Seafire: The killer fleet fighter
2020 ж. 13 Жел.
262 865 Рет қаралды
Those who flew it loved it. Those who didn't loathed it. The Supermarine Seafire derivative of the famous Spitfire was as controversial as it was lethal. Here pilots share their experience, observations and opinions of this poorly understood emergency fleet fighter - how it performed, how it pranged, and the opinions of those around it.
I love how well edited these long videos are. I can think of loads of people where, for example they'll be talking about something particular like the stub exhausts, and not show you. These are brilliant, because you use the footage that's relevant and it really does help you follow. I could watch these all day, honestly dude you are brilliant.
Thanks. I try to do so where the appropriate footage is available.
A nice clear video with plenty of unseen footage, no annoying music and no CGI or game boy animation. Nicely done.
here here
Winkle Brown has the perfect radio voice - it really does cut through the static.
Interesting hearing of the landing problems due to the long Seafire nose, and the curved approach path that was developed. I have to assume that those difficulties and experience contributed greatly to the RN's ability to work better with the similar issues and characteristics that the USN didn't like about the F4U Corsair.
Damn the Spit/Seafire is a beautiful machine. Thank you for this video, it is rare to find anything that mentions the Seafire in detail.
Absolutely incredible hearing from the men that were there and listening to their stories and experiences from this time .. I'm deeply grateful to all of you for that and for what you given us I wish I could speak on behalf of everyone but I know it's not possible in 2020 ..🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿🇬🇧 we shall remember them ..
Christ these are great!! As an old man, who wasn't born till aft WW2 but obsessed w/ every detail, to get user reports of Seafires, which I 'd never heard of till about 10 years ago, is such a wonderful treat!! Specially from the old Brits etc that actually flew em!!!!!!!!!!!!! Many thanks, much love!
Another great material! British carrier operations are almost unknown in our part of Europe. 2:36 it's Spitfire from polish 302 fighter squadron. Thx for this easter egg. My grandma's brother was a fighter pilot fighting in Spitfires that days. Greetings from Poland.
302 squadron was a Hurricane squadron, which made the Poles that much more effective 👏👏!
@@jeffpollard7304 During The Battle of Britain they used Hurricanes, as You said, but later all polish day fighter squadrons turned to Spitfires and most of them finished war on Mustangs.
Heh, yeah: I put that in when the speaker was talking about RAF Spitfires as I've always been fascinated by the Polish squadrons.
@@ArmouredCarriers Thx :) So, i've been fascinated by British aircraft carriers and their operations. It's sad, that this arm of The Navy, which have been fighting from almost the first to the last day of war on every ocean and every see is, to be honest , completelly unknown in lot of countries. That's i apreciate Your channel so much. Great job!
@@adamkowalski9559 The Polish Navy were no slouches either. Evidenced by the Polish Destroyer crew who rushed in to ridiculously close range to torpedo Bismark, all the way in signalling "I am a Pole!" I believe it was a British Flag Officer who said "give a Polish crew a Tribal class and they,ll take on the world!
At 18:25 is the voice of Eric "winkle" Brown, the greatest naval aviator who ever lived, RIP Eric, he died a few years ago at a ripe old age, I am glad he lived such a rich, eventful life.
I consider him to be the greatest aviator PERIOD. And I'm American! He is the ONLY person to land on, and take-off from, a carrier in a Moxie. As he explained it during a TV interview, the standard landing speed for the Moxie was 130 - 135. But, the maximum speed for a carrier landing was only 90 - 95. So, without even trying it to land on the ground beforehand... he literally hung the fricking plane on the props at full power in a hard stall. And, he actually landed it less than 90 (87 if my half a brain remembers right). That is how much power the Moxie had. And, to take-off, he held it with the brakes... and slowly worked it up to full power before releasing them. That was the shortest distance a Moxie had ever been landed... and taken off in. And, there was no "hook" on the Moxie he was flying. My question is... why the hell was he never Knighted. It is too late now, he passed away. Of all the people... he deserved it!!! And, now they are Knighting the likes of Elton John :( Give me a damn break!!! That's as bad as giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama just a few months after taking office... before he did a damn thing. And, not taking it back when he killed thousands of civilians with his drone attacks)...............................................
@@donf3877 Totally agree. I can't think of anyone I have more admiration for and don't understand how Eric seemed to miss out. Head and shoulders above any of his contemporaries, I won't say peers......he had none. I suspect he likely put a few senior noses out of joint at some time in the past and that has counted against him, can't think of anything else, just a personal theory. I only realised he still stayed in Edinburgh just before he died, I would've loved to meet the man over a pint. Can't imagine what I would've said to the man though, he could name drop the great and the good or the most evil creatures in history, during a casual anecdote. There is literally nobody else with his body of experiences and there should be a statue of him in Edinburgh today. A legend in his own lifetime. I'll stop fanboying now before I embarrass myself any further, I'm too old for it.
I am very pleased to have an original pilots check list of the Seafire.
Now I know how the British adapted and perfected landing the F4U Corsair so quickly. They made the same modifications and landing pattern as the Seafire. Brilliant.
