‘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!’
I think this channel delivers that much sought after combination of first hand accounts with non-stop period correct footage that is totally entertaining to watch. As soon as i see there is a new vid uploaded, i prepare myself a cup of coffee and sit back on the couch and enjoy the presentation.
Yes. 1939, 1940 and 1941 were when the practical lessons of combat (as opposed to extrapolated lessons from wargames) were learnt the hard way. But it was also a time of incredible change. Radar had a huge impact. An even greater impact was learning how to exploit its potential! At the same time, engines went from 1000hp to 2000hp in the space of just a couple of years ...
A beautiful aircraft like the ill-fated Fairey Battle. I have assembled 5 Fulmar models in 1/72 scale with one unbuilt kit in reserve. Since 1970, I built 5 Battles with 1 kit in reserve. These lesser known aircraft are not well-presented in model kit form. Look forward to seeing new releases by Airfix.
Excellent, thank you! I think the Skua could have been quite a reasonable dive bomber - it did sink the Konigsberg, after all. I don't think it was really ever envisaged as a fighter against other mainstream fighters such as the 109. rather its role was than of fleet protection against bombers and reconnaissance aircraft (like the Do18 shot down at the start of the war). Otherwise 'fighter/dive bomber' is a bit of an oxymoron, like 'racing/steamroller'. I seem to remember that a Skua pilot whose Skua ditched in a fiord saying something like "The Skua waddled down to the sea bed, sedate to the last".
About 1934, as a teenager, my father accompanied his uncle to Manchester for a job interview. Dad stayed outside. On the way home as they passed the Fairy factory there was a futuristic looking airplane sitting alone beside the building and the gate was open. They both entered for a good look around it and eventually a man came out and told them off because it was secret. In the Mediterranean Dad later witnessed the Fulmar in action which to him looked exactly like this aircraft.
My father was a Fleet Air Arm pilot at the tail end of the war flying the F6F , having done his basic training in Canada, and advanced training and qualifying at Corpus Christi Texas . Though he rarely spoke of his wartime experience, he had the lowest possible opinion of Fairey Aviation aircraft, and in regards to Blackburn's aircraft his views quickly turned into unrepeatable expletives.
Sounds like your father was a good man. With possibly two exceptions, Fairey were able to waste vast amounts of scarce resources building expensive targets for the enemy. We would have been better off if they had never existed. I bet the Germans never bombed Fairey factories because they knew their products would hinder our progress.
@@richardrowland2898 A fact that was not mentioned in this video was that the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft and that includes the Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Hellcat and Corsair.
Sad thing, if Fairy they built the Fulmar as a lighter/smaller single-seat fighter, it may well have lasted longer in service. The good thing about the coming Martlet (F3F Wildcat) was that it could operate from light escort carriers and conversions like HMS Audacious and took up let area with its wings stowed. One can see why Fleet Air-Arms used HMS Argus for deck qualifications. If you could land it there, then you could do it anywhere, plus Argus had no Island to run into when things got dicey.
The Fulmar was from the outset a stop-gap. It wasn't intended to be upgraded. It was a response to the realisation that the Skua and Roc were inadequate. It was supposed to be replaced by a Seafire and the aircraft that became the Firefly by 1942. But the Battle of Britain war emergency program, combined with earlier political medling and design problems, blew this timeline.
Yeah, one of mine, too. I think it’s because I’ve had to defend them so often against the kind of stupid ‘top trump’ arguments from folk who don’t bother to learn about what is actually important. Also,I think they remind me of myself in that they are outdated and slow but oddly effective:)
For all intents and purposes, the Fulmar was the Fairey P.4/34 (it never was assigned an official name), which had been designed as a light bomber to replace the RAF's infamous Fairey Battle. However, by the time the P.4/34 flew the RAF realized that the P.4/34 would not do. Eventually, the De Havilland Mosquito fulfilled the RAF's requirement, but that would not be for another couple of years. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy desperately needed an 8-gun fighter for their aircraft carriers. The Navy specifically asked for an aircraft with sufficient range to carry out long over-water combat air patrols as well as long-range reconnaissance missions. They also required that it be a two-seater in order to accommodate a navigator. Fairey simply pursued the quickest and most expedient course by transforming the existing P.4/34 prototype into a Navy "fleet fighter" by installing 8 machine guns, folding wings, catapult points and a navigator's station behind the pilot. It may not have been the best solution, but it was the best that could be had at the time, and in short notice.
I stayed in a B&B in Inverness 20 years ago. The owner was ex-RAF Spitfire Pilot who spent most of the war in South Africa. He told me they stayed in their own house with servants and he spent most of his time drinking and having fun. When they had to fly after a long night, they used pure oxygen to sober up. Not a bad war, as wars go...
And to be fair, the Fulmar did the job pretty well with the same armament as the early Spitfire and Hurricane. When you have nothing, anything is better (unless it's a Brewster Buffalo 😀)
Amazing how pitiful the naval aircraft were the Brits went to war with, which makes their accomplishments with them all the more telling. It also demonstrates how a navy with even a modest carrier capability could fare against navies without any.
They weren't really though, I think you're making the mistake of comparing the FAA of late 1939/mid-40 with the Japanese Navy and USN of 1942. The FAA had Fulmar, Swordfish, Skua, Sea Gladiator as its main types in 39/mid-40. They also had Roc...but the less said about it the better.. In the same timeframe the USN had the SBC-1 Corsair and SBC Helldiver Divebombers,TBD Devastator Torpedo Bomber and F2F and F3F fighter aircraft. Only the TBD Devastator was a monoplane and would serve operationally into 41/42, with a disastrous showing at Midway being its swan song. The rest of the USN's kit that saw action when the war kicked off for them, the Wildcat and Dauntless began to arrive in tiny numbers in late 40, but really didn't takeover until 41. Lucky for the USN that they did... The IJN had the A5M, B4Y, B5N and D1A as its main types. The B5N was the pick of the bunch, but like the Devastator was obsolescent by 41/42. The D3A Val only started to arrive in mid 40 in small numbers. The IJN and USN had 2 more years of peace to build new aircraft to replace their obsolescent fleets, time that the FAA just didn't have.
