Fairey Fulmar: The fleet fighter that 'held the line' 

Top comment! 🌟

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 ...

I had to watch that twice, that was so short it could give a Harrier a run for its money.

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.

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 Also,I think they remind me of myself in that they are outdated and slow but oddly effective:)

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 😀)

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.

That was a RAF aircraft and this channel seems to be more about the RN and FAA.

They were from the recruiting film "Our Company"

@@ArmouredCarriers Thank you!

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 ...

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).

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.

Yes, thanks. I shall correct now.

@@ArmouredCarriers Congrats on the website and videos btw, excellent stuff.

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.

Ships with Wings (1941) had fulmars in

@@DONALDSON51 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:)

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.

Well to be fair you could probably beat the poor old Roc in a Swordfish

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.

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.

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.

Er…… they’re “thin and rakish” I think you’ll find.

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.

They were from a variety of newsreels and ww2 instructional films. The movie the Fulmar features in is called "Ships with Wings"

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.

Don’t be mean. They are thin and rakish…….. compared to a zeppelin.

One plane to do three different jobs saves space on a carrier. So the Royal Navy thought anyway.

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.

When you pitch it against contemporary naval fighters, such as the F3F "Flying Barrel", then ... yes.

I'm not British.

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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

The Fulmar was good and efficient, when compared with its contemporaries and not late-war aircraft.

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.

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.