My stepfather flew the Corsair for the Fleet Air Arm. His final flying was right at the end of WW2 when he had to complete his deck landings training. The level of danger to pilots is shown by the fact that of the 4 planes being tested only 2 of them were able to complete their required 6 landings/take offs successfully. 1 failed to make accurate enough approaches on several attempts "bottled it" and was sent away to his land base for more training ... and the other hit the landing deck in a crash landing and died from his injuries. My stepfather was onboard the ship by that time and had to dive into side netting to avoid the crashing plane.
Your statement got me thinking. Your so right I didn’t put it together genius. The British landed the sea fire exactly the same way they landed the Corsair. They did a sweep hook in for visibility. Cool by figuring that out on the sea fires saved I bet saved many lives on the Corsair. Thanks for that revelation.
@@MrAdopado Long before the end of WW2, the Brits had figured out how to land a Corsair on a carrier. We decided it was a great plane, and started giving Britain Hellcats. I'm not calling you a liar, but I will say your argument is less than strong.
@@edrussell9573 Can't agree, unless I am misunderstanding your argument.It seems to me that the Brits, having adopted the curved approach due to the limited visibility out of the Spit, recognized that that was the same problem ( among others ) afflicting the Corsair, and was solved the same way and in due time the Corsair became a very effective carrier aircraft. Of course, the Hellcat was significantly easier to land on a carrier in any event.
@@wingmanjim6 my dad was in the fleet air arm. he wasn't keen on either the seafire or the corsair, but he preferred the corsair cos if you could survive the take off/landing it was a mad hot-rod with huge firepower & tough as old boots. his favourite yank plane was the wildcat & favourite brit plane was the swordfish fwiw.
Excellent series of interviews with stock footage of Seafire deck operations. Thanks for posting
Possibly the best content (written or otherwise) I have seen on the Seafire. An excellent job - thank you!
Thanks very much.
Erik Brown was a remarkable pilot. Glad you got his view on the Seafire in this video.
What a shame he didn't get a knight hood ... he more than deserved one:(
The best. Such an incredible career, he really did it all.
Absolutely! British or american, if Mr Brown said it was unsuitable for Carrier operations that should have been the end of deploying an aircraft. I saw the number once but I forget of how different types of aircraft he had landed on carriers. it was in the neighborhood of 40 different types of aircraft that he had landed on the aircraft carrier all the way into the 50s. A truly remarkable pilot!
@@stevewhite3424the RN needed a fast fighter able to compete with German land fighter and Japanese Zeros. The only reason the RN got some Corsairs was because the USN thought they weren’t suitable for carrier operations. When the RN sorted-out and worked-out how to operate them the USN promptly copied the techniques and diverted deliveries to them and transferred Hellcats to the RN.
And the F6F was a better carrier plane than the Corsair, although the Hellcat had less performance. @@neilbone9490
The last commenter mentioned the "disaster at Salerno", which was one of the first occasions when Seafires were used operationally and in which they suffered a very high percentage of landing accidents. It should be stressed that, at Salerno, the Seafires were operating off Escort Carriers which had very short flight decks and which were not capable of making more than 18 knots of sped, and that, during the invasion of Salerno, the wind was almost dead calm. As a result the aircraft had to land onto those very short flight decks at a relatively high airspeed which, in the case of the Seafire, was a recipe for disaster.
I hope to do a Seafires at Salerno memories video at some point.
@@ArmouredCarriers I've been reading through accounts by FAA pilots, beginning, I think, with Hank Adlam. One of them describes Salerno. He practically spits nails at Adm. Vians for shifting Seafires to the escort carriers, swapping Wildcats back to a fleet carrier (Illustrious?) and then insisting that Seafires should work from the escort carriers in spit of a flat calm.
@@redskindan78 Yes, it was a SNAFU. But that's war. And such ignorance tends to exacerbate weaknesses in technology, infrastructure and doctrine. I will do an episode on Salerno at some point.
My (late) C.O. in the Sea Cadet unit was ex- Fleet Air Arm. He was first conscripted into the R.A.F., sent to Kenya (I think) to train on Spitfires. He wanted to be in the R.N., & as he qualified he was transferred to the Fleet Air Arm, & sent to Canada to requalify on the Seafire. They made several 'dry' landings, runways marked out as a flight deck. He frankly admitted none of his group were looking forward to going to sea, & doing it 'for real'. Shortly before the date, the war in Europe ended, their training was suspended. He never did get to land on a carrier, much to his relief!
I miss cadets.
It was because of all this experience with the long-nosed Seafire that the RN adapted so well to the Corsair when it became available, and taught the Americans how to use it.
I so enjoy Brown. Great aviator that pulled no punches. I don't think another test pilot could explain things more clearly.
It was likely the Seafire experience that allowed the RN to figure out the Corsair curved approach technique before the USN.
The US Navy gave up flying Corsairs of Carriers for a good while due to accident rates, the US Marine Corp used it from Islands very effectively. The Royal Navy used the Corsair as they had few other aircraft with the performance. The Royal Navy developed the curved landing approach they also raised the seat and put a bubble on the canopy so the pilot could see better. They also wire they engine cooling vents closed in front of the windscreen , as you came into land the cooling flaps would open and dump oil on the screen just when you needed to see the most. Brits chopped wingtips off to fit in the hanger which fixed the floating down the deck and not landing problem by accident. They also sorted out the bouncy suspension. There was a fix also for the bad stall characteristic (flip upside down) by adding a device to the wing leading edge with the most lift. It meant the wings stalled evenly. Powerful plane with good armament.
