Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over skilled for 1941?

[Black Cat]

The short range ( low fuel load ) of the early US AC mitigated against forming up a large strike from 3 flight decks since they would burn too much fuel forming up.

The US never managed to master the large strike package in the war and the ability probably diminished as the highly trained pre War pilots and Staff ( who won the Battle of Midway ) were lost or moved into training roles.


Much of the credit for getting the strike up in the first place should go to Cpt. Miles Browning, Halsey`s head of Air Ops who Fletcher inhereted with the TF. He calculated we could catch the Japanese rearming after the Midway strike since they had to head toward Midway to recover., and pushed this view of an immedate launch on Fletcher/Spruance.

[mogami]

Hi, Yes that is all true. However the USN could have been in a better location at sunrise. They knew almost exactly where the IJN would be. (The Japanese were pretty much located where and when it had been predicted they would appear. )
Since the USN knew the IJN was going to begin with a strike against Midway all they had to do was be in postion to launch when the IJN strike was nearing Midway. (they would be ready to launch at longer range if discovered but the Japanese would be busy at the moment and not able to launch a counter strike as fast. )
In the event not all of the USN CV were ready when the time came and this should not have been the case.
One can even argue the USN strike should have been launching at first light from a range under 100 miles because they knew the IJN would be there. The USN should have been able to hit the IJN as they were launching the Midway strike. Then the USN would have had all day to shuttle strikes against the IJN carrier TF and really inflict massive damage at no cost.
If I know your TF will be at point xx,yy at 0430 and begin launching a ground attack strike I should with several weeks advance notice be waiting in range and launch a strike before I even spot you. Midway should have had all those aircraft aloft and on target as well.
Everyone always refers to Midway as a miricle produced by USN intell when it appears to me to be a battle that dispite this intell fought out like a meeting engagement between two surprised commanders with the USN getting the lucky breaks. There should have been no need for any kind of luck other then pilot bombing accuracy.
I just don't think it was a well fought battle from the USN TF leadership point of view. They had their butts saved in the end by events that should not have been left to chance.

[mdiehl]

Bombur - I just don't think that measuring the relative merits of the aircrews on the basis of the outcomes of the battles is a relevant way to go about it. And if its is, I find your reasons for discounting Midway but including the others to be spurious.

IMO the Kate was a better plane. Both the TBF and Kate were extremely vulnerable to CAP, but the Kate was a good deal faster. The TBF flew like it was towing the carrier behind it on a cable.

Mogami -

The US did not know the exact location of Strike Force prior to Midway. All the US knew was a target, an operational date, and that IJN CVs would be involved. Everything else was done via deduction.

Hipper - About 50 mph in comparing year-contemporary models between the P40 below 17K and the ME109 at the same altitude.

[Jon_Hal]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, 50xA6M2 on CAP is much too high. (There were only 90 total. 1/3 were in reserve to escort strike if carriers found. And each CV sent 9 with the Midway strike. (30 as escort and 36 to Midway=66 90-66=24 max for CAP and my sources (Prange state 18 A6M2 were launched as CAP. ) (most likely each CV sent 9 to Midway and held 9 in reserve.
Kaga 6 left Agaki 6 left Hiryu 3 left Soryu 3 left = 18 total A6M2 for CAp and of this 18 they would need to be landing and refueling a few at a time during the day.

According to John Lunstrom's First Team (p363-364), Which uses Senshi Sosho; Japanese Story, and Hata and Izawa as part of his research, I quote the following regarding CAP over Nagumo's Carriers

" To recapitulate: at 1010, Thirtyfive Zeros were aloft - Fourteen deployed close to the four carriers and twenty-one either directly pursueing Torpedo Six in it's withdrawl to the southeast or prowling out in that direction. From 1013 to 1015, the Soryu and the Hiryu each launched three fighters, Bringing the total engaged to forty-one. Like a magnet attracting iron filings, Torpedo Three and Fighting three drew the Zeros onto themselves."

When the USN F4F show up the Japanese CAP is out of ammo and low on fuel and sitting ducks.

From the minute that Thach and pilots encountered the Zero CAP they were on the defensive. I hardly think you can represent the attacking Zeros as sitting ducks. Every Zero claimed by Thach and company occured after a Zero had made a firing run on one of them.


Regards, Jon

[Bombur]

IMO the Kate was a better plane. Both the TBF and Kate were extremely vulnerable to CAP, but the Kate was a good deal faster. The TBF flew like it was towing the carrier behind it on a cable.

