Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[parsifal]

Ive learnt something about me over the years Aozora...never trust me with a maths question.....Ive always struggled with those zero numbers.....

 

[VBF-13]

USAAF Training was about 260 hours and the USN a bit more than that as they had to deck qualify which obviously took extra time and practice. There were some comments earlier in the thread about there being slack in the RAF training scheme. The only reply I can give is that I wish it was so. From roughly the end of the BOB to mid 1942 RAF training wasn't as good as the US training but after that it at least matched it. If there was any slack in the RAF system it was used to try and fill the gaps in the training given.

I'm talking about in the combat aircraft. A good round number for that for the USN encompassing all types would be around 100 hours. That would apply from January 1943 on. Give one morning or afternoon for their carrier-qualifications. Double those hours if you throw in the trainers and triple them if you include the biplanes.

 

[drgondog]

Glider - the F4U was in production. USN designated it the Ensign Killer as it struggled in Sea Trials, even as Brits approved it - but one simple fact remains. The USN could have done very well with F4U on carriers in late 1942/early 1943 and never missed a beat to the end of the War.. more operation accidents? - Yes. .. better air to air capability vs IJN in 1943?... - Hell Yes. Simplified logistics? - Yes.

I'm not disagreeing your argument of F4F vs F6F, just pointing to a better alternative relative to a.) procurement dollars, and b.) significant leap in Fleet Air performance earlier than F6F.

You're painting with way, way too broad a brush. Beware of the conclusions you reach.

??? outline the 'way, way too broad a brush' Please?

Let's get back to the carriers and the F4Fs, for a moment, and touch again on that theory. On the carriers, are we playing a game, or do we really want to know?

If you are referring to me - let's get off the F4F's as that isn't My thesis. Mine is eliminate F6F and question whether the USN/USMC looses much in 1943 by applying all F6F procurement starting in Fy42 and shove it to F4U production similar to NAA building plant in Dallas to get Parallel production for P-51s.

If we really want to know, we think of things like this. You referenced earlier our performance at Coral Sea and Midway. We lost carriers, there, sure. They didn't get the Enterprise, did they? You guys go on about our sacrificing carrier-building for the F6F. What do you think we were doing?

You have lost track of a.) who you are debating, and b.) the Point. I wasn't talking about sacrificing Carrier building for F6F. I was talking about how perilously close to a disaster at both Coral Sea and Midway had the Japanese gamble succeeded. The F6F would not have been available for any reason for another year, and only in small numbers.

We commissioned the Princeton and Essex in 1942, the Franklin and Independence in 1944, and a plethora of other, lighter carriers, in between. We were building carriers. The way this theory goes, we stopped. On the F4Fs, improve them? How? They ended up through two manufacturers, and they couldn't be improved, but marginally. Grumman knew that. That's why the F6Fs.

Why not slip back a few pages and discover what I advocated as contrast to what you completely lost track of?

Now let's get to this pilot-training advantage the U.S supposedly had over these poorer-trained Japanese pilots as also referenced in Wikipedia of all things and totally-unsupported in fact (follow the citation, and see it for yourself). I already went over that, but evidently it didn't get across. Again, go back to Parsifal's post #145. Look at "150 hours," in January 1944. What do you think that was, they took somebody off the street and put him in a Zeke and he's a pilot? That was after three months on trainers, which was after three months on biplanes, which was after three months physical training, which was after three months classroom instruction--or, if it wasn't that, that's close enough to what it was. That "150 hours" was 50 hours more than the U.S. pilots had in our combat aircraft. In January 1944, they were still ahead of us in pilot-training. If you can trust that "150 hours," that's what that means.

Let's finish here with the Zeke. It could turn inside anything. It was also very, very hard to hit. Think of trying to hit a falling feather. Those are the kinds of descriptions I've heard, over and over. And, it had longevity. It was built right, that's why. Credit the manufacturer for that. Hell, I have a 27-year-old Mitsubishi TV. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

PS: I debate TVs, too...

