Battle of Midway, a better plan

XBe02Drvr · Jun 29, 2017

pinsog said:
XBe02Drvr: If you were skipper of the USS Wasp you would have delivered a load of fixed wing Spitfires to Malta, in a combat situation, as you were ordered to do.

A P-36 is not a Spitfire. The Spit was a grass field airplane, and could take off in the remaining deck space, even with a load of Spits parked behind it. You load the same number of P-36s on the same deck, and you better have a carrier pier and a crane at your destination, cause you're not going to fly them off, especially without the extensive special training the Doolittle raiders got. The Spit that landed back aboard was one lucky and skillful SOB. Compared to a product of the "Grumman Iron Works", the Spit was a relatively fragile machine. You don't base plans or strategy on that kind of luck.

pinsog said:
If you were skipper of the Hornet, you would have delivered 16 B25's off the coast of Japan, in a combat situation, as you were ordered to do.

The Doolittle raid was an all-out "Hail Mary" operation, a desperation move accompanied with plenty of protection and the option to abort if necessary. It only worked because of the intensive special training the Army crews got and the modifications to the planes and the weight stripped out of them. A huge risk to all concerned. If they had not had one of the newer carriers with their larger decks and higher speeds, it wouldn't have worked.

pinsog said:
US pilots have not fought Zeros yet? The 15 F4F-3's from the Yorktown would be flown by orphan pilots from the Lexington, they had just seen battle.

So you've got 15 pilots who've seen the Zero and are telling these fantastic stories of what it can do. Given the timeframe available I can't see them refashioning the training of the large mass of fighter pilots who've been taught to fight the turning dogfight. I find the 1 to 1 F4F vs Zero in the first six months hard to believe
. As for P-36s, their record against IJA Ki43s
should not b taken as predictive against Zeros. The A6M was a far more formidable machine and IJN pilots better trained. In the Netherlands Indies Kido Butai Zeros slaughtered Dutch P-36s.
Cheers,
Wes

RCAFson · Jun 29, 2017

mikewint said:
Of course, the month before at Coral Sea, Shoho was struck by at least seven TBD delivered torpedoes. There was plenty of time to set up and execute their attacks. There is some evidence that the torpedoes dropped in this case by VT-5 had been subject to some rather meticulous maintenance rather than just being hoisted up from the magazine, given a quick once-over, and loaded on the planes. There was also a small issue of production runs. The torpedoes used by VT-5 on Shoho were of a later production run, i.e., they were newer than the remaining torpedoes aboard the ship. VT-5 losses were none, the VF-42 F4Fs had already cleared out what CAP there was and the AAA was as typical of those days, a lot of smoke and noise. Two days later, against Shokaku and Zuikaku things did not work out so well. While TBD losses were minimal, VT-5 lost none and VT-2 lost, as I recall and without looking it up, 2, the torpedo performance was abysmal, no hits at all, any that came near a Japanese ship were easily avoided.

The torpedo plane business was recognized long before the war as a quick way to ones reward

I have to take the claims of 7 torpedo hits on Shoho rather skeptically. A 10,000 ton ship doesn't float for long after 7 torpedo hits and yet it took a long time for Shoho to go down. I suspect that most of the claimed hits were near misses by bombs from SBDs that were attacking at the same time.

XBe02Drvr · Jun 29, 2017

RCAFson said:
I have to take the claims of 7 torpedo hits on Shoho rather skeptically. A 10,000 ton ship doesn't float for long after 7 torpedo hits and yet it took a long time for Shoho to go down. I suspect that most of the claimed hits were near misses by bombs from SBDs that were attacking at the same time.

Or torps that didn't explode.

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

RCAFson: Valid point but, all these planes had either a Wright or P&W radial which all the planes on the island had. Fighters would replace around 30 or so dive bombers, 6 Avengers and 4 B26's, and supplement the 27 Buffaloes and Wildcats already there. Who ever serviced them could service these.

XBe02Drvr · Jun 29, 2017

pinsog said:
RCAFson: Valid point but, all these planes had either a Wright or P&W radial which all the planes on the island had. Fighters would replace around 30 or so dive bombers, 6 Avengers and 4 B26's, and supplement the 27 Buffaloes and Wildcats already there. Who ever serviced them could service these.

Clearly you've never worked in aircraft maintenance!

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

XBe02Drvr: "a P36 isn't a Spitfire" your correct. You need to read the British test of a Spitfire vs a P36/Hawk 75. A P36 had a MUCH LOWER wing loading than a Spitfire and was much easier to take off and land than a Spitfire, could take off in a much shorter distance than a Spitfire, easily turn inside of a Spitfire at will, and had a better initial climb rate than a Spitfire. (All of this is what the British said during the test) The Spitfire was much faster and could dictate engagement by breaking off at will. A P36 weighed about 5700 to 5900 pounds vs an F4F-3 coming in at 7,300 or so. Delivering P36's a day or 2 before the battle is not s problem. No Japanese around, not even submarines or scout planes. Get within 400 miles of Midway (would get to 100) and send them on their way.

