The Mk 2 had a three blade prop which it faster than the the MK1 and like the Hurricane the Gladiator could turn a tighter circle than a Spitfire even though they were not as fast.
I named one of my daughters After the gloster gladiator Faith, her middle name is hope and her twin sister was going to be charity, but her mother was having none of it
I think the "Faith, Hope and Charity" story for the Gladiators on Malta is a myth. There were probably a half dozen or more assembled Gladiators at the beginning of the Battle of Malta and usually only two in the air at a time. They were slower than the Italian single-wing bombers but still managed to down a few by getting in the air quickly.
There's a difference between the number of assembled airframes that were available and how many that were capable of flying at any one point. Yes the Hal Far fighter wing at Malta had more than 3 Gladiators assembled, but due to their logistical situation of being an Island under Siege, they could only keep a few airframes operational at any one point due to their limited supplies and attrition, using the others for parts and replacements to keep the few they had running continuing to do so. Now, whether or not the exact number of operational airframes they had in this time was more than three is something that's been hotly debated since the myths inception. Its entirely possible there were only 3 operational gladiators, or that there were more flying and the myth was created as a result of the events being given the typical newspaper exaggeration, being sensationalized to make it more interesting or uplifting for the readers. Its more interesting to read about three named planes and their pilots fighting against improbable odds than just 'allied air power drives off enemy bombers', hence why focusing on individual aircraft and pilots became more common as the war progressed, exemplified in the 8th Airforce which is where you get all of the papers talking about the various crews of B-17s like, famously, Memphis Belle. I believe that given the evidence available that its probable that there were in fact more than 3 Gladiators able to run at any one time during the Siege of Malta, *but*, that in order to retain operational capacity and not run their planes into the ground and be left with 'no' running airframes, they rotated what they had in an out of combat to mitigate attrition as much as possible, and thus only had three planes fly up out of how many they had, as a means to make sure that they still had planes for the next imminent air raid. Now Is it odd for 3 planes to effectively engage (i.e deter or impede) entire waves of bombers and fighters day after day for weeks on end? No actually, As throughout WW2 there are more than a handful of times where small numbers of interceptors flying up to meet massive formations of enemy forces cause them to either bomb inaccurately due to panic, or break off to avoid losses (depending on the airforce in question). In regards to speed, while yes the Italian SM.79 did have a higher maximum speed than the Gladiator at the altitudes they would engage at, the SM.79 would more likely be bombing at its 'cruising' speed rather than max speed since due to the Mediterranean environment; engines (for both sides) had a tendency to overheat when ran at full power for extended periods of time. That, and trying to bomb at maximum speed while the entire airplane is shaking violently due to the engines running as hard as they'll go is suboptimal to say the least for accuracy, something that compounds when you also throw in frantic radio chatter talking about enemy fighters climbing or diving to meet you.
@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft I would have loved some of what you're bringing up here in the video itself! It's great as is, but some more discussion and analysis would make it even cooler. Subscribing now!
@@Tyggis777 As much as I would love to, this kind of in-depth analysis would easily cause the video to reach half an hour if not longer. I try to keep these around the advertised 5 minutes since it fits with both the style and theme of my content (easy to digest synopsis's) and fits into the free time I have available with my college workload. That, and other people have already done beautiful in depth guides to most of the aircraft I'm covering/already have covered, like Rex's Hanger, Ed Nashs Military Matters, Not a pound for air to ground, Gregs airplanes and automobiles, etc. The best way I try to frame and think of my videos is the kind you would find on a monitor pedestal at a museum, the kind that loops and gives a bit more insight on whatever its describing.
@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft Well, look at how long Drachinifel's 5-minute guides have become. Sure many other people have in depth guides, but e.g. the nuance and analysis mentioned by you in the above comment is not something that normally appears on youtube. Would love to see more of it!
The Gloster Gladiator was never used as a torpedo bomber, in fact it couldn't mount any suspended ordinance at all as it lacked the mounting to do so, it was a pure fighter. Are you thinking of the Fairey Swordfish by chance?
@0:10 - Was the Bristol Bulldog still a front-line fighter or was it relegated to colonial and other duty when the specification came out? I believe the Bulldog was introduced to RAF squadrons in 1929
Maybe Gloster should have been allowed to mass produce the F'/34 monoplane fighter instead of the much slower Gladiator. It would of made an excellent naval fighter with it short landing and excellent visibility . I would love to build a plastic model of it. It even has a bubble canopy.
The Mk 2 had a three blade prop which it faster than the the MK1 and like the Hurricane the Gladiator could turn a tighter circle than a Spitfire even though they were not as fast.
There was also the Sea Gladiator.
This video was great and deserves thousands of views!
I named one of my daughters After the gloster gladiator Faith, her middle name is hope and her twin sister was going to be charity, but her mother was having none of it
Between the Gladiator and the Swordfish - the British got a lot of use out of supposedly obsolete aircraft.