@@dogsnads5634 Interesting take on it, and I agree, all things considered the equipment might be considered on par with the other two. But in 1939 the Brits went to war with crappy equipment in the Fleet Air Arm. It did not matter to the Brits what the Americans had, they were flying their stuff, and an astounding lack of them. If the argument is that all of the carrier forces in the world were to matched on paper against each other in the last quarter of 1939, which has nothing to do with my point, you would be correct. My point was in 1939 and 1940, the Brits accomplished quite a lot with pitiful equipment.
@@Neaptide184 At the time it wasn't pitiful equipment though. You only have to look at other air arms around the world to see the variety of equipment on offer. Outside of the high performance aircraft fielded by the RAF and Luftwaffe, who were really in a class of their own in 1939, the rest of the world's air forces look little better. The USAAC and USN had aircraft in development that would form the backbone of the US air effort in WW2, but were equipped with types that exited service, in the main, before the US entered the war. By 1939 standards the FAA wasn't badly equipped...
To be honest I have to agree with the OP. You just look at the carnage that was the Channel Dash. Considering Britain could have started building jets at the beginning of the war, but held on to somewhat outdated designs and ideas, it to me, shows the courage and skill of the FAA against an establishment that could only ever move slowly due to internal infighting
Unlike the US where each service basically has a license to print money, the UK MOD always is under strict financial budget. And like in the US, the RAF always tries to strip the other services of its flying assets or schemes against them for that limited budget. It was just more successful then the US Air Force, which only managed to take away the US Army's fixed wing aviation. In the UK the RAF managed to sabotage the FAA before and after the war. Blowing sweet nothings into politicians ears that the RAF could do what the RN carriers were doing, only cheaper. As a result FAA aircraft were always an afterthought in both design, numbers ordered and capabilities. So the FAA got dross like the Fulmar, Skua and Swordfish. Until in the 2nd half of the war the good American stuff started to arrive.
One big difference is that the USAF came from the USAAF., which was part of the US Army. So it didn't steal the Army's fixed wing division but it was a spin-off. Whereas the RAF was independent from the start, going back to the RFC. There is an old joke as to why the USAF has the best bases. They build the housing, recreation halls, and golf courses first; then go to Congress and say they have no money for the runways! The Army and Navy have to spend money on all kinds of equipment besides airplanes, but the AF only has to spend its money on aircraft!
@@fazole The RAF came, like the US Chair Force, from the Army, the RFC was the air arm of the British army after all. It just formed a world war sooner then the USAF. The RFC existed for from april 13 1912 to april 1 1918, so for most of WW1. So the RAF did not exist from the start. And it also absorbed a large part of the Royal Navy's flying assets too upon its birth. And both services have done the same thing since forever, keep the Army, and Navy too for that matter, from getting its own fixed wing aviation services again. And sadly not giving them anything for it in return. The army wants CAS, the air force HATES doinng CAS, they still think to this day that strategic bombing alone can win wars. And probably also because they think that giving the army CAS would turn them into a supporting branch of the army. And nobody wants to play 2nd fiddle. The unlike the USAF, which only screwed the US Army, the RAF has screwed both the British Army and Royal Navy royally. They're the reason why British carriers and carrier aviation has never been as important as those of the US Navy, and why the Royal Navy lost its carriers in the 60's and 70's.
For its age, generation and pre war design characteristics, it is a rather plesent, balancec soft design to look at. Not aggressive or sexy yet far from ugly. Fairy were consecutively ahead and behind of the times in many respects, designing planes that were well advanced, but by production time, kind of behind their competitors. Fairy were definitely capable of developing spitfire / hurricane contepories, just somehow missed out.
Better than the Blackburn Roc Yeah your Kangaroo Assassins sound like something i'd expect from an anime and the idea of a Kangaroo assassins sounds more funny than scary
The RN insisted that carrier fighters carried an observer, which made the Fulmar bigger and heavier, and the Americans and Japanese soon proved that single seat fighters could operate quite happily from carriers.
With armored flight decks, hangar space was at a premium so having aircraft that could fill multiple roles was thought to be a good idea pre-war. Hence the Skua, Fulmar, Barracuda and even the Firefly were the result of the RN wanting aircraft that could do everything.
Jacks of all trades and masters of none . The FAA were delighted when all the American kit became available. Would you have rather gone up against the IJN in a Firefly or an F4U ?
No. The Fulmar was an emergency program aircraft. It was not intended to be developed. It was intended to "fill the gap" until the Firefly and the original Seafire (cancelled in 1939) arrived. A single-seat Fulmar is essentially a Hurricane.
The prototype was originally intended to fill an RAF requirement for a dive--bomber and was basically a "lightweight Battle" in concept. The RAF decided they didn`t need it though and instead the plane was developed as a stopgap replacement for the obsolescent Blackburn Skua. So it`s origins are more bomber than a fighter.
Sometimes "good enough" is good enough. In many ways the Royal Navy could have used every 2nd hand Buffalo, P-35, and Hawk it could lay it's hands on in 1940. Hell, anything would work on a CAM ship.
There were a few "tangles" off Norway and Malta. It very much depended on "advantage". The Fulmars often had radar direction to put them above their opponents for a "boom and zoom". When the didn't, they were at a disadvantage. But, like the Firefly, their flaps made them surprisingly maneuverable in a dogfight. Peter Twiss commented about this as he beat an Italian single-seater in a dogfight.