The Enterprise delivered 39 deck launched P36's to Hawaii in 1940 or 1941. In fact, these 22 P36's are part of that shipment. It was the first time in history that army aircraft were launched from a US Navy carrier. No crane needed, they flew them off.

If you don't believe the 1 to 1 exchange rate of Wildcat to Zero (this is after the war, verified kills, not claims) then you need to read The First Team volume 1 and 2.

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

"The Hawk 75A-2 was flown with aft tank empty at a loaded weight of 6,025 lb (2 733 kg) and the three RAF pilots participating in the evaluation were unanimous in their praise for the US fighter's exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonised controls. In a diving attack at 400mph (644 km/h) the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire, thanks to its lighter ailerons, and in a dogfight at 250 mph (402 km/h) the Hawk was again the superior machine because of its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-around view was better; but the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its very much higher maximum speed. In a dive at 400 mph (644km/h), the Spitfire pilot, exerting all his strength, could apply no more than one-fifth aileron because of high stick forces whereas the Curtiss pilot could apply three-quarter aileron.

"When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, both aircraft travelling at 350-400 mph (560-645 km/h), the Curtiss fighter's pilot could avoid his opponent by applying its ailerons quickly, banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk round in this manoeuvre and consequently overshot the target. In the reverse situation, however, the Hawk could easily follow the Spitfire until the latter's superior speed allowed it to pull away. The superior manoeuvrability of the Hawk was ascribed mainly to the over-sensitiveness of the Spitfire's elevator, which resulted in some difficulty in accurately controlling the 'g' in a tight turn; over-correction held the risk of an inadvertent stall being induced.

"Because of the difference in propellers, the Hawk displayed appreciably better take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on take-off was smaller and more easily corrected than on the British fighter and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective; but the Curtiss fighter proved to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive, making the Spitfire the more suitable machine of the two for intercepting high-speed bombers (which was, of course, the primary role for which the British aircraft had been designed).

mikewint · Jun 29, 2017

RCAFson said:
I have to take the claims of 7 torpedo hits on Shoho rather skeptically.

Shōhō and the rest of the Main Force were spotted by aircraft from Lexington at 10:40. At this time, Shōhō's combat air patrol (CAP) consisted of two A5Ms and one A6M Zero. The Dauntlesses began their attack at 11:10 as the three Japanese fighters attacked them in their dive. None of the dive bombers hit Shōhō, which was maneuvering to avoid their bombs; one Dauntless was shot down by the Zero after it had pulled out of its dive and several others were damaged. The carrier launched three more Zeros immediately after this attack to reinforce its CAP. The second wave of Dauntlesses began their attack at 11:18 and they hit Shōhō twice with 1,000-pound (450 kg) bombs. These penetrated the ship's flight deck and burst inside her hangars, setting the fuelled and armed aircraft there on fire. A minute later, the Devastators began dropping their torpedoes from both sides of the ship. They hit Shōhō five times and the damage from the hits knocked out her steering and power. In addition, the hits flooded both engine and boiler rooms. Yorktown's aircraft trailed those from Lexington, and the former's Dauntlesses began their attacks at 11:25, hitting Shōhō with another eleven 1,000-pound bombs by Japanese accounts and the carrier came to a complete stop. Yorktown's Devastators trailed the rest of her aircraft and attacked at 11:29. They claimed ten hits, although Japanese accounts acknowledge only two.

5 + 2 = 7

Lundstrom, John B. (2005). The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-471-X.

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

XBe02Drvr said:
Clearly you've never worked in aircraft maintenance!

Your correct, I haven't worked in aircraft maintenance. I do know that Midway had B17's, Catalina's, Wildcats, Buffaloes, Dauntless's, Avengers and Vindicators all deployed for this battle. The Avengers were pulled off a ship that arrived in Pearl on the 28th and flown directly to Midway. They flew 1 mission. Are you suggesting that every one of these types had a full maintenence crew and no one had the ability to work on a another plane with the same P&W 1830 engine as the Wildcat?

Tkdog · Jun 29, 2017

The presumption (i expect) is that there is more to a plane than just the engine.

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

Tkdog said:
The presumption (i expect) is that there is more to a plane than just the engine.

I understand and agree. But we aren't talking about a complete overhaul or long term maintenance, we are talking about keeping an early WW2 single engine fighter going for maybe 1 to 4 missions. I'm sure the maintenance problem would become less serious as fewer and fewer returned from each mission.

pinehilljoe · Jun 29, 2017

I think the most plausible "might have been" is if CDR Stanhope Ring the CO of Hornet's Air Group had listened to LCDR Waldron and flown with him to the Japanese Carriers. Hornets SBDs might have allowed Hiryu to be sunk in the first wave.

A more far fetched what if is if a squadron of A-20s were on Midway, trained in skip bombing.

