A Radial Engined Fighter for the Australians to build (and maybe the Chinese and Indians)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

So no fleet carrier action from F6Fs until Oct 43. The fighter activity with F6Fs prior to that was with land based units, in the Solomons?

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. My post said first MAJOR battles with Zero fighters occurred during October 5/6 1943. There were definitely clashes between the IJNAF and carrier based Hellcats before these dates. How else would VF-12 score the first fleet A6M kill on September 25th? It would be correct to say however that land-based Hellcats were more successful before October (with 24 victories compared to five).

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I was then told this meant i was getting my sources from Wikipedia. It seems there were some F6F units active in the Solomons from mid 1943 (well, late Summer 1943) and they were engaged in combat. But I gather (ready to be proven wrong on this) that navy F6Fs were not heavily engaged until the fall of that year. I gather they did shoot down some flying boats in August.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia has one aerial victory on September 1st 1943 and then fails to mention any combat activity for the F6F for almost two and one half months. You happen to mention this victory as well and that the first "real engagement" for the F6F occurred over Tarawa on November 23rd 1943. Strangely, this happens to be the next sentence of the article too...

If you want to diminish the role of the F6F Hellcat in the PTO and it's contributions in the defeat of Japan you must at least be willing to discuss it's full combat record. Earlier I posted the Action Sorties for the months leading up to the Tawara campaign and the numbers clearly show the sustained involvement of the F6F in combat operations before this time. Glossing over this activity is a major injustice to history and the individuals who were part of it.

But you can draw your own conclusions however and believe what you want. Many seem to feel that the war in the PTO was basically over before Hellcat and it's arrival had little to do with the outcome of events. I believe otherwise. But this can be a very contentious discussion and will definitely require it's own thread.

Hopefully we can at least agree that the Wildcat WAS NOT the primary USN fighter type up through the end of 1943 (as stated earlier in this thread).

DarrenW said:

This is incorrect. My post said first MAJOR battles with Zero fighters occurred during October 5/6 1943. There were definitely clashes between the IJNAF and carrier based Hellcats before these dates. How else would VF-12 score the first fleet A6M kill on September 25th? It would be correct to say however that land-based Hellcats were more successful before October (with 24 victories compared to five).

Click to expand...

I only meant in terms of scale - one or two small engagements while no doubt of immense importance to the pilots involved, were not pivotal to the outcome of the war. Right?

DarrenW said:

Wikipedia has one aerial victory on September 1st 1943 and then fails to mention any combat activity for the F6F for almost two and one half months. You happen to mention this victory as well and that the first "real engagement" for the F6F occurred over Tarawa on November 23rd 1943. Strangely, this happens to be the next sentence of the article too...

Click to expand...

I think there is a reason why Wikipedia says that, and it's not because some editor on there made it up, it's kind of a shorthand of the career of the Hellcat which has been repeated (correctly or otherwise) in many books and online publications for far longer than Wikipedia has existed. I appreciate you pointing out that is in error by a couple of months.

DarrenW said:

If you want to diminish the role of the F6F Hellcat in the PTO and it's contributions in the defeat of Japan you must at least be willing to discuss it's full combat record.

Click to expand...

I do not want to diminish the role of the F6F in the PTO (or anywhere else) I was making a much more specific point than that, which you perhaps missed. You can read that post here if you are interested. I said the F4F was key to the 'pivotal' moment of the war, as in the moment where the Japanese momentum for expansion stopped, and the Japanese went on the defensive. Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Milne Bay, Battle of Santa Cruz etc.

Let me be clear again though: I believe the F6F was the single most important factor in the destruction of the Japanese navy and army air forces from the moment it became fully engaged with them. The F6F destroyed far more Japanese aircraft than any other fighter type in any other military branch.

DarrenW said:

Earlier I posted the Action Sorties for the months leading up to the Tawara campaign and the numbers clearly show the sustained involvement of the F6F in combat operations before this time. Glossing over this activity is a major injustice to history and the individuals who were part of it.

Click to expand...

I think it is absurd to suggest that i was attempting to do an injustice to the pilots or naval crew involved in any engagement in WW2. But we can't say that every engagement was pivotal or even significant to the war, no matter how dramatic it was to those who fought. Would you say that the Fairey Battle was pivotal to the outcome of WW2? How about the Vought Vindicator? The US and UK versions of the Brewster Buffalo? Does an answer in the negative mean you are disparaging the pilots who flew them?