@@anthonywilson4873 And then, as one pilot in another vid in this series says, the Americans realized the Corsairs worked... and stopped letting the Brits have any more! Including spare parts!
The Corsair had terrible visibility with that HUGE nose and the wings covering where you want to put the plane down. It did not inhibit the Brits from finding away to land this difficult plane
My dad flew both Seafires and Corsairs. He said that for going to fly in his purest form nothing could ever touch the Seafire but for going to war he would pick the Corsair.
Thanks. A wonderful opportunity to hear first hand accounts. Why aren't more people watching these?
This is my fave vid of 2020, wish I could like it 100 times. Great stories from the old boys, great footage of the beautiful flighty long-nosed lady, and even some moments where we could hear the Merlin's roar. Thanks so much for making it.
I have found this very interesting and enlightening. My dad was a Petty Officer in the Fleet Air Arm and serviced Seafires when based in Cape Town during the war, but of course, never talked much about his experiences
My dad was an aviation machinist's mate in the USN. I'd be fascinated to hear about the petty officers doing the same work in the RN. My dad told stories, mostly humorous stories...sanitized. Did your dad tell those stories?
18.07: Just look at those fellas lifting the rear wheel, holding the nose, balancing power, torque and stick immediately after rolling . We've got to remember that the 'airfield' won't stay still either, that is a truly a delight to see. Thanks for the upload, much appreciated.
The Fleet Air Arm at its greatest. As an ex WAFU it makes me so proud of how the ground crew and pilots adapted in those days. Naval aviation is built on the bravery of such men and women.
+3 Excellent - I learned so many things that I've never heard before!
Fascinating footage of ground crews in action, adjusting points on Merlin, etc. Very candid very interesting. Thank you.
Wow! Lesley Norman! That guy was the commander of the 809th when they were stationed aboard the HMS Stalker and my grandad was on the radar! Amazing to actually hear his voice!
Imagine the long hours and hard work the ground crew had to go through to keep these airplanes flying . Fueling , arming ,maintenance ect .
You're videos just get better every time! Great work on this one and looking forward to what you bring next.
Thanks. That's actually kind of the point: I'm using my "hobby" to teach myself video editing etc. They are getting a tad long, however ...
@@ArmouredCarriers I rather like the 30 minute mini documentary format, especially with such excellent film.
@@ArmouredCarriers tad long, absolutely fine by me!
@@ArmouredCarriers I wanted more at the end !
Great video on an overlooked version of the famous Spitfire. Well done Jaime.
Excellent video as usual for this series. You have to be brave to fly from a carrier as this shows with, of course,the support of first class ground crew.
Got a photo somewhere of Eric brown giving a medal to my father.also got winkles signature on dads service records
What a wonderful keepsake, You must be very proud. Eric (Winkle) Brown was an incredible intuitive pilot a rare talent.
My Father who was an Air Mechanic in the FAA said the Seafire was a pig of a plane to handle on a carrier. Folding the wings was difficult (they folded in 2 places instead of the more usual one) and the undercarriage was weak and could give way on the hanger deck n rough weather. The engine was very high up and difficult to get to. The US aircraft obtained under Lend-lease (which were specifically designed for carrier use), were much superior when it came to handling and maintenance.
The pilots may have liked the delicate Seafires, but group commanders and admirals trying to win through sustained naval air operations would prefer purpose designed carrier aircraft like Barracuda, Martlet, and Corsair. I have doubts about the Seafire's ability to make multiple sorties each day.
My dad, a USN aviation machinist's mate (must be the same job as an Air Mechanic in the RN) hated even the though of an "in-line" engine aboard a carrier. "We did not have time to fiddle with the water jacket and all the other parts". If the RN had controlled its aircraft from the 1920s onward, I suspect that the FAA, too, would have settled on radial engines. And would have had matured single-seat fights in 1939.
Coming home from Vietnam our fuel tanks were almost empty. The British tanker Tide Surge came along side and topped us off.
Glad us Brits could help with fuel to get you home mate. I remember Tide Surge and her sister ships Tide Reach and Tide Flow. I've lost count of the number of replenishment's at sea I've done when I was in the Royal Navy, taking fuel, stores and spare parts from all of them. Though they travelled worldwide the home port for all three of the ships was Gosport in Hampshire in the UK, very close to where I still live today. All three ships were retired in '75 '76 and 1977 and were replaced by updated 'Tide' versions. Best wishes.
This is a fantastic video! It's wonderful to hear the pilots tell their stories.
I was a crewman on the Grumman C1A. That was the last piston aircraft in the US Naval aircraft carriers. I have done all you show here.
I've been onboard an S-2, it's a loud plane. First time I heard one fly in, I thought it was a four engined aircraft.
History channel 2.0 Thank you very much for uploading these amazing videos, I love them. It's both informative and enjoyable
Somewhat more "niche", but thanks. I'll try to keep them coming.
