HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > World War II

Notices and Announcements

World War II Discuss WW2. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #106  
Old 02 Oct 16, 21:01
RLeonard's Avatar
RLeonard RLeonard is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 203
RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Yes, yes, yes; we all know that claims and credits are not the same as a comparison of one side’s losses to the other side’s losses for a given engagement. So one can cherry pick quotes from whomever one chooses. We see a nice quote from Frank Olynyk on the issue. I suppose then that that is why Frank is very, very specific and careful in the wording of the titles of his works, specifically using the word “Credits” and to carefully explain from whence he draws his data. Maybe someone missed that part . . . that happens when one goes out and cherry picks.

The same applies to the USAF’s published official accounting for WW2, credited claims only.

The same applies Stu Barber and his staff’s presentation . . . a combing of the USN & USMC reports of the war years and compiling the results into one volume - as far as enemy aircraft shot down concerned, presenting only the credits as they appeared in the ACA’s. Barber and company, quite frankly, did not give a crap about what the Japanese had to say . . . that was not the purpose of the document. And, yes, I get a little unkind when someone clearly announces they’ve had a careful read yet disparages the authors for presenting exactly what they said they were presenting, no more, no less.

I see quotes from John Lundstrom . . . well, I have all of John’s books, sometimes even multiple copies, such as three copies of his initial First Team volume - two were my father’s and one is mine, not to mention about 5 plus inches of correspondence and an annotated rough draft of that same initial volume. I’ve read all, very carefully and many times, so no one has offered any surprises.

Other quotes from Barrett Tillman . . . I have all of Barrett’s works, save one, even to include his novels . . . what I don’t have is his biography of LeMay, something for which I am sure Barrett will no doubt forgive me as he knows I’ve no interests in that direction. And still another 5 or 6 inches of correspondence in the files. Why, sometimes, if one looks hard, one can even find me in some of his acknowledgements for whatever small part I may have played or contributed to this or that tome . . . it is very nice of him, he does not have to do that.

So, while I certainly have no problem with citing John, Barrett, or Frank, I have not see anything really offered that would refute the presentation, the initial concept, you remember, way back when, the original question, that the F4F more than held its own against the A6M and the ratio of credits to losses. Note I, too, am careful to use the word “credit” and not the more bloodthirsty, yet sanguine, “kills” or more fastidious “victories.”

The basic aggregate numbers were provided. The IJN reported 861 IJN fighters lost in combat in the first 13 months of the war. Oh, and in case anyone is wondering why only the first 13 months . . . that was the last time things were relatively equal. After that, it got pretty grim for the IJN’s air arm and only got worse unto the bitter end.

On the US side in those 13 months, 65 IJN fighters credited were to various USN & USMC VB and VT types in their reports; 11 IJN fighters credited to USN VP types in their reports; this leaves us with a pool, as pointed out in the earlier post and repeated here as it apparently did not make an impression, of IJN fighter reported losses in combat of 785. USN & USMC reports claimed 355 credits for IJN fighters shot down by VF and VMF units . . . that’s it, that’s all they claimed and all for which they were credited . . . in the same 13 month period. Then we have 161 USAAF fighter claimed credits specifically for A6Ms shot down by USAAF units in the same period. Add those together, USN, USMC, USAAF, and you will get 516 total; certainly somewhat short of what the IJN, itself, reported losing in combat. Why is that such a tough concept to grasp?

If we do not count the 14 F2As lost at Midway and were to then concede that the vast majority of the remaining USN & USMC fighters lost in combat action in those same 13 first months were (a) F4Fs and (b) lost to IJN fighters (which means A6Ms) - and they were as losses to back seaters or rear gunners were rare, then we can make other small comparisons on claims and losses. I won’t quibble over one or two USN fighter losses against Vichy fighters in North Africa.

