Interview: Captain Eric Brown

[renrich]

I think the pilot that described the Hellcat as a pussycat WAS describing that it was a pleasure to fly and could be mastered by a relatively low time pilot and certainly it's combat record was good. However, the Navy went with the Corsair and phased out the F6F as soon as the war was over. Interestingly, during the Korean War the Corsair's fearsome reputation as a pilot killer seemed to go away. Maybe it was because the pilots were better trained.

 

[Hop]

There's a tendency amongst armchair pilots to focus only on combat characteristics, probably because those can be more easily quantified with numbers. Speed, rate of climb, range, power, rate of roll etc. All hard numbers.

However, handling, particularly low speed handling, was of very great importance.

The US navy records show the Hellcat was the much safer fighter.

Hellcats flew 41,715 combat sorties from carriers. Losses were 551 to enemy action, 212 not to enemy action on operational sorties, and 509 on non-operational sorties.

For Corsairs the figures are 9,138 operational sorties from carriers, 167 losses to enemy action, 69 not to enemy action on operational sorties, 224 on non operational sorties.

1 in 75 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.
1 in 54 Corsair operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.

1 in 196 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.
1 in 132 Corsair operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.

The Hellcat lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 82 operational sorties.
The Corsair lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 41 operational sorties.

A seperate set of figures from the USN, loss rates for 1944 and 1945 from carriers:

Operational losses per 100 action sorties:

F6F - 0.5
F4U - 0.74

Per 100 non action sorties:

F6F - 0.7
F4U - 1.15

Per 100 planes onboard ship a month:

F6F - 3.1
F4U - 5.5

The F4U had substantially higher loss rates.

And it wasn't just Eric Brown who preferred the Hellcat as a carrier fighter. It wasn't until late in 1944 that the USN began using the Corsair as a carrier fighter in any numbers, and the Hellcat remained the main USN carrier fighter until the end of the war.

 

[Glider]

A lot of common sense in Hop's posting. I believe that the USN only started using the Corsair from carriers after the RN made it work on our carriers because the RN were so short of suitable aircraft. If the RN hadn't taken the lead in operating the Corsair from carriers I sometimes wonder when the USN would have started using them.

I admit though I cannot see why he rated the Swordfish over the Avenger, the Avenger was a generation on from the Swordfish in every way as well as being a well behaved aircraft operating from small escort carriers.
Wouldn't have fancied trying to operate a Corsair from and escort carrier though, way to risky.

 

[Smokey]

As usual good post Kris with much common sense. I located the Brown book finally( it was packed in boxes) and reviewed it. His ranking of naval fighters in descending order is Hellcat, Zeke, Wildcat, Corsair, Sea hurricane, Seafire. ahem, His ranking of dive bombers(not naval necessarily) is : JU87, SBD and Val tied, Skua, Helldiver. Torpedo bomber: Swordfish, Avenger, Kate Jill. ahem, Single seat fighters: Spitfire and FW190, Hellcat, Mustang, Zeke.ahem

As Hop said, handling is very important, and so is impact on the war. I think Eric Brown took these things into consideration when ranking these aircraft:

- Effect on the war
- Performance
- Ease of handling, since many pilots received a relatively short amount of flight training

I admit though I cannot see why he rated the Swordfish over the Avenger, the Avenger was a generation on from the Swordfish in every way as well as being a well behaved aircraft operating from small escort carriers.

Maybe in Eric Brown's opinion the Swordfish had more impact on the war and had better handling

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe in Eric Brown's opinion the Swordfish had more impact on the war and had better handling

You could be right that maybe that is what he thought. In my opinion though I dont understand how? Avengers I think would have had more of an impact because I can think of more "heavy" ships that they helped send ot the bottom than the Swordfish and the Avenger was a better aircraft. Hell it was an all metal aircraft as compared to a fabric covered biplane.

For the British it had more of an impact but then it would go to personal bias...

 

[syscom3]

As Hop said, handling is very important, and so is impact on the war. I think Eric Brown took these things into consideration when ranking these aircraft:

- Effect on the war
- Performance
- Ease of handling, since many pilots received a relatively short amount of flight training



Maybe in Eric Brown's opinion the Swordfish had more impact on the war and had better handling

I think the Avenger being in on successfull torpedo attacks in every important carrier battle in the PTO after Midway, plus being used successfully as a level bomber when ships werent around......

Plus having superior performance than the swordfish......

Plus being relatively easy to handle since the USN managed to train thousands of pilots to use it with no problem...

The Avenger deserves the title and there is nothing that Mr. Brown can argue to say otherwise.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There's a tendency amongst armchair pilots to focus only on combat characteristics, probably because those can be more easily quantified with numbers. Speed, rate of climb, range, power, rate of roll etc. All hard numbers.

However, handling, particularly low speed handling, was of very great importance.

Very, very well put Hop. Sometimes just flying a particular aircraft IFR or having an engine out during take off (in the case of a twin engine aircraft) is actually more hazardous than combat itself....

 

[Parmigiano]

"There's a tendency amongst armchair pilots to focus only on combat characteristics, probably because those can be more easily quantified with numbers. Speed, rate of climb, range, power, rate of roll etc. All hard numbers.

However, handling, particularly low speed handling, was of very great importance"

I could not be more in agreement with this, real pilots appreciate basic things that we don't even think about.

I remember a video about the 262 where Guenther Rall, before mentioning performances, armament etc. said that one of the best thing of the machine was the low level of noise 'finally the radio was always clear and not disturbed by the engine'

Seems stupid, but it is part of the 'situational awareness'

 

[Soren]

The 109 has excellent low speed handling.