I was on USS Forrestal CVA 59 in Vietnam, 134 dead, when we went to the Med. we lost 11 men. Most people do not know what risk men take when they go to sea.
Absolutely. The moment you step on board, you're in an operational zone with 24/7 danger. Indeed HMCS WINNIPEG just lost a sailor this week off the West coast.
Ummmmm... so, obvious question but gotta ask. What's your opinion on the old McCain wet-start malarkey? Is it BS, or is there anything to the rumour?
@@hughculliton3174 What?! Winnipegger for 26 years transplanted elsewhere. could you rsvp with a link?
@@STScott-qo4pwHere you go: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/sailor-missing-hmcs-winnipeg-1.5841681 Lest we forget.
I find it hard to believe you were aboard the Forrestal when the Zuni rocket triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that almost sent the flattop to the bottom of the Gulf of Tonkin. Unless, of course, you are a netizen pretending to be a former/retired US Navy sailor. How old are you, Sunshine? 78 or 16?
As much as I love the Spitfire family I believe that in respect to carrier operations the weaknesses in facets of its design, particularly the landing gear, cannot be overlooked. The narrow track of its landing gear made it difficult to land and it was prone to collapsing. There was also the fact it wasn't deployed in particularly great numbers, and its short range also limited its effectiveness. The real killer of Allied naval fighters in WW2 was the Grumman Hellcat. It may not have been the fastest nor the most maneuverable, but its combat record speaks for itself; 5,163 kills at an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1, including a 13:1 ratio against the once-unrivalled A6M Zero, is truly outstanding.
You work with what you got,and the men that flew them seem to like them.
Seafires (even the late Mk's) were surely good for flying and fighting. Clearly, there were some challenges in getting them back on deck without breaking them. I believe much of the Allied success in the air, especially towards the end of WWII, was due to better trained pilots. Germany and Japan were strugling to produce pilots who could fly - let alone fight.
@@georgepantazis141 Eric brown thought the wildcat was great.
The Germans had planned to use a navalised Bf109 for their aircraft carriers, and they would probably have had the same problems as the Seafire, particularly with the narrow-tracked landing gear.
@@thhseeking I think it would have been worse even narrower undercarriage overall smaller and likely even less robust and the later variants G onwards had quite nasty landing characteristics on land let alone on a carrier.
Great video, thank you to all the brave people who served.
Wrote a pretty lengthy paper in school going into depth on the adaptation Seafire and it’s role as CAP and ground attacker in the Pacific. It was always fascinating to me that the Spitfire, the legendary defender of an island nation, would be adapted into a role which would eventually lead to it becoming an escort and attacker during operations against the Japanese home islands half a world away. The duel of Seafires and A6Ms over Odaki Harbor, so close to Tokyo, is certainly one of the stranger and and interesting dogfights of the war.
That was brilliant, thank you for sharing. I would like to have heard Commander Mike Crosley. His book, "They gave me a Seafire" is my favourite pilot's autobiography - and I have read a lot of them!!! Well worth a read if anyone reads this. He was very critical of certain senior officers - the very same to blame for the Seafire's poor showing at Salerno.
Very interesting hearing the pilots telling what it was like flying the Seafire and the challenges
Spitfire pilot told me they put blocks of wood in flaps to hold them slightly open for take of. And then dump when airborne.
Yes, this was to force the flaps lower for a shorter takeoff. You can see in one of the clips in this video little pieces of balsa being blown about the deck!
"The initial Packard modifications were done on this engine by changing the main bearings from a copper lead alloy to a silver lead combination and featured indium plating. This had been developed by General Motors' Pontiac Division to prevent corrosion which was possible with lubricating oils that were used at that time. The bearing coating also improved break-in and load carrying ability of the surface. British engineering staff assigned to Packard were astonished at the suggestion but after tear down inspections on rigidly tested engines were convinced the new design offered a decided improvement." Has ! Not secure warning Packard Merlin Aircraft Engine - Combat Air Museum on line
Great interviews, thanks for the video. 👍
The Vought Corsair was originally rejected by the US Navy exactly because of its long nose making for difficult landings. The Fleet Air Arm with experience of the long nose Spitfire were happy to take them.
The Corsair was also rejected for its unusably vicious stall. This was also a British fix - Farnborough fitted a tiny wooden strip to the one wing leading edge which transformed the landing ability.
And the Corsair was the first, or one of the first, fighter planes to hit 400 mph. Did it about 1940, I think, during development for the USN.
I loved that little detail about the toffee papers. M.
Love the camouflage color scheme for the Navy.
Nice work. Respect to all involved.
What an informative film thank you. My respect for that generation grows and grows.
When those 4 Spits flew over the flight deck @ about 7 mins you would swear it was a Lancaster if you closed your eyes, magical.
Even turbo-prop 4 engined passenger planes used to evoke a certain feeling in people old enough. It was not generally pleasant.
