# What does your 1941-1942 carrier plane force look like?



## MacArther (Jan 26, 2006)

Fighter= F4F-3
Bomber/attack= Dautless (which ever one was the most recent)
Nightfighter= Fairy Fulmar


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

F4F-3 fighter
Dive Bomber - SBD 
Torpedo/ Strike - TBM
ASW/ Observation - Kingfisher


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

I didnt think Kingfishers operated off of carriers. Werent they BB and CA based?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I didnt think Kingfishers operated off of carriers. Werent they BB and CA based?



No, they were land based as well

"At the time of Pearl Harbor, all the Navy's battleships were equipped with the OS2U. Additionally, the carriers *Saratoga, Wasp, and Hornet *as well as the seaplane tenders Albemarle, Barnegat, Biscayne, Casco, Curtiss, Heron, Humbolt, Pocomoke, Tangier, and Wright, used the type for utility work."


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 26, 2006)

Fighter - F4F3/Zero
Divebomber - SBD Dauntless
Torpedo - Swordfish


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 26, 2006)

Fighter:Seafire
Torpedo Bomber:Swordfish
Dive Bomber: SBD


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 26, 2006)

> ". . . Additionally, the carriers Saratoga, Wasp, and Hornet as well as the seaplane tenders Albemarle, Barnegat, Biscayne, Casco, Curtiss, Heron, Humbolt, Pocomoke, Tangier, and Wright, used the type for utility work."




But when they’re talking about carrier use what they’re neglecting to say is that these ships carried one, at most, two, of these types. All the prewar carriers carried at least one utility aircraft, usually a seaplane type such as OS2U or the SOC; all were referred to as “hacks”. 

Some squadrons also carried on their books ‘squadron hacks,” but they were usually the result of transitioning from one type to another. For example Ranger’s VS-41 was redesignated VF-42 in March 1941. They had been operating SBCs, but with the new designation transitioned to F4F-3s. When the dust settled, they still had one SBC which they left behind when they transferred over to Yorktown. RAG turned in the SBC because they already had an SOC. 

Some squadrons (especially VFs) carried SNJs in their organizations for use as hacks. These utililty planes gave them dedicated two-seaters for use as needed. 

So, when you read that these carriers were operating these planes, don’t get the idea that they were being included in operations, because they weren’t. 

Their use was limited to in-port generated flights or while operating from land and their primary purposes was transporting folks from one place to another, one-by-one, or for specific training purposes. For example in August 1942, when my father was in VF-11, his next assignment after the Battle of Midway, he used the squadron hack, SNJ #01905, on four occasions. One was a courier flight to March Army Air Field. The other three were for instrument proficiency re-qualifications; once for himself and twice where he re-qualified others. Later, in December 1942, while still in VF-11, he borrowed the VF-3 hack, a SNJ, #01858, for a round trip from Maui NAS to Ford Island NAS to attend an awards ceremony for Midway action. 

Just as a point of interest, types such as the SOC or OS2U were delivered with fixed landing gear and hard points for installation of floats. The floats were manufactured separately (by Elco, I seem to remember) and installed by Navy maintenance facilities as needed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

R Leonard said:


> > ". . . Additionally, the carriers Saratoga, Wasp, and Hornet as well as the seaplane tenders Albemarle, Barnegat, Biscayne, Casco, Curtiss, Heron, Humbolt, Pocomoke, Tangier, and Wright, used the type for utility work."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As usual, great information Len! - my point was the Kingfisher did operate off carriers (with fixed gear of course). I've seen photos of one landing on the Saratoga (I think)....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

Swordfish over the Avenger.

Thats an interesting pick, for 2nd half of 1942 at least.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Swordfish over the Avenger.
> 
> Thats an interesting pick, for 2nd half of 1942 at least.



I agree - the Swordfish was a great old bird and served well in the theaters it was deployed, but it definitely was not as good as the Avenger.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 26, 2006)

I wonder why nobody mentiones the japanese planes. They should be a reasonable option for 1941-42 (incl. training).
Plane by plane the Zeke outmatches the F4F Wildcat and the B5N isn´t a worse torpedo bomber, also.
The SBD however beats the D3A, no doubt.
Carrier task forces also include tactics and ships, so up to lets say Midway, the japanese did a heavy toll with their toys in 41/42, or am I wrong?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

delcyros said:


> I wonder why nobody mentiones the japanese planes. They should be a reasonable option for 1941-42 (incl. training).
> Plane by plane the Zeke outmatches the F4F Wildcat and the B5N isn´t a worse torpedo bomber, also.
> The SBD however beats the D3A, no doubt.
> Carrier task forces also include tactics and ships, so up to lets say Midway, the japanese did a heavy toll with their toys in 41/42, or am I wrong?



