parsifal
Colonel
I honestly think the success or failure of a given type has more to do with its tactical situation that it finds iteself in. Spitfires did quite well flying defensively in 1940. They did less well in 1941-2 over western europes in an offensive role. There was strategic success, but tactically it was pretty one sided. Partly due to the quality of the opposition, something also to do with the limits of the spitfire itself 9limited range mostly), and a lot to do with poor strategic concepts. The Spitfire did recover, and by 1943-4, was back in the game and giving better than what it was suffering. opinion, but at least arguable. In the pacific (land based), success for the spitfire was prolematic. Case in point was the darwin Wing, where the zeke remained a formidable foe. I am convinced that this was due to incorrect tactical employment. Many of the pilots in the Darwin wing were ETO vets, where the fundamental advantage over German energy fighters was to get into a manouvre battle. Against the japanese this was fundamentally the wrong tactics to use against the Zeke.
At sea , the seafire had a terrible start, but by 1944, operational techniques were improving, to say nothing of the carriers on which they were embarked. seafires were not suited to CVEs and were in their wrong element in the super still conditions off Salerno. Operational techniques were also faulty. By 1945 this situation had been addressed, such that by 1945, the whole results had turned around.
So the spitfire/Seafire war experience was a bit patchy, whereas the Hellcat, operating from a single user, in a single tactical situation, never had that issue. Certainly the hellcat was an aircraft made for the job, but is it fair to compare a single purpose a/c used for just the purpose it was designed for, to an aircraft used for many different situations, and stretched to the limits of its design as far as application was concerned
At sea , the seafire had a terrible start, but by 1944, operational techniques were improving, to say nothing of the carriers on which they were embarked. seafires were not suited to CVEs and were in their wrong element in the super still conditions off Salerno. Operational techniques were also faulty. By 1945 this situation had been addressed, such that by 1945, the whole results had turned around.
So the spitfire/Seafire war experience was a bit patchy, whereas the Hellcat, operating from a single user, in a single tactical situation, never had that issue. Certainly the hellcat was an aircraft made for the job, but is it fair to compare a single purpose a/c used for just the purpose it was designed for, to an aircraft used for many different situations, and stretched to the limits of its design as far as application was concerned