Again, so, giving the IJN a pool of 785 potential losses to fighters, when we look at USN & USMC F4F losses for the same period, we can find a total of 122 lost in combat and 62 damaged. Far and away fewer combat fighter losses than the IJN and if we look at just USN & USMC F4F claims credited to losses for fighters only we find a ratio of 355 to 122 or about 3 to 1. Is that accurate? Maybe, maybe not, but if the available data tells us that the USN & USMC F4F drivers claims of IJN fighters shot down is some 430 LESS fighters than the IJN themselves reported as lost in combat, to a USN & USMC reported combat losses of 122, then on the face and in the aggregate, absent a complete accounting, day by day, unit by unit, it is apparently probably close. Even if one were to want to write off the USN & USMC F4Fs counted as damaged and add them to the lost column, the answer still comes out on the positive side for the F4F, claims to losses 1.9 to 1. I suppose if one want to just count combat losses and we take out the 161 USAAF claims, then that means the IJN lost 624 fighters in combat compared to the USN & USMC combined combat lost and damaged of 184. Pretty much of a voodoo calculation since we already know that the USN & USMC credited claims were far less than 624, but 624 combat losses to 184 losses is 3.4 to 1. One can pick the ratio with which one are most comfortable, but always start with something like “. . . the available evidence would seem to indicate . . .” Certainly correspondents are free to disagree and dicker on this, but absent evidence . . . well . . . it becomes a lot of would haves, could haves, and wishful thinking. Evidence, evidence, evidence, that’s the killer.

Really, I get the need, even understand the need, that some have for a comparison of actual daily losses of one side to the daily losses of the other side, there is no mystery there for me, nor is it any sort of an earth shattering concept for anyone even marginally familiar with the history of aerial combat. I would opine that one works with what one has, not what one wishes to have. I suggest that rather than complain of the dearth of data one might wish to see that one go forth and gather all the necessary reports together themselves, let’s see . . .RAF, RNZAF, RAAF, RCAF, USN, USMC, USAAF, KNIL, IJN, IJAAF, (did I leave anyone out?) and produce those loss results, day by day, unit by unit, which one aspires . . . I’ll be more than happy to buy a copy . . . Then one could turn their attention to Europe, sure to be a much better seller though it would never appear on my bookshelf.
__________________
hmmm . . . I wonder what THIS button does . . . uh oh
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02 Oct 16, 21:12
Bwaha's Avatar
Bwaha Bwaha is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Orbiting the Sun
Posts: 18,254
Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Bwaha has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Awesome post. But the sig beats them all. Spoken as a former member of SAC...
__________________
Credo quia absurdum.


Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03 Oct 16, 11:16
Desiree Clary's Avatar
Desiree Clary Desiree Clary is offline
Major General
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Susan
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,987
Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600]
Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600] Desiree Clary is simply cracking [600]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bwaha View Post
Awesome post. But the sig beats them all. Spoken as a former member of SAC...
I agree

+1 for Mr. Leonard
__________________
Will no one tell me what she sings?--
Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
For old, unhappy, far-off things,
And battles long ago:
-William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11 Oct 16, 09:39
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,676
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
A note on overclaiming and "see(ing) what their heads wanted to see" from the end of the first chapter of

Fighter Command's Air War 1941

by Norman Franks.

Quote:
(describes the beginning of the process of having the RAF turn its attention to "a lean towards France", during the winter of 1940/41 subsequent to the defensive posture adopted during the Battle of Britain - from which the terms "Circus", "Rhubarb", "Ramrod", "Rodeo" etc. would become familiar.)
[.....]
Obviously there was still much to learn and absorb. In the weeks that were to follow, Fighter Command committed its forces into a war of attrition with the Luftwaffe over northern France. It was unfortunate, however, that the enthusiasm of the RAF fighter pilots often let them see what their heads wanted to see, rather than what their eyes actually saw. It was readily believed by the higher echelons of the RAF that their young pilots were clawing ‘huge gaps’ in the ranks of the Luftwaffe, so much so that it would not be long before the Luftwaffe would be down to its ‘last fifty Messerschmitts’.