Thank you for posting. Brave men one and all
Great quality wee video! Looking forward to testimony on all ww2 FAA aircraft now 😉
Sounds like the early version floated down the deck, later heavier versions landed. The US Corsair did the same it floated down the deck, when the Brits got it they had to get into the hangar deck, which where not as high, so they chopped the wingtips off to make it fit. They found by accident that they fixed the floating problem. Same principle here with the Seafire. When they got heavier it was not needed for landing and gave a bit more lift for takeoff. Fine balance.
"Floaty Fighters"
Thank you. Great video and … possibly the only time that I have heard Captain Brown’s voice.
Fantastic vid! Thanks for sharing and greets from the Netherlands, T.
What an amazing video - than you so much for putting this together and sharing :)
Very nicely done. Thank you.
Superb, absolutely superb! Loved the stories of the men who flew these planes. I'm curious to know whether the British ever produced a purpose-built plane for carriers. Many thanks for this and all the other really fine videos you do - the first-person accounts are wonderful.
You are welcome. The RN did build purpose-build aircraft for aircraft carriers. But you may remember the Battle of Britain forced a pause on all work except upon Spitfires, Hurricanes and a couple of bombers ... But Fulmars, Fireflies and Barracudas were produced during the war.
@@ArmouredCarriers Thanks for responding so quickly, and for the info about carrier planes. I wasn't aware the building of anything except fighters stopped, but I can understand why. "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." Keep up your fine work.
At 24:00 you show MB315 nose down in the drink. I searched the number and records show her as "25-06-43 MB315 Seafire. IIC 15 MU, overshot landing at Christchurch and crashed on "Musoka" Caroline Ave, Mudeford". I wondered which accident came first or if the number was re-used?
Brilliant documentry well done.
The sound of that engine is fantastic.
the hurricane, swordfish, gladiator, MOSQUITO, spitfire... all british planes. reliable, capable. all four of them did so much service in that godawful war that helped my country survive.
I would prefer the later Sea Fury or American naval fighters. I admire the skill and courage of the Seafire pilots.
Yep that narrow track landing gear and water cooled engine not really a Navy Aircraft, like a Prima Ballerina doing vaudeville...they could do it but...
Sea fury didn't come along till after the griffon engined seafires, the only allied carrier fighter that could have shone a light on the seafire during the war was the corsair and that only appeared 44 or something with it's own undercarriage faults. I spose it was better to take your chances on the skinny gear than be a sitting duck as anything else at the time would have been in north Africa tangling with 109's and 190's.
@@zopEnglandzip I hate to say it but Hellcats were the best Navy fighter midwar and total range hero but FAA were stuck with wildcats/martlets due to carrier size. Hellcat v 190 would be a full on match up
@@xgford94 that's interesting, I was under the impression that like the thunderbolt the hellcat was fast, heavy, armoured and easy to fly while the corsair was not armoured so much, a pig to fly and an even bigger pig to land but in skilled hands was more capable than the hellcat and faster than the early seafires, with agility somewhere between them, the claimed superiority of the hellcat being due to things like air conditioning, ease of piloting and the ineffectiveness of the zeros machine guns against it. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the hellcats ever met 109's, thunderbolts did though and their superior altitude performance probably made up for being twice the weight because they were escorting heavy bombers, but I suspect in low level engagements with 109's as were most common in north africa between seafires and 109's the advantage would be lost, and neither the hellcat or thunderbolt would cope with the 109's cannon, your only real option is to not get shot!
@@zopEnglandzip yep you’re spot on Corsair Had many of the same issues as Seafire when landing.... and that is the REAL sign of a good carrier aircraft does not matter how well it flys if you are going to crash every landing. As far as I know Hellcat never went to Europe, but you are very correct to use Thunderbolts as stand in’s for a what if
You don't hear very much on the Seafire, especially what the pilots thought of it. Something similar to this for the Sea Fury would be nice too.
Met an old boy who flew Sea Fury. He said you absolutely must not snatch open throttle fully for a go-round. The massive torque from the big prop would turn it on it's back. He said they lost a few this way.
@@malcolmnicholls2893 but it was built for Carrier ops . The Spit was a landlubber and did not belong in that environment.
Looks like the pilots that landed nicely used curved approach and sideslip to see where they are going. Same technique developed for the Corsair. Seafire had a narrow undercarriage and not that strong. The Corsair bent wings meant a short wide undercarriage and they where built for Carriers landing..
True .. I have this information direct from my stepfather who flew Corsairs for the Fleet Air Arm. Once he had completed his 6 successful deck landings they didn't risk him and other pilots by letting them do any more! The war was on the point of ending and therefore the chance of being killed in a deck landing was more likely than being killed by the enemy.
Another factor that is not often acknowledged is that the "carriers" were not always these huge purpose designed ships that we often see on film. Many of them were actually ordinary cargo ships with the superstructure chopped back and a deck formed of steel plates ... they were (relatively) tiny! My stepfather landed on HMS Premier which was one such ship just before the end of WW2.
The US navy called them escort carriers CVEs. A liberty or victory standard hull was stripped of it's super structure and a flight deck and tiny Island was added. In US service GM built Wildcats and Avengers were carried.
My dad went to USS Altamaha (CVE-18) as an aviation machinist's mate. He mentioned flying along on a plane he had repaired, saying that he looked back at the ship, It looked like a postage stamp. Called his pilots -- and he had been an AMM since 1941 -- "aviators", because he considered them a step above mere "pilots".
