DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Yes I was well aware that the FAA flew Hellcats lol. That was my point.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes I was well aware that the FAA flew Hellcats lol. That was my point.The FAA had both. With a few exceptions, such as the Chesapeake (SB2U), it wholeheartedly welcomed the US carrier types with open arms, especially combat aircraft. Not only were they well built for the job, they were available in numbers. The Avenger, Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair saw extensive use in FAA squadrons on British carriers.
Now, we've mentioned this before, guys, this continuous dispelling of long held myths with factual evidence has to stop...
Seriously though, I'm surprised how long-legged this one has gotten.
Yes I was well aware that the FAA flew Hellcats lol. That was my point.
Say what you will about the British, but they are masters of getting the best out of the equipment they have, mediocre or otherwise. That doesn't mean they'll accept any old junk, but when forced to use indifferent types, such as the Skua and Fulmar, they still managed to sink major naval assets and produce fighter aces flying against superior types.
The US stuff was a godsend to the FAA, not just because of its quality, which was exemplary (you should read just how glowingly Eric Brown speaks about these aircraft, with the exception of the Corsair), but they were able to be delivered and pressed into service very quickly. This was, of course because of the poor state of the FAA before WW2 broke out, which meant that anything that proved to be good was pushed onto the field and thrown at the enemy.
Speaking of the Skua, there's another multirole mishmash. Good dive-bomber, but I'll pay you cash money to take my spot in a dogfight if I'm booked for a Skua. I get why they went for it -- out at sea, probably not going to face top-notch fighters ... but they armored the carriers because they envisioned fighting in the North Sea and Med, within enemy fighter range much of the time.
The Fulmar's record is, I think, more a matter of RN having decent radar and protocols rather than a great fighter, but you're right, they got 'er done with it. Whatever it takes.
Yup, agree. The fighter/dive bomber requirement was decided upon back in 1933, long before any of the guys in the Air Ministry could have had any inkling of the impact that decision had. Nevertheless, before it even entered FAA service in 1937 the Air Ministry expressed its doubts about it, so that never helps, when the one responsible for the idea later thinks it's produced an inferior product because of it. Blackburn designed a fairly average aeroplane that did what it said on the tin; nothing more, and with a little bit less than what was expected, but as a dive bomber it certainly met the criteria and proved itself handy in a fight, again through the determination of the teams operating it rather than through any outstanding characteristics of the machine. It certainly did not introduce any capabilities that didn't exist elsewhere, on both sides of the coin, as an exemplary dive bomber and as a mediocre fighter.
The Fulmar was actually a good aeroplane that met the requirement and fulfilled what was expected of it. It was designed as a stop-gap and was meant to hold the line until something better came along - that that took longer than expected meant the Fulmar was around longer than expected. Nonetheless, it performed very well against the Luftwaffe and the RAI in the Med, where decent radar protocols and what have you were not available when operating from land bases, which the type did. So it is easy to miscast it purely because of its lower performance, but it was actually a good aircraft, just not the best fighter and certainly not what the navy needed out of a fighter at the time. Again, its crews made the type's name as an adequate fighter that in a good pilot's hands made it a handful even for single-seat fighters.
So, Americans should thank you for existing in large enough form to allow for the operation, storage, and use of uncountable numbers of aircraft, vehicles, equipment, and men to effectively bankroll and hold down more than our share of a fight? Gee, thanks."Ummm, no, it if it were not for the Spitfire and Hurricane, and the Royal Navy (Besides the fact that there was no way for the Germans to get an invasion force across the Channel) there would not even be this natural aircraft carrier parked off the European continent for your P-51 to operate off of. Slow you roll…"
To be fair the most common German fighter in 1937-38 was the Arado AR 68Were I in 1-on-1 air combat I wouldn't want either. The Fulmar managed due to support infrastructure, but the Skua lacked the support as well as being deficient on its own. Not many aircraft-carriers had radar in 1938, so you'd better have a better fighter.
Both are warnings against designing multirole into an aircraft, amongst other planes we could complain about.
-Uppity British Major: In our experience, Americans are uncouth misfits who should be run out of their own barbaric country.
-Square-jawed handsome Matthew Quigley: Well, Lieutenant….
-Wormy British Major: ah-hem…Major
-Heroic Manly Matthew Quigley: Major. We already run the misfits outta our country. We sent them back to their natural aircraft carrier errr country.
It was probably one of the same chaps that had been heard complaining how English women were only interested in the young, strapping American soldiers with good manners, good teeth, and full wallets.Overheard in a pub somewhere in Suffolk in 1944...
"Americans, always late to a conflict and even then, they never stop whining once they get there..."
And in the Skua's case there was no MK III version and it took way too long for it's replacement to show up.
It was probably one of the same chaps that had been heard complaining how English women were only interested in the young, strapping American soldiers with good manners, good teeth, and full wallets.
Hurricane were beaten heavy against the Zero around 38 Hurricane for 6 A6MThey were going up often pedestrian pilots, but against competent pilots, the A6M wasn't all that.
Both RAF pilots in Hurricanes and USN/USMC pilots in F4F's were quite capable of holding their own against them if flown wisely - 2:1 in the Allied pilots favour was not that unusual.
I don't think anybody would say that maneuverability doesn't matter. Of course it does, and everybody wants it in their plane. But maneuverability alone does not make a great plane. The lack of armor and useless radios mattered. Oh, the Zero wasn't alone in having no armor; early Spitfires and Hurricanes and some other planes didn't have armor, either, if I remember correctly. But that deficiency was fixed by the British after combat experience was gained. But the Zero never had armor added. (Not in time to matter, anyway; I don't know about late in the war.) And since the Wildcat did have armor, it mattered a lot that the Zero didn't. The Wildcats also had radios that actually worked, and the Zeroes didn't. Good, rapid communication made tight teamwork possible.Another is that "manoeuvrability or acrobatic capability doesn't make a great fighter", yet oddly enough, virtually EVERY nation that built single-seat fighters, from the middle of the Great War to this day even, emphasise manoeuvrability
The ratio got better as time went on. It was around or slightly better than 1:1 at first, but with experience, improved tactics, and training, it improved to nearly 6:1 by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign. But the phenomenal early reputation didn't die, because early reputations tend to live forever regardless of new information.the F4F could get this rate [2:1 kill ratio] occasionally but this was not common
I've already replied on Guadalcanal, "AFAIK was more on 1.6:1"The ratio got better as time went on. It was around or slightly better than 1:1 at first, but with experience, improved tactics, and training, it improved to nearly 6:1 by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign. But the phenomenal early reputation didn't die, because early reputations tend to live forever regardless of new information.
I'm not 100% on this but I believe that 6:1 kill ratio for the F4F over Guadalcanal was against all aircraft, I think it was 1.6:1 against the Zero specifically as Vincenzo pointed out.The ratio got better as time went on. It was around or slightly better than 1:1 at first, but with experience, improved tactics, and training, it improved to nearly 6:1 by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign. But the phenomenal early reputation didn't die, because early reputations tend to live forever regardless of new information.