The F4F really wasn't outclassed by the zero (especially the A6M2) if flown right, that's been proven. The TBM was WAY superior to the B5N - 

The only heavy toll was Pearl Harbor - Coral Sea was sought of a draw (and the zero barley managed 2 to 1 kill ratio over the F4F, a supposedly "inferior" aircraft) and Midway was the beginning of the end of the JIN. I didn't pick any Japanese aircraft because I felt they were all inferior and burnt very easy!


----------



## delcyros (Jan 26, 2006)

Zekes were light designs but better armed, too. And the F4F could come about equal only by use of superior tactics, this has nothing to do with the planes performances. In any way it did not dominate over the Zeke in 41-42.
The TBM Avanger wasn´t statisfying in 42 also. It´s first operations weren´t that encouraging. Some pre production units entered service in june 42, they were often mauled by Zekes: All six in Midway get lost, in august 7 out of 26 Avangers were lost in a single sortie at the Salomons, in Santa Cruise all 18 Avangers were lost, at least they managed to sink the crippled Hiei at Guadacanal) Usual production of TBM1 began in spetember 42, that´s very late for 41-42, or isn´t it? The total production quantities are therefore low in our timeframe:
up to Nov. 42 only 165 TBF and a single TBM was produced.
If we consider the poor quality of US torpedo´s in this timeframe I would generally prefer the B5N Kate. Avangers were often forced to do bomb attacks because the torpedos were crap.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

delcyros said:


> Zekes were light designs but better armed, too. And the F4F could come about equal only by use of superior tactics, this has nothing to do with the planes performances. In any way it did not dominate over the Zeke in 41-42.


After Midway the F4F attained about a 2 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. Eventually it rose to about 4 to 1. We posted this before, only about 190 F4Fs were lost in air-to-air combat, I'm sure Leonard will chime in here soon. The Zero was only a killer under 300 mph, over that it was dead meat! At higher speeds the F4F was able to out-dive, out roll and in some cases out turn the mythical Zero! 


delcyros said:


> The TBM Avanger wasn´t statisfying in 42 also. It´s first operations weren´t that encouraging. Some pre production units entered service in june 42, they were often mauled by Zekes: All six in Midway get lost, in august 7 out of 26 Avangers were lost in a single sortie at the Salomons, in Santa Cruise all 18 Avangers were lost, at least they managed to sink the crippled Hiei at Guadacanal) Usual production of TBM1 began in spetember 42, that´s very late for 41-42, or isn´t it? The total production quantities are therefore low in our timeframe:
> up to Nov. 42 only 165 TBF and a single TBM was produced.
> If we consider the poor quality of US torpedo´s in this timeframe I would generally prefer the B5N Kate. Avangers were often forced to do bomb attacks because the torpedos were crap.


The TBM was eventually used as a light bomber, bombing from altitude, I say that was a plus for this aircraft that carried 1,000 pounds more than the Kate. The battles you site where they were "mauled" occurred because the USN did not have full aerial superiority at the time and the IJN was able to put up a sizable force of fighters, the USN in all did not have a numerical superiority. The TBM could take a beating, was very strong and robust, the Kate way typical of Japanese aircraft, light, fragile, and it burned very easily...

But yes, the torpedoes were crap!


----------



## delcyros (Jan 27, 2006)

Yep, using bombing the Avenger is way better, but it was placed as torpedo bomber here. In this very role it was way inferior to the B5N, even if we suppose that this belongs to the torpedos more than to the airplane. Both belongs together. The production figures are low also, so I would choose some hundred B5N with well trained crews (avaiable in 41-42) instead of a few dozen Avengers with crap torpedos and crews which only began to realize this planes full potential. (just for this role)
And I would stick with the Zeke, since it dominated over the F4F for almost a year, while the F4F eventually reached maturity in deployment with better tactics in late 42 (when our timeframe closes).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2006)

delcyros said:


> And I would stick with the Zeke, since it dominated over the F4F for almost a year, while the F4F eventually reached maturity in deployment with better tactics in late 42 (when our timeframe closes).



I see your point about the time frame. It wasn't until Midway when the F4F started dominating the Zero. And yes, better training and tactics made much of the difference

Some credit has to be given to the machine. For many years we heard about the superior performance of the Zero. That superiority was only evident at speeds below 300 mph. Although we know it had a slightly faster top speed when compared to the F4F, it was at those speeds where the Zero's performance (maneuverability) began to diminish and where the F4F excelled. 