Please go back to debating TV's. You will sound more clever and win more arguments. You are debating me on points I haven't expressed, confusing my points with those advanced by others.

 

[parsifal]

sorry DG but sometimes you just crack me up. Remind never to get clever with you please

Sorry VB, but that was funny

 

[drgondog]

Parsifal - one of my favorite girlfriends and long standing dear friend to this day is from Oz. Whenever I wandered into a debate ring from her, she kicked my ass - and still does.

I learned some lessons there and working on New Zealand now...

 

[VBF-13]

Please go back to debating TV's. You will sound more clever and win more arguments. You are debating me on points I haven't expressed, confusing my points with those advanced by others.

Due to your formatting, I can't reference your reply in its entirety, here, as this is the only part that copies. Thus, if you'd care to re-format, you know, try again, by all means, be my guest. If you could do it less antagonistically, so much the better. I'd be more than happy to answer your questions, where I think can.

 

[drgondog]

Try what? I simply pointed out that you weren't debating with me based on any arguments I advanced in the discussion. You picked something up in the ether and the TV you were debating steered you in the wrong direction.

Summary - I didn't Ask you any questions. I wasn't 'writing' to respond to anything you said - that interchange you quoted was between Glider and me. You leaped into the discussion and sank to the bottom of the pool.. you have not experienced 'antagonism' but you stumbled on 'response to the clueless'...

I have been there before and it taught me some lessons regarding 'answer the question' and also 'don't answer when the question has not been asked'.

Do I need to reformat?

 

[drgondog]

USAAF Training was about 260 hours and the USN a bit more than that as they had to deck qualify which obviously took extra time and practice. There were some comments earlier in the thread about there being slack in the RAF training scheme. The only reply I can give is that I wish it was so. From roughly the end of the BOB to mid 1942 RAF training wasn't as good as the US training but after that it at least matched it. If there was any slack in the RAF system it was used to try and fill the gaps in the training given.

Glider - I wouldn't be hard on RAF flight training. It wasn't talent that pressed RAF delivery, it was capacity and weather. One of the rare things the US did was get a massive flight training program and infrastructure in play 1938-1939.

After that weather was the dominant differentiator between GB and US conditions.

Not to mention large dollars expended in many trainer airframes to integrate into Primary, Basic and Advanced. GB was strained to get enough Spits, Mossies, Lancs and the other necessities required to fight a war, with neither the manpower or material or manufacturing strength in US. Canada was also a major player.

 

[beitou]

How much combat training did allied pilots get? By that I mean was there any disimiliar aircraft fighting training, sort of WW2 top gun programme or was that left to in service squadron training?

 

[drgondog]

The last step before combat for USAAF was Advanced training in the airlane you would take to combat or close (i.e. P-40 in Advanced, Brief Clobber Collage in ETO, P-51 in combat). When the stateside pilot arrived in ETO up to mid 1944 he went to Goxhill to familiarize himself with ETO standards and doctrine - then he went to his assigned combat org.

No Top Gun until Top Gun and Red Flag during Vietnam.

From Dec 1943 to May 1944 my father had 200 hours in P-40 and AT-6. When he arrived in England he shot 3 touch and go's plus one landing and one take off in a P-51B June 2, reported to 355th FG on June 5th, flew his first combat mssions the next day and shot his first airplane down the next evening (June 6).

By this time most replacement pilots from flight school had 150 hours combined in Primary and Basic, then 100-200 in Advanced before being assigned to a combat group...Fighter pilots were on the high side, multi engine pilots on the low side.

 

[VBF-13]

Try what? I simply pointed out that you weren't debating with me based on any arguments I advanced in the discussion.

Oh, is that what you simply did? Read it, again.

You picked something up in the ether and the TV you were debating steered you in the wrong direction.

You are provocative, aren't you?

Summary - I didn't Ask you any questions. I wasn't 'writing' to respond to anything you said - that interchange you quoted was between Glider and me. You leaped into the discussion and sank to the bottom of the pool.. you have not experienced 'antagonism' but you stumbled on 'response to the clueless'...

We have private messaging for private discussions. This is a public forum, the last I checked.

