# Allied Aircraft to forstall Japanese early Success in Far Eastern campaign, 1941-1942



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 5, 2012)

Allied resistance to Japan collapsed in a matter of about 3 months (December 8, 1941 - March 3, 1942), probably due to a number of factors including intellectual or spiritual inertia to the state of war, inadequate pilot training, logistical inadequacies, and substandard equipment. If it was possible to equip all allied aviation units with but one aircraft to resist the Japanese onslaught, what might have proved most effective in delaying the inevitable? I've listed only contemporary aircraft loosely in theater in some numbers. Assume decisions made well prior to the commencement of hostilities allowed for production of all the necessary replacement aircraft. Probably shouldn't have included the Spitfire but couldn't resist.

Ooops, forgot to list the Curtiss Wright CW-21 Demon!


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 5, 2012)

Spitfire I was never sent overseas, the Spit V operated from Australia in 1943, too late for your timeline.
The P-66 was used over China in '43


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 5, 2012)

Yep, wrt spit,


oldcrowcv63 said:


> Probably shouldn't have included the Spitfire but couldn't resist.


 


Vincenzo said:


> Spitfire I was never sent overseas, the Spit V operated from Australia in 1943, too late for your timeline.
> The P-66 was used over China in '43



But P-66 production deliveries began in September 1941, so concievably might have played a role with different decision tree. Although you are right I probably shouldn't have realistically included it either.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 5, 2012)

It wasn't purely an aircraft issue. As you point out, there were other significant factors including intelligence, early warning, tactical experience, air gunnery proficiency and leadership mindset. It could be argued that, had these deficiencies been rectified prior to hostilities with Japan, the air campaign in Dec 41 and into early 42 might have been very different even with the obsolete/obsolescent aircraft available to the Allies.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 5, 2012)

It didn't matter what they had if they were going to miss use them. I wonder if even P-51D's wouldn't have given enough of a advantage to make up for the debacle of the first few days of the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2012)

All the militaries were short of aircrew and well trained aircrew were definately at a premium


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2012)

With regard to the P-66, Wiki had this to say
"_The Chinese received the assembled fighters via India by late 1942; Chinese Vanguards had USAAF insignia and serials as well as Chinese markings and Vultee serials on factory models. The undistinguished combat record of the Vanguard in China was due to problems that began in transit where a number of Vanguards were destroyed during tests in India and others lost while en route to China. Assembled P-66s were deemed unairworthy and abandoned at Karachi resulting in only 12 Vanguards on station at Kunming with the 74th Fighter Squadron of the 23rd Fighter Group, but this unit saw little action. Two Chinese squadrons from the 3rd Group and the 5th Group based at An-Su saw combat action with the Vanguard from August 1943 onward. However, many P-66s were destroyed on the ground during Japanese attacks while several were shot down in error when they were mistaken for the Nakajima Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar" and Ki-44 "Tojo". Although the Vanguard possessed a top speed of 340 mph (550 km/h), it was no match for the agile Japanese fighters in high-g maneuvers and relied on hit-and-run tactics against the Japanese_'


----------



## futuredogfight (Feb 6, 2012)

The P-36 is a great aircraft beating the Mk. 1 Spit in many respects.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 6, 2012)

I should have broken out the P-40B and P-40E as separate options in this thread due to their different ceiling and climb rate. The poll was prompted by reading Bartsch's account of the Java campaign and the difficulty encountered by the P-40Es of USAAF Provisional Pursuit Squadron 17 based at the secret Ngoro airfield south of Surobaya. They were based there for about 5 weeks to defend the city and the larger airfields at Singosari and Perak. They managed to destroy only about 12 Japanese aircraft (despite continuous almost daily raids) primarily due to the P-40E's comparatively low ceiling (27-29,000 ft) and its slow climb rate. It took a P-40E about 40 minutes to reach intercept alititude, but Java Air Defense Command was typically only able to give about 30 minutes warning). They usually only obtained visual contact after the raid had occurred and the escorted bombers were returning to base; rarely before it. 