.
The thing is, they were not actually obsolete when introduced. Biplanes yes, but very advanced ones.
I think the "Faith, Hope and Charity" story for the Gladiators on Malta is a myth. There were probably a half dozen or more assembled Gladiators at the beginning of the Battle of Malta and usually only two in the air at a time. They were slower than the Italian single-wing bombers but still managed to down a few by getting in the air quickly.
There's a difference between the number of assembled airframes that were available and how many that were capable of flying at any one point. Yes the Hal Far fighter wing at Malta had more than 3 Gladiators assembled, but due to their logistical situation of being an Island under Siege, they could only keep a few airframes operational at any one point due to their limited supplies and attrition, using the others for parts and replacements to keep the few they had running continuing to do so.
Now, whether or not the exact number of operational airframes they had in this time was more than three is something that's been hotly debated since the myths inception. Its entirely possible there were only 3 operational gladiators, or that there were more flying and the myth was created as a result of the events being given the typical newspaper exaggeration, being sensationalized to make it more interesting or uplifting for the readers. Its more interesting to read about three named planes and their pilots fighting against improbable odds than just 'allied air power drives off enemy bombers', hence why focusing on individual aircraft and pilots became more common as the war progressed, exemplified in the 8th Airforce which is where you get all of the papers talking about the various crews of B-17s like, famously, Memphis Belle.
I believe that given the evidence available that its probable that there were in fact more than 3 Gladiators able to run at any one time during the Siege of Malta, *but*, that in order to retain operational capacity and not run their planes into the ground and be left with 'no' running airframes, they rotated what they had in an out of combat to mitigate attrition as much as possible, and thus only had three planes fly up out of how many they had, as a means to make sure that they still had planes for the next imminent air raid.
Now Is it odd for 3 planes to effectively engage (i.e deter or impede) entire waves of bombers and fighters day after day for weeks on end? No actually, As throughout WW2 there are more than a handful of times where small numbers of interceptors flying up to meet massive formations of enemy forces cause them to either bomb inaccurately due to panic, or break off to avoid losses (depending on the airforce in question).
In regards to speed, while yes the Italian SM.79 did have a higher maximum speed than the Gladiator at the altitudes they would engage at, the SM.79 would more likely be bombing at its 'cruising' speed rather than max speed since due to the Mediterranean environment; engines (for both sides) had a tendency to overheat when ran at full power for extended periods of time. That, and trying to bomb at maximum speed while the entire airplane is shaking violently due to the engines running as hard as they'll go is suboptimal to say the least for accuracy, something that compounds when you also throw in frantic radio chatter talking about enemy fighters climbing or diving to meet you.
@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft I would have loved some of what you're bringing up here in the video itself! It's great as is, but some more discussion and analysis would make it even cooler. Subscribing now!
@@Tyggis777 As much as I would love to, this kind of in-depth analysis would easily cause the video to reach half an hour if not longer. I try to keep these around the advertised 5 minutes since it fits with both the style and theme of my content (easy to digest synopsis's) and fits into the free time I have available with my college workload.
That, and other people have already done beautiful in depth guides to most of the aircraft I'm covering/already have covered, like Rex's Hanger, Ed Nashs Military Matters, Not a pound for air to ground, Gregs airplanes and automobiles, etc.
The best way I try to frame and think of my videos is the kind you would find on a monitor pedestal at a museum, the kind that loops and gives a bit more insight on whatever its describing.
@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft Well, look at how long Drachinifel's 5-minute guides have become. Sure many other people have in depth guides, but e.g. the nuance and analysis mentioned by you in the above comment is not something that normally appears on youtube. Would love to see more of it!
The Bristol Type 133 [0:48] looks similar to the early Seversky P-35. Canopy, tail and landing gear, Radial powerplant. Wings differ.
I thought the same
I think you should have spent some time on their use as torpedo bombers. They were quite active in that field.
The Gloster Gladiator was never used as a torpedo bomber, in fact it couldn't mount any suspended ordinance at all as it lacked the mounting to do so, it was a pure fighter.
Are you thinking of the Fairey Swordfish by chance?
@0:10 - Was the Bristol Bulldog still a front-line fighter or was it relegated to colonial and other duty when the specification came out? I believe the Bulldog was introduced to RAF squadrons in 1929
Bulldogs were withdrawn from service in 1937, replaced ironically by the predecessor to the Gladiator, the Gauntlet.
Well, beeing the last of its kind, it was a goodbiplane...
Maybe Gloster should have been allowed to mass produce the F'/34 monoplane fighter instead of the much slower Gladiator. It would of made an excellent naval fighter with it short landing and excellent visibility . I would love to build a plastic model of it. It even has a bubble canopy.