XBe02Drvr · Jun 29, 2017

pinsog said:
Your correct, I haven't worked in aircraft maintenance. I do know that Midway had B17's, Catalina's, Wildcats, Buffaloes, Dauntless's, Avengers and Vindicators all deployed for this battle. The Avengers were pulled off a ship that arrived in Pearl on the 28th and flown directly to Midway. They flew 1 mission. Are you suggesting that every one of these types had a full maintenence crew and no one had the ability to work on a another plane with the same P&W 1830 engine as the Wildcat?

As Tkdog suggested, a warplane is a lot more than an engine, and Midway was not an "1830 party". In fact only the "Cats" (Wild and 'Lina) were equipped with them. The others had either Wright 1820s (B-17, Buffalo, SBD), Wright 2600s (TBF), Pratt 1530s (Vindicator) or Pratt 2800s (B-26). We had both Pratt and Wright teardown radials at the mech school I went to, and I'm here to tell you, they're not in the same genus, never mind species.
Cheers,
Wes

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

XBe02Drvr said:
As Tkdog suggested, a warplane is a lot more than an engine, and Midway was not an "1830 party". In fact only the "Cats" (Wild and 'Lina) were equipped with them. The others had either Wright 1820s (B-17, Buffalo, SBD), Wright 2600s (TBF), Pratt 1530s (Vindicator) or Pratt 2800s (B-26). We had both Pratt and Wright teardown radials at the mech school I went to, and I'm here to tell you, they're not in the same genus, never mind species.
Cheers,
Wes

I understand planes are more than an engine. I also understand that engines are different.
That being said, this would be Wildcat mechanics working on s slightly less complicated machine that I would assume arrived in working order. They engines both 1830's the P36 version being less complicated than the Wildcat. I know each plane probably has it particular issues, but this isn't a Sopwith Camel mechanic asked to work on a B29. Do you think they flew out a group of mechanics to work on each different plane? If that's what they did, then load up a dozen at Pearl and stick them on whichever carrier has all the P36's on it. A Catalina can pick them up when the P36's fly off for Midway. Problem solved

XBe02Drvr · Jun 29, 2017

pinsog said:
I understand planes are more than an engine. I also understand that engines are different

And so are the tools, procedures, and spare parts required to support them.

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

XBe02Drvr said:
And so are the tools, procedures, and spare parts required to support them.

So, spur of the moment, we deployed 4 B26's with R2800's, and 6 Avengers with R2600's, just loaded pilots in them and sent them from Pearl, flew them there directly, 1 a complex multiengine plane the other a complex single engine plane no one had ever seen before, and they were fine, but we can't send some of the most simple single engine fighters left in the US because all the mechanics would just stand there and look at it, not knowing what to do?

Pick up a dozen or what ever mechanics and tools you need and load them on the carrier that has the P36's on it. Problem solved.

Tkdog · Jun 29, 2017

Is there berthing on the carrier? What spare parts do they need? Are those parts available? Is there room for them?

Again, what you decline to admit is that doing these things is hard. It's not just send the planes and Zeros fall from the sky.

Tkdog · Jun 29, 2017

And as for "did they have a mechanic for each type of airplane". Yes, yes they did and still do. Absolutely are going to have your personal qualifications standards done before you certify an aircraft as airworthy.

Now, one can (and many do) cross over from one type to another. But are you going to fly a plane out over the ocean that the mechanic hasn't touched that model before? I was talking with a WW2 vet the other day and they absolutely did some wacky stuff that would never be allowed these days. But the planners aren't going to *plan* to not have mechanics.

By the way, they also had to have a plan that could function if the Japanese were delayed for a week or two.

pinsog · Jun 29, 2017

Its a 770 foot long carrier, 2 day trip at 20 knots, we can pitch a tent for the crew in the hanger if we have to.
Deck park them, all the P36's and Wildcats could be deck parked on one carrier, the other used as escort. I guess you could stick then 10 folding wing F4F-4's on the other carrier if you wanted.

Did the B26 and Avengers flown out at the last minute carry a full supply of mechanics, parts, etc? Fly the first intercept, I assume they would at least fly when they were loaded, and when the 1st shot up plane lands, presto, you have spare parts

XBe02Drvr · Jun 29, 2017

pinsog said:
"Because of the difference in propellers, the Hawk displayed appreciably better take-off and climb characteristics.

I believe the tests you refer to were circa Battle of France between a Spit Mk 1 with a fixed pitch prop (pitched for speed over acceleration) and a Hawk 75A, a lightweight export version of the P-36 with a constant-speed prop. If you're not in aviation, chances are you don't understand what a huge difference that prop makes. By the time of Malta, the Brits had upgraded to at least selectable pitch, and in most cases, constant speed propellers. Major improvement in takeoff and climb performance.
Meanwhile, the P-36 was busy gaining weight, with fancier radios, heavier armament, and in some cases, self-sealing fuel tanks. So that British comparison of '39-'40 might not hold true a couple years later.
Cheers,
Wes

Battle of Midway, a better plan

2nd Lieutenant

Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Tech Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads