they missed a huge opportunity that would’ve paid off tremendous dividends especially in north Africa.
Great to hear you enjoyed the video, William!
Regarding your question, I guess the best reason I can think of for why the Germans didn't focus on the British fleet in the early war is that, most likely, they believed victory in the Battle of Britain (and air superiority over the English Channel) would kill two birds with one stone, by creating a path for invasion, and by making the Royal Navy so vulnerable to air attack that it would either retreat to safety elsewhere in the empire or be destroyed if any ships attempted to defend Britain.
Of course, there were still opportunities to inflict damage on the navy after the Battle of Britain was lost, but it seems that most of the Luftwaffe’s anti-shipping arm was moved to long-range attacks against convoys, and the RAF’s interceptors dissuaded any large-scale raids on ports or shipyards.
However, you’re absolutely right in that the Royal Navy was lagging behind in air defence, and, had the Germans concentrated on sinking ships in the Mediterranean before (or even immediately after) the Battle of Britain, the losses would likely have had a severe effect on the British, both in North Africa and with convoy defence.
Hopefully that goes some way to answering your question, William. I may not be a professional historian, but the scenario you posed is certainly interesting, and one I think I’ll look into further!
@@partsofhistory595 The pointy make her excellent, thank you. I would add one more point that had the Germans succeeded in destroying the Royal Navy‘s presence in the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal would’ve been a very limited usefulness and ships coming from India would probably have had to focus on going around Africa instead.
Simple answer is that the Luftwaffe did do exactly that. The period of ‘Phoney War’ is misleading as it only refers to France/Western Europe land campaign. At sea the war was raging from day one. Fleigerkorp X were the German anti-shipping experts ( and were supposed to be arming the Graff Zeppelin when it was completed) and they, along with other korps, were attacking British shipping from the start. Notably along the NE coast against the coalers, the channel (Kanalkampf) and, once France and Norway fell, against Atlantic convoys.
In the Med the large Italian AR was supposed to deal with the British Med fleet but that’s another story. When Kesselring arrived with FKs II and X they aggressively attacked the RN.
So, when ever they had opportunity the Luftwaffe attacked the RN from the start but the Royal Navy would initially be covered by land based RAF planes eg Scarpa Flow was well defended by RAF based planes as were Thames Estuary, Portsmouth and Southampton. Condors (FW200) attacked convoys and shipping that had no carriers covering them until (as mentioned in the video) CAM ships and escort carriers (HMS Argus the exception) were developed.
@@geordiedog1749 Quite Right, the Royal Navy was the very first UK target for the Luftwaffe as soon as they finished with Poland.
same thing with the skua fighter dive bomber??? but it had some firsts the skua and innovations pity they not had more powerful engines .
I read that the Fulmar actually had a 5 to 3 kill/loss ratio against single seat fighters. Anyone know what those 5 fighters were?
Isn’t the Firefly basically the same concept, albeit more capable?
That was great . The Fairey ' Fuck 'em ' .
The Americans hit the spot with their sturdy carrier aircraft. U.K. struggled to get a useful plane that wouldn’t fall apart on the first landing attempt.
Funnily enough the very sturdy heavy lift STOL Swordfish biplane stayed in use throughout WW2. Nothing else could do their job until helicopters came along.
Also I believe the Brits were the first to successfully operate Corsairs from carriers , with the Americans having lots of trouble figuring it out until the Brits came along and taught them their modified techniques.
I wonder how much better its performance would have been if they had gotten rid of the second crewman and his oversized station?
It was due to the Gladiators(i.e. the pilots) who fought with this weapon It was their sacrifice that achieved to kill total So loved by the armchair generals
Looks like a stuka and a vought kingfisher had a baby.
Now that you've mentioned that, I can't unsee it...
Not interested in the video production whizz bangs, just the Fulmar.
With hindsight It was the wrong plane but in the right place at the right time. Used to maximum effect by the ever creative RN Fleet Air Arm.
The Brits made the best of a lousy situation. Hats off to them.
Absolutely right Jim, and I think that sentiment could be applied to most of their equipment in the early war too.
The bird species Fulmar is an absoute master of flight. This aeroplane was not quite up to that standard.
Well it is often the case with so-called mediocre planes that they are actually highly specialized designs, indeed over-specialized designs, created for very specific circumstances that never materialized. The lesson? Opt for good, flexible designs rather one designed with one specific purpose in mind.
That or use skill and tactics to negate the limitations of your plane.
That's right, Bernard. It certainly looks like aircraft designers are learning the pitfalls of being too specialised, especially today with the focus on 'multi-role' combat aircraft over specifically designed planes for one role. And yes, skilled crews went a long way towards helping the Fulmar succeed!
@@partsofhistory595 Indeed...I think the turret fighters like the Roc and Defiant fall in this category too.
@@bernardwills9674 Defiant would have been excellent had it been used to intercept un escorted German bombers attacking the UK, which at the time of the specification that was written for the aircraft was the only viable attack option that was remotely foreseeable. Nobody expected German Fighters to be based in the Pas de Calais area within 9 months of the war starting.
