The F4F / FM-2 alone would have won the war in the PTO

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Interesting.
 
The magic number has always been 3:1 for a minimum chance of getting the win. It does not matter what time frame the battle occurs. Weapons systems like aircraft, cmbt engrs, and fascam are called combat multipliers. They are factored into the mix to account for the 3D battle field. The old USSR military were masters at battle field equations. Overall there could be a 3:1 or 4:1 advantage but one command would attack at 1:1 or 2:1 odds in one area in order to get a 7:1 in the main avenue of attack. The formulas are just another planing tool. It is like the OPORD, once you hit the LD you throw it out the window.

DBII
 
Hey guys I know I'm the new kid on the block but the Russians used to say something like "there is a certain quality about quantity" which is kind of what"Broncazonk may be trying to say.

Now I agree with other points mentioned like The USN were steadily getting better pilots / planes whilst the Japanese could not keep the pace. Again it may also be possible that the F4F / FM2 had the measure of what was left of the IJN / JAF but as some others said
1.)we know all this in hindsight
2.)why waste the lives when you have more effective weapons.

So theoretically if I was Nimitz / MacArthur with 100 Million pilots and F4Fs to spare well why not.
Thankfully reason prevailed

BTW Broncazonk I really liked the Civil War analogy.
 
I do not think this is a totally false statement as other have said, I just think it would have been too costly in human lives overall for many reasons to have just stuck with the Wildcat. The Japanese stuck with the Zero way too long after it was outclassed by many Allied fighters, and because of this lost most of their experienced pilots due to this after the Zeros weaknesses had been found out, and after faster, more maneuverable planes had been developed and introduced by the Allies.
 
Japanese may have stuck with "unimproved" models of the Zero or only minor improvements much too long.

It would not have really altered the course of the war but instead of getting limited design and engineering staff to design the "NEXT" great leap forward in fighter design they might have spent more effort in refining what they did have.

Easy to say now

But look at the number of other fighters that entered service in 1940 that were improved over the years.
While the Zero was changed and went through modifications they were of minor natures.
 
If the Japanese had at least upgraded thier fuel tanks with self-sealing tanks, that would have slowed the catastrophic losses both in pilots and aircraft.

I know the armor issue had been addressed and they were reluctant to add armor because of the compromise in performance, although some folks say the lack of armor was accepting that thier aircraft was inferior, I believe the former was more accurate.
 
The Zero was used by Japanese Navy units. How about all the other fighters introduced by the IJN as well as the JAAF? Could the Wildcat or FM-2 supported the tactical air to ground campaign over Rabaul and New Guinea carried out by the AAF 5th AF???? Could it had supported the tactical air to ground role performed at Saipan, Iwo, or Okinawa? There's more to this than just comparing the air to air role the Wildcat and FM-2.
 

And could the Wildcat handle the Kamikazi threat? The Hellcat and Corsair had all they could handle for that role, let alone an inferior AC like the Wildcat.
 
As already mentioned, the FM-2 could handle later Japanese fighers, in the overall circumstances at the time. That was shown in operations in the Philippines where CVE's were left pretty much on their own. The FM-2's claimed result for all of Sep '44-end of war, v the Type 3 (Tony) for example was 29:0, a claim but OTOH Type 3's proved unable to down FM-2's. FM-2's also downed Type 4's (Frank). And the FM-2's overall claimed fighter v fighter ratio was 26:1 v 15+ for both F6F in F4U in that same period, Sep 44-end of war. Many of the claims in all cases were fighter types serving as kamikazes, but there's no evidene the FM-2 was a much less capable fighter combat a/c in actual practice, against those opponents at that time. Only around 15-20% of F6F and F4U fighter combat losses were against the latest types (Frank, George, Jack) per USN stats, most of the opposition remained the older types, anyway.

Intercepting kamikazes OTOH was a weakness of the FM-2, although again it could do it, in the Lingayen Gulf landings the CVE's alone protected the landing force, which underwent intense kamikaze attacks and suffered a number of hits, but numerous enough kamikazes always had some successes. So the FM-2 could and did perform that role, but its slow speed was a definite practical weakness, whereas in fighter combat it was also a weakness in theory, but it's hard to find evidence it made much difference in practice.

FM-2's served as ground support fighter bombers more often than CV/CVL based F6F's. The FM-2 carried a lighter load, but fighter bomber results against land targets, especially well concealed Japanese field fortifications, were not usually very dramatic anyway. The main effect was on morale of friendly ground forces. And F6F's and F4U's didn't sink many ships. So, the FM-2 was a lesser fighter bomber but I don't think that makes much difference.

The problem with intercepting fast attackers is the most serious deficiency of the FM-2 in late war operations, especially since it wouldl ikely lead to higher ship losses.

Joe
 
There is probably no bigger F4F booster on the board than yours truly - wouldn't be here without it.

I agree with Dan, this is a silly proposition. Bring on the Hellcats and Corsairs!!!

