Most of the topics in this thread revolve around Technology. How about looking at 'What If' from the doctrines of the various belligerents. I came across an article recently in which the author stated that while totals in flight time were not that far apart, total time in type would be completely different. As an example, a Japanese and American pilot might each have a total 600 hours. This author argued that the IJA/IJN pilots time would be in a specific type, fighter, bomber or torpedo aircraft while the American would have his time divided among all two or three types. Did other nations follow the Japanese or the American Models? What if US pilots trained only or mostly in one type?
USAAC/USAAF Training
- Thread starter Akuma
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think we need to know your definition of type.
All air forces started their pilots in simple aircraft , and progressed them up to more complex aircraft with more performance.
That's including multi engine pilots, they started out in single engine aircraft, to a more complex single engine, then to a simple twin, then to more complex twin, then maybe to a regular line aircraft, 2 engine, or more.
It's impossible to make a blanket statement about WW2 flight training because every power fighting made major changes in their flight training as the war went on.
Some got better, some because of the pressure, got worse.
All air forces started their pilots in simple aircraft , and progressed them up to more complex aircraft with more performance.
That's including multi engine pilots, they started out in single engine aircraft, to a more complex single engine, then to a simple twin, then to more complex twin, then maybe to a regular line aircraft, 2 engine, or more.
It's impossible to make a blanket statement about WW2 flight training because every power fighting made major changes in their flight training as the war went on.
Some got better, some because of the pressure, got worse.
I dont know how they all worked but as far as I know you join up to be trained as a pilot, what you end up as depends on how your training goes. No one knows what the future holds and at most forces had twin engine fighters in their force. The most famous names were generally in fighters but most pilots on the allied side flew multi engined planes many doing very mundane jobs.
- Thread starter
- #4
Sorry, I thought it was clear that I wanted to know about doctrines leading up to WWII. Okay, let me give you a sample of what I've read in various aviation history's. Take a Japanese naval pilot (IJN) and a US Naval pilot. They both would have had time in primary and intermediate trainers before being assigned to a group (Squadron, etc.). The difference in doctrine, according to what I've read, is that an IJN pilot assigned to a fighter group, would have all his hours logged in the A5M and A6M while the USN pilot, even though assigned a to fighters would have to split his time equally between fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers. That means that if both pilots had 600 hours in the group/type they were assigned to the IJN guy has 600 hours in fighters while the USN pilot actually has only 200 hours in fighters, having to split the additional 400 hours between dive and torpedo bombers in the years leading up to WWII. It seems to me that if the USN pilot had all of his time in the type he was expected to be flying and if that time was equal to what the IJN pilot had, then the difference in outcome of engagements, say between the A6M and the F4F, would have been a lot less. This in turn would have lead to the Zero not being as highly regarded as it now is.
Last edited:
Nowhere in your original post does it say that this was only about prewar practices .
It's news to me that prewar Navy pilots had to split their time between, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and fighters.
But I learn something new every day.
I'm sure we'd like to see a source for that.
Many switched from one type to another in any air force, Naval, or Army, but took transition training when they switched.
Sometimes it was formal transition training, sometimes it might just be a cockpit check out, a brief discussion about some of the aircraft's flight characteristics, and go for it.
It's news to me that prewar Navy pilots had to split their time between, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and fighters.
But I learn something new every day.
I'm sure we'd like to see a source for that.
Many switched from one type to another in any air force, Naval, or Army, but took transition training when they switched.
Sometimes it was formal transition training, sometimes it might just be a cockpit check out, a brief discussion about some of the aircraft's flight characteristics, and go for it.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Never heard of USN pilots training in all types.
The TBD took special training for delivery of a torpedo and a fighter obviously took completely different training.
For the SBD, in addition to learning how to deliver a bomb load from the near vertical, they also took extensive scouting/navigation courses since the SBD was the "eyes" of the fleet prior to radar.
Each type required a specific skillset and granted, several SBD pilots were quickly transferred to F4Fs after showing prowess with their SBDs, but that was the exception rather than the rule.
The TBD took special training for delivery of a torpedo and a fighter obviously took completely different training.
For the SBD, in addition to learning how to deliver a bomb load from the near vertical, they also took extensive scouting/navigation courses since the SBD was the "eyes" of the fleet prior to radar.
Each type required a specific skillset and granted, several SBD pilots were quickly transferred to F4Fs after showing prowess with their SBDs, but that was the exception rather than the rule.
