Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This is from First Team, V1 (from my post 240):Please show me where I ever wrote that. Maybe you confused "better than a Hurricane" with "superb". There is a LOT of mileage between a Hurricane in 1942 and "superb"
No, as you, me, and everyone else reading this thread knows very well, I was literally posting links to ALL the performance figures from WW2aircraftPerformance.org except the one you cherry picked. Please show me where those were all "prototype" performance figures. There is always variance in testing.
You have been quoting from First Team a lot. Here is what First Team says about the F4F-4 (volume 1, page 140 - link via google books here:
Top speed 278 knots / 320 mph, initial climb 2,190, 12.4 minutes to 20,000 feet. Did he cherry pick that? Because it's very similar to the numbers I posted.
Who precisely has their thumb on the scale here? Who is emphasizing outlier data and demanding we ignore everything else?
Actually IJN carriers were perhaps inferior in design, they did not have armored decks and their hangars were totally enclosed, kinda' the worst of both worlds. Shattered Sword gives a good comparison (albeit a quick two paragraphs or so) on this. The enclosed hangars apparently magnified bomb hits in said hangars as the force of the explosion had no where to vent. Also they IJN crews couldn't dump ordinance out of an open side like the USN carrier crews could.Nice spin on the whole thing I'll give you that.
But I see no evidence to assume that Japanese carriers were in any way inferior to USN or RN types. Those armored decks didn't seem to save RN CVs getting sunk right and left - they lost 14 which is a lot considering they weren't part of any major carrier battles.
Schweik,
'Those armored decks didn't seem to save RN CVs getting sunk right and left - they lost 14 which is a lot considering they weren't part of any major carrier battles'.
The RN lost 5 CVs during WW2.
3 to torpedo (u-boat) Courageous, Eagle and Ark Royal; 1 to surface gunfire , Glorious; and 1 to air attack, Hermes
AFAIK none of them had armoured decks ( Illustrious onwards)
Tom
Actually IJN carriers were perhaps inferior in design, they did not have armored decks and their hangars were totally enclosed, kinda' the worst of both worlds. Shattered Sword gives a good comparison (albeit a quick two paragraphs or so) on this. The enclosed hangars apparently magnified bomb hits in said hangars as the force of the explosion had no where to vent. Also they IJN crews couldn't dump ordinance out of an open side like the USN carrier crews could.
USN = No armored decks but open hangars for ventilation/ordinance disposal and the ability to warm up aircraft in the hangar.
RN = Armored decks with good ventilation although not open to the sea like USN ships.
IJN = No armored decks and no ventilation or ordinance disposal capability i.e. worst of both worlds.
Other than that I agree with you pretty much on the carriers.
Cheers
I was going to post something very similar myself.Probably PTO was richer in targets? Just thinking aloud.
This is from First Team, V1 (from my post 240):
It was the USN themselves that stated that the F4F-4 performed poorly, with a very poor climb rate:
"Fighting Six spent the last few days of March learning about the new model Grumman they would take into battle. They were not impressed: "The planes are like a TBD with a fish,"(7) a grave insult. On 1 April, Gray led a division of four F4F-4s out to the Enterprise at sea for training exercises. He observed the mock torpedo attack on the carrier by Torpedo Six, then landed on board to demonstrate to the air department the features of the F4F-4. That day the squadron took delivery of fifteen F4F-4s just arrived from the West Coast. This was the beginning of a big exchange of aircraft, so Fighting Six would have all available F4F-4s. Gray turned over most of his F4F-3s to Fighting Three and ended up with twenty-three F4F-4s and four F4F-3s. Fighting Six was the first carrier fighting squadron to attain the recommended operating strength of twenty-seven airplanes.
On 3 April with the Enterprise back in port, Fighting Six shifted back to NAS Pearl Harbor to install new gear and commission the factory-fresh planes. Three days later Gray shot off a rocket to Halsey offering his opinion of the Grumman F4F-4 fighter.(8) The performance of the folding wing Wildcat was "exceedingly unsatisfactory." The weight, he felt, simply was too much for the available horsepower, a fact most detrimental to the aircraft's climb and maneuverability. He noted that the F4F-4 had the "feel of a fully loaded torpedo plane." In tests, VF-6 pilots discovered that the climb rate of a fully loaded F4F-4 was only 1,500 feet per minute up to 15,000 feet. Thereafter even that anemic climb rate fell off drastically to 600 feet per minute at 22,000 feet of altitude. Gray found it took almost forty minutes and nearly half of the fuel supply to coax an F4F-4 up to 32,000 feet..." (Lundstrom, First Team).