If this phrase seems familiar, one only has to refer to a similar phrase that the Luftwaffe High Command had told its fighter pilots in 1940, that (according to their intelligence reports, coloured by Luftwaffe claims) the RAF ‘are down to their last fifty Spitfires.’ The truth, of course, is that if claims of enemy aircraft destroyed were simply taken on face value, the losses would be horrendous and unsustainable. What was happening in reality, was that just as in World War One, if a pilot got into trouble, it was far easier to feign being hit and head down, either in a spin, or pretending to be disabled. Most sensible pilots would not follow a seemingly crippled opponent down. For one thing he would open himself up to an attack from a second hostile pilot, and for another, he would not want to sacrifice his height in the middle of a battle. Once the ‘crippled’ machine was clear of danger, its pilot would then level out and go home, a wiser man, and still intact.

By 1941 British Intelligence had enough information coming in from a variety of sources to know that Fighter Command was not inflicting the amount of damage on the Luftwaffe that its pilots were reporting. It was just the same for the Germans. Fighting over hostile territory, there was no way of confirming how many aircraft had actually fallen, crashed, blown up, been abandoned, or swallowed up by the sea. If on a given day the RAF Communiqués reported twenty German fighters shot down over France, the Intelligence boys would soon suspect that this was twice the actual losses. The ‘powers that be’ at Fighter Command must have realised this too and been well aware of the numbers game, but why did they not try to temper operations in the light of these figures? Was there any reason to go over France, lose perhaps one Blenheim and a dozen fighters, when actual German losses were, perhaps, five, even though many more had been claimed. And why were the claimants being decorated for high scores of enemy machines shot down, when they were failing to do so? It is with this background that I continue to record the operations around these Circus operations during the year of 1941.

Of course, it has also to be taken into account that many of the Battle of Britain veterans had now left front-line operations and been sent off on rest, instructing, and so on. There was now a massive influx of new and untried pilots reaching the squadrons, who, while keen to do their best, had not been given sufficient time at Operational Training Units to bring them to an operational status and mind-set. Their leaders still in combat were becoming increasingly tired and due for a rest too. Other experienced pilots were also being sent to Malta and the North African Desert.

As far as the air leaders were concerned, it was virtually World War One all over again, this time the trenches had become the English Channel, and in persisting in Trenchard’s old doctrine of ‘taking the war to the enemy’, RAF fighter pilots were becoming the ‘cannon fodder’ of the present war.
https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Comma.../dp/1473847222

Towards the end of his comment, he also pointedly notes the "quality" of the large number of new pilots being sent to operational Fighter Command squadrons at the end of 1940.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fighter_Command_s_Air_War_1941_10_7_2016_7_04_44_PM.jpg (11.3 KB, 2 views)
__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 11 Oct 16 at 10:02..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 18 Feb 17, 22:06
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,676
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
As with your opinion of the Me 262, you cannot see the wood for the trees. You spend too much time looking at details that you think proves yourself right.

However, looking at the big picture, the Zero in 1941 had a favourable kill ratio against enemy aircraft of 12-1. In 42 the F4F had a favourable kill ratio of c6-1, rising to c7-1 from 43 onwards. Further, in 1942, many of the Japanese were veterans, while the US pilots were not. Against superior pilots, to gain a 6-1 advantage, the Wildcat was obviously the superior machine. Its ruggedness also meant rookie pilots could afford to make mistakes, being all but immune to the Japanese 7.7mm mg rounds, and Zeros only carried a few seconds worth of 20mm cannon fire.

This meant when the Hellcat and Corsairs arrived, the US now have veteran pilots in even more superior machines. It was the Wildcat that was the game changer, and therefore the most influential fighter in the PTO.
When the true figures are arrived at, based on intensive post war investigation from a number of different respected authors/aviation historians, a clearer but less dramatic picture of the Wildcats "influence" emerges.