DarrenW said:

But you can draw your own conclusions however and believe what you want. Many seem to feel that the war in the PTO was basically over before Hellcat and it's arrival had little to do with the outcome of events. I believe otherwise. But this can be a very contentious discussion and will definitely require it's own thread.

Click to expand...

I certainly did not say that. Nor did I intend to convey that impression, and I did not mean to offend you or ruffle your feathers. I am very glad to see any operational history data (or other technical data for that matter). I was making a point about production numbers vs. impact on the outcome of the war, which was aggressively challenged, so I cited Wildcat / Hellcat as an example. This may not have been as good of an example as some of the others I posted since the Hellcat did also have a very important impact, it was just in the phase I call 'the beatdown' rather than the 'pivot point'. We can agree, I think, that no Hellcats were present at Midway, right?

DarrenW said:

Hopefully we can at least agree that the Wildcat WAS NOT the primary USN fighter type up through the end of 1943 (as stated earlier in this thread).

Click to expand...

I agree! I would now say the Wildcat was the primary USN fighter type through late summer of 1943. Thank you for correcting me.

This doesn't change my premise though.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I think there is a reason why Wikipedia says that, and it's not because some editor on there made it up, it's kind of a shorthand of the career of the Hellcat which has been repeated (correctly or otherwise) in many books and online publications for far longer than Wikipedia has existed. I appreciate you pointing out that is in error by a couple of months.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that these two facts about the Hellcat were "made up". I merely said it is a huge glossing over of the fighter's introduction to combat. I'm ok with dropping the discussion on this matter if you are.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I certainly did not say that. Nor did I intend to convey that impression, and I did not mean to offend you or ruffle your feathers.

Click to expand...

Seriously, no offense taken.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

think it is absurd to suggest that i was attempting to do an injustice to the pilots or naval crew involved in any engagement in WW2. But we can't say that every engagement was pivotal or even significant to the war, no matter how dramatic it was to those who fought. Would you say that the Fairey Battle was pivotal to the outcome of WW2? How about the Vought Vindicator? The US and UK versions of the Brewster Buffalo? Does an answer in the negative mean you are disparaging the pilots who flew them?

Click to expand...

It's not about drama or hyping up the importance of events which occurred. This forum was created to discuss aircraft down to the most minute detail. There is no reason to talk in generalities to many of us here who have basically studied military aviation our entire lives. This isn't 10 grade history class after all...

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I agree! I would now say the Wildcat was the primary USN fighter type through late summer of 1943. Thank you for correcting me.

Click to expand...

This was the whole reason I chimed in on this discussion. The Wildcat was on it's way out as the main USN fighter by early 1943 and it's use slowly diminished over a period of about six months. A great example of this is the victory counts. There were only 17 victories by carrier-based Wildcats in 1943, of which only two were scored after February of that year. By contrast carrier-based Hellcats scored 251 victories during the September-December time frame. So it would be incorrect to paint a picture that the Hellcat was basically a non-player during 1943 when it out-scored the Wildcat by such a wide margin.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Right wildcats (FM1 and 2?) were being used a lot after that on the escort carriers though to the end of the war right?

I believe British Martlets / Wildcats tangled with Bf 109s around Norway didn't they?

Click to expand...

On the 26th of March 1945 eight Wildcat MkVI of 882 squadron FAA from HMSSearcher were attacked by eight Me109Gs from JG5 over Norway. All six returned to the carrier (one damaged) and the Germans lost three shot down, one destroyed in landing and two damaged. 882 Squadron's last action was on the 4th of May 1945 when they lost one in an anti shipping strike action.

HMS Searcher was then sent to the Pacific with new Wildcats but the war ended before they got on station. The new Wildcats were all thrown overboard as retaining them post war would have cost valuable dollars.

DarrenW said:

This was the whole reason I chimed in on this discussion. The Wildcat was on it's way out as the main USN fighter by early 1943 and it's use slowly diminished over a period of about six months. A great example of this is the victory counts. There were only 17 victories by carrier-based Wildcats in 1943, of which only two were scored after February of that year. By contrast carrier-based Hellcats scored 251 victories during the September-December time frame. So it would be incorrect to paint a picture that the Hellcat was basically a non-player during 1943 when it out-scored the Wildcat by such a wide margin.

Click to expand...