CAM images of Hurricanes . . .
I wonder what it might have done if it had been used as a dive bomber, it's original purpose. Probably could have sunk the Bismarck itself.
I would love to know how many Japanese Zeros they shot down ?
My guess is Zero, pardoned the pun.
Non is right but then no Fulmar was shot down by a Zero. Some where destroyed on the ground. A fulmar was shot down by a Japanese Dive bomber (Val?) that had dropped its bomb and got on a Fulmars tail.
Torpedo bomber buccaneer next
Unfortunately, the Buccanner won't be up next, Ironhide, but thanks for the suggestion, and I'll certainly see if I can include it in a future video!
What the Fairy Firefly that was a good fighter and as the Germans did not have aircraft carriers the Navy did not need a fighter in the Atlantic but in the Mediterranean it was not the case
There was a Fairey hangar at my local airport from which maroon-painted Fireflies were being flown out in the late '50s. It seems that these planes were intended for pilotless radio-controlled drone use and would be shot down by missiles over the sea off the Welsh coast. Although the Firefly design dated from early in the war, it took years to get it into service, as was the case with the Barracuda.
Damn that’s one German looking British plane !
I don't know what they were thinking when developed this....thing, Building an aircraft so slow in 1940(!) is simple suicidal, they were lucky that italian higher-ups were ABSOLUTELY idiotic in their denying to the Navy support aircrafts, imagine if a fighter such as the Reggiane would've been produced, the battles in the MTO would've turned in a nightmare for the infortunate FAA pilots
Focusing on the Corsair's "fleet air arm" is a little disingenuous. Otherwise, great video.
Thanks for watching, Timothy!
I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to as the 'Corsair's fleet air arm', but if you mean talking about the Corsair, I did feel that the Corsair had to be mentioned in the Fulmar's story, as it was one of the aircraft types bought by the Fleet Air Arm to replace the Fulmar.
@@partsofhistory595 Strictly limiting the Corsairs numbers to the navel air arm count, considering the US used it as a land fighter could be interpreted as massaging stats to make a point. Considering it wasn't used mainly as a seaborne aircraft by the primary user until the end of the conflict.
As a "land" craft in the Pacific it still presented as a near navel aircraft considering the style of conflict it was involved with at the time. Air superiority over the island campaign, along with protection of fleets. Different landing capacity yes. But absolutely different role?
@@partsofhistory595 Also, the nature of the combat faced by the Corsair and the Fulmar are just a bit different in nature. As you mentioned in the video. But, that's more so discussed after the statistical analysis.
All in all, I think you do an excellent job of discussing it, but some of the stats for the other planes aren't given needed context. So it comes across as overly positive to the Fulmar.
The reason I only mentioned the Corsair's stats in the FAA was as a way to illustrate the fact that, in British service, the Fulmar scored more kills. Yes, had I considered the Corsair's overall statistics, it would be far superior, but I only presented the Corsair's FAA kills to show its performance operating off the same carriers, on similar missions, crewed by similar (sometimes even the same) pilots as the Fulmar, as opposed to doing a statistical comparison of the two aircraft overall.
I probably should have made this clearer in the video (and I'll try to do so next time), but hopefully this clarifies what I was trying to get across!
Fascinating and well told story but please, please lose the annoying background ,’music’
Should have been called the fairey "FUBAR" lol
Why ? Too many people in high places with blinkered vision and living in the past.
The Japanese Zero were not one of the fastest aircraft early in ww2
Anybody make ace while in a Fulmar?
As mentioned by William Koppos in his comment, nine pilots made ace in the Fulmar. From what I can find, the highest-scoring Fulmar pilot, Graham Hogg, was credited with 12 kills.
@@partsofhistory595 ah yes,,I see the comment.. thanks
Dood, great videos but the intro is too long
Squared away history lesson
Navigators without access to Tommy guns also used a rather unique defense against enemy fighters on their tail............
toilet paper. Not joking.
Throwing out sheets of toilet paper at speeds over 200 mph resulted in what appeared, to a pursuing fighter, to be tracer rounds coming back from the Fulmar, which would hopefully induce the enemy pilot to evade the "defensive fire" and at least throw off his aim, if not persuading him to break off.
It's also worth noting that the Merlin powered 3 of the great fighters of the war, the Hurricane, Spitfire, and by license the Mustang, yet every aircraft powered only by a single Merlin that carried more than a single airman, turned out to be mediocre at best, and were sometimes complete failures. The engine was always operating on the upper edge of the envelope compared to the weight of planes it was installed in; adding a second or third airman put the plane's performance well out of the envelope for effective speed and maneuver. The Battle and the Fulmar were examples of this characteristic.
Yes , huge increase in weight of the much larger aircraft hampered performance greatly.
The European map is a modern one and doesn't represent the reality of WW2. Otherwise an excellent presentation!
"How Slow And Steady Helped Win World War II" - no they didn't.
They did indirectly, by disguising themselves as the Fairey Fulmar!
@@partsofhistory595 Very funny. :)
:D
:D
@@partsofhistory595 :O
One might fill a requirement and forfill ones obligation to speak English not yank.