-I think you´re mentioning the TBD, not the TBF, which was 50km/h faster than the Kate. The TBD was, of course, 50km/h slower than the B5N2, but only slightly slower than the older B5N1. It was less maneuverable, but probably could take more punishment. I agree with you that the Kate a better plane, however, I think the difference was not so great, and the better performance of the Kate was much more related to their best torpedo than to the plane itself.

[Dereck]

I would never have used Fletcher to command a CV TF after Midway had I been Nimitz.

Unfortunately Fletcher was senior to Spruance and, unlike this game, seniority meant everything.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
About 50 mph in comparing year-contemporary models between the P40 below 17K and the ME109 at the same altitude.

[X(]

This one's a pretty wild blanket statement, even for you.

Where are you getting this from and what models of the two aircraft are you comparing?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I had a thoughtful post worked out and the frakin page logged me out for reasons that I do not understand.

Because of that I long ago started to write in WinWord. When I am done I copy&paste and then post it here (I simply hated it when what I wrote was lost to some mysterious circumstance of logging out)...

IMHO that is the best way (and I do even spell-check occasionally not to embarrass myself [;)])!

Leo -

Beam defense:
1. Developed in 1941 by Thach and Flatley in response to strategic assessments that asserted that the IJN had an aircraft faster and more maneuverable than the USN types.
2. Tested in aerial games in 1941 and demonstrated to be effective.
3. By implication known to anyone assigned at least to Thach or Flatley's squadrons (although not necessarily flown) because pilots do not hesitate to talk about theory and tactics.
4. Possibly spread to other units not in direct contact with Thach or Flatley owing to personnel transfers to and from their units.
5. First employed at Midway in a 3-plane formation. One of the pilots had never flown it even as a training maneuver, and yet successfully implemented it.

Conclusion:

1. It was known by some to be useful prior to WW2.
2. It was heavily discussed in units assigned to Thach & Flatley.
3. It was easy to learn, solely on the basis of round table talk.
4. It was easy to implement in combat, even by people who'd not even tried to fly it in training.
5. Because of 1-4, its use would have spread in ways more or less similar to a virus. If you can imagine how quickly, for example, influenza would spread throughout, for example, the National Football League, that'd be a reasonable model for simulating the transmission of knowledge (and implementation because it was so easy to learn) of the beam defense.

OK... so basically only Thach's and Flatley's squadrons effectively used it though others might have know it.

BTW, weren't Wasp and Hornet, just as an example, being newer considered much much more "green" pilot wise than older CV squadrons?

OK, now, as to a/c technology.

1. USN first deployed 1-wing aircraft to CVs in late 1939 (Brewster F2). The F4F immediately identified as the successor (pending revisions) because it was a better plane and because Brewster was a real fubar company.

2. The number of wings has little to do with it, especially since the USN doctrinal emphasis on deflection shooting, beginning in the early 1920s, meant that in every instance of adding a new plane the only "barrier" was basic familiarization with the a/c. This sort of barrier would exist with any pilot of any nation transitioning to any plane.

3. If you want ONE single technological event that made deflection shooting skill valuable, look to the synchronized forward firing MGs introduced in 1916. Even in those WW1 biplanes, a good deflectin shooter would, by 1917, have been a real standout, had any of the powers immediately grasped the implications of forward firing guns. What is wierd to me is that *no one* outside of the USN seemed to recognize the value of defelction shooting during the interwar period.

I understand what you saying but my point of view in this is that, although things could have been trained in old biplanes, the sheer speed advantage of new monocock full metal fighters with single wing (compared to old biplanes) brought so many new factors in equation that training had to be done all over because closure speeds and feel would be 100% different...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Here are links for two _EXTREMELY_ interesting articles from Naval War College Review about Midway:


#1
The Battle of Midway: Why the Japanese Lost
By Dallas Woodbury Isom

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/20 ... t3-Su0.htm


#1
Doctrine Matters: Why The Japanese Lost At Midway
By Jonathan B. Parshall, David D. Dickson, and Anthony P. Tully

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/20 ... d1-su1.htm



They should be read and discussed (IMHO they both gave unique insight into what might have happened at Midway - because even now we don't know for sure what exactly did happen on Japanese side)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Here are links for two _EXTREMELY_ interesting articles from Naval War College Review about Midway:


#1
The Battle of Midway: Why the Japanese Lost
By Dallas Woodbury Isom

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/20 ... t3-Su0.htm


#1
Doctrine Matters: Why The Japanese Lost At Midway
By Jonathan B. Parshall, David D. Dickson, and Anthony P. Tully

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/20 ... d1-su1.htm



They should be read and discussed (IMHO they both gave unique insight into what might have happened at Midway - because even now we don't know for sure what exactly did happen on Japanese side)...