While it may be true from one perspective, (as the replacement was certainly in the pipeline) and you have an ineresting point about the victory claims, this doesn't make sense to me overall, since there were no Hellcats in action on carriers until mid 1943 at the earliest, right? So Wildcat wasn't "on it's way out" in early 1943 since nothing else was in place.

yulzari said:

On the 26th of March 1945 eight Wildcat MkVI of 882 squadron FAA from HMSSearcher were attacked by eight Me109Gs from JG5 over Norway. All six returned to the carrier (one damaged) and the Germans lost three shot down, one destroyed in landing and two damaged. 882 Squadron's last action was on the 4th of May 1945 when they lost one in an anti shipping strike action.

HMS Searcher was then sent to the Pacific with new Wildcats but the war ended before they got on station. The new Wildcats were all thrown overboard as retaining them post war would have cost valuable dollars.

Click to expand...

FM2s were pretty peppy planes at lower altitudes, I saw one of them at a local airshow a few times some years ago and was rather amazed, i think it was the most acrobatic plane there. That's when I learned the difference between FM2 and the older Wildcat types. Of course by that time the German pilots may not have been very well trained which could also be a factor.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

FM2s were pretty peppy planes at lower altitudes, I saw one of them at a local airshow a few times some years ago and was rather amazed, i think it was the most acrobatic plane there. That's when I learned the difference between FM2 and the older Wildcat types. Of course by that time the German pilots may not have been very well trained which could also be a factor.

Click to expand...

Don't always judge a warbird's (like and FM2) performance from what you see at airshows. Although operators may do some aerobatics and low level passes with their aircraft, they are no way operated at their higher range of their "manual" capability. I know many warbird operators that will not do any adverse maneuvers or aerobatics, yet there are some who really fling their aircraft around. Thom Richard for one...

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

While it may be true from one perspective, (as the replacement was certainly in the pipeline) and you have an ineresting point about the victory claims, this doesn't make sense to me overall, since there were no Hellcats in action on carriers until mid 1943 at the earliest, right? So Wildcat wasn't "on it's way out" in early 1943 since nothing else was in place.

Click to expand...

Well firstly go look at the histories of the two remaining CV (Enterprise and Saratoga) in the Pacific after Oct 1942 to mid 1943 and look at how little they were involved in combat relative to what had gone before.

Second much of the fighting in the first half of 1943 in the Solomons was by shore based fighters, especially USMC units. From Feb 1943 those USMC units rotating into the theatre were F4U equipped and not the Wildcat equipped.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

So Wildcat wasn't "on it's way out" in early 1943 since nothing else was in place.

Click to expand...

Define "in Place."

Grumman produced it's last F4F-4 in May of 1943.
Grumman produced 100 F4F-4s in 1943.
They also produced a batch of 100 F4F-3 to be used as trainers but that was before the last F4F-4s were built.
Eastern Aircraft was tooling up to make the FM-1s in late 1942.
Only in the first few months of 1943 did the combined total of F4F-4s and FM-1s exceed the production of F6Fs.
By the end of 1943 Grumman had built about 1000 more F6Fs than Grumman and Easter Aircraft combined built F4F/FMs.
Grumman had built 589 F6Fs in the first 6 months of 1943 and would build almost 2000 more in the last 6 months.

F4Us weren't quite as dramatic.
178 built in 1942.
614 built in the first 6 months of 1943.
F4U total Production in 1943 was 2293 aircraft.
Granted it take a number of month for planes produced on the East coast to make it into service in the Pacific but everybody could see which way the flow of aircraft was going.
In Jan of 1943 the supply of new F4Us and F6Fs exceeded the supply of new F4Fs and FM-1s.

The question was merely how fast the existing stock of F4Fs could be replaced.

FLYBOYJ said:

Don't always judge a warbird's (like and FM2) performance from what you see at airshows. Although operators may do some aerobatics and low level passes with their aircraft, they are no way operated at their higher range of their "manual" capability. I know many warbird operators that will not do any adverse maneuvers or aerobatics, yet there are some who really fling their aircraft around. Thom Richard for one...

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm hip. Thom's P-40N is a bucket list thing for me, I hope to get down there and fly in it before I slip this mortal coil.

The guy who was flying the FM2 was the owner, and he definitely pushed it pretty hard, but you could just tell, the thing was agile as hell. Much more peppy than other Wildcats I'd seen previously (and more so than a lot of other warbirds).

Shortround6 said:

Define "in Place."

Click to expand...

Sure, glad to, that is very easy. I define it as "Actually there". In position to fight the enemy with.