During that period, the squadron, consisting of fairly well trained pilots, was ably led by Phillipine vet Bud Sprague. The aircraft had better maintenance support than was available in the PI, had the ammo and oxygen it needed to fight. The Dutch were fighting (and also the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF, I believe) with a mix of aircraft including some P-36s and B339/439s and CW-21Bs. There were evidently a few RAF Hurricanes available from those that had been delivered to Singapore before its fall.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2012)

futuredogfight said:


> The P-36 is a great aircraft beating the Mk. 1 Spit in many respects.


The P36 was for lack of words a backwater fighter , in the CBI theatre it was a secondary fighter , after reading Mohawks over Burma its main forte was strafing barges on the Irrawaddy


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 6, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> The P36 was for lack of words a backwater fighter , in the CBI theatre it was a secondary fighter , after reading Mohawks over Burma its main forte was strafing barges on the Irrawaddy


I believe it had a higher ceiling than the P-40E (what didn't?) but don't know how its climb rate stacked up against the other candidates. I think interceptors able to boom and zoom (IJN IJA) escorts would have been necessary to achieve more success during the Java campaign.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2012)

F4F-3/Martlet is my choice here, IIRC people that flew it also praised it.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 6, 2012)

Martlet seems a good option: suitable ceiling, good dive speed and good range with solid robustness somewhat offseting low top speed and anemic climb rate. Not sure how its climb speed stacks up vs P-40E. Much as I like the F4F-3 (and I really do!), it's unfortunately almost as much a fantasy as a choice as the Spitfire Mark I.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 6, 2012)

Probably the F4F-3 was the right choice, i'm not sure if this variant get martlet name


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 6, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> Probably the F4F-3 was the right choice, i'm not sure if this variant get martlet name



Once again Vincenzo you are correct! USN F4F-3 didn't get a Martlet Mark. The 'Martlet Mark I' was delivered to Britain in mid 1940, but, with its Wright Cyclone engine and single stage superharger, not as sharp at altitude as its F4F-3 USN cousin. The Mark II had folding wings and so was heavier than the Mrk I (and also had a single stage supercharger I believe) the Mrk III (USN F4F-3A) also sported the single stage supercharger. The F4F-3 would have been the best performer of the lot.


----------



## Glider (Feb 6, 2012)

I would go for the Spitfire. It might not have been sent overseas but it was in my mind the right aircraft to stop the early Jap advances. It lacked only range but the early JAAF fighters didn't have long legs either


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2012)

Someone commented that if we were to consider Spitfires, we should at least consider the Spit Mk V. Spit Is had been out of production for more than a year by December 1941. They were never used extensively outside of Western Euriope, unlike the Hurricane I which was deployed extensively to the Middle and far eastern TOs. Spit Is were too short ranged, and too demanding in terms of their airfield requirements to undertake sustained operationsd from the rough strips found in the non-european TOs. even the Spit marks that were deployed to the Far East, tended to need well established, well maintained strips that were often used in the Pacific

As point defence fighters the RAF aircraft were fullty the equal of the US types. What they lacked was range. to that for the Spit, must be added a certain fragility that simply rules it out of contention. hurricanes were rugged enough, but still lacked an effective range.

In my mind, the best all round contender would be the P-40E, but even this type as a fighter was outclassed by the Japanese Ki-43s and A6Ms then in service.

I agree with Buffnut. equipment was not really the main problem for the allies. Their pilots organization, support were simply not up to the task. More importanly the mindset was wrong


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 6, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> It wasn't purely an aircraft issue. As you point out, there were other significant factors including intelligence, early warning, tactical experience, air gunnery proficiency and leadership mindset. It could be argued that, had these deficiencies been rectified prior to hostilities with Japan, the air campaign in Dec 41 and into early 42 might have been very different even with the obsolete/obsolescent aircraft available to the Allies.