@@DrivermanO Well, there was the Bf109T (no such thing as a Me109) for the Graf Zeppelin, although in the end that never happened, although the aircraft still existed.
@@billbolton Makes sense for an Inccect class destroyer. How did that Beetle get that name is what i'm wondering. We have some stupid names like that in the US. There's a bird around where I live called the Tufted Titmouse.
@@shanepatrick4534 I just checked wiki, chafer comes from it gnawing plants, cock from the sense of strong or vigorous, I suppose that's related to the idea of being male or manly.
It ended the war with a 1:1 kill-loss ratio against single-seat fighters ... of course, it didn't encounter them all that often. The European/Mediterranean theatre single-seaters being very short ranged and all.
The Fulmar had far superior dive characteristics than the 109 largely due to the extra mass and the rugged construction so with good Fighter Director Control (something the RN really developed) It could be in place above them able to dive through the 109 formations and take them out using Boom and Zoom tactics. Hence why it did have the best Kill Ratio of any FAA fighter throughout the war including a 1-1 Ratio against the 109.
So……… how many Fullies were shot down by 109s then? I think just one during Pedestal. And one 109 shot down by a Fulmar - same op. Fulmars could turn with anything with flaps. Including the nimble Italian bi-planes. There’s a whole lot of rubbish talked about Fulmars. I mean I wouldn’t want to take on a Bf109 in a Fulmar but I certainly wouldn’t want to deck land a One-oh-nine.
Hi, there is a typo on your webpage on the development of the Martlet: "A handful did go to sea aboard HMS Glorious off Norway in 1941. Elsewhere, those Sea Gladiators that did end up aboard carriers in a combat role did so as emergency requisitions, not planned air group units." Should be 1940, right?
It's a miracle that the FAA actually functioned as well as it did with dross like the Skuas, Swordfish & Fulmars. It always confused me that the Navy had the vision to design something so brilliant like Ark Royal but neglected to develop the aircraft needed to operate off of it.
I think you can blame the RAF for that. Who like the US Air Force always tries to screw over the FAA and the Army AIr Corps. Trying to deny them fixed wing aviation. The RAF was just better at it then the USAF. Or maybe the UK MOD did not have a license to print money like the Pentagon has, so it was more willing to listen to the RAF that they could do the job of those expensive RN carriers for less money. Especially post-war, when the UK got rid of its conventional carriers and almost lost its STOVL carriers too if it weren't for the Falklands war. As for the FAA functioning that well despite, I think the Royal Navy has a strong culture of making do with what they had and making it work. They did so in WW2 and the Falklands war again.
@@geordiedog1749 No, it was dross. A fighter that can't intercept a German bomber is useless, and god help it when it has to go up against a German fighter. And the Swordfish only did well when there were no enemy fighters around. Just because the FAA managed to make it work doesn't magically make it good. Because that is what the Royal Navy does very well, make do with what they have. And then usually the Treasury reasons oh, you guys are so good, you can do good with even less.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Ah, see, there’s the thing. “Just because the FAA managed make it work”. You answered you’re own argument, there. Making it work is what’s important, no? I’ve not actually been in a war but I’m pretty sure that there’s more to it than ‘Too Trumps’. Comparisons between kit. Although, saying that the stats on the performance of Fulmars is worth looking at. It couldn’t intercept (unless in a dive) a JU88 but then only the spit could and the hurri at a push, just. Also, how many Fulmars were shot down by the ‘God help us’ German fighters? Lastly, what was the most successful FAA fighter of WWII? As for swordfish, how many other dedicated TBs did well (start of hostilities) against enemy fighters? String bags have a pretty good history of performing in there roll (which wasn’t to combat enemy fighter btw:) eg Taranto, Bismarck etc. Neither were anywhere near perfect but by no means were either of them “dross”.
I find it creates continuity between wildly different quality,lighting and resolution clips. As I mix many short clips as possible to match the narrative, this can create a flickering effect. The lines negate this.
@@ArmouredCarriers I for one have understood this decision and agree with it wholeheartedly. To have you confirm this is vindicating. Thanks for all the extensive efforts you put in to bring these stories to life and share them with us.
@@ArmouredCarriers Maybe someone will know and these (very excellent) videos will provide the answer in the comments. I fear it’ll be one of those things that gets lost in the ‘fog’. Lanchester or Thompson….. both beat bog rolls.
If they had a Firefly to start with the course of the war would have been very different The planned spitfire for the navy would have truly changed the war
Interesting. Veterans recall the 207mph Fw200 as unreachable, yet reported catching up to the faster SM.79 (listed as faster than the Fulmar) easily. Also interesting is the claim to be 4-5 times faster than the Swordfish, which by all sources, cruised at 100mph. I suspect some errant recollections or even major erroneous beliefs at the time. Seems like a nice training plane, though. Just lucky the Nazis did not have their carrier ready.
It came down to them being around at the same time radar guided fighter direction was being invented. Fulmar flights would be placed in optimal intercept positions. They also were able to dive at high speed. And heavily loaded Condors and SM79s rarely achieved their advertised maximum speeds.
A flying greenhouse with peashooters. No matter how bad it was once it was in the air, if you could get it back down on the deck again, it was a safe bet ??
The aircraft carrier attack by RN fleet air arm swordfish aircraft against the Italian harbour Taranto1940 where the Italian battleships were moored and yet they were old bi planes sinking several big capital ships this is where the Japanese got the idea from to attack pearl harbour
I think it's evocative of origin and purpose. "Armoured Carriers" brings about the Royal Navy focus very well. The RN having famously used armored carriers, and the British spelling of "armour" further underscoring that focus.