There is a difference between "the writing is on the wall" vs. you no longer work here. Up until the end you still get a salary.

EwenS said:

Well firstly go look at the histories of the two remaining CV (Enterprise and Saratoga) in the Pacific after Oct 1942 to mid 1943 and look at how little they were involved in combat relative to what had gone before.

Second much of the fighting in the first half of 1943 in the Solomons was by shore based fighters, especially USMC units. From Feb 1943 those USMC units rotating into the theatre were F4U equipped and not the Wildcat equipped.

Click to expand...

Well, this is a bit misleading, I'm sure unintentionally. First, the Solomons weren't equal to the entire Pacific Theater at that time. Second, while there were indeed F4Us there, (I believe VMF 124 arrived in Feb or March 1943), and there were also P-38s there, (12th FS was based there and switched from P-39s to P-38s some time in late 1942 or early 1943 - somebody else can correct me on the exact dates).

But there were many older types of aircraft still flying in the Solomons from late 1942 through mid 1943, in particular Wildcats. As just one obvious example, James Elms Swett of VMF 221 got his Medal of Honor in April 1943 flying a Wildcat while shooting down (or claiming) 7 D3A Vals. I don't know precisely when each Marine unit switched over to a more modern type but it looks like plenty of Wildcats were still flying through mid 1943.

More to the original point, most of the enemy casualties in the Solomons though mid 1943, the devastating (operationally significant) losses in skilled IJN aircrew, were inflicted by USMC units flying Wildcats, mostly in 1942 but right up to the end of the Guadalcanal campaign in Feb 1943. There were also P-39 units fighting there and various bombers and other types through that same period.

Nor did all the new units coming in during 1943 fly the newer types. For example, RNZAF No. 14, 15, and 16 squadrons (Kittyhawks) were flying bomber escort and CAP missions in the second half of 1943, and saw a lot of action, apparently with great success. 15 RNZAF got there in April 43,14 RNZAF got there in June 43, 16 RNZAF got theere July 43.

Fighting was also quite intense around Papua New Guinea of course all through 1942 and well into 1943. Mostly US and Aussie P-40s and US P-39s fighting there (plus various bombers and other aircraft).

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Reading about the Boomerang and the Wirraway, it's clear that the nascent Australian aircraft industry had some capability, and they were eager to produce some aircraft with which to contribute to the war effort and to their own regional defense, instead of just waiting for aircraft to arrive from England or the US.

The problem with the Boomerang of course is that it was based on a trainer, so no matter how much they improved the design around the margins, they still had an aircraft that wasn't going to be able to tangle with Japanese fighters, or for that matter chase down and intercept most Japanese bombers.

So what if we pick another airframe and equip it with an Aussie made R-1830 engine. Which would would be in the sweet spot of easy to adapt, relatively easy to produce, capable enough as a fighter, and have the potential to be improved into a better fighter.

Some possible candidates:

Brewster B.239 / Buffalo
Bristol Beaufighter*
Fiat G.50**
Fokker D.XXI
Gloster F-5/34
Gloster F9
P-36 / Hawk 75
Re 2000**
Seversky P-35

* I think (?) they did eventually make some of these but what if they got the ball rolling on this earlier? The Beauforts were certainly worth producing.
** Assuming they could have gotten the License from Italy before the war started

...

Click to expand...

My 2 cents.

If I must chose, than for me is clear winner Beaufighter. Buffalo, Fokker, Hawk and Seversky are not really better than Boomerang so in that case why not just build Boomerangs? Italians are out of question (at least for me, too much what if) and Glosters were never produced.
However, Beaufighters were not capable enough as a fighter and have little potential to be improved into a better fighter. Easy to adapt and relatively easy to produce? Mayby, hard to say.

One more thing - as far as I know, all R-1830 engines Made in Australia were version with single stage single speed supercharger (R-1830 S1C3G) , you do not want this engine in fighter plane.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

(12th FS was based there and switched from P-39s to P-38s some time in late 1942 or early 1943 - somebody else can correct me on the exact dates).

Click to expand...

!2th FS operated in the following areas early in the war:

Christmas Island, 10 Feb 1942, Palmyra Island, 22 Oct 1942; Efate Island, New Hebrides, 19 Nov 1942 (operated from Fighter Strip No. 2, Guadalcanal, 19 Dec 1942-6 Feb 1943); Fighter Strip No. 2 (later, Kukum Field)

The 5th AF started to receive P-38 during the latter part of 1942, first missions in December 1943.

