# Interview: Captain Eric Brown



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2007)

Interview: Captain Eric Brown

No test pilot in history has amassed a track record to compare with that of Captain Eric Brown, whose 31-year career with Britain's Royal Navy included a stint during World War II as the chief test pilot at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough, England -- the country's primary flight research facility. Brown, now 86 years old and retired, flew a stunning 487 different types of aircraft, a feat that puts him in the GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS -- and is not, he says, likely ever to be repeated. "One must understand that it was obtained in unusual circumstances, " he says. "I was chief test pilot at our main research establishment for the war years and every type of aircraft that one could think of -- from Britain and the United States, and captured aircraft from Germany, Italy, and Japan -- passed through our hands."

After the war, Brown continued to fly new aircraft as part of the surge in civilian aeronautics. "We got very involved in that," Brown says, "and particularly in helping countries in Europe which had been devastated during World War II and had no facilities, or testing facilities, or pilots to assess their aircraft. Also, one must remember that this was the beginning of the jet era and we were in that tremendously fascinating period when we were transforming from piston-engine aircraft to jet aircraft, and learning the problems they produced -- which were few, but there were some -- and finding out how to operate these. So it was a very formative time."

For Brown, the flying bug struck early. He took his first flight when he was eight years old. At the controls was his father, who had been a pilot in the Royal Flying Corps during World War I. "We spoke a lot about flying and this was the fundamental reason for my interest," Brown says. Brown learned to fly on his own while a student at Edinburgh University in Scotland.

"In Britain we have things called university air squadrons and the major universities have a squadron set up by the Royal Air Force in which you are given flying training free of charge," he says. The Air Force hopes that at the end of the period, when you've received your wings, you will stay with them. But you are under no obligation to do so. I started to fly when I was almost 18, and from that point on there wasn't any doubt that this was what I wanted to do." 

During his career, Brown had the opportunity to test both jets and their predecessors, piston-engine aircraft. Although he learned to fly on the older piston-engine models, he quickly jumped on the jet bandwagon. "The jet is the much better aircraft because it is basically an engine with many many fewer moving parts than piston-engine aircraft, so therefore it must be fundamentally more reliable," he says. Also, if you wish to increase the power, it is almost limitless with the jet engine, whereas the piston-engine almost reached the limit of its power by the end of World War II. Also, the piston-engine can never go supersonic, because it is associated with a propeller and the drag of that propeller will prevent it from going supersonic."

The Messerschmitt 163, the revolutionary "flying bomb" dreamed up by German aircraft designer Helmut Walter during World War II, and featured in SECRETS OF THE DEAD: "The Hunt for Nazi Scientists," was neither a traditional piston-driven aircraft nor a jet; it ran on rocket fuel. 

"Revolutionary it undoubtedly was. It was very innovative and had a lot of extremely new features," Brown says. "But if you examine its worth as an operational aircraft, I would say it was a tool of desperation used by the Germans in the later stages of the war and with little honest effect." The Me-163 may have been a desperation move, but it was "a delight to fly," Brown says, "once you had gotten your wits about you. It was so rapid that the initial feeling was that it was a jump ahead of you. It was rather like being in charge of a runaway train -- but exciting, unquestionably. "

These days, the only aircraft Brown pilots are in computer flight simulators, which he tests for eager aircraft aficionados. "The technology is impressive, but doesn't stack up to the real thing," he says. "I'm not an enthusiast about flight simulation. I realize that it is the short road to achieving something deeper than you would by having to produce the actual full-flying training under normal conditions. But, I've never met a simulator yet that is absolutely accurate in reproducing the handling qualities of the airplane it represents. There are shortcomings. " And yet, Brown adds, flight simulators do have a useful purpose. "One must give it this: simulators are very good for practicing safety drills in aircraft, without any danger of losing the aircraft if anything goes wrong. That is a great advantage."

Harder than adjusting to the inadequacies of computer flight simulators has been not flying at all, says Brown, who turned in his pilot's license when he was in his mid-70s. "It is like drug withdrawal, I imagine. You become a nuisance to your wife after you stop flying. You run around rather demented, not sure what to do with yourself. It really does have a rather powerful affect on you, because you had formerly led this high-intensity, active life. But, finally, I've come to terms with it. I've tried to replace it. I do a huge amount of lecturing and I'm an international university lecturer. I travel a lot, I lecture a lot, and that keeps me out of trouble. Most of the time."


----------



## brickhistory (Feb 22, 2007)

Great book by him called "Wings on My Sleeve."


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 22, 2007)

Interesting interview, thanks for sharing


----------



## timshatz (Feb 22, 2007)

Another good one from Sys.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2007)

Thanks!


----------



## renrich (Feb 22, 2007)

I have a book by Eric Brown comparing WW2 naval aircraft which makes me wonder about his objectivity. During the book he compares naval aircraft in battle with all types of land based A/C. Without going into too much detail, for instance, he states that a fight between an FW190A-4 and a F6F-3 would be pretty even whereas the FW would have all the advantages against the CorsairII. Hmmmm At the end of the book he picks the best fighter of the war and SURPRISE, he picks the Spitfire 14, I think, over all the Germans, the P51 and the Hellcat and the P47 is not even mentioned. Also have a book by Marion Carl and apparently he and Brown became good friends after the war when Carl was doing some test pilot work.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 22, 2007)

Well, I think it depends on the reader's attitude as to what you're expecting to learn from Brown's reports. If you ask a pilot about his opinion on a certain aircraft, it will always be subjective, as every pilot will have his own opinion. As a reader you have to approach this from a criticial PoV and sample out the unbiased and thus objective information. 
Also, Brown sometimes gets out of his field of expertise and makes general comments on an aircraft without realising that the aircraft he flew was perhaps not the standard version. (For instance IIRC he flew the He 219A-0 and not the later A-5.) But his comments on that specific plane will later be accepted as general truths and reproduced in most publications and websites.

Kris


----------



## renrich (Feb 23, 2007)

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

Did I get that right he rated teh Corsair and Seafire lower than the Zeke?

The Avenger lower than the Swordfish?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Did I get that right he rated teh Corsair and Seafire lower than the Zeke?
> 
> The Avenger lower than the Swordfish?



Does make you wonder about it doesnt it?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

My Grandfather had many unpleasant things to say about Mr Brown, basically making him out to be a liar and a fraud...

I will carry on my Grandfathers feelings...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Did I get that right he rated teh Corsair and Seafire lower than the Zeke?
> 
> The Avenger lower than the Swordfish?


Which were his criteria? It does not necessarily mean that he thinks the Zero is the better fighter, but perhaps the best in handling?  
From the reports I've seen of him, he does stress the flight characteristics over performance data, armament, armour, ... 

Kris


----------



## pejayte (Feb 24, 2007)

Not having read the book, i can only go on whats been said in conversation here. You have to remember he's talking about naval aircraft and deck landing them. there were more Seafires lost to landing accidents due to the narrow track undercarriage than to enemy action. It simply wasnt designed for carrier operations but the Fleet Air Arm was desperate for a modern fighter so the Spitfire was converted as a quick response.
The Americans nearly gave up with the Corsair because of the amount of early accidents trying to land an aircraft where the pilot couldnt see over the nose.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 24, 2007)

I have also heard mixed reactions to Brown's statements/opinions. There is no question that the man has flown a variety of aircraft, but this is a subjective field. He will have his own personal bias on things just like anyone else. 

That being said there will never be a definitive "Best" anything due to subjectivity.


----------



## Hop (Feb 24, 2007)

> His ranking of naval fighters in descending order is Hellcat, Zeke, Wildcat, Corsair, Sea hurricane, Seafire.



Whilst that list seems odd as an "ultimate" ranking of the fighters, it makes a great deal of sense if the period they entered service is taken into account. For example, the Hellcat was clearly the best carrier fighter in the world when it entered service, the Zeke was clearly the best on it's début, etc.

Along the same lines, you could argue the Spitfire, or 109, or Mustang etc was the best fighter ever, without arguing they are superior to the Eurofighter Typhoon, F-15, F-16 or F-22.


----------



## renrich (Feb 24, 2007)

The ranking of the A/C by Brown in his book, DUELS IN THE SKY, WW2 Naval Aircraft in Combat, is exactly as I posted. It seems to me that the criteria he used to establish his rankings was designed so that he could indulge his personal bias. Obviously his ranking of the Swordfish above the TBF is the most controversial and he admits he did a lot of thinking before doing it but he says that the facts are the Swordfish was in action well before the Grumman, obtained better torpedo results and suffered fewer losses. One wonders if Brown had been on the airstrip at Midway in June 1942 and had been offered his choice of an Avenger or Swordfish, notwithstanding the results at Taranto, to attack the IJN fleet, which one would he have chosen. Seems like I remember that the Swordfish in the attacks on the German fleet on their dash from Brest to Norway up the Channel could hardly get into position to attack because of their slow speed. Also, in his analysis of Corsair performance I think he only uses a very early model as he reports that it's top speed is only 395 mph. Then he states that the Corsair would have no chance against an FW190A-4 but then goes on to say, in his analysis of combat between a F6F-3 and FW that in 1944 the FW190-A4 was a little long in the tooth and the contest would only be decided by the skill of the individual pilots. Well, in 1944, the Corsair would have been the F4U-1D with much better performance than either the F6F or the FW and I doubt that in the hands of equally skilled pilots a Hellcat would have ever have had any advantage over any model Corsair.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> the Corsair would have been the F4U-1D with much better performance than either the F6F or the FW and I doubt that in the hands of equally skilled pilots a Hellcat would have ever have had any advantage over any model Corsair.


Concerning this renrich, my Grandpa flew mock combats against the Navy guys in their Hellcats, and never had a problem coming out on top... He flew the Hellcat at the end of the War and liked it, but loved his Corsair...

The Hellcat was designed to counter the Zero/Zeke, not the F4U...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2007)

evangilder said:


> I have also heard mixed reactions to Brown's statements/opinions. There is no question that the man has flown a variety of aircraft, but this is a subjective field. He will have his own personal bias on things just like anyone else.
> 
> That being said there will never be a definitive "Best" anything due to subjectivity.




I agree and that is why I have allways taken what he says with a grain of salt.


----------



## renrich (Feb 25, 2007)

I think you have Brown pegged Mr Adler. In fact I have heard that the Hellcat was described as a pussycat whereas the Corsair was a high strung predator. I downloaded the training video of the F4U from Zeno and watching it scared me to death. It was a very early model low cockpit airplane before the elongated tail wheel, sealed over top cowl flaps and before the right wing spoiler. I have a little light plane solo time as well as a ride in an L39 where I got to roll it a couple of times and I can just imagine how it must have felt to go from an SNJ to that 2000 HP beast with the reputation the early models had. The film showing the stall where the left wing just quit flying and the plane was suddenly on it's back did not look anything like a stall in a 172.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 25, 2007)

renrich said:


> I think you have Brown pegged Mr Adler. In fact I have heard that the Hellcat was described as a pussycat whereas the Corsair was a high strung predator.



I agree with your definition of the Corsair, but I don't think you can call the Hellcat a pussycat. I understand that it was a delight to fly, but its record says that it had some pretty vicious teeth.


----------



## renrich (Feb 26, 2007)

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 (Feb 27, 2007)

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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 27, 2007)

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 (Feb 27, 2007)

renrich said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2007)

Smokey said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2007)

Smokey said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2007)

Hop said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2007)

"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'

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2007)

The 109 has excellent low speed handling.


----------



## Glider (Feb 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> The 109 has excellent low speed handling.



Pity they still lost so many in accidents.


----------



## Smokey (Feb 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2007)

Smokey said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2007)

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 (Feb 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2007)

Smokey said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2007)

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 (Feb 28, 2007)

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 (Feb 28, 2007)

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 (Feb 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> 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...


----------



## bigZ (Feb 28, 2007)

The decisive stopping of the Italian Navy at Taranto also helped the Japenese model their plans for Pearl Harbour. Thus dragging the US into the war. So one could argue the the swordfish had the biggest impact on the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 28, 2007)

I would not go as far as saying it had the biggest impacft for that type of aircraft but it certainly made its mark.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 28, 2007)

bigZ said:


> The decisive stopping of the Italian Navy at Taranto also helped the Japenese model their plans for Pearl Harbour. Thus dragging the US into the war. So one could argue the the swordfish had the biggest impact on the war.




Using your logic, it was the Stuka's that initated the first bombings on Poland in Sept 1939 that had the biggest mark.

Stopping the Italian fleet at Taranto was not a decisive blow in the war. Italy still managed to fight on in the land war, and project its power in the Med through air power.

Being in on the two largest naval battles in history (Mariana's and Philipine Sea) was a decisive battle. Those were the death nails in the ability of the Japanese to project power in the Pacific.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Using your logic, it was the Stuka's that initated the first bombings on Poland in Sept 1939 that had the biggest mark.
> 
> Stopping the Italian fleet at Taranto was not a decisive blow in the war. Italy still managed to fight on in the land war, and project its power in the Med through air power.
> 
> Being in on the two largest naval battles in history (Mariana's and Philipine Sea) was a decisive battle. Those were the death nails in the ability of the Japanese to project power in the Pacific.



No you are completly wrong now. Taranto stopped the Italian Fleet and allowed the RN to completely control the Med. That is very desisive in my opinion. It had no effect on the PTO but it deffinatly had an effect on the victory in Europe.

The Marianas and Philippine Sea had not effect on the ETO only on the PTO, therefore they had a decisive effect on the outcome of the PTO but not the whole war itself.

Sorry Sys but you can give crecit to feats that other countries did as well...


----------



## bigZ (Feb 28, 2007)

Forgive my inept explanation. I was not trying to say the Swordfish was the best at its role or that Operation Slapstick was the most decisive naval battle of WWII but trying to point out the repricussions that the Taronto raid made which not only effected the Med but would *directly* inspire the attack on the Pearl Harbour.

The Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, was the Naval Attache in Rome at the time and was in Taranto the day after the attack took place. He later stated that the way the British attacked the Italian fleet, using torpedo planes launched from aircraft carriers, gave him the basic idea on which the Pearl Harbour attack was based. He of course used far greater resources, some 300+ aircraft, instead of some 15 to 20 aircraft which attacked Taranto.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No you are completly wrong now. Taranto stopped the Italian Fleet and allowed the RN to completely control the Med. That is very desisive in my opinion. It had no effect on the PTO but it deffinatly had an effect on the victory in Europe.



Partially correct. Taranto was a great victory at the time for the Brits, but it wouldn't have mattered what the Italian fleet was doing in the medium or long term, as airpower was quickly dominating the sea's. 



> The Marianas and Philippine Sea had not effect on the ETO only on the PTO, therefore they had a decisive effect on the outcome of the PTO but not the whole war itself.



True. Events in Europe ended up having little if any impact in events in the PTO and vice versa. 



> Sorry Sys but you can give crecit to feats that other countries did as well...



I already said the Swordfish was the best torpedo bomber of the early part of the war. And Taranto was a victory for the Brits. But whether the battle was ever fought, it was not decisive as the Med is not an open ocean with lots of room for fleets to maneuver.


----------



## brickhistory (Mar 1, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> True. Events in Europe ended up having little if any impact in events in the PTO and vice versa.



?Que?

On the strategic level, the whole "Europe First" strategy enumerated by FDR and Churchill meant that the Pacific Theater was hamstrung for reinforcements, supplies, etc until well into 1944.