It was nowhere near as "superior" in 1942 as you continually suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLeonard View Post
Yes, yes, yes; we all know that claims and credits are not the same as a comparison of one side’s losses to the other side’s losses for a given engagement. So one can cherry pick quotes from whomever one chooses. We see a nice quote from Frank Olynyk on the issue. I suppose then that that is why Frank is very, very specific and careful in the wording of the titles of his works, specifically using the word “Credits” and to carefully explain from whence he draws his data. Maybe someone missed that part . . . that happens when one goes out and cherry picks.

The same applies to the USAF’s published official accounting for WW2, credited claims only.

The same applies Stu Barber and his staff’s presentation . . . a combing of the USN & USMC reports of the war years and compiling the results into one volume - as far as enemy aircraft shot down concerned, presenting only the credits as they appeared in the ACA’s. Barber and company, quite frankly, did not give a crap about what the Japanese had to say . . . that was not the purpose of the document. And, yes, I get a little unkind when someone clearly announces they’ve had a careful read yet disparages the authors for presenting exactly what they said they were presenting, no more, no less.

I see quotes from John Lundstrom . . . well, I have all of John’s books, sometimes even multiple copies, such as three copies of his initial First Team volume - two were my father’s and one is mine, not to mention about 5 plus inches of correspondence and an annotated rough draft of that same initial volume. I’ve read all, very carefully and many times, so no one has offered any surprises.

Other quotes from Barrett Tillman . . . I have all of Barrett’s works, save one, even to include his novels . . . what I don’t have is his biography of LeMay, something for which I am sure Barrett will no doubt forgive me as he knows I’ve no interests in that direction. And still another 5 or 6 inches of correspondence in the files. Why, sometimes, if one looks hard, one can even find me in some of his acknowledgements for whatever small part I may have played or contributed to this or that tome . . . it is very nice of him, he does not have to do that.

So, while I certainly have no problem with citing John, Barrett, or Frank, I have not see anything really offered that would refute the presentation, the initial concept, you remember, way back when, the original question, that the F4F more than held its own against the A6M and the ratio of credits to losses. Note I, too, am careful to use the word “credit” and not the more bloodthirsty, yet sanguine, “kills” or more fastidious “victories.”

The basic aggregate numbers were provided. The IJN reported 861 IJN fighters lost in combat in the first 13 months of the war. Oh, and in case anyone is wondering why only the first 13 months . . . that was the last time things were relatively equal. After that, it got pretty grim for the IJN’s air arm and only got worse unto the bitter end.

On the US side in those 13 months, 65 IJN fighters credited were to various USN & USMC VB and VT types in their reports; 11 IJN fighters credited to USN VP types in their reports; this leaves us with a pool, as pointed out in the earlier post and repeated here as it apparently did not make an impression, of IJN fighter reported losses in combat of 785. USN & USMC reports claimed 355 credits for IJN fighters shot down by VF and VMF units . . . that’s it, that’s all they claimed and all for which they were credited . . . in the same 13 month period. Then we have 161 USAAF fighter claimed credits specifically for A6Ms shot down by USAAF units in the same period. Add those together, USN, USMC, USAAF, and you will get 516 total; certainly somewhat short of what the IJN, itself, reported losing in combat. Why is that such a tough concept to grasp?

If we do not count the 14 F2As lost at Midway and were to then concede that the vast majority of the remaining USN & USMC fighters lost in combat action in those same 13 first months were (a) F4Fs and (b) lost to IJN fighters (which means A6Ms) - and they were as losses to back seaters or rear gunners were rare, then we can make other small comparisons on claims and losses. I won’t quibble over one or two USN fighter losses against Vichy fighters in North Africa.