The Mk21 was being built until Feb 1948 but the fact that the Seafire Mk47 was still being constructed into 1949 I find quite amazing. The Attacker with its poor endurance seems hardly worth the Seafire's demise.
Great Doku🔝Thank you for showin this.
Thanks! I always wondered about the seafires.
Fantastic! The detail and footage is amazing. Being a pure ww2 fanatic, my heart has always had a spot for the fleet air arms, but hard to find much about there experiences from them and a joy to listen to these brave guys. If there was another like this about the sea hurricane, geez! Fantastic 👍🏻
It is my intention to get there ... I'll work my way through all the key aircraft and elements as I find the time.
@@ArmouredCarriers I learned a lot from reading your account of the Sea Hurricane.
excellent video
Another great video
Excellent testimony !!
Great stuff. I wonder why the RN never tried a fully naval version of the Hurricane. From what I remember it had wider undercarriage and was more forgiving to novice RAF pilots. I know they we used on convoys with rockets but these were one way missions
Hurricane was obsolete in 1940.
Hurricane IIc.
The Hurricane didn't really have the range required for carrier strike missions - certainly not in the same league as the Corsair and Hellcat
@@richardvernon317 Hurricanes were produced until 1944 and there was a carrier version called the Sea Hurricane, it was modified for catapult launches also and was mostly used on escort carriers.
Its not the track of the aircraft its the strength of the undercarriage. Both Spit and Hirri did not have the tough undercarriage for deck landings..You watch those Corsairs banging down and the u/c taking it.
My father used to fit and maintain the canon in these when he was in the fleet air arm. He was shore based in Scotland
I have never seen much on the Seafire I have a book on them but nothing else. Thanks this is a great video you ought to post a link to it on some of the Facebook groups 👍
Is the test pilot interviewed (at ~18:20), Eric Brown, the same one who wrote the book, Wings On My Sleeve?
Yes
Even with a particular aircraft's faults and flaws these men still could use them to their fullest capabilities .
Thanks for the video.
the spitfire was beautiful and an awesome machine ..but in fact the p51 mustang had a faster rate of climb ..higher service ceiling .. higher top speed ... and combat range was far and in excess of that of the spitfire ...there are quite a few inaccuracies in this wonderful video ... i love them both including the german 109 ..and particular fondness for the p 38 lightning ..fabulous era was this
No wartime P-51 had either a higher rate of climb, ceiling, and in the case of the Spit XIV, a higher top speed 🤔🤔 The P-51 had greater range and a higher cruising speed, that is *it*.
My Gradad flew the Seafire for 880 Sqd on HMS Implacable. I wish i had more pictures of him.
What a find, thanks ever so much.
As an American, I have the greatest respect for Britain's pioneering technologies of which many benefited the US aircraft and aircraft carrier development. Great respect. The Seafire is a beautiful aircraft, I think if Supermarine had been able to spend more time and resources on the problems of carrier operations, it would given its American counterparts a run for their money.
Nice documentary on the Seafire. Now how did they fare against the Japanese A6M Zero?
very well against Zeros. By the time they met them the Japanese were on their knees in many ways and mostly in terms of pilot training. Last Seafire v Zero fight was 15 Aug 45 I believe (last day of the war) resulting in a 7 to 1 kill ratio. Unfortunately the last British pilot to be shot down was executed. He did not have a working radio or he would probably have avoided the Zero attack. Very telling also, Vic Lowden one of the Seafire pilots got into a scissors against a Zero and beat him no problem. For those in the know it tells all you need to know about how good the Seafire (and the pilot) were to be able to pull this off against a Zero.
The British had no carrier fighter aircraft that could stand against axis land based or Japanese carrier aircraft in the beginning of the war. They used the American F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair and the TBM bomber. In the Pacific fleets four carriers only one had the British Seafire which because of it’s short range was used for Carrier Air Patrol and short range attack missions only. BPF: Flight ops aboars HMS Illustrious, 1945 Supermarine Seafire During the latter half of the war, the Seafire saw increasing service as part of Britain's contribution to the Far East Pacific campaigns, serving with No. 887 and 894 Squadrons, Fleet Air Arm, aboard HMS Indefatigable and joining the British Pacific Fleet late in 1944. As range quickly became a detrimental factor in Pacific operations, Seafires in this theatre were often fitted with additional fuel tanks previously used by Curtiss P-40 Warhawks. Due to their good high altitude performance and lack of ordnance-carrying capabilities (compared to the Hellcats and Corsairs of the Fleet) the Seafires were allocated the vital defensive duties of Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the fleet. During May 1945, Seafires were used to cover the Allied landings at Rangoon for Operation Crimson. Seafires were thus heavily involved in countering the kamikaze attacks during the Okinawa landings and beyond. The Spitfire was operational in the Pacific Fleet right up to VJ Day, being used off the coast of Japan during the final months of the war. The Seafires' best day was 15 August 1945, shooting down eight attacking aircraft for one loss. During the campaign 887 NAS claimed 12 kills and 894 NAS claimed 10 kills en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire#Wartime_service A vee-shaped guard forward of the tailwheel prevented arrestor wires getting tangled up with the tailwheel. 390 Seafire XVs were built by Cunliffe-Owen and Westland from late 1944. Six prototypes had been built by Supermarine. The average cruising speed was about 330 mph at sea level so it had a range of roughly 500 miles at sea level.