I have to agree, and would add _poor leadership_ to the list of deficiencies. However, in the defense of Java, at least one squadron consisted of relatively high time P-40E flyers well salted vith vets of the PI campaign. The dutch had a perhaps flawed but still operative non-RADAR based early warning system and an Air Defense Command something akin to that of the AVG. In contrast, the AVG was flying the P-40B, apparently higher performing than its successor P-40E and if I understand correctly doing a better job of countering air raids than did USAAF Pursuit Squadron 17. The pilots of the participating RAF/RAAF and Dutch squadrons by that time were also better seasoned than in the first disastrous month of the war and if I understand correctly, were doing better than one might expect from the lowly Buff. I don't know how well or poorly the Hurricane's performed in theater. Was hoping someone in the forum could shed some light.



parsifal said:


> Someone commented that if we were to consider Spitfires, we should at least consider the Spit Mk V. Spit Is had been out of production for more than a year by December 1941. They were never used extensively outside of Western Euriope, unlike the Hurricane I which was deployed extensively to the Middle and far eastern TOs. Spit Is were too short ranged, and too demanding in terms of their airfield requirements to undertake sustained operationsd from the rough strips found in the non-european TOs. even the Spit marks that were deployed to the Far East, tended to need well established, well maintained strips that were often used in the Pacific
> 
> As point defence fighters the RAF aircraft were fullty the equal of the US types. What they lacked was range. to that for the Spit, must be added a certain fragility that simply rules it out of contention. hurricanes were rugged enough, but still lacked an effective range.



Pars, I agree, but the Spit I predated the campaign and existed in significant numbers and I thought too interesting a _what if _option to ignore. I think the Hurricane was indeed better suited to the defense of Java but suffered due to its short legs. With its high ceiling, a reasonably good climber, robust and sturdy, I would expect it to be fairly successful, but of course actual numbers were low.



parsifal said:


> In my mind, the best all round contender would be the P-40E, but even this type as a fighter was outclassed by the Japanese Ki-43s and A6Ms then in service.



The dutch were apparently very happy to receive the P-40Es (apparently somewhat pleased with their Hawk 75s) the retreating americans willed them but the fact remains that while it was probably the best general fighter in that area, it couldn't reach the altitude of the bombers continually raiding the island and it couldn't get alititude superiority over the bomber's escorts, although that may have been a problem for any of the realistic (non-Spitfire) options listed except the Hurricane (?).



parsifal said:


> I agree with Buffnut. equipment was not really the main problem for the allies. Their pilots organization, support were simply not up to the task. More importanly the mindset was wrong



Things did go to hell awfully fast, and it's probably true that very little could have been done to reverse the ultimate result. There were no replacement engines available for the P-40E high time allisons and no time to have them overhauled even if the facilities had been available. Although I get the impression that Java had more aviation maintenance support than available in either the PI or in Malaya. PS-17s secret Ngoro airfield base was a marvelous bit of work and apparently but one of a number distributed about the island.


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2012)

No contest-the F4F3 and the record proves it. It's only problem was that there were not enough of them.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 9, 2012)

I suppose the only real choices would be the Hurricane, P-40E, Hawk75 and B339/439 and maybe CW-21B. Hurricane has the altitude advantage but not the legs. 
P-40E can't get to adequate altitude, but has legs and dive speed 
B-339/439 seems to have legs and maybe altitude capability but can't get out of its own way. 
Hawks75 has altitude, legs and are fairly manueverable with decent dive speed. 
CW-21B have no armor and can't sustain an attrition battle and their climbing advantage over the zero is less than imagined to nonexistent. 

Hurricane or Hawk75 seems to be the best realistic option. P-40B would be probably be great but not sure there is a ready supply at this stage.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 9, 2012)

renrich said:


> No contest-the F4F3 and the record proves it. It's only problem was that there were not enough of them.



actually of none there were enough, this thread question as i understood is a what if


----------



## Juha (Feb 9, 2012)

But did the Grumman have as much potential production capacity as Curtiss or in matter of fact Brewster. If RAF had been so clever that it had seen that it wasn’t a good idea to overburden small wing Brewster B-x39 planes too much with in itself useful equipments and had ordered something like the FAF B-239 (back armour but not self-sealing fuel tanks) but with a bit more powerful engine it would have had more lively but also more vulnerable plane with good range.

Juha


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 9, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> actually of none there were enough, this thread question as i understood is a what if



Yep _what if _there had been enough... "realistic option" in the sense of what might have been _the most nearly possible_



Juha said:


> But did the Grumman have as much potential production capacity as Curtiss or in matter of fact Brewster. If RAF had been so clever that it had seen that it wasn’t a good idea to overburden small wing Brewster B-x39 planes too much with in itself useful equipments and had ordered something like the FAF B-239 (back armour but not self-sealing fuel tanks) but with a bit more powerful engine it would have had more lively but also more vulnerable plane with good range.Juha



I believe Grumman could and did out produce Brewster. Brewster had some really serious production limitations based on an almost weirdly complex factory floor plan as I understand it, from reading of _*Fall from Grace*_ _The Brewster aeronautical Corporation: 1932-1942._ by Jim Maas.


----------



## Juha (Feb 9, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I believe Grumman could and did out produce Brewster. Brewster had some really serious production limitations based on an almost weirdly complex factory floor plan as I understand it, from reading of _*Fall from Grace*_ _The Brewster aeronautical Corporation: 1932-1942._ by Jim Maas.



What I meant to say, Brewster probably had more free capacity than Grumman after USN chose F4F-3 as their main fighter. I'm well aware on Brewstwr's quality problems and problems with trade unions at their new plant, the trade union leader should have been happy thet he was not living in SU there with same kind of behaviour he would have been shot out of hand.

Juha


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 9, 2012)

Juha said:


> What I meant to say, Brewster probably had more free capacity than Grumman after USN chose F4F-3 as their main fighter. I'm well aware on Brewstwr's quality problems and problems with trade unions at their new plant, the trade union leader should have been happy thet he was not living in SU there with same kind of behaviour he would have been shot out of hand. Juha



Yes, labor was yet another problem (It's been years since I read Maas' paper!) I don't know the situation wrt to unused capacity post 1939 and just assumed Brewster management couldn't get their act together to pump out large volumes of airframes, but it does seem to have done fairly well in its export production so maybe it could have done it. Yes, wrt to someone at Brewster, the SU approach might have yeilded better results!


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 16, 2012)

renrich said:


> No contest-the F4F3 and the record proves it.



Care to expand a little more on that?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 12, 2012)

While I would have liked to see the F4F-3 with USN Pilots flying in this scenario based on their solid performance some 5-6 months later. The F4F-3 had a higher ceiing than the P-40E and with 2 fewer .50 cal guns might have enjoyed a better maintenance record than that compiled by the P-40E after hostilities began. (many of the P-40E guns apparently did not have the cosmoline entirely boiled out of them before combat leading to what appears to be a ridicously high jamming rate. 

I believe a more realistic contender would be any of the P-40 models up to and including the P-40D, including export Tomahawks. I am assuming all possessed lighter weight armament and would therefore have enjoyed a higher ceiling and slight better climb rate. I believe there were about 1,750 total produced of all these earlier models, most for export.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 30, 2012)

F4F mainly because it was a carrier fighter and US carriers did more to "forstall early Japanese success" than any other Allied force.


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2012)

Performance equal or superior to most Japanese aircraft during 1942.
Decent range / endurance. Very important in the Pacific.
Operates well from rough airfields.
Few bad flying habits. Important for inexperienced pilots.
One of the most capable fighter-bombers available during 1942.
Available in almost unlimited numbers from 1941 onward. 