Again, so, giving the IJN a pool of 785 potential losses to fighters, when we look at USN & USMC F4F losses for the same period, we can find a total of 122 lost in combat and 62 damaged. Far and away fewer combat fighter losses than the IJN and if we look at just USN & USMC F4F claims credited to losses for fighters only we find a ratio of 355 to 122 or about 3 to 1. Is that accurate? Maybe, maybe not, but if the available data tells us that the USN & USMC F4F drivers claims of IJN fighters shot down is some 430 LESS fighters than the IJN themselves reported as lost in combat, to a USN & USMC reported combat losses of 122, then on the face and in the aggregate, absent a complete accounting, day by day, unit by unit, it is apparently probably close. Even if one were to want to write off the USN & USMC F4Fs counted as damaged and add them to the lost column, the answer still comes out on the positive side for the F4F, claims to losses 1.9 to 1. I suppose if one want to just count combat losses and we take out the 161 USAAF claims, then that means the IJN lost 624 fighters in combat compared to the USN & USMC combined combat lost and damaged of 184. Pretty much of a voodoo calculation since we already know that the USN & USMC credited claims were far less than 624, but 624 combat losses to 184 losses is 3.4 to 1. One can pick the ratio with which one are most comfortable, but always start with something like “. . . the available evidence would seem to indicate . . .” Certainly correspondents are free to disagree and dicker on this, but absent evidence . . . well . . . it becomes a lot of would haves, could haves, and wishful thinking. Evidence, evidence, evidence, that’s the killer.

Really, I get the need, even understand the need, that some have for a comparison of actual daily losses of one side to the daily losses of the other side, there is no mystery there for me, nor is it any sort of an earth shattering concept for anyone even marginally familiar with the history of aerial combat. I would opine that one works with what one has, not what one wishes to have. I suggest that rather than complain of the dearth of data one might wish to see that one go forth and gather all the necessary reports together themselves, let’s see . . .RAF, RNZAF, RAAF, RCAF, USN, USMC, USAAF, KNIL, IJN, IJAAF, (did I leave anyone out?) and produce those loss results, day by day, unit by unit, which one aspires . . . I’ll be more than happy to buy a copy . . . Then one could turn their attention to Europe, sure to be a much better seller though it would never appear on my bookshelf.
I have just obtained a copy of Barret Tillman's book:

U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War 2.

Osprey

2014

https://ospreypublishing.com/us-mari...f-world-war-ii

It seems to be one of his most recent works.

Once again( as I have suggested in earlier posts in this thread), he makes it quite clear that post war investigation has resulted in a need to reassess wartime claims, or credits, or victories, or kills, or whatever label is chosen in respect to the Grumman Wildcat.

From the paragraph "Cactus" Summary reproduced below in attachments

page 39:

Quote:
In the preceding six months US Marine Corps fighter pilots claimed 510 aerial victories, with by far the greatest share of this total being the 161 credited to them in October 1942. Throughout most of the Guadalcanal campaign, US Marine Corps fighter squadrons consistently over claimed by a factor of three. The detailed analysis in John B. Lundstrom's encyclopedic The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign shows that from August through November the leathernecks were credited with 373 aerial victories(386.5 in Olnyk) and likely downed 137 - a 36 percent accuracy rate. In comparison, US Navy F4F squadrons probably got 107 of 193 claims for 55 percent verified.
[.....]
The language used is unambiguous.

Figures based on the investigations by three different researchers, Lundstrom, Olnyk, and Tillman suggest that the wartime "claims"(or credits, or victories, or kills or whatever) need to be viewed in a different light and that consequently the wartime based "Barber" report is not an accurate reflection of the measure of "superiority" claimed for the Grumman Wildcat against Japanese aircraft in 1942.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MarineFighterSqd..jpg (21.4 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg Cactus.jpg (134.8 KB, 4 views)
__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 19 Feb 17 at 11:47.. Reason: Change "IJN" to "Japanese"
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #111  
Old 18 Feb 17, 22:47
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,676
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
Elsewhere in Tillman's book, he gives credit to the FM1/2

page 13

see attachment below:

Quote:
[.....]
However, " the Wilder Wildcat" scored by far the best kill-loss ratio of any American piston engined fighter - in the order of 32-to 1 during 1944-45.
Of course, this "superiority" in air to air victories was attained at a time when the Japanese forces were a mere shadow of its former self and the missions being flown by then were of the nature of the Kamikaze.