Leo "Apollo11"

-Yes, these articles qre very interesting. There is also Isom´s reply to the second article. It´s interesting to notice that the second one even argues that the IJN bombers weren´t in the flight deck when the SBD´s arrived. If they are correct, then it´s resonable to assume that IJN was doomed from start, as they weren´t able to mount offensive operations under continued attack.

[Hipper]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
About 50 mph in comparing year-contemporary models between the P40 below 17K and the ME109 at the same altitude. [/quote]

Er... No The P40n had a slight speed advantage over the 109f at @ 10000 ft about 10 mph at best, but no other P40 had any other speed advantage over contempary 109's.

cheers

[mdiehl]

I think you´re mentioning the TBD,

Doh. Quitre right. Slip of the finger. TBD was the subject. I thought that was a pretty good line... "Flew like it was towing the carrier." Wish it'd gotten some laughs.

Hipper says:

Er... No The P40n had a slight speed advantage over the 109f at @ 10000 ft about 10 mph at best, but no other P40 had any other speed advantage over contempary 109's.

That's not generally correct. Although the 60 mph figure I grabbed from the air is wrong.

P40 through C variants, 1941-January 1942. Mex speed 345 mph @ 15k feet. Vs. Me109e - 148 mph at same altitude. P40 much more maneuverable.

P40D/E/F/L Max speed 360-362 mph. vs the E model she's got 17 mph. At 15000 feet. Below 10K the ME109E model's airspeed degrades to < 300 but the P40E sticks to 335. The P40E more maneuverable. The F variant retained top performance up to 20K feet. This a/c used through 1942.

Vs the Me109F the P40E/F was a couple mph faster at statrt, faster up to about 15K feet, slower above that altitude.

Looking at the Me109 variants the only one that outclasses any contemporarily used P40 below 15-17k feet is the Me109G-8/16 and Me109H/K of late 1944. With their airspeed vs the more maneuverable P40, I'd say that circumstances favored the latter variant Me109s if they would use boom and zoom. In those instances the P40 would need to employ something like the beam defense to hold their own.

Leo -

OK... so basically only Thach's and Flatley's squadrons effectively used it though others might have know it.

Err, no. Thach and Flatelys groups were the first that we know who specifically used the beam defense. The others seem to have discovered boom and zoom and mutual support tactics (although not the beam defense) progressively through March 1942. "Word of the beam defense" got round fast enough.

I understand what you saying but my point of view in this is that, although things could have been trained in old biplanes, the sheer speed advantage of new monocock full metal fighters with single wing (compared to old biplanes) brought so many new factors in equation that training had to be done all over because closure speeds and feel would be 100% different...

Your point really escapes me. It is not as though pilots trained in 1939+ in the USN trained in biplanes beyond elementary flight. Advanced training featured the At6, which was fast enough to put a premium on pilots who were good at deflection shooting. And also, the last sentence is really not very germane because by definition deflection shooting rarely occurs with aircraft head to head or making a stern approach. These are low deflection shots. Many of the high deflection shots occurred when the Japanese pilots would use their old favorite tactic from China. A section leader and his wingmates would attempt to make a passing run, low delfection, on an enemy (front or stern approach), dive under, zoom up, and turn round for another run. Unfortunately for many veteran Japanese pilots, zooming up in front of an F4F gave the Wildcat driver an excellent deflection shot.

[tigercub]

mdiehl you need ta read more about the ME109 from the german{ info} side not US if you can hold back your BIAS for wile.

[Drongo]

I won't comment on how you interpret the facts but a few things about the facts themselves:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
P40D/E/F/L Max speed 360-362 mph. vs the E model she's got 17 mph.

If you're talking about the P-40D/E model vs the 109E-4 (of 1940/41) at 15,000 ft, you'd be correct.

At 15000 feet. Below 10K the ME109E model's airspeed degrades to < 300 but the P40E sticks to 335.

Specifically, the airspeed of the 109E-4 only dropped sub 300 mph below 3000 ft. At 5000 ft where the P-40E did the 335 you mentioned, the 109E-4 could make around 315 mph. Overall, the P-40E remained about 15-20 mph faster than the E-4 for 15,000 ft and below.

The F variant retained top performance up to 20K feet. This a/c used through 1942.

Not sure what to make of this. Since we're discussing speed (some sources may vary on the following):-

At 5000 ft, the P-40F could reach 320. At 10,000, it reached 340mph. At 15,000, 352 mph and then 362mph at 20,000. Is this really retaining a top performance?

The 362mph at 20,000 ft was an improvement on the Allison powered P-40E but it came at a cost with speeds at lower altitude. Effectively, it did not appear to hold the same speed advantage over the 109E-4 below 15,000 that the P-40D/E had.