Farky said:

My 2 cents.

If I must chose, than for me is clear winner Beaufighter. Buffalo, Fokker, Hawk and Seversky are not really better than Boomerang so in that case why not just build Boomerangs? Italians are out of question (at least for me, too much what if) and Glosters were never produced.
However, Beaufighters were not capable enough as a fighter and have little potential to be improved into a better fighter. Easy to adapt and relatively easy to produce? Mayby, hard to say.

One more thing - as far as I know, all R-1830 engines Made in Australia were version with single stage single speed supercharger (R-1830 S1C3G) , you do not want this engine in fighter plane.

Click to expand...

Not a bad way to go. I think there is little doubt more Beaufighters would be useful, as every one in the Theater seemed to leave a dent on the Japanese. Plus the Aussies were building Beauforts so in theory the Beaufighter shouldn't a huge difference in terms of production (I'm sure someone can chime in on that one!)

Hawk would still arguably be better than a Boomerang IMO, and Gloster could have been produced, in theory, though it might have been a nightmare for Australian industry to figure it out.

FLYBOYJ said:

!2th FS operated in the following areas early in the war:

Christmas Island, 10 Feb 1942, Palmyra Island, 22 Oct 1942; Efate Island, New Hebrides, 19 Nov 1942 (operated from Fighter Strip No. 2, Guadalcanal, 19 Dec 1942-6 Feb 1943); Fighter Strip No. 2 (later, Kukum Field)

The 5th AF started to receive P-38 during the latter part of 1942, first missions in December 1943.

Click to expand...

So when did 12 FS get their P-38s? And did they rotate out in Feb 1943? Do you have the timelines for the other early P-38 units in the Pacific? I know that one of the 49th FG squadrons (9th?) got some pretty early, plus there was that operational training unit that Boyington and McGrath were in right?

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

So when did 12 FS get their P-38s? And did they rotate out in Feb 1943? Do you have the timelines for the other early P-38 units in the Pacific? I know that one of the 49th FG squadrons (9th?) got some pretty early, plus there was that operational training unit that Boyington and McGrath were in right?

Click to expand...

I'm not at my home right now but there's a great book called "Peter 38" which has always been my go to book about the P 38. When I get home I'll go through it as the author John Stanaway goes into great detail about early P 38 operations in the Southwest Pacific.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

So when did 12 FS get their P-38s? And did they rotate out in Feb 1943? Do you have the timelines for the other early P-38 units in the Pacific? I know that one of the 49th FG squadrons (9th?) got some pretty early, plus there was that operational training unit that Boyington and McGrath were in right?

Click to expand...

Ok - home at my computer. I'm showing the 12th, 39th and 9th fighter squadrons getting their P-38s late summer early fall, 1942. The first P-38Fs actually arrived in Brisbane in August 1942 but had some maintenance issues that preventing the 39th FS/ 35th FG from becoming operational until November 1942. About the same time the 339th FS/ 347th FG on Henderson began receiving P-38s as well. The 339th flew it's first mission on Nov. 18, 1942. The first notable scrap the P-38 was in occurred on Dec 27 when the 39th FS led by Tommy Lynch engaged Zeros and Val dive bombers. During this battle it seems the 9th were still operating P-40s and they were part of the fray as well. During this battle Bong claimed a Zeke and a Val. I'm not familiar with the OTU you mentioned but I don't think Boyington scored any kills until mid/ late 1943.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Not a bad way to go. I think there is little doubt more Beaufighters would be useful, as every one in the Theater seemed to leave a dent on the Japanese. Plus the Aussies were building Beauforts so in theory the Beaufighter shouldn't a huge difference in terms of production (I'm sure someone can chime in on that one!)

Hawk would still arguably be better than a Boomerang IMO, and Gloster could have been produced, in theory, though it might have been a nightmare for Australian industry to figure it out.

Click to expand...

The Australians built a lot of Beaufighters but in late 1941 they were still struggling to get the Bfort into production plus the Herc engines had to come from Britain and that was never going to happen before late 42 at the earliest. There was a Cyclone Bfighter but as far as I know it was a one off and had problems. I am sure that others will be able to expand on that.

FLYBOYJ said:

I'm not familiar with the OTU you mentioned but I don't think Boyington scored any kills until mid/ late 1943.

Click to expand...

I believe that was the 475th FG