The end of the European War meant that Stalin would turn towards Japan, definitely a factor in the end of the Pacific War

On a tactical level, among other issues, the scarcity of naval forces, particularly in carrier and destroyers was a consideration for both RN and US forces. 

At one time in mid-1942, there were NO USN carriers fit for duty in the Pacific and we borrowed one from the British (HMS Victorious?). 

The fact that carriers were sent to the Pacific in 1942-1943 meant that Atlantic convoys were many times left without air cover until the CVEs became available in mid-1943 in any numbers.

The lack of enough US destroyers in the Pacific due to them being used in the Atlantic played major roles in the disasters of Savo Island and other Guadelcanal sea battles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I already said the Swordfish was the best torpedo bomber of the early part of the war. And Taranto was a victory for the Brits. But whether the battle was ever fought, it was not decisive as the Med is not an open ocean with lots of room for fleets to maneuver.



I disagree whoever controled the Med had the Suez Canal. Imagine if the Italian Navy had been left unscathed before the allies landed in Morocco and then later in Italy. The RN and the US Navy would have destroyed the Italian Navy then too but it would have been a bit more difficult to land those troops.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 1, 2007)

brickhistory said:


> ?Que?
> 
> On the strategic level, the whole "Europe First" strategy enumerated by FDR and Churchill meant that the Pacific Theater was hamstrung for reinforcements, supplies, etc until well into 1944.



The facts dont bear that out. The US (and ANZAC forces) where on the offensive from 1943 throughout the Solomons and New Guinie. There was the invasion of the Aleutions to retake Attu and Kiska. Plus the USN began its Central Pacific offensive in earnest in 1943. Far from being hamstrung, the US industrial supememecy was making sure everyone was getting equipped.



> The end of the European War meant that Stalin would turn towards Japan, definitely a factor in the end of the Pacific War



The war was essentially over for Japan before that happened. They had already been defeated militarily and physically. The B29's made sure of that.



> On a tactical level, among other issues, the scarcity of naval forces, particularly in carrier and destroyers was a consideration for both RN and US forces.



What scarcity? in 1942? In 1943?



> At one time in mid-1942, there were NO USN carriers fit for duty in the Pacific and we borrowed one from the British (HMS Victorious?).



You are referring to a couple month span in early 1943, when the US was getting its new Essex class carriers squared away. By the begining of summer 1943, the USN was going to deploy one fleet class carrier every month.



> The fact that carriers were sent to the Pacific in 1942-1943 meant that Atlantic convoys were many times left without air cover until the CVEs became available in mid-1943 in any numbers.



And it didnt impact the course of events, did it.



> The lack of enough US destroyers in the Pacific due to them being used in the Atlantic played major roles in the disasters of Savo Island and other Guadelcanal sea battles.



The disasters of the battles around Guadalcanal had more to do with supurb IJN doctrine and torpedo's and piss poor US leadership.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The war was essentially over for Japan before that happened. They had already been defeated militarily and physically. The B29's made sure of that.



That is the truth. Russia only declared war on Japan for 2 reasons.

1. Because they "technically" had to as an ally.

2. And probably the biggest reason was to try and secure land for themselves.


----------



## brickhistory (Mar 1, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The facts dont bear that out. The US (and ANZAC forces) where on the offensive from 1943 throughout the Solomons and New Guinie. There was the invasion of the Aleutions to retake Attu and Kiska. Plus the USN began its Central Pacific offensive in earnest in 1943. Far from being hamstrung, the US industrial supememecy was making sure everyone was getting equipped.



The facts do bear that out. In shipping, manpower, aircraft - particularly heavy bombers - landing craft, and other logistical support, the Europe First strategy was a huge roadblock to Allied Pacific forces. One of the reasons the Normandy D-Day landings were delayed from May into June was the worldwide shortage of landing craft.