 

[Glider]

The 109 has excellent low speed handling.

Pity they still lost so many in accidents.

 

[Smokey]

You could be right that maybe that is what he thought. In my opinion though I dont understand how? Avengers I think would have had more of an impact because I can think of more "heavy" ships that they helped send ot the bottom than the Swordfish and the Avenger was a better aircraft. Hell it was an all metal aircraft as compared to a fabric covered biplane.

For the British it had more of an impact but then it would go to personal bias...

There was one major problem with the Avenger though - its torpedos

During the early war period, a non-aircraft related problem had emerged: the faulty torpedoes used by the U.S. Navy had failed to explode (even on direct hits) on many occasions; Prange mentions a likely problem in the magnetic detonation device (at Midway, one submarine (USS Nautilus (SS-168)) actually hit the Sōryū with a faulty torpedo, although after it was already incapacitated).

The Avenger had a large bomb bay, allowing for one Bliss-Leavitt Mark 13 torpedo, a single 2000 lb (900 kg) bomb, or up to four 500 lb (230 kg) bombs. Torpedoes were generally abandoned after Midway and were not carried again regularly until after June of 1944, when improvements mandated their use again.

The Avengers played a very major role in the American victory during World War II, although torpedoes had become largely outdated (replaced by the faster and more effective dive bombers) by then.

So, as a torpedo bomber, it was let down by its torpedos, but was effective with bombs and rockets

TBF Avenger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There was one major problem with the Avenger though - its torpedos

We are not discussing torpedos though are we? We are discussing aircraft. The Swordfish was outdated, outclassed and outperformed by all modern torpedo bomber aircraft. It was a fabric skinned bi-plane.

I am not saying the Swordfish did not serve well. It served extremely well but as an aircraft it does not compare to the Avenger or any other "modern" torpedo bombers.

 

[brickhistory]

We are not discussing torpedos though are we? We are discussing aircraft.

A little disingenious (sp?) in my opinion. If the torpedo bomber's purpose is to deliver said torpedo and have it go 'boom' at the end of the run, then without a reliable weapon, the torpedo bomber is now a recce bird, or at at most, a strafer.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

True however the Torpedo problems did not last the whole war. Later the US was making better torpedos.

Again as an aircraft the Avenger is better.

 

[Smokey]

True however the Torpedo problems did not last the whole war. Later the US was making better torpedos.

Again as an aircraft the Avenger is better.

From December 1941 to June 1944 is a long time, and according to this article:

torpedoes had become largely outdated (replaced by the faster and more effective dive bombers) by then.

So this is a massive reduction in its effectiveness as a torpedo bomber. This forced it to use bombs and rockets.

This begs the question - why did the admirals at the US navy not copy the detonation mechanism from another torpedo design (captured IJN or Kriegsmarine torpedos or alllied torpedo designs?)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So this is a massive reduction in its effectiveness as a torpedo bomber. This forced it to use bombs and rockets.

Okay if you really want to stress it that much if the Torpedos were outdated and replaced by Divebombers than that makes the Swordfish even more outdated when compared to the Avenger which atleast was a successful bomber and attack aircraft.

 

[Smokey]

The Avenger was effective with bombs and rockets so was a good attack aircraft. Eric Brown is using the category 'torpedo bomber', and since the Avenger did not have reliable torpedos for a large part of the war, it does not do very well in that category. This is the problem with using categories; some aircraft fit into more than one category The Avenger was more like a carrier borne Il2 than a dedicated torpedo aircraft

 

[syscom3]

To set the record straight, the US torpedo problems were pretty much fixed by end of summer of 1943.

In 1944 and most of 1945, the Avengers were in on many successfull torpedo attacks against the Japanese merchant marine and warships.

Someone name me one big naval battle that the Swordfish fought in that WAS decisive and had an impact on the course of the war. Were they at Leyte Gulf? Philipine Sea? Truk? Rabaul? Mariana's?

In addition, the Avenger made a fine sub patrol plane. The Swordfish was not noted for its endurance or payload in this regard and the Avenger is a magnitude better.

Someone mentioned low speed performance. Well the Avenger could take off with a full payload off of the escort carriers, so thats an indication its quite capable in this flight regime. But more importantly, top speed IS important. What good is it if you are so slow, you spend a considerable part of your endurance times getting to and from station and not having much time to patrol? And not keeping up with the dive bombers and fighters means they will either have to slow down to keep the attack group intact or have to go ahead without them and end up with an disjointed uncordinated attack.

If you want to argue that the Swordfish was the best torpedo plane of 1939-1942, I'd compare it to the "Kate". But from 1943 onwards, the Avenger was the superior torpedo bomber of WW2.

 

[Smokey]

On the contrary, I think the Avenger was a much better torpedo aircraft when the torpedos were working. I was just trying to find a possible explanation for why Eric Brown rated the Swordfish above the Avenger

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Someone name me one big naval battle that the Swordfish fought in that WAS decisive and had an impact on the course of the war. Were they at Leyte Gulf? Philipine Sea? Truk? Rabaul? Mariana's?

I agree the Avenger was superior but now you are just being silly. The war was fought in Europe to my friend. Leyte Gulf, Philippine Sea, Truk, Rabual and Marianas had nothing to do with victory in Europe.

The swordfish was decisive in stopping the Italian Navy at Taranto and the sinking of the Bismarck to name a few. They also played a role in the U-Boot war.

To say the Swordfish had no impact on the war and did nothing at all is just plain stupid, syscom. Dont be foolish...