- Thread starter
- #321
I think we've established that the Wildcat and Hurricane were less than optimal naval aviation supremacy aircraft. That would definitely be a factor in comparing the different theatres.
In the North Atlantic, fleet defense didn't require first rate fighters. Breaking up unescorted bomber attacks was the task, not attacking/counter attacking opposing fleets. The convoys would put as much distance as possible from hostile airfields. Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes and Martlets would suffice if only to disrupt attacks. Anti-aircraft weapons were perpetually upgraded and increased as soon as practicable.
There may be some similarities between the PTO and the MTO, however.
Consider Axis airfields as unsinkable aircraft carriers. RN fleets maneuvering to avoid the "flight decks" of opposing air fleets. Scrambling aircraft up to altitudes those planes were not enthusiastic about reaching (No supporting data, just what I got from this thread). The quality of Allied aircraft was far more important in the Med and was found lacking. The attacks on the Med convoys were more incessant than the attacks on the American forces by the IJN/IJA. The LW possibly had superior planes to the IJN but no Air Force in the world could match the IJN in training, experience and dedication in anti ship warfare. At least up to the Battle of Santa Cruz.
The PTO was a battle between opposing air fleets launched from aircraft carriers as well as unsinkable aircraft carriers. Henderson Field, Rabaul, etc. It involved land based aircraft crewed by navy, army and marine personnel. Both side's air forces were (for the most part) trained in anti ship warfare. The Axis air forces in the PTO may have had less robust planes but they had the craft to put ordnance on target.
This may be where comparison differs. The PTO aircraft were designed (some better than others) and crewed anti ship specialists. The raids were fewer but more intense.
I get the sense you are a well-meaning, impartial observer in this big stupid debate, but I feel compelled to point out that almost all of that is completely wrong. So wrong in fact, that I need to throw in the towel after this post. But here are some points in no particular order.
- In the Atlantic, the main threat (by far) was actually submarines. The most important aircraft were PBYs, Sunderlands, B-24s (PB2Y) and TBFs in the ASW mode. Sea Hurricanes were adequate to see off the occasional Fw 200..
- Submarines were pretty substantial part of the threat in the Med too. And the Pacific. But only in the Pacific did you also have hard core fleet actions, carrier vs. carrier, battleship vs. battleship.
- The Hurricane was a great fighter in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. By 1941 however, it had really gone past it's "use by" date. Even the Russians didn't want them any more.
- The Sea Hurricane was a completely inadequate carrier fighter, partly because you can't have a carrier fighter with a 400 mile range and a 1 hour combat endurance, and partly because it was just an obsolete fighter that couldn't contend with land based fighters, or especially with the A6M. All they could do is CAP and they were very bad at that, read the history of PQ 18 as an excellent example, they couldn't even shoot down lumbering seaplanes like BV 138s and He 115s.
- The Fulmar was just an inadequate design from the get-go. WW2 propeller engines, especially in the first half of the war, were just not powerful enough to power a 2-man fighter sufficiently to be anything other than a glorified scout. It was sufficient to intercept slow, unescorted bombers at low altitude, but that's not enough for a carrier fighter.
- Don't even get me started on the Skua.
- The Wildcat was a somewhat mediocre design, inferior in performance to the A6M, which through good tactics and training - and leveraging it's better traits, turned out to be a moderate success. It was substantially better both as a fighter and especially as a naval fighter than a Hurricane let alone a Sea Hurricane. It had 2.5 times the endurance and twice the range for one thing. It was also better armed and more agile. It was the Wildcat which broke the IJN air arm, more than any other aircraft. RCAF has grossly exaggerated the deficiencies of the F4F, cherry picking one evaluation over all others, but in reality while there was a controversy in mid-1942, by the end of that year and for most of the next year, they were still successfully relying on the F4F to protect the fleets and escort bombers and more, and did so with success. Using tactics like the Thach weave and other standardized guidelines which became part of the training for all fighter pilots, they made it work. Much like Allied fighter pilots did with Spitfire Mk Vs and P-40s in the Western Desert.
- The Martlet was originally an export version of the Wildcat with a civilian airliner engine. It was far less capable than a Wildcat. And yet even so, it was far more effective than the Hurricane or Fulmar and the RN tried to get as many as they could. Gradually they improved the Martlet but it was always a step behind what the USN was using.
- The Mediterranean Naval Air War (as distinct from the War over the Desert in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia) was definitely not anywhere near as intense as the Pacific War. It was the minor leagues. Nowhere near the same scale as the Pacific War. The Pacific War was more or less continuous, with vicious engagements breaking out every few weeks, with no holds barred, and no quarter asked or given. It had everything the Med convoy fights had plus a lot more. Much bigger and many more surface ships. Much better and more effective torpedoes (on the Japanese side), many more aircraft carriers, and more modern everything.
- The convoy fights like Pedestal were up against almost entirely unescorted, obsolete Italian bombers and / or unescorted (though better) German bombers like the Ju 88. The latter was nearly impossible for a Hurricane to intercept (either over the fleet or over Malta) but more or less average land based fighters like P-40s easily shot them down. Only when the convoy drew within close range of the German air bases and within range of Bf 109s and MC 202s were they under any serious threat that was in any way comparable to the sea battles in the Pacific, and then only for a short time. The RN basically broke under that strain.
- The fact that RCAFson managed to apparently convey the impression that these were comparable in any way proves the futility of this debate.
- The A6M was by far the best naval fighter of the war until the Hellcat arrived in Sept 1943. F4U's were very good but they were land based at first. It was better than all carrier fighters and at least the equal of any land based fighter in the world in 1942.
- The fragility of Japanese aircraft, especially the A6M and Ki 43, is exagerrated. It mattered, but much more in terms of attrition warfare than in specific engagements.
- Similarly, the D3A was the second most lethal ship killer in WW2, the first being the SBD.
My final thought is, we all have our favorites, our allegieances, and so on, but if you appreciate history, you learn to accept your favorites warts and all, acknowledging the reality for what it was, it just makes it all that much more interesting and fun. Obfuscating the truth is not only pointless, it's just pathetic. It undermines the whole point of fora like this one.