As the Fairey Fulmar and all it's contemporaries were designed, built, operated and flown in imperial measurement and all those who might still be alive that flew or maintained them refuse metric measures, mightn't it be a nice idea to present all these videos not in metric measurement that few comprehend (though you notably use horse power), but in imperial units that everybody can still understand ? ? Do remember that surveys still show more than 85% of British people reject metric as cumbersome and user-unfriendly and (other than the shopping items in metric forced upon us all) all those people absolutely refuse to accept this foreign system. Remember also that imperial is STILL Britain's official system of measurement as metric was never lawfully introduced.
Ulfen in relation wolves and wolfmen in Scandinavian mythology goes back aways and has been in print media long ago so I don't think either side could claim it is IP. It might actually be GW lost interest because they couldn't do so. Regardless, they dropped the ball, it's the only thing from Age of Sigmar that remotely got me interested since they killed oldhammer. I do feel conned a bit into buying it by I like the models and the game itself so it's not so bad.
@@ArmouredCarriers Sadly folk are all too fond of regurgitating someone else's opinion without considering whether it has any validity. Thanks for your perseverance and hard work.
That's the thing. The kill-loss ratio statistics say the opposite. It's a good story to call the Fulmar useless in light of next-generation aircraft such as the Corsair. But that's all it is, a story. It becomes true if you start the war in 1942 instead of 1939. But the same can be said of the Wildcat, Warhawk, Hurricane, F3F "Flying Barrel" and Buffalo. It's no coincidence those aircraft are the Fulmar's contemporaries...
It’s often been suggested that the Fulmar’s surprising success, particularly in the Mediterranean, was largely as a result of the Royal Navy’s use of shipboard radar and efficient system of Fighter Direction. Both of these were things that the USN didn’t really get to grips with until significantly later in the war.
A fact that was not mentioned in this video was that the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft and that includes the Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Hellcat and Corsair.
Did Fairey actually produce a single GOOD or EFFICIENT aircraft? Disaster company ... but they must have had good connections within the Air Ministry to sell their utter dross to the RAF and Fleet Air Arm.
A fact that was not mentioned in this video was that the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft and that includes the Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Hellcat and Corsair.
![The Fighter That Tried To Replace The Spitfire | Martin-Baker MB.5 [Aircraft Overview #82]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1CJWEc_sQkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The taking off with the ship practically standing still got me. Some terrific images of the Ark Royal in this video, thank you.
‘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!’
Top comment! 🌟
Nothing like first hand accounts .. love this channel
The old recorded interviews really drove this one home. 👍🏻🇺🇲
Yet another excellent video! Thank you for keeping these oral histories alive and available.
I think this channel delivers that much sought after combination of first hand accounts with non-stop period correct footage that is totally entertaining to watch. As soon as i see there is a new vid uploaded, i prepare myself a cup of coffee and sit back on the couch and enjoy the presentation.
Am a American and I love this channel! The fulmar was a product of pre war that still served like the swordfish :)
Yes. 1939, 1940 and 1941 were when the practical lessons of combat (as opposed to extrapolated lessons from wargames) were learnt the hard way. But it was also a time of incredible change. Radar had a huge impact. An even greater impact was learning how to exploit its potential! At the same time, engines went from 1000hp to 2000hp in the space of just a couple of years ...
Footage of the plane taking off Ark is amazing especially when Nelson or Rodney appears what a beast she was
A beautiful aircraft like the ill-fated Fairey Battle. I have assembled 5 Fulmar models in 1/72 scale with one unbuilt kit in reserve. Since 1970, I built 5 Battles with 1 kit in reserve. These lesser known aircraft are not well-presented in model kit form. Look forward to seeing new releases by Airfix.
That RATO at 16:40 ish mark was bloody impressive, not seen that footage before.
I had to watch that twice, that was so short it could give a Harrier a run for its money.
Excellent, thank you! I think the Skua could have been quite a reasonable dive bomber - it did sink the Konigsberg, after all. I don't think it was really ever envisaged as a fighter against other mainstream fighters such as the 109. rather its role was than of fleet protection against bombers and reconnaissance aircraft (like the Do18 shot down at the start of the war). Otherwise 'fighter/dive bomber' is a bit of an oxymoron, like 'racing/steamroller'. I seem to remember that a Skua pilot whose Skua ditched in a fiord saying something like "The Skua waddled down to the sea bed, sedate to the last".
Excellent video as always and as Dennis said thank you for keeping those oral histories alive and of course the History of the FAA
This channel is pure gold!
About 1934, as a teenager, my father accompanied his uncle to Manchester for a job interview. Dad stayed outside. On the way home as they passed the Fairy factory there was a futuristic looking airplane sitting alone beside the building and the gate was open. They both entered for a good look around it and eventually a man came out and told them off because it was secret. In the Mediterranean Dad later witnessed the Fulmar in action which to him looked exactly like this aircraft.
Looking forward to a retrospect of her younger sister.
Firefly
Excellent! Great editing, love the intermissions from the old aircraft recognition film.
Good job...thanks
Great as always. Would love to see a video on the Skua.
My father was a Fleet Air Arm pilot at the tail end of the war flying the F6F , having done his basic training in Canada, and advanced training and qualifying at Corpus Christi Texas . Though he rarely spoke of his wartime experience, he had the lowest possible opinion of Fairey Aviation aircraft, and in regards to Blackburn's aircraft his views quickly turned into unrepeatable expletives.
God Bless the man.
Sounds like your father was a good man. With possibly two exceptions, Fairey were able to waste vast amounts of scarce resources building expensive targets for the enemy. We would have been better off if they had never existed. I bet the Germans never bombed Fairey factories because they knew their products would hinder our progress.
