Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

[buffnut453]

The very best of the newly qualified pilots were often chosen to stay in the training schools as instructors. One of the inducements often used was to give them a commission. Notice, 'inducements', they could insist on going back to the UK as Sgt Pilots. The most extreme case I read of was one where the head of the flying school promised that if he didn't stay in the USA he would ensure that he was posted there as a pilot of a target tug. Clearly this wasn't a threat that could be carried out but it shows the thinking. The next best pilots were sent to Bomber Command, then fighter command and finally the rest.
They were very clear on that. A BC pilot had the lives of other people in their hands, almost invariably flew at night in all weathers and often damaged. Skill was the first priority.
I
A number of years ago I spent a day in the National Archives in London and there was a folder on everything to do with the training of pilots from before the war to the end. It had all been collated to write a book on the training. Unfortunately the book was never written, but they kept all the research in the one folder. It was quite fascinating as it also compared the training the pilots received in the UK, overseas and in the USA both in the British training schools in the USA, and in the USAAF training schools.

The idea of taking the very cream of the crop and making them instructors was nothing new. It happened in WW1 and was still happening when I was in uniform. When I was at Wyton in the early 90s, one of the Canberra pilots was enduring a "punishment tour" for deliberately failing his QFI course as a "creamy." He ended up on Harriers and later made Air-rank.

As to BC taking "the best", it rather depends how one classifies "the best." If you have a pilot who is superlative at aerobatics, formation flying and formation leading, it makes little sense to put him in a 4-engined heavy that flies alone at night. Did the documents you read provide any indication of how they measured "the best" in terms of the skills they were grading?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

This isn't about who was most suited for which task, it was about what the policy was. The policy may not have been correct, in hindsight.

 

[buffnut453]

This isn't about who was most suited for which task, it was about what the policy was. The policy may not have been correct, in hindsight.

But policy drives how you select people and selection is based on assessment. Any training course must have an assessment criteria...and then you evaluate people based on those criteria. I may be awesome at football but crap at cricket. Both sports mean I'm a sportsman. Do I get pushed into the cricket team, as a sportsman, just because of a policy? That doesn't make sense to me.

All I'm asking for is what selection criteria were used to identify "the best" as opposed to "the best suited."

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

But policy drives how you select people and selection is based on assessment. Any training course must have an assessment criteria...and then you evaluate people based on those criteria. I may be awesome at football but crap at cricket. I'm still a sportsman. Do I get pushed into the cricket team just because of policy? That doesn't make sense to me.

Not everything during war time makes sense. A Fairey Fulmar as a carrier fighter doesn't make sense to me. A non-functional Mark 13 torpedo doesn't make sense to me. But this is what happened.

 

[SaparotRob]

Don't get me started on the armor piercing shells with the creamy nougat filling.

 

[buffnut453]

Not everything during war time makes sense. A Fairey Fulmar as a carrier fighter doesn't make sense to me. A non-functional Mark 13 torpedo doesn't make sense to me. But this is what happened.

All I'm asking for is the measurement criteria for how the RAF determined which pilots were "the best." The must have had such a thing. It could simply be the person who scored best in all of the various theoretical and practical tests that formed part of the training regime. If so, then they literally would take someone ideally suited to fly fighters and slap him into bombers. I'd simply like to understand the documentation to back up the statement about how pilots were pushed into various roles.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Don't get me started on the armor piercing shells with the creamy nougat filling.

AP-N "Armor Piercing Nougat" - very successful in the little known Nestle wars

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

All I'm asking for is the measurement criteria for how the RAF determined which pilots were "the best." The must have had such a thing. It could simply be the person who scored best in all of the various theoretical and practical tests that formed part of the training regime. If so, then they literally would take someone ideally suited to fly fighters and slap him into bombers. I'd simply like to understand the documentation to back up the statement about how pilots were pushed into various roles.

I think Glider literally posted a thread on it

 

[buffnut453]

I think Glider literally posted a thread on it

And I went through that thread and could find no specifics on how "the best' were selected.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

All I'm asking for is the measurement criteria for how the RAF determined which pilots were "the best."

They went to Top Gun. Only the best of the best go there to find out who is the best.

 

[buffnut453]

They went to Top Gun. Only the best of the best go there to find out who is the best.

View attachment 708023

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Come on, you had to know that was coming.

 

[buffnut453]

Come on, you had to know that was coming.

Chris...go and stand in the naughty corner....NOW!!!!

By the reckoning upthread, Guy Gibson must have been the best pilot in the world.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Chris...go and stand in the naughty corner....NOW!!!!

By the reckoning upthread, Guy Gibson must have been the best pilot in the world.