Rich
 
After reading this post I cant help but wonder what the guys who flew from Henderson Field would have done if the F4U and the P-38F had not shown up when they did. Japanese aircraft as a whole where very good aircraft and more than a match for nearly every type they flew against, American or Allied. Yes they were lightly built and were not as well armored as ours, but you miss the only point that matters. PILOT QUALITY The japanese could not replace the experienced pilots and by the end of the war the average training given to the student pilot was little more than learning how to take off. Our war in the Pacific was a bloody, savage battle that cost thousands of dead and wounded.

Heartattack out.
 

Just a question, perhaps you could confirm. I've been reading from 1942 onwards the JAAF were routinely installing self sealing tanks and improved pilot armour, that is on the Ki-43-II onwards (Ki-61, Ki-44, Ki-84).
But that the IJN Zero famously didn't begin this practise until very late production, but that N1K, J2M were similarly well equipped.

So essentially the frailty of Japanese a/c was mostly exhibited and made infamous with their zeroes and bombers throughout the war, which was very bad, but even from the mid war period small numbers of contemporary new models were better protected particularly among JAAF. This muted by overwhelming Allied air superiority, force interdiction and descending pilot quality (for army forces as much a result of poor accommodation in SEA as combat losses, pilot interveiws of the Solomons army fighter pilots indicate they often flew when they should've been in hospital recovering from the tropical diseases excacberated by very poor logistical support, low morale and arrogant totalitarian leadership).

Methinks the Japanese situation wrt inadequacy was far bigger than fighter type comparisons, and whilst a contributing factor these were only one of many and not an overwhelming one under all specific examples.
 
vanir said:
Methinks the Japanese situation wrt inadequacy was far bigger than fighter type comparisons, and whilst a contributing factor these were only one of many and not an overwhelming one under all specific examples.
Click to expand...


From my readings, i'd say thats the case in all situations. Air combat is impacted by such a deleriously large number of variables, many of them outside the pilot+plane combination that it can make one's head spin. Unless one or more of these variables is badly out of wack (including plane/pilot), the kill ratio comparison is usually competetive. The Malta thread highlights this point. BoB....Hurricane didn't do bad, but put it over Malta and it got roughly handled by the Luftwaffe. The Japanese over Burma did a similar job.

This thread kind of reminds me of the whole eternal Sherman tank vs. Panther/Tiger argument. Statistically speaking, the ground exchange was competetive even though the Sherman was obsolecent....hence many arguments rage about the Sherman's quality with arguments similar to those seen here. Going behind the numbers, yes....the Sherman ended up being "good enough" as part of an overall military/industrial machine complex that as a whole was greatly superior to the Germans in the West circa 1944-45 (esp when one cites Air Superiority), but what some authors have argued most forcefully (such as Belton Cooper, author of "Deathtraps"), is that much bloodshed could have been saved had the US Army upgraded it's main battle tank instead of sticking to the mass produced Sherman. Either way, the war would have been won....it just comes down to a matter of human cost and arguably...the pace of the war itself.
 
I'd say that F6F and F4U were not essential to US victory but made it clearly easier. F4F/FM-2 could have prevailled but with greater cost.

On ground attack role, now one main mission of air units of CVE s in Pacific was to provide ground attack support to amphipious landings, that was mostly done by Avengers but also FM-2s did that.

Juha
 
I agreed with Broncazonk that FM-2 and F4F will have win the fight in PTO. The mass claim of Japanese Planes loss by Hellcat and Corsairs proved that poorly trained japanese pilots were the main cause rather than their machines. The Wildcat can downed 29 Ki-61 without losses.([url]http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=91733&sid=a24c83751976632720b83509cb25ab7c)[/URL]. IJN Aces Saburo Sakai and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa could downed Hellcat using their inferior Zeroes. The reason of Wildcat having a lower ratio compared to Hellcat and Corsair is because they fought against the best IJN and IJAAF pilots. The US Navy wanted Hellcat and Corsair to engage in multiple role such as night fighter to attack other targets like ships instead of just airplanes alone as Wildcat are incapable of such roles. As a fighter role, the wildcat perform well and the they even downed Zeroes while saving the F4U in May 1943 over Guadalcanal. (Ace Vern Graham )Aces in Combat - Eric Hammel - Google Books
 
The Germans made a great big mistake by not replacing the Bf 109, the Japanese made a big mistake by not replaving the Zero with a more robust plane, and this guy wants the USA to commit the same mistake the other way!

5 years old or not, the notion is ridiculous. Why force the war to drag out longer by stubbornly producing obsolescent aircraft?

Thank heaven he wasn't a military leader in the war.
 
Looking back with 20/20 hindsight and KNOWING the mistakes the the Japanese made the idea does stand up. But DEPENDING on your opponent to keep making essentially the same fighter/s for 4-5 years with few improvements so you can do the same is very poor planning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
5K
SaparotRob
Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
12K
beers
A
Would any other designs like the Arado E.583, the Blohm & Voss P 215 or the Lippisch P.13a have been better than the Horten Ho 229?
Replies
1
Views
1K
bada
B
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
5K
Steamed_Banana
S
T
Airships in the WWII era
Replies
8
Views
2K
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register