Generally, they did not try to fight back in the manner of hitherto conventional air to air combat.

A Wildcat, or FM 1/2, would have rarely been in their gunsights.

They were mainly interested in placing a ship in their windshield, not an opposing aircraft.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FM-1.jpg (166.5 KB, 3 views)
__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 18 Feb 17 at 23:01..
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 20 Feb 17, 07:56
Bluenose's Avatar
Bluenose Bluenose is offline
Major General
UK
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Warwick
Posts: 2,581
Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200] Bluenose is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
truth, of course, is that if claims of enemy aircraft destroyed were simply taken on face value, the losses would be horrendous and unsustainable. What was happening in reality, was that just as in World War One, if a pilot got into trouble, it was far easier to feign being hit and head down, either in a spin, or pretending to be disabled. Most sensible pilots would not follow a seemingly crippled opponent down. For one thing he would open himself up to an attack from a second hostile pilot, and for another, he would not want to sacrifice his height in the middle of a battle. Once the ‘crippled’ machine was clear of danger, its pilot would then level out and go home, a wiser man, and still intact.
I recall looking into this during my MA;admittedly going here from memory, but for the first few months of 1941 I recall that FC were actually under-claiming versus Luftwaffe losses. From late Spring downwards this changed to significant over-claiming of up to 4:1
__________________
History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

Pierre Vidal-Naquet
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 22 Feb 17, 20:04
Nick the Noodle's Avatar
Nick the Noodle Nick the Noodle is offline
General of the Forums
Wales
Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C SPQR Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Tin Pot Noodle
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land of the Red Dragon
Posts: 17,615
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
When the true figures are arrived at, based on intensive post war investigation from a number of different respected authors/aviation historians, a clearer but less dramatic picture of the Wildcats "influence" emerges.

It was nowhere near as "superior" in 1942 as you continually suggest.
The initial problem with the Wildcat vs the Zero was that the US pilots tried to dogfight the more nimble Japanese machine. In this respect, the Zero was far superior, and US pilots died as a result. Once US pilots used the applicable elements of their machine against their opponents, a far more favourable outcome was achieved.

The Japanese airforce was defeated before the Hellcat, and especially the Corsair, became operational in force. That leaves one fighter that basically did the work, the F4F.
__________________
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 24 Feb 17, 11:31
ruspren's Avatar
ruspren ruspren is offline
First Lieutenant
England
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 584
ruspren is on the path to success [1-99] ruspren is on the path to success [1-99] ruspren is on the path to success [1-99] ruspren is on the path to success [1-99] ruspren is on the path to success [1-99] ruspren is on the path to success [1-99] ruspren is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLeonard View Post
Sorry, but these are just quaint internet urban legends.

The first FAA squadron destined for F4Us, 1830, arrived in June 1943; F4U-1As were already coming off the line.
And when exactly did the USN finally clear (or should that be finally re-clear) the type for deck landings aboard its carriers?
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07 Mar 17, 01:47
thewaryouknow2's Avatar
thewaryouknow2 thewaryouknow2 is offline
Private
United_States
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Columbus
Posts: 7
thewaryouknow2 is a balanced individual [0]
Quite an aircraft...thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 29 Mar 17, 20:44
canambridge's Avatar
canambridge canambridge is offline
Private First Class
United_States
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rockledge, FL, USA
Posts: 31
canambridge is on the path to success [1-99]
F4U and the FAA