Was the F3F capable of standing against axis land-based or Japanese carrier aircraft in the beginning of the war? This was a time of warp-speed change.
@@ArmouredCarriers Ask a country that used them. They were taken out of service in 1940. 1941-1944, the B-239s (de-navalized F2A-1) operated by the Finnish Air Force proved capable of engaging and destroying most types of Soviet fighter aircraft operating against Finland at that time and achieving in the first phase of that conflict 32 Soviet aircraft shot down for every B-239 lost, and producing 36 Buffalo "aces". In June 1938, production started on the F2A-1. Brewster delivered only 11 F2A-1 aircraft to the Navy; the remainder of the order was later diverted to the Finnish Air Force in modified form under the export designation Model 239. A later variant, the F2A-2, of which 43 were ordered by the U.S. Navy, included a more powerful R-1820-40 engine, a better propeller, and integral flotation gear, but still lacked pilot armor and self-sealing tanks. The F2A-3 was the last version of the Buffalo to enter service with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. A total of 108 examples were ordered in January 1941.Even in late 1940 it was apparent that the Buffalo was rapidly becoming obsolete. It badly needed a more powerful engine, but the limits of the airframe had been reached, making installation of a larger engine impossible. Soon after deliveries of the F2A-3 began, the Navy decided to eliminate the type altogether. By then, considered a second line aircraft, some were transferred to the U.S. Marine Corps, which deployed two F2A-3 squadrons to the Pacific, one at Palmyra Atoll, and another at Midway Island. Shortly thereafter, F2A-3s still in naval service were transferred to training squadrons for use as advanced trainers.
@@ArmouredCarriers Grumman F4F Wildcat an American carrier-based fighter aircraft that began service in 1940 with both the United States Navy, and the British Royal Navy where it was initially known as the Martlet.[2] First used in combat by the British in the North Atlantic, the Wildcat was the only effective fighter available to the United States Navy and Marine Corps in the Pacific Theater during the early part of World War II in 1941 and 1942; air combat kill-to-loss ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war
@@wyominghorseman9172 F3F was only retired from front-line service in late 1941.
@@ArmouredCarriers Who was using it?
These are awesome to listen to.
Nice bit of naval history.
The Seafire had one issue that seems a bit serious for carrier landings. That narrow undercarriage spacing.
Wonderful documentary , shame about lot of the comments . The Spitfire or Seafire call it what you want , was a question of needs must. The FAA had little choice , much of the blame must rest with the Admiralty for sanctioning the Fulmar and Skua , when those soon proved to be worthless what next. The Grumman Wildcat or Martlet was no match for Bf 109's and contrary to popular opinion , it was all the USN had plus a few Brewster Buffalo's. Hellcats didn't make an appearance till much later , there first action was in September 1943 . By then the war in the Desert was over and moved to Sicily. One huge difference between the Brits and the Americans is evident in this video. When the Brits developed a new weapon they gave it to our allies , the initial batch of Mk IX Spitfires went to an American eagle squadron. Most MkXIVs went to the Canadians . Not so with the Yanks . can we have our toys back .
Rather a nasty and unconsidered remark when one stops to think that the Americans handed out about 40 billion dollars in lend lease material to their allies, much of which was never repaid. This included some 2,000+ Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsairs to the British FAA. If Corsairs and Hellcats were later redirected to US operations in the Pacific it should be remembered that the "Yanks" had good cause: they were doing the Lion's share of the heavy lifting there and taking the Lion's share of the losses. To imply American stinginess or bad faith toward its British allies is preposterous and a measure of a certain commenter's poor judgement.
it seems that you have got a handle on the audio end of these. well done!
Am trying, thanks.
7:16, 14:08 aircraft parked on outriggers. If you wondered (as I did) what they were when they were in the vertical position on some pictures of British carriers. Clever things, those...
The outriggers stayed flat. What you are seeing in a vertical position are the radio pylons. During flying operations they're lowered. When not flying, they're raised for better operational range.
Well done lads. Never forgot ten.
Terrific video. I can understand why, in 1941, the admiralty renewed its order for ‘sea spitfires’ and later true seafires, because there was no available high performance fighter competitor for the German 109Fs - and later 109Gs and FW 190s. However, after Salerno production of seafires should have been stopped by Xmas 1943, with the FU4 Corsair, replacing them for carrier operations in the FAA throughout 1944. That would have allowed Supermarine to ‘get on’ with developing the MkVIII into a long range fighter, capable of carrying up to 300 gallons of fuel and hence able to perform interdiction and bomber escort right into the heart of Germany by the beginning of 1944. Not to mention allowing the RAAF and RAF to have a much longer range front line fighter in Australia and SE Asia a lot quicker than they did. Also, taking the seafires off the books of the FAA by mid 1944 would have also allowed Supermarine more test development time to iron out what became the Mk21-24s (including a long range variant of the same) about 12 to 18 months early than they ultimately did. Imagine Mk24s over Berlin in say September 1944. ...
