Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Air group organisation had to change several times during WW2 to allow the FAA to cope with the ever increasing tempo of operations and the changing nature of the campaigns it was involved in. These went beyond simple adjustment of numbers on a carrier.Some more numbers:
5 May 1942; 25 Martlets, 1 night-fighting Fulmar and 21 Swordfish (data from Illustrious action report).
10 Sept 1942: six Fulmars, 23 Martlets, and 18 Swordfish. ("")
22 June 1944; 42 Corsairs, 15 Barracudas (Warship profile 11)
For a country of grass airstrips I wonder why British fighters always had such high landing speeds. What is the advantage of presumably such low wing loading? More agility I suppose.Might want to look at the Miles and it's landing speed again.
The Hurricane and Spitfire had rather low landing speeds. It was some of the later fighters that got high landing speeds.For a country of grass airstrips I wonder why British fighters always had such high landing speeds. What is the advantage of presumably such low wing loading? More agility I suppose.
The FAA's carrier fighters kept getting bigger while the USN go for the Bearcat.The Hurricane and Spitfire had rather low landing speeds. It was some of the later fighters that got high landing speeds.
Some people should be careful of what the ask for, they just might get it. View attachment 742244
A high performance carrier capable interceptor
Trouble is that sometimes the specifications were written by a committee and like the old joke says "A camel is a horse that was designed by a committee".
So sometimes you wind up with a camel when what you wanted was oval, flat track race horse.
This thing had a bigger wing than a Firefly.
The USN also set about developing this monster fighter in 1943The FAA's carrier fighters kept getting bigger while the USN go for the Bearcat.
Don't forget that the USN could afford to buy more than one fighter at a time. Also don't forget that the F8F-1 was only a small fighter when compared to other US fighters. It wasn't small compared to a Sea Fury, wing was 87% the size of the Sea Fury wing.The FAA's carrier fighters kept getting bigger while the USN go for the Bearcat.
This is about the time where a RN CBG equipped with radar, CICs and experienced fighter director officers (FDOs), can match any thus-far surviving IJN CBG, presumably equipped with the A6M5 along with a mix of D4Y, B6N, or B7A).
Any chances for IJN and RN carriers to meet in battle 1943-45?
Was there any instances where the IJN and RN carriers could have encountered each other in 1943 to 45? I'd like to see how a RN AFD carrier equipped with radar, single-seat fighters (Seafire, Martlet, Hellcat or Corsair) and modern strike aircraft (Tarpon or Barracuda) would perform against a...ww2aircraft.net
Throw a couple C6N's in the air group as well. Would be almost un-interceptable to everything except late model Seafire's and F4U's
A number of the quad Maxon mounts were trialled on US Pacific Fleet carriers in 1945. Photo of one on the Lexington.
Not successful and removed immediately after the war.
Too short ranged for dealing with kamikazes.Interesting that they required a fuel source! I guess they couldn't just tie it in to the electrical system of the ship for some reason? Do you know why they were not considered successful?
I always thought the water-cooled .50 cal would be best on ships due to the ability to just keep shooting. The regular air-cooled M2 is going to need a barrel change after 10-20 minutes if they are shooting a lot.
Too short ranged for dealing with kamikazes.
To ensure a kamikaze was dealt with satisfactorily when it was heading directly at you it needed completely dismantled some distance away to ensure that the various bits didn't carry straight on and hit you!! 0.5" couldn't cut it. Neither could 20mm. It was often said that when crews heard the 20mm firing it was time to take cover! 20mm were retained on US ships (increasingly as a fewer number of twin mounts) as they were manual free-swinging mounts that didn't need a power supply in the event of the ship losing power. Giving that 0.5" quad mount it's own power source also fulfilled that requirement. They also experimented with with powered quad 20mm
But 1945 was seeing increasing numbers of director controlled twin and quad, and even single, 40mm being fitted (with destroyers and destroyer escorts sacrificing TT to do it). That was seen as the way to go.
The next step was to move to automatic 3" mounts, which was the smallest calibre that could take a proximity fuse at that time.
Kamikazes were a kind of unique problem.
They did keep .50 machine guns in the Navy though long after WW2, in fact many ships still have them. Not sure about quad mounts though. I think they are largely for dealing with small craft or obstacles etc.
Quite right.Sure, a 50 might be plenty to deal with potential suicide bombers coming towards you at 30 knots in a small boat. Quite a different prospect hitting a jet or missile going 500 knots.