The successes and offensives mounted in spite of that in the Pacific is what's remarkable, but the events in Europe did affect the Pacific which is my point.



syscom3 said:


> The war was essentially over for Japan before that happened. They had already been defeated militarily and physically. The B29's made sure of that.



Actually, the USN's unrestricted submarine warfare had far more to do with the defeat of Japan; the B-29s did magnificent work and I salute those crews, but the starvation and deprivation caused by the sinking of Japan's merchant fleet did most of the damage.

Russia's intent to enter the war shut off the last hope of Japan's peace party who were attempting to use the USSR as a middleman in seeking surrender terms. Again, the ending of the European conflict upset the status quo in the Pacific.



syscom3 said:


> What scarcity? in 1942? In 1943?.



Until spring of 1943, when the US industries' outputs really started to be felt.



syscom3 said:


> You are referring to a couple month span in early 1943, when the US was getting its new Essex class carriers squared away. By the begining of summer 1943, the USN was going to deploy one fleet class carrier every month.



Sorry, your point is? Yes, it was a couple of months, but because no US carriers were released from Atlantic/Med duty (USS Ranger, et al), the USN's Pacific drives were delayed, thus events in Europe affected the Pacific.



syscom3 said:


> And it didnt impact the course of events, did it?



Hmm, winning the Battle of the Atlantic certainly did help the Allied cause. If they hadn't, even more resources would have been diverted from sailing west from California to stuff sailing east.



syscom3 said:


> The disasters of the battles around Guadalcanal had more to do with supurb IJN doctrine and torpedo's and piss poor US leadership.



Agreed, the IJN performed well and the USN didn't, but more screening destroyers would have helped in detecting the IJN force at Savo and might have prevented further Japanese reinforcements to Guadalcanal. I admit the last line is pure conjecture on my part, but is based on study of the campaign.


----------



## Glider (Mar 1, 2007)

There is a lot of sense in Bricks posting. The only observations that I would make are regarding the release of carriers from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As far as I can tell the Ranger is the only carrier that could have been released. 
My understanding is that one reason why she wasn't moved to operational service is because the USN didn't consider her to be suitable for the front line. Most of her time being spent in training or as an aircraft transport.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 1, 2007)

brickhistory said:


> The facts do bear that out. In shipping, manpower, aircraft - particularly heavy bombers - landing craft, and other logistical support, the Europe First strategy was a huge roadblock to Allied Pacific forces. One of the reasons the Normandy D-Day landings were delayed from May into June was the worldwide shortage of landing craft.



One of the primary reasons the D-Day landings were posponed to May to June was SHAEF wanted the AF's to continue their poundings of the Germans. Plus I believe the weather forcast for the may invasion date was definatly not good (I know about the weather for June 6th too.....).



> The successes and offensives mounted in spite of that in the Pacific is what's remarkable, but the events in Europe did affect the Pacific which is my point.



The allies were fighting in Italy throughout 1943, the same year the Allies began their multiple offensives in the PTO. The reason for the four month delay between the end of the Guadalcanal campaign and the invasion of New Georgia and Rendova had more to do with solving the unique logistical problems in that part of the world (how to get supplies from a cargo ship over a reef to an unimproved beach to a jungle supply dump in thick vicious mud, and vice versa). Once the PTO 1943 offensives began in earnest, it was a steamroller till the end. Nothing in Europe slowed it down. Nothing in Europe effected it. And vice versa.



> Actually, the USN's unrestricted submarine warfare had far more to do with the defeat of Japan; the B-29s did magnificent work and I salute those crews, but the starvation and deprivation caused by the sinking of Japan's merchant fleet did most of the damage.



Correct. But it was the B29's that mined the coastal area's that shutdown the final bit of commerce, and systematically torched the japanese cities. The B29's shattered the civilian morale as they could be seen and felt. The sub blockade was out of site, out of mind.



> Russia's intent to enter the war shut off the last hope of Japan's peace party who were attempting to use the USSR as a middleman in seeking surrender terms. Again, the ending of the European conflict upset the status quo in the Pacific.



Japan was going to surrender one way or another in Aug 1945. Russia had zero influence in the final analysis. By the way, how were lal those Russian troops going to find the amphib transport to invade a mountainous country in an area of the world known for inclimate weather at sea?



> Until spring of 1943, when the US industries' outputs really started to be felt.



If you are referring to the carriers, they had been ordered in the 1939 and 1940 ship building program and were finally being completed.



> Sorry, your point is? Yes, it was a couple of months, but because no US carriers were released from Atlantic/Med duty (USS Ranger, et al), the USN's Pacific drives were delayed, thus events in Europe affected the Pacific.



Now tell me what offensives in the PTO were delayed because of material being diverted to the ETO/MTO?



> Hmm, winning the Battle of the Atlantic certainly did help the Allied cause. If they hadn't, even more resources would have been diverted from sailing west from California to stuff sailing east.



The battle of the Atlantic was won in 1943, right when the PTO offensives started up.

In 1942, aside from Guadalcanal, and a single US infantry division in NG helping the Aussies...... the Allies were building up their logistical forces in the PTO to support future offensives. And that was infrastructure that had to be built from scratch in difficult conditions. And untill that work was completed, all the material that could have gone to the PTO was sent to the ETO because it couldnt be used.



> Agreed, the IJN performed well and the USN didn't, but more screening destroyers would have helped in detecting the IJN force at Savo and might have prevented further Japanese reinforcements to Guadalcanal. I admit the last line is pure conjecture on my part, but is based on study of the campaign.



The Battle of Savo Island was lost due to blunders by the allies from HQ down the line to the individual seaman. Plus to give the IJN their due..... they kicked our ass's with supurb night gunnery and torpedo's. No ammount of additional destroyers would have stopped the events of that night from occuring.


----------



## brickhistory (Mar 1, 2007)

syscom3, obviously we are never going to agree, but still enjoy learning about the subject.

Back to the thread topic; since the RN's FAA did adopt the Avenger in place of the Stringbag and its successor, the Barracuda, one does wonder why Brown rated the 'bag better.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2007)

National bias maybe? But then again the Barracuda was a British aircraft too.


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2007)

No question that during WW2 the Hellcat was a safer a/c to operate off of carriers than the Corsair, especially with low time pilots. However when it came time to make a decision whether to deploy the Hellcat or Corsair on the carriers one of the deciding factors was that the spare parts for the F6F were already on their way and in fact the Corsair had almost been canceled by the Navy. But, at that time, most of the deck landing problems of the Corsair had been solved and many Navy pilots such as Blackburn were convinced that the F4U was a war winner. That saved the Corsair. On May 16, 1944, A Navy Evaluation Board, after a series of evaluation tests, concluded that the F4U1D was the best all-around fighter available and a suitable carrier a/c and it was recommended that carrier fighter and fighter-bomber units be converted to the F4U type. Interestingly, the first deployment of the Corsair in the Pacific by the US Navy is on Jan 9, 44 on board the Enterprise and they are night fighters. However, VF-17s F4U1As landed on carriers to refuel after acting as a CAP during strikes at Rabaul on Nov 11, 43. Later on the majority of the VMF fighters deployed(because of a shortage of Navy pilots) were embarked on CVEs. So apparently our Navy and Marines did not share Eric Brown's opinion of the Hellcat versus the Corsair. Also Brown's comparison of combat of the Hellcat or Corsair versus the FW190 does not take into account any deck landing characteristics.


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2007)

Herr Adler, I think your earlier evaluation of Brown is correct and I think he is definitely not an objective authority. If you are talking about Royal Navy torpedo planes, don't forget the "successor" to the Stringbag, the Albacore. It may be that Brown just has a burr under his saddle because he was a Royal Navy captain and they could not get the RAF which controlled the development of all a/c before the war, to develop any good a/c for the Navy.


----------