After Midway, where 28 IJN strike aircraft, in two strikes were able to penetrate the USN GCI directed air defence where the USN had about 60 available fighters, Nimitz sent off a message urgently requesting Merlin engined fighters:
"..Spruance and Browning rated the Grumman Wildcat "greatly inferior'' in comparison with the nimble Japanese
Zero. On 20 June Nimitz relayed their fears to King, noting the "extreme and apparently
increased superiority performance of 0 fighters'' was mitigated only by the vulnerability
of Japanese planes and the superior tactics of the U.S. Navy fighter pilots. "Overall results
have been bad and will be serious and potentially decisive with improvement that must
be expected in enemy tactics.'' Remarkably he called for army Curtiss P-4OF Warhawk
fighters to replace navy F4F Wildcats and Brewster F2A Buffaloes in all marine fighting
squadrons defending forward bases and even asked that the P-4OF "or comparable type"
be tested for carrier suitability; In the meantime the F4F-4s must be lightened, and their
ammunition supply increased even should that require reverting to four guns in place of six.
The swift introduction of the Vought F4U-1 Corsair fighter was an "absolute priority.'' Thus
after Midway the top fleet commanders experienced a serious crisis of confidence over the
effectiveness of the basic U.S. carrier fighter, a worry that would soon influence Fletcher's
most controversial command decision..."
(Black Shoe carrier Admiral, p.200)
The problems in USN GCI fighter direction are detailed in Friedman's Fighters Over the Fleet, but it exacerbated the issues with the F4F-4, since they had such a poor climb rate that it was essential that radar GCI directed them accurately and in sufficient numbers to break up the IJN attacks. By Mid 1942, the RN FAA had had over two years experience with radar GCI and they used it to make effective use of the Fulmar, for example, which had a similarly poor rate of climb:
"The aircraft on board the British carriers were inferior to the
attackers [PEDESTAL] in performance, but that was more than balanced by superior
tactics based on radar fighter direction. The US Navy agreed that at this
point British fighter control was superior. In July 1943, with the US
carrier force badly drawn down, Victorious operated with Saratoga in the
Southwest Pacific. Because her fighter-control techniques were considered
superior, she was made fighter carrier, with all the fighters of both
carriers on board: thirty-six Martlets and twenty-four US F4F-4s." (Friedman, Fighters Over the Fleet)
I was actually going somewhere with this but then, you know.Off the top of my head, we're comparing 1st and 2nd generation carriers (close enough). Akagi and Kaga were conversions. At their time of "construction" nobody knew what to do with carriers. The earlier RN carriers were pretty much in the same boat. The early American aircraft carriers, CV-2 and CV-3 were the coolest looking aircraft carriers ever built.
The Lexingtons had twin 8"(?) gun turrets right by the island.
So your whole, frequently reposted statistical analysis of IJN sorties vs. RN / USN carriers is shown to be B.S., and all you can resort to is repeating the same mid-war report you already posted three times, and some subjective commentary by a modern author?
Here are some of the objective facts:
- The F4F, in various forms remained the main Naval and Marine Corps fighter for the US until late 1943 when the F6F finally started to arrive. The Marines started to get some F4U Corsairs from February 1943 but in small numbers, and it took a while to figure out how to use it. It was the F4F, undoubtedly a mediocre design, which held the line against the IJN, and along with some land based types, and in fact broke the back of the Japanese naval air forces in WW2
- That report you posted was only one side of a debate about the F4F-F, and was not the last word.
- With the right tactics, including but not limited to Thach Weave, the F4F became a viable opponent to the excellent Japanese fighters (despite it's mediocre performance)
- The same is also true for many land based types such as the P-40 and in the Pacific, China, and the MTO, and the P-38 and F4U in the Pacific
- No Hurricane unit ever did successfully make this kind of adaptation in any Theater however and by the end of 1942 they were no longer operating as front line fighters
- The Hurricane and Sea Hurricane by contrast, were marginal performers (similar to the Wildcat) but with extremely limited range and endurance, as noted by numerous British pilots and commanders
- The Fulmar was a marginal performer and a marginal dogfighter, and was too slow and low-flying to intercept many Axis bombers
- The US could have certainly acquired Sea Hurricanes if they wanted them, God knows enough Hurricanes were being produced including in Canada,
- but instead it was the other way around, the British acquired as many Martlets and later Hellcats as they could get.
But still, cool?Apparently Lexingtons big guns were taken off and made into shore defense cannon in March 42