The first F4U carrier landings took place on September 25, 1942 on CVE-26 USS Sangamon (yes, an escort carrier). The landings were performed by a USN pilot and highlighted many of the undesirable carrier landing characteristics of the F4U. Design modifications to address these items started almost immediately and before the FAA started conversion to the type (June 1943). Most of the carrier landing issues with the F4U were resolved by May 1944, the USN restriction on carrier use of the F4U having been removed in April 1944 (even though they had been operating in combat from US carriers since January 1944). Tests conducted in April and May 1944 (again landing on CVEs) showed "the F4U-1D was equally as good a carrier plane as the F6F-5, if not better". It is possible, perhaps likely, that the FAA pilots showed the USN the curved approach technique (originally developed for use with the Seafire), but it is also possible that the USN figured it out on their own (the curved, and crab, approach tend to logically suggest themselves to a pilot).
VMF-124, a Marine land based unit, initiated the F4U to combat in February 1943. The first operational USN F4U carrier squadron was VF-12, formed in October 1942, although they did not receive a full allotment of aircraft until late January 1943. At least some of the squadron's pilots qualified carrier landing on an escort carrier (USS Core, CVE-13). USS Saratoga's VF-12 converted to F6Fs on arrival in the south Pacific in early 1943 and the second Corsair carrier unit, VF-17, was replaced by an F6F unit, VF-18, on the USS Bunker Hill. The F4U-1A, with the raised seat and bubble canopy, were already standard when VF-17 went into combat (as a land based unit) in May 1943. But the USN had no real need to replace the F6F on carriers. Despite the F4U being faster than the F6F, the more docile handling characteristics, greater reliability, more than adequate superiority over Japanese types, and logistics commonality made the F6F the fleet carrier fighter of choice in 1943 and 1944. During the November 11, 1943 carrier raids on Rabaul, VF-17 Corsairs landed on, re-fueled and re-armed, and took off from USS Essex and USS Bunker Hill (original home of VF-17) while providing air cover from their land bases.
The first FAA squadrons started conversion to the F4U in June 1943, returning to the UK in October 1943, being assembled into the 15th Naval Fighter Wing in late 1943 and early 1944. The FAA began combat operations F4Us from RN carriers in early 1944 with HMS Victorious’ 1834 & 1836 squadrons, which participated in the attacks on the Tirpitz in April 1944, being among the first. The first regular USN F4U carrier use was by VF(N)-101 night fighter detachments on the Enterprise and Intrepid, embarked in January 1944. So the USN was operating F4Us from carriers, at night, at about the same time the RN started using them operationally. In a bit of coincidence, Illustrious’ 1830 & 1833 F4U squadrons teamed with the F6F equipped VF-12 of Saratoga in April 1944 although FAA Corsairs didn’t see combat in the Pacific until 25 July 1944. The first full F4U squadrons arrived on USN carriers in late December 1944. This was in reaction to the immediate need for more fighters on board the carriers to fight the kamikazes than any recognition of F4U superiority over the F6F.
The RN may have taught the USN a valuable landing method with the curved approach, but the USN had carrier qualified fighter squadrons before the RN converted to the F4U. And the USN was operating F4Us from carriers (at night!) at about the same time as the RN. The F4U didn’t get on USN carriers thanks to the RN showing them how to do it, but because of the kamikazes.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 16 Sep 17, 22:11
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,676
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
I note that in your previous posts in relation to your assertions re the Wildcat, you have not provided any actual figures for claims vs losses but only in this post somewhat nebulous "ratios".

Do you have any actual figures that you can post that would help support your assertions?

Considering that the Corsair began to replace the Wildcat by late 1942 and by the Hellcat later in 1943, I imagine that you would need to make credible your support for the Wildcat by this same time frame.

As I have poined out in post #'s 36 and 48, in theatre Allied front line pilots had some disparaging things to say about the level of performance of the Wildcat in comparison to the Zero.

I find it hard to believe that an aircraft with such an acquired reputation can be credited with the kill ratios, and the level of superiority, you ascribe to it.

Would it be possible that you are overstating your case in favour of the Wildcat, to a greater or lesser extent?

In attachments below are some more comments on the Wildcat's level of performance - again, from "Lundstrom" who I quoted in my earlier posts.
The image from author "Lundstrom" that I posted 12 months ago has apparently dissapeared from the post due to an earlier ACG "software upgrade".