I have been there before and it taught me some lessons regarding 'answer the question' and also 'don't answer when the question has not been asked'.

I'll certainly mind that when it comes to replying to you, not a problem.

Do I need to reformat?

No, everything you said copied.

 

[VBF-13]

How much combat training did allied pilots get? By that I mean was there any disimiliar aircraft fighting training, sort of WW2 top gun programme or was that left to in service squadron training?

The USN hours were split up the same way, around 100 in the trainers and 100 in the combat aircraft.

 

[Glider]

How much combat training did allied pilots get? By that I mean was there any disimiliar aircraft fighting training, sort of WW2 top gun programme or was that left to in service squadron training?

This link might be of interest

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/raf-pilot-training-ww2-26347.html

 

[VBF-13]

From Dec 1943 to May 1944 my father had 200 hours in P-40 and AT-6.

Drgondog, may I? Just on this? This would mean our fathers got in at right around the same time. These training hours are remarkably similar. Just substitute the SNJ/SNV for the AT-6 and the SBD for the P-40, and they're bookends.

PS: And it's my pleasure to make your acquaintance. FWIW...

 

[parsifal]

Ive got a book at home somewhere dealing blow by blow with Phil Sea. I will try and dig it out. but the guy states very clearly that the average hours for the US flyers was about 500 hours of training time and about the same in combat experience. thats about 1000 hours all up.

Ive also got the Japanese reports I mentioned earlier, which is backed up in the USSBS about Japanese training times. I got the experience levels for early war from Al nofi's book on the Pacific war.

There was a huge difference in experience levels between the average Japanese flyer and the average US flyer. There were a dwndling number of very experienced Japanese flyers who were able to take the zero up and usually survive, and sometimes thrive.....

In Australia, our air force rotated flyers back and forth between OTUs (Operational training Units) and frontline combat units. The new graduates on comletion of their flight training would be assigned to an OTU, where they rubbed shoulders and learnt the trade with the experienced flyers fresh from the front. The idea was that the experienced guys would teach the newbies how to survive. All the books I have read suggest the US used a similar system. It was far superior to both the japanese and German systems, where the poor new r3ecruits were thrown into the front straight from flight school. The difference was this, in the allied (Australian at least ) system the replacements being fed into the frontline formations had a modicum of survival skill passed onto them by the surviving verterans that had flown with themn at OTU.

There is no comparison between the unit capabilities of axis to allies in the early war, compared to the unit capabilities of axis to allies late in the war. And further, the japanese Air forces were so elitist at the beginning that they actualkly became vulnerable to losses....they couldnt replace the losses to attrition as efficiently as the allies. Its the same reason that the numbers game will win every time....the Japanese aircrew numbers had no depth, and so were susceptible to attritional losses. Thats precisely how they lost, not some magical uber fighter. That helped, because it sped up the attrition rate....it didnt cause or begin the attrition. The Japanese were already bled white before the Hellcat ever arrived on the scene

 

[bobbysocks]

Brief Clobber Collage in ETO, P-51 in combat

did he get clobber college at Goxhill or when he got to the 355ths base?? like your dad, mine only got a couple hours "familarzation" time in a war weary 51B before heading to the group. there he got a few more but not that much time before his first mission. i talked to guys who went in afterwards and they got a lot more hours and some actual training in tactics at clobber college.

From Dec 1943 to May 1944 my father had 200 hours in P-40 and AT-6.

i would venture to say ( maybe erroneously ) that the wealth of that was in the AT 6.

i dont know how they had it set up when your dad got to the UK. but later on the replacement pilots were in a "waiting pool" and as they needed replacements the fighter groups (both 8th and 9th AFs..and maybe even the 15th??) would send up a representative to pitch for their group. basically the only reason my dad went to the 357th was they needed 9 pilots and he was in a group with 8 other guys that went through training together. they volunteered to go there so they could all be in the same group.

 

[drgondog]

Drgondog, may I? Just on this? This would mean our fathers got in at right around the same time. These training hours are remarkably similar. Just substitute the SNJ/SNV for the AT-6 and the SBD for the P-40, and they're bookends.

PS: And it's my pleasure to make your acquaintance. FWIW...

My father was in Class 40-A for Cadet Training and graduated from flight school in March 1941. Snatched into Training command as an instructor and languaished there unto he commanded the 322 AAFFTTD in Miami Ok (RAF/RCAF Primary Basic Flight Training school, and esaped Training Command by volunteering for B-26s in August 1943. Then to Fighters in Nove 1943 and on to ETO in May 1944.

 

[VBF-13]

My father was in Class 40-A for Cadet Training and graduated from flight school in March 1941. Snatched into Training command as an instructor and languaished there unto he commanded the 322 AAFFTTD in Miami Ok (RAF/RCAF Primary Basic Flight Training school, and esaped Training Command by volunteering for B-26s in August 1943. Then to Fighters in Nove 1943 and on to ETO in May 1944.

Ah. I was figuring your father for induction in 1942, just going straight up through the program, so to speak. I see.

 

[drgondog]

i dont know how they had it set up when your dad got to the UK. but later on the replacement pilots were in a "waiting pool" and as they needed replacements the fighter groups (both 8th and 9th AFs..and maybe even the 15th??) would send up a representative to pitch for their group. basically the only reason my dad went to the 357th was they needed 9 pilots and he was in a group with 8 other guys that went through training together. they volunteered to go there so they could all be in the same group.

In Advanced, at Sarasota, he had only 4 1/2 hours of AT-6 and 4 hours in a BC-1 and speculate it was instrument "under the hood" time. When he first started training in the P-40 he already had more than 1800 hours and a lot of AT-6, BT-13 and B-26 time (~400 hours each) to add to about 400 hours of PT-19 time as an instructor pilot.

Most pilots did go into a pool while at FTG, but my father was fast tracked by Clay Kinnard who was at that time 355th Deputy CO who was anxious to get him there.

 

[VBF-13]

Ive got a book at home somewhere dealing blow by blow with Phil Sea. I will try and dig it out. but the guy states very clearly that the average hours for the US flyers was about 500 hours of training time and about the same in combat experience. thats about 1000 hours all up.

Ive also got the Japanese reports I mentioned earlier, which is backed up in the USSBS about Japanese training times. I got the experience levels for early war from Al nofi's book on the Pacific war.

There was a huge difference in experience levels between the average Japanese flyer and the average US flyer. There were a dwndling number of very experienced Japanese flyers who were able to take the zero up and usually survive, and sometimes thrive...

Oh, boy, now we're right on top of it. The Battle of the Philippine Sea. That's the one that really bothers you, isn't it? Tell you what, let's go there. I'll ask the questions, you find the answers.

It's 19 June 1944. Those pilots on both sides were inducted, when? They were inducted in the Summer to Fall 1942. How do we know that? That's how long it took.

The Summer to Fall 1942 was six to nine months out from the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese, just as we, were training new pilots, every day, before, during, and after Pearl Harbor. They had the population, the boys, just as we had. They had their "Pensacola," too. I don't recall bombing their training stations. Do you?

There is no comparison between the unit capabilities of axis to allies in the early war, compared to the unit capabilities of axis to allies late in the war. And further, the japanese Air forces were so elitist at the beginning that they actualkly became vulnerable to losses....they couldnt replace the losses to attrition as efficiently as the allies. Its the same reason that the numbers game will win every time....the Japanese aircrew numbers had no depth, and so were susceptible to attritional losses. Thats precisely how they lost, not some magical uber fighter. That helped, because it sped up the attrition rate....it didnt cause or begin the attrition. The Japanese were already bled white before the Hellcat ever arrived on the scene

Moving on, 545 aircraft, 408 go down, we lose 38. In a single day. According to Ray Spruance. Do you think our F4Fs and FMs could have done that? We were equal in pilot training. Don't forget that. We lost experienced pilots from Pearl Harbor through Midway, too. The Japanese weren't the only ones. Were they?

Think about it...