Generally referred to as 'Fairey Failures'.
@@richardrowland2898 A fact that was not mentioned in this video was that the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft and that includes the Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Hellcat and Corsair.
Splendid gentlemen.
Sad thing, if Fairy they built the Fulmar as a lighter/smaller single-seat fighter, it may well have lasted longer in service. The good thing about the coming Martlet (F3F Wildcat) was that it could operate from light escort carriers and conversions like HMS Audacious and took up let area with its wings stowed. One can see why Fleet Air-Arms used HMS Argus for deck qualifications. If you could land it there, then you could do it anywhere, plus Argus had no Island to run into when things got dicey.
The Fulmar was from the outset a stop-gap. It wasn't intended to be upgraded. It was a response to the realisation that the Skua and Roc were inadequate.
It was supposed to be replaced by a Seafire and the aircraft that became the Firefly by 1942. But the Battle of Britain war emergency program, combined with earlier political medling and design problems, blew this timeline.
A lovely aeroplane, one of my favourites, thank you
Yeah, one of mine, too. I think it’s because I’ve had to defend them so often against the kind of stupid ‘top trump’ arguments from folk who don’t bother to learn about what is actually important. Also,I think they remind me of myself in that they are outdated and slow but oddly effective:)
These are great, thank you!
Thank you for covering the Fairey Fulmar .
For all intents and purposes, the Fulmar was the Fairey P.4/34 (it never was assigned an official name), which had been designed as a light bomber to replace the RAF's infamous Fairey Battle. However, by the time the P.4/34 flew the RAF realized that the P.4/34 would not do. Eventually, the De Havilland Mosquito fulfilled the RAF's requirement, but that would not be for another couple of years. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy desperately needed an 8-gun fighter for their aircraft carriers. The Navy specifically asked for an aircraft with sufficient range to carry out long over-water combat air patrols as well as long-range reconnaissance missions. They also required that it be a two-seater in order to accommodate a navigator. Fairey simply pursued the quickest and most expedient course by transforming the existing P.4/34 prototype into a Navy "fleet fighter" by installing 8 machine guns, folding wings, catapult points and a navigator's station behind the pilot. It may not have been the best solution, but it was the best that could be had at the time, and in short notice.
PLEASE do the Boulton Paul Defiant - turreted fighter, 264 Sqn mastered it but 141 Sqn didn't.
That was a RAF aircraft and this channel seems to be more about the RN and FAA.
When everything is said, The Battle the Fulmar and the Defiant where beautiful planes. I noticed the Japanese Kate looks like a stretch Zero too.
Excellent, thank you
I stayed in a B&B in Inverness 20 years ago. The owner was ex-RAF Spitfire Pilot who spent most of the war in South Africa. He told me they stayed in their own house with servants and he spent most of his time drinking and having fun. When they had to fly after a long night, they used pure oxygen to sober up. Not a bad war, as wars go...
It always struck me as a hybrid between the Fairy Battle, and the Fairy Firefly. Anyone else see that?
Well it...kinda was. It was a fighter form of the Battle, and developed into the Firefly.
Battle = no power no armament, Firefly = power and armament, Fulmar = in between!
And to be fair, the Fulmar did the job pretty well with the same armament as the early Spitfire and Hurricane. When you have nothing, anything is better (unless it's a Brewster Buffalo 😀)
Amazing how pitiful the naval aircraft were the Brits went to war with, which makes their accomplishments with them all the more telling. It also demonstrates how a navy with even a modest carrier capability could fare against navies without any.
They weren't really though, I think you're making the mistake of comparing the FAA of late 1939/mid-40 with the Japanese Navy and USN of 1942.
The FAA had Fulmar, Swordfish, Skua, Sea Gladiator as its main types in 39/mid-40. They also had Roc...but the less said about it the better..
In the same timeframe the USN had the SBC-1 Corsair and SBC Helldiver Divebombers,TBD Devastator Torpedo Bomber and F2F and F3F fighter aircraft. Only the TBD Devastator was a monoplane and would serve operationally into 41/42, with a disastrous showing at Midway being its swan song. The rest of the USN's kit that saw action when the war kicked off for them, the Wildcat and Dauntless began to arrive in tiny numbers in late 40, but really didn't takeover until 41. Lucky for the USN that they did...
The IJN had the A5M, B4Y, B5N and D1A as its main types. The B5N was the pick of the bunch, but like the Devastator was obsolescent by 41/42. The D3A Val only started to arrive in mid 40 in small numbers.
The IJN and USN had 2 more years of peace to build new aircraft to replace their obsolescent fleets, time that the FAA just didn't have.
@@dogsnads5634 Interesting take on it, and I agree, all things considered the equipment might be considered on par with the other two. But in 1939 the Brits went to war with crappy equipment in the Fleet Air Arm. It did not matter to the Brits what the Americans had, they were flying their stuff, and an astounding lack of them. If the argument is that all of the carrier forces in the world were to matched on paper against each other in the last quarter of 1939, which has nothing to do with my point, you would be correct.
My point was in 1939 and 1940, the Brits accomplished quite a lot with pitiful equipment.
@@Neaptide184 At the time it wasn't pitiful equipment though. You only have to look at other air arms around the world to see the variety of equipment on offer. Outside of the high performance aircraft fielded by the RAF and Luftwaffe, who were really in a class of their own in 1939, the rest of the world's air forces look little better. The USAAC and USN had aircraft in development that would form the backbone of the US air effort in WW2, but were equipped with types that exited service, in the main, before the US entered the war. By 1939 standards the FAA wasn't badly equipped...