The attachments were deleted due to

Quote:
"a technical issue of some sort; connected with a recent software update."
- as was advised to me by Panther3485.

I have taken the necessary step of quoting myself in this earlier post so that I can re-upload the earlier image which hopefully will not go MIA again.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ClimbRateLundstrom.jpg (117.2 KB, 6 views)
__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 16 Sep 17 at 22:19..
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 25 Sep 17, 10:17
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,676
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
Corsair first kill was unlikely before the end of 43, when the Japanese air force was already beaten. To imply the Corsair was in action against the Japanese in 42 proves you are trying to post to 'win'.

<SNIP>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
The Corsair was an awesome aircraft that arrived when the party was almost over.

Stating that the F4U was the best fighter of WW2 is like stating the Comet was the best tank of WW2. Both were too late to have a real impact, despite how good they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLeonard View Post
But the first F4Us were in action in the summer of 1943 in the Solomons, hardly the end of the war, there were still two years to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
I did not say the Corsair was in combat in 1942.

What I said was the Corsair began to replace the Wildcat in 1942

<SNIP>

Instead of all newly formed units being issued with Wildcats, Corsairs were begining to be the initial mount for many new units being formed as of late 1942.

The drawdown of the Wildcat had begun.



The images shown below provides an idea of the not inconsiderable number of units flying the Corsair by August 1943.





See also Barret Tillman - text reproduced below.

The first 2 images list Corsair squadrons as at 9 August 1943



https://books.google.com.au/books?id...lcanal&f=false
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
http://www.avalanchepress.com/F4U_corsair_at_war.php

[.....]
The first Marine Corsair ace was Lieutenant Kenneth Walsh of VMF-124, who got his first three victories on 1 April 1943 against a preliminary I-go Sakusen raid. During the 7 April attack on Guadalcanal, he was shot down but rescued from the water. Then on 13 May he bagged three more planes during a Japanese photoreconnaissance mission.

Nor was he finished. Walsh was finally credited with twenty victories, and a Congressional Medal of Honor, when he was ordered home in November. In 1945 he managed to return to the Pacific for a second tour, getting his twenty-first and final kill.
[.....]
The production line images show that the move to the Corsair was well underway by late 1942, and would reach frontline combat status in early 1943 - much earlier than has been suggested above.

I have re-quoted my earlier post from a year ago as the images that I had previously posted went MIA due to "ACG software upgrade".

Hopefully they will remain in place this time forward.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg CorsairProduction.1.jpg (89.6 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg CorsairProduction.2.jpg (98.9 KB, 2 views)
File Type: png CorsairProduction.3.png (93.8 KB, 1 views)
__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 25 Sep 17 at 10:26..
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 25 Sep 17, 10:49
Nick the Noodle's Avatar
Nick the Noodle Nick the Noodle is offline
General of the Forums
Wales
Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C SPQR Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Tin Pot Noodle
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land of the Red Dragon
Posts: 17,615
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
The production line images show that the move to the Corsair was well underway by late 1942, and would reach frontline combat status in early 1943 - much earlier than has been suggested above.

I have re-quoted my earlier post from a year ago as the images that I had previously posted went MIA due to "ACG software upgrade".

Hopefully they will remain in place this time forward.
No one is doubting the quality of the F4U. The fact remains that it was the Guadalcanal Campaign from 7.8.42 to 9.2.43 that destroyed the veteran fighter pilots of the IJN, and the inauspicious combat debut of the Corsair was not until Valentines Day 14.2.43.

The air war in the PTO had already turned in favour of the US, before the Corsair's arrival, and also before the Hellcat (combat debut 1.9.43).
__________________
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 25 Sep 17, 15:35
Merkava188's Avatar
Merkava188 Merkava188 is offline
Major
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Doug Williams
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sierra Vista
Posts: 920
Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99] Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99] Merkava188 is on the path to success [1-99]
One of the greatest fighter planes the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps ever had at that time.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:54.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.