At the end of the day the F4F established a kill ratio of 6.9 to 1: 178 lost, for 905 'confirmed' kills. Split that in half for argument sake and that's still impressive for an aircraft that was supposedly outclassed in all categories by its main opponent.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 28, 2006)

Yes it is impressive, I don´t want to underrate the Wildcat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

I like FBJ's list and dont think I can think of anything better to pic, so I will just his also, if that is okay with you FBJ.

F4F-3 fighter 
Dive Bomber - SBD 
Torpedo/ Strike - TBM 
ASW/ Observation - Kingfisher


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 29, 2006)

I think that the Japanese planes were quite good but the japanese pilots did not have proper training


----------



## Magister (Jan 29, 2006)

As has already been pointed out, tactics were what gave Wildcat pilots an edge over their Zero flown opponents. If proper counter tactics had been employed by Zeke pilots, they would have waxed the Wildcats.

I say the Zero (exclusive of tactics employed) was the best carrier fighter of the time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

Magister said:


> As has already been pointed out, tactics were what gave Wildcat pilots an edge over their Zero flown opponents. If proper counter tactics had been employed by Zeke pilots, they would have waxed the Wildcats.


The only things the Japanese could of done was develop the same "energy management" tactics used by the USN and incorporated better teamwork. There's no real "counter tactics" for fighting in the vertical, coordinating attack and overall teamwork. At that point its the machine, teamwork and the skill of the pilot. 


Magister said:


> I say the Zero (exclusive of tactics employed) was the best carrier fighter of the time.



As long as they kept their fight under 300 mph....

If you look at what the Zero actually did, it was highly over-rated....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

rebel8303 said:


> I think that the Japanese planes were quite good but the japanese pilots did not have proper training



At the start of the war, the IJN airmen were among the best trained around. Many had combat experience in China, and the IJN was known to conduct training along "wartime conditions". 

Unfortunatly for Japan, the system that produced and trained them couldnt expand fast enough to provide replacements and expand the pool. It also was quite rigid when it came to developing new tactics.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> It also was quite rigid when it came to developing new tactics.



Very Very true! The IJN and JAAF held on to an outdated dogfighting doctrine...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 29, 2006)

> At the start of the war, the IJN airmen were among the best trained around. Many had combat experience in China, and the IJN was known to conduct training along "wartime conditions".


 
Very true, alot of their dogfighting experience also came from the Russo-Japanese war as well.


----------



## Jank (Jan 29, 2006)

"As long as they kept their fight under 300 mph.... "

Both the Zero and Widcat were relatively slow so that would,'t be too difficult.

Also, I thougt that the Japanes pilots didn't operate together as a team very well as opposed to the Americans.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

As long as they kept their fight under 300 mph.... "

Both the Zero and Wildcat were relatively slow so that would,'t be too difficult.[/quote]
No - the Wildcat had a top speed of about 325 mph. When you're fighting in the vertical and unloading the airplane "over the top" the aircraft will dive a lot quicker. It's here where the Zero's limitations are exploited. All of its control surfaces "loaded up" and became like concrete.


Jank said:


> Also, I thougt that the Japanes pilots didn't operate together as a team very well as opposed to the Americans.



Although they fought bravely, they sometimes did things haphazardly....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

They didn't use cloud cover effectively. They didn't use much air-ground communication on blind landings. And they concentrated on runways, rather than lines of communication and stores when attacking airfields. There's some more flaws with the IJN and IJAAF aerial tactics, and practices.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> They didn't use cloud cover effectively. They didn't use much air-ground communication on blind landings. And they concentrated on runways, rather than lines of communication and stores when attacking airfields. There's some more flaws with the IJN and IJAAF aerial tactics, and practices.



Yep and many of them flew with no parachutes....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

I cant remember what aviation historian it was that said the "Japanese fighter pilots behaved more like 16th century samurai than 20th century proffesionals". I know some German military attache's were continually telling the Japanese officers to change their tactics to reflect on what was proven in Europe in 1940 and 1941. Fortunalty for the allies, that advice was unheeded.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

Very True


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

Certainly the Allied forces would have lost many more men, but even with German tactics the Japanese airmen were in no situation to combat the Allied greats. I, personally, think the advantages of the Allied aircraft in combat were better than those of the Japanese. How could a Zero, honestly, hope to achieve success against a Corsair if the F4U pilot had a slight knowledge of his plane? He can't. 