To be honest I have to agree with the OP. You just look at the carnage that was the Channel Dash. Considering Britain could have started building jets at the beginning of the war, but held on to somewhat outdated designs and ideas, it to me, shows the courage and skill of the FAA against an establishment that could only ever move slowly due to internal infighting
Pitiful??????compared to now but state of the art in the 40s ...
Unlike the US where each service basically has a license to print money, the UK MOD always is under strict financial budget. And like in the US, the RAF always tries to strip the other services of its flying assets or schemes against them for that limited budget. It was just more successful then the US Air Force, which only managed to take away the US Army's fixed wing aviation. In the UK the RAF managed to sabotage the FAA before and after the war. Blowing sweet nothings into politicians ears that the RAF could do what the RN carriers were doing, only cheaper. As a result FAA aircraft were always an afterthought in both design, numbers ordered and capabilities. So the FAA got dross like the Fulmar, Skua and Swordfish. Until in the 2nd half of the war the good American stuff started to arrive.
One big difference is that the USAF came from the USAAF., which was part of the US Army. So it didn't steal the Army's fixed wing division but it was a spin-off. Whereas the RAF was independent from the start, going back to the RFC. There is an old joke as to why the USAF has the best bases. They build the housing, recreation halls, and golf courses first; then go to Congress and say they have no money for the runways! The Army and Navy have to spend money on all kinds of equipment besides airplanes, but the AF only has to spend its money on aircraft!
@@fazole The RAF came, like the US Chair Force, from the Army, the RFC was the air arm of the British army after all. It just formed a world war sooner then the USAF. The RFC existed for from april 13 1912 to april 1 1918, so for most of WW1. So the RAF did not exist from the start. And it also absorbed a large part of the Royal Navy's flying assets too upon its birth. And both services have done the same thing since forever, keep the Army, and Navy too for that matter, from getting its own fixed wing aviation services again. And sadly not giving them anything for it in return. The army wants CAS, the air force HATES doinng CAS, they still think to this day that strategic bombing alone can win wars. And probably also because they think that giving the army CAS would turn them into a supporting branch of the army. And nobody wants to play 2nd fiddle. The unlike the USAF, which only screwed the US Army, the RAF has screwed both the British Army and Royal Navy royally. They're the reason why British carriers and carrier aviation has never been as important as those of the US Navy, and why the Royal Navy lost its carriers in the 60's and 70's.
One must recall that the FAA didn't get control of aircraft design until the late 1930s. Until then their aircraft were controlled by the RAF.
Good video. Thank's.
For its age, generation and pre war design characteristics, it is a rather plesent, balancec soft design to look at. Not aggressive or sexy yet far from ugly. Fairy were consecutively ahead and behind of the times in many respects, designing planes that were well advanced, but by production time, kind of behind their competitors. Fairy were definitely capable of developing spitfire / hurricane contepories, just somehow missed out.
I think Eric Winkle Brown described the Fulmar as "completely useless". Amazing how well the FAA did with them considering; a great credit to them.
Better than the Blackburn Roc
Yeah your Kangaroo Assassins sound like something i'd expect from an anime and the idea of a Kangaroo assassins sounds more funny than scary
Well to be fair you could probably beat the poor old Roc in a Swordfish
The RN insisted that carrier fighters carried an observer, which made the Fulmar bigger and heavier, and the Americans and Japanese soon proved that single seat fighters could operate quite happily from carriers.
But the RN had a different strategic need - long range recon and navigation in an era before radar. Thus the Fulmar.
With armored flight decks, hangar space was at a premium so having aircraft that could fill multiple roles was thought to be a good idea pre-war. Hence the Skua, Fulmar, Barracuda and even the Firefly were the result of the RN wanting aircraft that could do everything.
Jacks of all trades and masters of none . The FAA were delighted when all the American kit became available. Would you have rather gone up against the IJN in a Firefly or an F4U ?
@@michellebrown4903Certainly the Martlet and the Corsair were a much better deal than the Fulmer.
It was a 'fighter' in that it bravely fought the laws of aerodynamics.
Thanks! I've been waiting for information on the Fulmar. The next video will be fun!
What was the movie the personal clips were from?
They were from the recruiting film "Our Company"
@@ArmouredCarriers Thank you!
The Fulmar is great plane
great video are you doing the 2nd part
When I replace my PC. Some fault is causing rendering video to crash regularly. And when I find more footage (which I may have done).
Was there ever a single seat prototype developed?
How would it perform?
No. The Fulmar was an emergency program aircraft. It was not intended to be developed. It was intended to "fill the gap" until the Firefly and the original Seafire (cancelled in 1939) arrived. A single-seat Fulmar is essentially a Hurricane.
@@ArmouredCarriers thank you for the response 🙂
The prototype was originally intended to fill an RAF requirement for a dive--bomber and was basically a "lightweight Battle" in concept. The RAF decided they didn`t need it though and instead the plane was developed as a stopgap replacement for the obsolescent Blackburn Skua. So it`s origins are more bomber than a fighter.
Sometimes "good enough" is good enough.
In many ways the Royal Navy could have used every 2nd hand Buffalo, P-35, and Hawk it could lay it's hands on in 1940. Hell, anything would work on a CAM ship.
I wonder how many times the Fulmar had to go up against the Me 109? Hurricane pilots had their hands full with them as it was.
Why would they? - so far as I'm aware, the Me109 wasn't naval!
I assume there was some tangling with them over the med with some of the Malta convoys? but not seen any reports about it?
There were a few "tangles" off Norway and Malta. It very much depended on "advantage". The Fulmars often had radar direction to put them above their opponents for a "boom and zoom". When the didn't, they were at a disadvantage. But, like the Firefly, their flaps made them surprisingly maneuverable in a dogfight. Peter Twiss commented about this as he beat an Italian single-seater in a dogfight.