- Thread starter
- #7
Have read about the USN practice in a couple of histories. Soon as I come across it again I'll add the source to this thread. Remember what I read spoke of substantial time in type, not just a check out. Here's a thought, 1942, two USN pilots have 400 hours each in SBD, both checked out in F4F, while flying CAP they are attacked by A6Ms with typical high time pilots. How do they respond? Classic military answer, when you don't know what to do, you do what you know. Result A6M gets a killer reputation.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I believe Wade McCluskey had been in fighters before assigned to the SBD just before the Battle of Midway. This may be why he almost muffed the attack on Akagi. I'm sure I read (Shattered Sword? The First Team? or possibly a Military Aviation History YouTube vid) that USN pilots were trained in all types.
- Thread starter
- #9
I've read the same. That they trained in all types but did not have the time in type that was IJN practice of high time in one type. Note; this is in the years leading up to and in early stages of war.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
The prewar USN also required their officers to have surface fleet time before getting their wings.
Shortround6
Major General
Early 30s?
Fighters and torpedo bombers showed up early(1920s) , dive bombers took a bit longer but the US had several biplane dive bombers.
in service in 1935? first flew in 1933.
Would training be radically different between a fighter and a dive bomber, bearing in mind a fighter has to be able to land and take off from a carrier. Certainly dive bombing is a different skill, but wouldnt it be best to have all pilots with at least the basic skills of all types? Did carrier carry more planes than pilots or vice versa?
- Thread starter
- #14
Starting in the late Twenties there was a rapidly accelerating technology in all aspects of flight. While general flight procedures like takeoff and landing would have been similar, by the middle to late Thirties there would have been major differences between Bomber, Torpedo and Fighter aircraft on how to operate them for their given role. This would have led to different training for each expected role. Shortage of money, especially during the depression of those years would have lead to cutting corners in training etc. People often forget that along with the initial cost of any flying machine there are substantial maintenance and operational expenses. When you add a pilot, training, housing, feeding, medical costs, I think you can see the point.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Do you have any documented evidence of this or is this just your opinion?!?
- Thread starter
- #16
Let me answer first in the particular followed by the general. I would be very favorably impressed if anyone could come up with a document where a USAAF officer (as an example) asked for and approved the cutbacks in numbers, training, equipment etc. engendered by the US governments budget decreases on all military expenditures especially following the beginning of the great depression era. Moneywise, the post World War One years had been bad enough for the military while the 1930s depression just made things a whole lot worse.
In general there are any number of histories following world war two that cite the great depression as the cause of reduced military spending in all areas. For instance look at the production figures for the B-17 prior to 1940. Where an air force officer dug in his heels on training hours he would have to accept a cut in the number of trainees to stay within budget. In the month's leading up to December 1941 there had been an increase in spending by the US due to the growing belief of impending war as well as the influx of orders for military equipment from England, France and also to a lesser extent by China. Interestingly China had not only been purchasing war goods since 1937 but also, on a much smaller scale, since the invasion of Manchuria in 1931. But in the day's following the attack on Pearl Harbor the monetary flood gates truly opened for the US military equipment, manpower, training and everything else they either knew or believed was needed.
My mind works in a different way. If you look at the cost of building and operating a carrier which burn fuel by the ton and have thousands of workers on and off shore trying to save money on pilot training which operate a carriers reason to exist would be the most extreme false economy.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
OK - you can rattle on and on about this and other non-related crap but again, do you have any documented evidence of this or is this just your opinion?!? Because I can tell you you're dead wrong! Although there wasn't a lot of money to go around, there was no shortcuts in training, if anything depression era pilots were probably better trained in many respects to WW2 era pilots with the big difference in technology.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,667
- May 13, 2018
From what I've read, the economy was in promotions. There weren't many. Every employer knows salary is his biggest expense.
- Thread starter
- #20
I think I see what you mean. You are perfectly correct in saying there were no shortcuts in training etc. I agree, I'm just saying that all of the training etc. was constrained by the budgets that were allocated. For instance you are an officer in charge of training and you believe that future missions will need twenty trained pilots with two hundred hours each. The government gives you enough money to be able to train ten pilots up to two hundred hours. If you train them to two hundred hours you can honestly say that you've properly trained ten pilots. But you needed twenty. Addition: The Center for Military History (CMH) has an online site with a lot of information regarding American Military History. There is a section there that gives some information on budgetary constraints affecting equipment procurement and training programs.
Last edited:
