Do you need to have an opening

When I first started dint have an opening I just played what I felt like, and I did fine. Do you need an opening and if yes at about what rating

I don't know. Capablanca was said to possess minimal opening knowledge, and he did ok!

Mind you, his minimal knowledge would still be as an ocean to my thimble

Strictly speaking, no you don't need an opening. Because if you just play with some amount of reason and understanding, you'll develop your own opening style.

Later on you may find that people have given fancy names to the moves you prefer at the start of a game, of course.

i did quite fine without an opening and just using random openings and yet,i still do!

I think you should know a few openings 1 for white 2 for black

You are required to have an opening according to Fide rules.

Well, here's my anecdote about learning openings.

When I was a kid, a friend taught me how to play chess. He had a couple of minor rules a bit off, but otherwise fine. We played and played and played, and I figured out through trial and error what sort of results to generally expect from doing various things in the first several moves.

Then I found an ancient Fred Reinfeld book my sister had bought second hand, and I worked through most of it. I learned the few rule corrections, basics about how the whole game works, and a fair little bit about single and double king and queen pawn openings.

Then I had a whole new problem. I had learned just enough opening theory to now be stuck when I hit the end of the lines I had learned about.

The game actually became more frustrating and less fun than before, and I routinely lost, and I didn't feel much satisfaction when things did go my way.

Before long, I gave up the game entirely. It seems I had been a little better off just learning organically.

Now I'm comfortable enough just playing and losing that I can afford the luxury of taking a beating while I learn my way around the Sicilian. But I wish I had never heard of traditional openings until after I had played at least dozens more games.

The better you get ( and the better your opponents are ) the more important openings become. Most players under a certain level still hang pieces and overlook 2 and 3 move combos that win material or mate, for them opening knowledge wont help much, if any.  Ofcourse opening knowledge is also more important in OTB chess than online.   

To get past a certain level you surely need a sound understanding of opening theory.

So far I have been sticking to a few solid openings and keeping to the principles of opening play as most advice seemed to centred around this for players roundabout my level - the emphasis being upon tactics (frequently tactics, tactics and tactics) and going through master games. However, I am got fed up with being out of my depth after 3 or 4 moves faced with openings I'm not used to. There is nothing more frustrating then being on the backfoot, being forced into a cramped position etc, because I was unsure of basic openings different from what I know. Therefore, I have just bought FCO and I aim to put this right. I'm going to memorise the whole thing.

How does one get beyond missing 2 and 3 move combos that win material or mate. I use the Tactical Trainer extensively and frequently find myself missing those 2/3 move combos and sometimes get stuck on even simpler ones.

Does one just hang in there and, over time, improve?

Any shortcuts or just continued hard work (although, I shouldn't call it work since I do enjoy it).

Thanks.

I think you need to know some openings,stick to one and find a way to develop from there. I personally like to start with king's pawn and put my queen,kingside bishop and kingside knight on the board early. Then I would castle.