@@ArmouredCarriers Thank you for the interesting and informative reply.
@@DrivermanO Well, there was the Bf109T (no such thing as a Me109) for the Graf Zeppelin, although in the end that never happened, although the aircraft still existed.
The British sure have some interesting naming conventions for their military companies, planes, and ships.
I.e. the HMS Cockchafer.
Imagine when Donald Trump gets a us-navy ship named after him.. Here sails the USS Bunker Hill followed by the USS Bunker Bitch
Its a shame we never get to see HMS Boaty McBoatFace
Cockchafer is a type of beetle, and to be fair, the Royal Navy at it's height had so many ships they were running out of names.
@@billbolton Makes sense for an Inccect class destroyer. How did that Beetle get that name is what i'm wondering. We have some stupid names like that in the US. There's a bird around where I live called the Tufted Titmouse.
@@shanepatrick4534 I just checked wiki, chafer comes from it gnawing plants, cock from the sense of strong or vigorous, I suppose that's related to the idea of being male or manly.
nice
Could you imagine taking the under powered two seat Fulmar up against a BF 109?
It ended the war with a 1:1 kill-loss ratio against single-seat fighters ... of course, it didn't encounter them all that often. The European/Mediterranean theatre single-seaters being very short ranged and all.
No thanks. Not against a 109
The Fulmar had far superior dive characteristics than the 109 largely due to the extra mass and the rugged construction so with good Fighter Director Control (something the RN really developed) It could be in place above them able to dive through the 109 formations and take them out using Boom and Zoom tactics. Hence why it did have the best Kill Ratio of any FAA fighter throughout the war including a 1-1 Ratio against the 109.
So……… how many Fullies were shot down by 109s then? I think just one during Pedestal. And one 109 shot down by a Fulmar - same op. Fulmars could turn with anything with flaps. Including the nimble Italian bi-planes. There’s a whole lot of rubbish talked about Fulmars. I mean I wouldn’t want to take on a Bf109 in a Fulmar but I certainly wouldn’t want to deck land a One-oh-nine.
109s were very short range and no use over the seas. You'd never meet one.
Is there a film with Fulmars in it? There looks like some clips from a film in the video. If there is I’d love to see it.
Ships with Wings (1941) had fulmars in
@@Sonofdonald2024 I shall check that out, cheers my man!,
I have not seen that one. But the clips are from "Our Company", a WW2 recruitment film.
@@ArmouredCarriers You watched World War Two recruitment films? You really are total ledge, mate:)
Hi, there is a typo on your webpage on the development of the Martlet:
"A handful did go to sea aboard HMS Glorious off Norway in 1941. Elsewhere, those Sea Gladiators that did end up aboard carriers in a combat role did so as emergency requisitions, not planned air group units."
Should be 1940, right?
Yes, thanks. I shall correct now.
@@ArmouredCarriers Congrats on the website and videos btw, excellent stuff.
It's a miracle that the FAA actually functioned as well as it did with dross like the Skuas, Swordfish & Fulmars. It always confused me that the Navy had the vision to design something so brilliant like Ark Royal but neglected to develop the aircraft needed to operate off of it.
I think you can blame the RAF for that. Who like the US Air Force always tries to screw over the FAA and the Army AIr Corps. Trying to deny them fixed wing aviation. The RAF was just better at it then the USAF. Or maybe the UK MOD did not have a license to print money like the Pentagon has, so it was more willing to listen to the RAF that they could do the job of those expensive RN carriers for less money. Especially post-war, when the UK got rid of its conventional carriers and almost lost its STOVL carriers too if it weren't for the Falklands war.
As for the FAA functioning that well despite, I think the Royal Navy has a strong culture of making do with what they had and making it work. They did so in WW2 and the Falklands war again.
I think that you should maybe do some research before you call the swordfish and fulmar dross. Makes you look bad.
@@geordiedog1749 No, it was dross. A fighter that can't intercept a German bomber is useless, and god help it when it has to go up against a German fighter. And the Swordfish only did well when there were no enemy fighters around. Just because the FAA managed to make it work doesn't magically make it good. Because that is what the Royal Navy does very well, make do with what they have. And then usually the Treasury reasons oh, you guys are so good, you can do good with even less.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Ah, see, there’s the thing. “Just because the FAA managed make it work”. You answered you’re own argument, there. Making it work is what’s important, no?
I’ve not actually been in a war but I’m pretty sure that there’s more to it than ‘Too Trumps’. Comparisons between kit. Although, saying that the stats on the performance of Fulmars is worth looking at. It couldn’t intercept (unless in a dive) a JU88 but then only the spit could and the hurri at a push, just. Also, how many Fulmars were shot down by the ‘God help us’ German fighters? Lastly, what was the most successful FAA fighter of WWII?
As for swordfish, how many other dedicated TBs did well (start of hostilities) against enemy fighters? String bags have a pretty good history of performing in there roll (which wasn’t to combat enemy fighter btw:) eg Taranto, Bismarck etc. Neither were anywhere near perfect but by no means were either of them “dross”.
@@geordiedog1749 The RN kept their carriers well away from German aircraft after Illustrious got battered by the LW, that simple.
Really good interesting video, the interleave line filter on every old video clip is a bit much
I find it creates continuity between wildly different quality,lighting and resolution clips. As I mix many short clips as possible to match the narrative, this can create a flickering effect. The lines negate this.
@@ArmouredCarriers I for one have understood this decision and agree with it wholeheartedly. To have you confirm this is vindicating. Thanks for all the extensive efforts you put in to bring these stories to life and share them with us.
Good solid gun platform did a good job v the Italian bombers. Seems to have been liked by contemporary pilots
They should have finished it after the greenhouse, ridiculously long.