We built about as many P-40s during 1942 as the entire Japanese fighter aircraft production (IJA and IJN). Since most Japanese military forces (including aircraft) were in China there is no good reason for P-40s to be outnumbered in the Pacific. Add B-25 medium bombers and you've got a winning aerial combination for the war against Japan.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 20, 2013)

Publicity shot of Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat fighters, of Fighting Squadron Three (VF-3) in flight near Naval Air Station, Kaneohe, Oahu, Hawaii, 10 April 1942. The planes are Bureau # 3976 (F-1, foreground), flown by VF-3 Commanding Officer Lieutenant Commander John S. Thach, and Bureau # 3986 (F-13), flown by Lieutenant Edward H. O'Hare. Both of these aircraft were lost a little less than a month later with USS Lexington (CV-2), during the Battle of Coral Sea.







Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" bomber plunges towards the water after being shot down during an engagement with U.S. Navy F4F-3 Wildcats from Fighting Squadron VF-3 defending the aircraft carrier USS Lexington (CV-2) off Rabaul, New Britain, 20 February 1942.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Feb 20, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> It didn't matter what they had if they were going to miss use them. I wonder if even P-51D's wouldn't have given enough of a advantage to make up for the debacle of the first few days of the war.



Definately agree!


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 20, 2013)

Me too. It didn't really matter what aircraft was flown. The type of aircraft is rather secondary if the rest of the fighter defence capability is not improved considerably, including adequate early warning, robust ground-controlled intercept organization, reliable weapons (which, IMHO, takes the redoubtable .50 cal out of the running 'cos it was a pig in Dec 41 in all its installations), well-trained personnel, adequate airfield defence (passive and active), aggressive and agile decision-making by commanders and sufficient numbers of aircraft to perform the varied roles assigned to fighter aircraft.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 21, 2013)

davebender said:


> Performance equal or superior to most Japanese aircraft during 1942.
> Decent range / endurance. Very important in the Pacific.
> Operates well from rough airfields.
> Few bad flying habits. Important for inexperienced pilots.
> ...



what are the evidence for the first and last point?


----------



## parsifal (Feb 22, 2013)

I voted for the P-40, but it certainly was not "available in vrtually unlimited numbers" in 1942, and "its performance was equal to or superior to any Japoanese a/c" another highly questionable statement. It was rugged, heavily armed, and prety fast, but in other areas the japanese a/c had it all over the P-40. A more correct statement might be to say that it was a survivable design, with some multi role capability, and well suited to the skill levels available to allied pilots in 1942. It was enough to absorb the shocks of the Japanese onslaught, but lets not get to telling porkies about its capabilities.


----------



## merlin (Feb 24, 2013)

I'll go for something totally different!!

DEI - has a combination of early Fokker D.XXI, the later improved design with Hercules and retractable undercart, and Koolhoven F. K.58, though it's likely with home produced aircraft available just like OTL, there would have been orders to the USA!

RAAF - Aussie built version of the Gloster F.5/34 (with US engine), handled well good all-round vision.

RAF - Combination of Gloster aircraft, and Hurricane - though in Malaya, as others have said it's not the aircraft that counts its the early warning of any 'raids'.

RIAF - just to make it interesting, seems plausible, to have early expansion of Indian Air Force component, maybe not in Malaya but transfered as emergency back-up in Burma - Gloster Gladiator Gloster monoplane.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 25, 2013)

Finnish mercenaries flying the Curtiss Hawk Model 75!

Or Finnish mercenaries flying the Seversky P-35.
Or Finnish mercenaries flying any model of the P-40.
Heck, Finnish mercenaries flying Wright Flyers!


----------



## cherry blossom (Feb 25, 2013)

German mercenaries flying the Fw 190A2 and/or the Bf 109F4 (more fragile but a more reliable engine and better at high altitude)?


----------



## stug3 (May 4, 2013)

Flying Tigers P-40 undergoing maintenance at the American Volunteer Group base near Kunming, China.


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2013)

Mustang I's operational late April/early May in 1942 were superior in every respect to all the USAAF aircraft, inferior to Spit V, superior to F4F except in turning and performance above 25K.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 5, 2013)

Weren't the P-38F better overall than Mustang I?


----------