Vs the Me109F the P40E/F was a couple mph faster at statrt, faster up to about 15K feet, slower above that altitude.

A quick summarised comparison using some of the more common "tropicalised" versions of the 109 that came into service in N/Africa after mid '41 (this is from William Green's "The Warplanes of the Third Reich"):

The 109E-7 (mid '41)- competitive with the P-40D/E/F/L in speed for all altitudes below 15,000 ft.

The 109F-2 (late '41)- slightly faster (varying between 5-10 mph) than the P-40D/E for all altitudes below 15,000 ft. About 10-15 mph faster than the P-40F/L all the way up to 20,000 ft (and beyond).

The 109G-1 (mid-late '42) - slightly faster than the 109F-2 (by about 5 mph) up to 15,000 ft. Beyond that, it really left all the others types behind.

So if you base it on data from Green's book, it appears there is no speed advantage (in fact, often the opposite) for the P-40D/E/F/L below 15,000 ft vs the comparable 109 models of '41 to '42. Only the earlier 109E-4 is inferior in speed.

[mdiehl]

mdiehl you need ta read more about the ME109 from the german{ info} side not US if you can hold back your BIAS for wile.

In the Baloney Detector kit (and elsewhere), this is known as the "Ad Hominem" remark. It is the frequent recourse of people who have no ability to argue a position on its merits.

[mdiehl]

So if you base it on data from Green's book, it appears there is no speed advantage (in fact, often the opposite) for the P-40D/E/F/L below 15,000 ft vs the comparable 109 models of '41 to '42. Only the earlier 109E-4 is inferior in speed.

Interesting. Stewart Wilson's book does not go into the same level of detail by sub-15K altitude but that source gives the low-altitude edge to the P40 until the arrival of the Me109G series. I'd say on the basis of Green the Me109 looks like a better plane more or less across the board. I'm willing to stipulate that on the whole, assuming an aircraft is reasonably durable and well armed, "faster=better."

[mdiehl]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It is not as though pilots trained in 1939+ in the USN trained in biplanes beyond elementary flight. Advanced training featured the At6, which was fast enough to put a premium on pilots who were good at deflection shooting. And also, the last sentence is really not very germane because by definition deflection shooting rarely occurs with aircraft head to head or making a stern approach. These are low deflection shots. Many of the high deflection shots occurred when the Japanese pilots would use their old favorite tactic from China. A section leader and his wingmates would attempt to make a passing run, low delfection, on an enemy (front or stern approach), dive under, zoom up, and turn round for another run. Unfortunately for many veteran Japanese pilots, zooming up in front of an F4F gave the Wildcat driver an excellent deflection shot.

I disagree 100%...


Training in AT-6 Texan is nothing like flying Wildcat.

You can't train combat in aircraft that is 2x slower than actual aircraft you will go into combat with. The incredible speeds and overall performances (rate of climb for example) brought by brand new and advanced fighters of 1939/1940/1941 throw away all concepts and training that were valid before.

It's like saying that you can prepare to be Formula One (F1) driver (or CART if you prefer US variant of the motor sport) by driving your own car... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[mdiehl]

I'm still not getting your point I guess. My point is that the USN trained intensively at deflection shooting in all of its a/c as a matter of training. Other nations' pilots used deflection shooting but did not train at it nearly as intensively, and that also includes the USAAF. I just don't see what biplanes or anything else has to do with it. No USN unit was sent to the front line in F4Fs without substantial training in F4Fs, so they were more proficient at deflection shooting in general and in F4Fs.

If you are wondering whether or not all USN units were extensively trained in deflection shooting my answer is yes they were. If you are wondering whether or not they benefitted from it in actual combat, Lundstrom's 2 books both credit a good measure of the F4F pilots success to their extensive training in deflection shooting. If you are wondering whether or not this was a matter of navy pre-war doctrine vs. post war start "reaction to surprises learned in the face of the enemy" the answer is that it was, for 15-20 years, pre-war USN doctrine to extensively train pilots at deflection shooting.

[mogami]

Hi, And the Japanese trainer was some kind of rocket?
Before a person can run he first has to learn how to walk without falling over. Knowing how to fly a 200mph aircraft allows pilots to learn 300mph aircraft without killing themselves. No USN pilot entered combat before he had 300 hours in F4F

All pilots used deflection shooting. Unless you are directly behind or in front of enemy aircraft you are using deflection shooting. Deflection shooting is simply aiming at empty air that will be full of enemy aircraft when the rounds arrive.

There are plenty of examples of "snap shots" from Japanese pilots.

The USAAF had enlisted men shoot skeet. Those that did well (deflection shooting) were made gunners.