I actually see where Bronc is coming from on this one, and I largely agree with him. If it were "The US could win the Pacific Theatre with only the Wildcat as a carrier based fighter if the Japanese fighters did not advance past the Zero and Oscar, even the later model Zero's on Oscar's", I would fully agree.
Even with Japanese late model planes - these were pretty much all army planes, the Sam never made it in time. So carrier vs carrier, the Wildcat's are OK. The later land based planes of the Japanese would have been tougher - but with B-29 Bombings and Sub warfare, would they have been able to make enough of these planes, supply (above and beyond fuel, a big issue as well) all these planes, and even harder for them, train the pilots for all these planes, or at least enough of them to make a difference?
That Japanese airforce, naval and army for most of the war hit a death spiral of which there was no escape, and of which the later superior US planes were only a portion of.
The Japanese lost their airforce in the Solomon's campaigns - before extensive deployment of the Hellcat, and the Corsair influenced this mostly on the tail end. I think with Wildcats only the result would have been roughly the same. The damage the Japanese air force suffered in the Solomon's was well indicated by their lack of production in the Marianas Turkey shoot. The Hellcat helped of course, but the Japanese would have been hurting without the Hellcat.
The Zero was the better fighter - the Wildcat was far more survivable. Look at Japanese Air casualties in the Coral Sea, Midway, and Santa Cruz battles. This was roughly 50/50 (Not counting the planes/pilots lost when their carriers were destroyed/damaged - this is roughly even, with the Japanese having well trained pilots and the Zero vs. Wildcats.
The US had far better AA, with their 5"/38 probably the best dual purpose weapon of the war - Japanese dual purpose guns did not have as high of a rate of fire, many suffered from low traverse and elevation speeds, and the primary Japanese destroyer 5" was dual purpose in name only, with a low rate of fire, in ability to load while at a high angle of fire and slow traverse speeds made it useless as an AA weapon.
The US 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors were also both far more effective than the Japanese standard 25mm Light AA weapon.
Add this to the proximity fuze in 43 or so, and with radar controlled AA fire and the US has far superior AA fire.
When you combine this with many Japanese planes that did not have self sealing fuel tanks you can see why there were far more Japanese planes lost to AA fire
Most Japanese fighters had the same shortfalls, at least until later in the war. Lack of armor and self sealing tanks meant that the manuverable Zero was a fair amount less likely to make it home than the Wildcat.
Then again we look at how both sides could replace (trained) pilots. With limited fuel, the Japanese could not put out nearly the trained pilots the US could, and again this was starting to show before large scale introduction of the more advanced US craft.
Some important advantages the US had that are often overlooked relating specifically to the air war - A big one is vectoring of CAP. The US used it's radar to a huge advantage early in the war - they were able to vector their CAP better, which was in essence a force multiplier. The Zero was a better plane - but the Wildcats could be in a better tactical position with more numbers. The US plane radios were also more efficient than their Japanese counterparts, which also helped with better vectoring. The inability to vector CAP properly is largely what caused the Japanese carrier losses at midway - had they known the altitude and approaches of the Dauntless' they would not have been chasing the Devastators at sea level and been useless against the bombers. Of course, if their AA was better they might have had a chance as well.
Would the US have lost additional men, planes, and ships? Yes. We likely would have lost another carrier or two. But at the Marianas, the US had over 950 carrier based planes available to the Japanese 450 - and these 450 had far less training.
This reminds me of the question "If the US lost the Battle of Midway, would the US still have won the war?
Answer is most certainly yes. Would have taken a year or two more and cost more lives and equipment - but yes. Look 1.5 years after Midway and look how many carriers each side would have had, even with a US Midway loss, and it's pretty plane to see.
Even with Japanese late model planes - these were pretty much all army planes, the Sam never made it in time. So carrier vs carrier, the Wildcat's are OK. The later land based planes of the Japanese would have been tougher - but with B-29 Bombings and Sub warfare, would they have been able to make enough of these planes, supply (above and beyond fuel, a big issue as well) all these planes, and even harder for them, train the pilots for all these planes, or at least enough of them to make a difference?
That Japanese airforce, naval and army for most of the war hit a death spiral of which there was no escape, and of which the later superior US planes were only a portion of.
The Japanese lost their airforce in the Solomon's campaigns - before extensive deployment of the Hellcat, and the Corsair influenced this mostly on the tail end. I think with Wildcats only the result would have been roughly the same. The damage the Japanese air force suffered in the Solomon's was well indicated by their lack of production in the Marianas Turkey shoot. The Hellcat helped of course, but the Japanese would have been hurting without the Hellcat.
The Zero was the better fighter - the Wildcat was far more survivable. Look at Japanese Air casualties in the Coral Sea, Midway, and Santa Cruz battles. This was roughly 50/50 (Not counting the planes/pilots lost when their carriers were destroyed/damaged - this is roughly even, with the Japanese having well trained pilots and the Zero vs. Wildcats.
The US had far better AA, with their 5"/38 probably the best dual purpose weapon of the war - Japanese dual purpose guns did not have as high of a rate of fire, many suffered from low traverse and elevation speeds, and the primary Japanese destroyer 5" was dual purpose in name only, with a low rate of fire, in ability to load while at a high angle of fire and slow traverse speeds made it useless as an AA weapon.
The US 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors were also both far more effective than the Japanese standard 25mm Light AA weapon.
Add this to the proximity fuze in 43 or so, and with radar controlled AA fire and the US has far superior AA fire.
When you combine this with many Japanese planes that did not have self sealing fuel tanks you can see why there were far more Japanese planes lost to AA fire
Most Japanese fighters had the same shortfalls, at least until later in the war. Lack of armor and self sealing tanks meant that the manuverable Zero was a fair amount less likely to make it home than the Wildcat.
Then again we look at how both sides could replace (trained) pilots. With limited fuel, the Japanese could not put out nearly the trained pilots the US could, and again this was starting to show before large scale introduction of the more advanced US craft.
Some important advantages the US had that are often overlooked relating specifically to the air war - A big one is vectoring of CAP. The US used it's radar to a huge advantage early in the war - they were able to vector their CAP better, which was in essence a force multiplier. The Zero was a better plane - but the Wildcats could be in a better tactical position with more numbers. The US plane radios were also more efficient than their Japanese counterparts, which also helped with better vectoring. The inability to vector CAP properly is largely what caused the Japanese carrier losses at midway - had they known the altitude and approaches of the Dauntless' they would not have been chasing the Devastators at sea level and been useless against the bombers. Of course, if their AA was better they might have had a chance as well.
Would the US have lost additional men, planes, and ships? Yes. We likely would have lost another carrier or two. But at the Marianas, the US had over 950 carrier based planes available to the Japanese 450 - and these 450 had far less training.
This reminds me of the question "If the US lost the Battle of Midway, would the US still have won the war?
Answer is most certainly yes. Would have taken a year or two more and cost more lives and equipment - but yes. Look 1.5 years after Midway and look how many carriers each side would have had, even with a US Midway loss, and it's pretty plane to see.