Er…… they’re “thin and rakish” I think you’ll find.
"Thin and rakish..." More like a COD! You could deliver a week's worth of mail in that thing!
Don’t be mean. They are thin and rakish…….. compared to a zeppelin.
Marvellous. Thank you.
I trust we will be addressing the big issue next episode? Was it a Thompson or a Lanchester?
I wish I could crack that one …
@@ArmouredCarriers Maybe someone will know and these (very excellent) videos will provide the answer in the comments. I fear it’ll be one of those things that gets lost in the ‘fog’. Lanchester or Thompson….. both beat bog rolls.
Excellent. But why the Fulmar ?? not a dive bomber, not a torpedo bomber, not a fighter .. ???
One plane to do three different jobs saves space on a carrier. So the Royal Navy thought anyway.
1:09 - I wonder if the Fairey Battle was also a "gentleman's aircraft". Sad how things turned out for the Battle.
If they had a Firefly to start with the course of the war would have been very different
The planned spitfire for the navy would have truly changed the war
Pretended we were Hurricanes, which we were not. 🤣🤣🤣
What does Hush Kit You Tube say about it?
Interesting. Veterans recall the 207mph Fw200 as unreachable, yet reported catching up to the faster SM.79 (listed as faster than the Fulmar) easily. Also interesting is the claim to be 4-5 times faster than the Swordfish, which by all sources, cruised at 100mph. I suspect some errant recollections or even major erroneous beliefs at the time. Seems like a nice training plane, though. Just lucky the Nazis did not have their carrier ready.
It came down to them being around at the same time radar guided fighter direction was being invented.
Fulmar flights would be placed in optimal intercept positions. They also were able to dive at high speed. And heavily loaded Condors and SM79s rarely achieved their advertised maximum speeds.
What movie where the clips from
They were from a variety of newsreels and ww2 instructional films. The movie the Fulmar features in is called "Ships with Wings"
A flying greenhouse with peashooters. No matter how bad it was once it was in the air, if you could get it back down on the deck again, it was a safe bet ??
When you pitch it against contemporary naval fighters, such as the F3F "Flying Barrel", then ... yes.
ゲームでよく使うけどこれが動くフルマー！^ ^
The aircraft carrier attack by RN fleet air arm swordfish aircraft against the Italian harbour Taranto1940 where the Italian battleships were moored and yet they were old bi planes sinking several big capital ships this is where the Japanese got the idea from to attack pearl harbour
戦闘機二人乗りはあまりに先を行きすぎたw
08:31
You couldn't think of a better Channel name ???
I think it's evocative of origin and purpose. "Armoured Carriers" brings about the Royal Navy focus very well. The RN having famously used armored carriers, and the British spelling of "armour" further underscoring that focus.
As the Fairey Fulmar and all it's contemporaries were designed, built, operated and flown in imperial measurement and all those who might still be alive that flew or maintained them refuse metric measures, mightn't it be a nice idea to present all these videos not in metric measurement that few comprehend (though you notably use horse power), but in imperial units that everybody can still understand ? ? Do remember that surveys still show more than 85% of British people reject metric as cumbersome and user-unfriendly and (other than the shopping items in metric forced upon us all) all those people absolutely refuse to accept this foreign system. Remember also that imperial is STILL Britain's official system of measurement as metric was never lawfully introduced.
I'm not British.
Ulfen in relation wolves and wolfmen in Scandinavian mythology goes back aways and has been in print media long ago so I don't think either side could claim it is IP. It might actually be GW lost interest because they couldn't do so.
Regardless, they dropped the ball, it's the only thing from Age of Sigmar that remotely got me interested since they killed oldhammer.
I do feel conned a bit into buying it by I like the models and the game itself so it's not so bad.
Great video but what a outdated aircraft the navy was lumbered with at the start of the war.
You have to ask yourself the question: "Outdated in comparison to what?"
@@ArmouredCarriers Sadly folk are all too fond of regurgitating someone else's opinion without considering whether it has any validity. Thanks for your perseverance and hard work.
Fairie?? For Real??
No , Fairey.
It was named after the founder. No different from Douglas, Vought, Curtis, Krupp, Porsche, Hawker, De Havilland, Dassualt, or English Electric.
@@iatsd wait, there was someone called English Electric?
@@billbolton no, that one was a joke
@@iatsd you crazy English with your British sense of humor. :-)
All this descriptive talk, but no match for the enemy opposition in actual combat …
That's the thing. The kill-loss ratio statistics say the opposite. It's a good story to call the Fulmar useless in light of next-generation aircraft such as the Corsair. But that's all it is, a story. It becomes true if you start the war in 1942 instead of 1939. But the same can be said of the Wildcat, Warhawk, Hurricane, F3F "Flying Barrel" and Buffalo. It's no coincidence those aircraft are the Fulmar's contemporaries...
It’s often been suggested that the Fulmar’s surprising success, particularly in the Mediterranean, was largely as a result of the Royal Navy’s use of shipboard radar and efficient system of Fighter Direction. Both of these were things that the USN didn’t really get to grips with until significantly later in the war.
Another hideous plane from Fairey. Were they in competition with Blackburn to see who could design the worst British aircraft of WWII?
A fact that was not mentioned in this video was that the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft and that includes the Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Hellcat and Corsair.
Did Fairey actually produce a single GOOD or EFFICIENT aircraft? Disaster company ... but they must have had good connections within the Air Ministry to sell their utter dross to the RAF and Fleet Air Arm.
The Fulmar was good and efficient, when compared with its contemporaries and not late-war aircraft.
Yes, but the fulmar was a piece of crap
A fact that was not mentioned in this video was that the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft and that includes the Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Hellcat and Corsair.