About that time the Corsair was inexplicably killing its pilots ... I'll cover that in a future episode.
@@ArmouredCarriers USN? Or FAA? I thought the slow LR circling approach landing solution for the Seafire worked as well - even better probably because it was designed as a carrier borne plane - on the Corsair in RN flight testing in late 43’ and then later in operations?
@@ArmouredCarriers I think you had to land a Corsair on a Carrier deck by approaching sideways otherwise you couldn’t see the deck.
@@andrewmetcalfe9898 That's correct. The Brits figured out how to do it, probably because of their experience with the Seafire. Once the US pilots were trained in the technique the Corsair was a very good carrier based plane.
I have read that Implacable had one of the best aircraft availability, highest sortie rate and lowest accident rate in the BPF because her air group was mostly Seafires rather than Corsairs. With long rang tanks the Seafire was perfectly adequate, and better as low cap.
Most interesting. I hope there is a part two about Seafires in the British Pacific Fleet?
It depends on if I can find the testimony. I will probably do something on Operation Avalanche at Salerno and Operation Dragoon on the South of France as I've some in hand. But I will seek out Indo-Pacific comment I've not already used in the Forgotten Fleet series.
A bit of a shock old boy. No annoying music. Quite enjoyable.
THANK YOU!
Great sound track
Great video confirming perhaps the unsuitability of the Seafire for carrier operations. Why was it still deployed to the Pacific with the BPF? Maybe for political reasons - like the disastrous deployment of Spitfires in northern Australia?
Availability and design. The RN was struggling to get enough Hellcats and Corsairs. The USN and Marine expansion naturally had first priority. But also HMS Indefatigable and Implacable had low hangars only British fighter aircraft could fit.
@@ArmouredCarriers You would know better than me, but the Fleet Air Arm did receive 1 263 F6Fs and a total of 2 012 Corsairs (a mix of Vought-, Goodyear- and Brewster-built) which makes it hard for me to believe that they were struggling. Bearing in mind the logistics involved in servicing their carrier force in the Pacific, we have to question why a relatively small number of Seafires were sent our there, ostensibly as high altitude "Kamikaze Killers". Perhaps the idea was to show off their iconic Spitfire (in its sea-going guise), more to "wave the flag" in what was a politically-driven enterprise in the first place.
@@philipjooste9075 I don't know the logistics of it. Perhaps they simply hadn't managed to get enough pilots qualified on the types before the end of 1945. What I do know is the only fleet carrier to operate Hellcats was Indomitable, and there were a few escort carriers using the type in the Indian Ocean. Corsairs were pretty much the standard on Illustrious, Victorious and Formidable. They couldn't fit in Implacable and Indefatigable. And they could only fit in Indomitable's lower half-hangar: As the fighter group needed to be large, the ship went to sea with Hellcats. Seafires (mostly low-altitude optimised interceptors) filled Implacable and Indefatigable: It is possible the reasons were patriotic political. But I suspect it was because they still had a pool of Seafire trained pilots and the LFIII was ideal against kamikazes.
@@ArmouredCarriers Thanks for your reply! Makes it all the more interesting.
The 'Disaster' of the Spitfires in Northern Australia is far more nuanced than you suggest, and was covered by Military Aviation History. While the Spitfires did suffer at the hands of the Japanese Fighters they inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanese bombers in return, and it was the bombers that were the Spitfires assigned targets, NOT the fighters. Another issue leading to the types 'disastrous' service in Northern Australia is initially the vast majority of Australian pilots were brand new to the type and had had little opportunity to train on the aicraft before they had to use it in action. No matter how good the aircraft, pilots new to the type, with little training in the type, are not going to be as effective in the aircraft as pilots with adequate training and flight time. Not the Australian Pilots fault of course. It was a matter of timing, had the Japanese held off a few months longer, or Spitfires been sent a few months earlier then the Australian Pilots would have had a few valuable months to train in the aircraft and become familiar with it. However, they did not have those months, which meant inexperienced pilots in aircraft new to them were pitted against highly skilled, highly trained combat veterans in aircraft they had hundreds, if not thousands of hours of flight time in. That makes a HELL of a difference you know. And of course it was not as suitable as a Carrier Fighter as other Carrier Fighters of the war, as was stated, it was not designed for Carrier service in the first place. But it was the best he British had available at the time. Don't forget the FAA had only got control of its aircraft a few years before the war, and the RAF jealously guarded its access to aircraft. The bad state of British Naval Aircraft design pre and early war can literally be placed at the feet of the RAF, as can the tardy nature in which long range aircraft suitable for ASW work were released from Bomber Command to Coastal Command, who arguably had a far more vital role in the defence of Britain than Bomber Command did.... It literally took a direct command from Churchill for Bomber Harris to start releasing those aircraft and even then the man dragged his feet. The problem with being in a war however, is that often what you have to use what you HAVE, rather than what you WANT. Seafires issues came in landing, and in its short range. FAA were completely aware of these issues, but it is what they had. And lets face it, whatever its problems when landing on carriers, and its short range, in the air, the Seafire *was* a Spitfire, which made it an extremely capable interceptor.