Keep the combat fast, and the Japanese could not win.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Keep the combat fast, and the Japanese could not win.



And the USAAF and the USN learned that within 6 months of the war.

Again the mystical Zero could never do better than a 2 to 1 kill ratio over F4Fs, P-39s and P-40s. Highly over-rated!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

The corsair was for 1943, not 1942.

Later model Japanese fighters when flown by the surviving veterans were more than capable of holding their own against the F6F, F4U, P51 and P38.

Good for the allies that they were the rarely encountered


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

Hardly capable, and I know the Corsair was 1943. I was making a statement about the Japanese throughout the war. The Japanese fighters were not capable planes all the Allied aircraft were just too fast for it. It was luck, rather than skill, that achieved kills for the Japanese against Allied fighters in the later years.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

Plenty of allied pilots were shot down thinking that the Japanese fighter they were going to "smoke" turned out to be piloted by a competent pilot.

Dont under estimate them. A competent pilot of any nationality flying a decent fighter is a dangerous foe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Plenty of allied pilots were shot down thinking that the Japanese fighter they were going to "smoke" turned out to be piloted by a competent pilot.
> 
> Dont under estimate them. A competent pilot of any nationality flying a decent fighter is a dangerous foe.



Agree, but at the end of the day the numbers said it all! I think that was more the exception than the rule!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

Just pointing out that when the Japanese had a good pilot in a good airplane, they were just as good as anyone.

It is a fallacy to think otherwise. They built good planes towards the end of the war, and suffered primarily from a complete lack of experienced pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Just pointing out that when the Japanese had a good pilot in a good airplane, they were just as good as anyone.


Agree, but usually they had one without the other - my point was that although they managed to inflict losses, for the most part most pilots did not underestimate them.


syscom3 said:


> It is a fallacy to think otherwise. They built good planes towards the end of the war, and suffered primarily from a complete lack of experienced pilots.


Agree...


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 30, 2006)

I say Seafire (apart from landings)


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 3, 2006)

the Jap's pearl harbor veterans like died.
And the replacements had engine troubles with the MK9 Mamoru and NK9 (army designation Ha-45) Homare.
if those engines were reliable, then the zero would have been phased out earlier


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2006)

The Seafire is a dubious choice. Fragile airframe not designed for carrier ops, and poor endurance for a naval aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Just like the Bf-109T.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

but better looking.......... 

but for the atlantic and med. they needed an intorceptor, which the spit was, you want to go off bombing somewhere or provide escort, take a firefly.........


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2006)

I will agree better looking. However, for convoy protection you want a fighter with a good radius of action so it can intercept the intruders as far away as possible.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but better looking..........



Thats a matter of opinion.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

I will agree the seafire was the best looking carrier fighter, untill the Corsair became operational.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2006)

i'd take a spit over the corsair for looks anyday........


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 8, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'd take a spit over the corsair for looks anyday........


Me too, although the Corsair isn't bad.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2006)

Id rather have the Corsair.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 9, 2006)

The corsair looks powerful, impressive and tough but in pure terms of aesthetics it isn´t comparable to the sleek lines of a Seafire.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 9, 2006)

1941-1942, the corsair appears in early 1943 off of land bases, late 43-44 it starts its carrier life.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

the corsair's just a bloody tube? the one and only good looking thing are the gull wings, the spitfire has superior looks in every department..........


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2006)

The corsair looks like its meant for business.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

yeah, you know it's out to get you... whereas you see the spit and cannot help but look and wonder at it's immence beauty, then when you're transfixed... WHAM............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2006)

Thats a lie and you know it  The Corsair is damn hot.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

it's a toilet roll tube with wings that were designed by someone incapable of using a ruler, proberly Martyn


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2006)

In capable of using a ruler? It seems that the Spitfire was designed my someone who was so much of a timmy they werent even allowed a ruler is case they hurt themself, thus having to design elliptical wings


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Id take a Corsair over a Spit anyday also. More rugged and tougher.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 11, 2006)

I would fly whatever the command gave my unit if that was Corsairs then I would fly Corsairs if it was Spits I would fly Spits...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> I would fly whatever the command gave my unit if that was Corsairs then I would fly Corsairs if it was Spits I would fly Spits...


GOOD MAN!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2006)

i'd throw a tuntrum and demand to get a spit........


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 11, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Gnomey said:
> 
> 
> > I would fly whatever the command gave my unit if that was Corsairs then I would fly Corsairs if it was Spits I would fly Spits...
> ...


It is not like I would have a choice anyway...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2006)

Good point, you flew what they gave you anyhow.


----------