Like ice…

 

[slaterat]

Actually both Kittyhawks and Spitfire Vs shot down recon Ju 88s routinely.

Do you have evidence of Kittyhawks doing this routinely? The absolute ceiling of a Kittyhawk I is >30,000 ft.

the Imperial Japanese Navy was by far the most serious Axis naval threat in WW2, and the battles in the Pacific were by far the most dire, fraught, and dangerous naval engagements of the war.

This statement cannot be taken seriously.

Regarding the Hurricane vs Zero/KI 43 I have posted this many times. This is written by an actual Hurricane pilot who flew many combat missions against these types.

 

[slaterat]

Regarding the Sea Hurricane at Pedestal, using Malta the Spitfire Year as the source the rough kills per aircraft type are,

32 SH1 18.5 kills
20 Fulmars 6.5 kills
10 Martlets 4 kills

Overall the SH1 is the best performer and has the best results but very importantly, the aircraft were directed and used in a complementary fashion.

Over the course of WWII the SH1 and SH2 had a positive combat kill to death ratio of somewhere between 5-7 to 1.

 

[Glider]

As to BC taking "the best", it rather depends how one classifies "the best." If you have a pilot who is superlative at aerobatics, formation flying and formation leading, it makes little sense to put him in a 4-engined heavy that flies alone at night. Did the documents you read provide any indication of how they measured "the best" in terms of the skills they were grading?

It didn't make it clear but a normal process would be scores and instructor assessments and that I am sure you already know.

It was the policy of the time and one that was formed in the furnace of war, where vast numbers of people were trained. I didn't write it just reported what I found. There is some logic to it for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Were there exceptions to this rule, almost certainly.
For instance a personal view for me is that the stand out pilots were the single seat PR pilots. On their own, without support, often without weapons, many hundreds of miles behind enemy lines, having to navigate precisely without the normal navigation aids in all weathers. That's special. How were they chosen, I don't know, but the general policy was as outlined.

 

[RCAFson]

Regarding the Sea Hurricane at Pedestal, using Malta the Spitfire Year as the source the rough kills per aircraft type are,

32 SH1 18.5 kills
20 Fulmars 6.5 kills
10 Martlets 4 kills

Overall the SH1 is the best performer and has the best results but very importantly, the aircraft were directed and used in a complementary fashion.

Over the course of WWII the SH1 and SH2 had a positive combat kill to death ratio of somewhere between 5-7 to 1.

DK Brown, in Carrier Fighters summarized the battle:

The first quote was the situation on the early morning of Aug 11, and the 2nd was on the evening of Aug 12.

The Martlets were intended to patrol at medium level, with the Hurricanes
above them at 20,000 feet. During the critical day's passage to the south of
Sardinia eighteen fighters would be maintained on patrol at all times, with
as many more at immediate readiness; if attack appeared to be imminent,
then twelve more fighters would be flown off, so that a total of forty-eight
fighters might be airborne at once.

Eagle
801 Squadron 12 Sea Hurricanes
(plus four spare)
813 Squadron 4 Sea Hurricanes

Victorious
809 Squadron 10 Fulmar IIs
884 Squadron 6 Fulmar IIs
885 Squadron 5 Sea Hurricanes

Indomitable
800 Squadron 12 Sea Hurricanes
806 Squadron 9 Martlet IIs
880 Squadron 10 Sea Hurricanes....


...to make room for those which were less unserviceable, Victorious had
eight Sea Hurricanes, three Martlets, and ten Fulmars - exactly the same
number as she had possessed on passing Gibraltar. Seven fighters had
been lost in combat during the day - three Fulmars, three Sea Hurricanes,
and a Martlet, but when the claims were analysed the pilots were credited
with thirty-eight victories, four by the Martlets, nine by the outclassed
Fulmars, and twenty-five by the Sea Hurricanes. Four pilots and two Ful-
mar telegraphists were lost with their aircraft.

By any standards, the shipboard fighters had scored a victory. The
enemy had held the initiative throughout 12th August, attacking in great
strength, with an escort which always outnumbered the defenders. Not
until the third raid did the fighters manage to subdue the tired naval pilots,
most of whom were flying their third or fourth sorties of the day. Even
then, the sixty-one attack aircraft managed to obtain only two really
damaging hits and they neglected the convoy, which was of far greater
strategic significance.

By using the above numbers ( I'm still trying to figure out why Victorious is listed with 5 instead of 6 SH1Bs...) and DK Brown's statement that 51 fighters remained after Eagle's sinking, the numbers on the morning of Aug 12 were:

SH1B = 27
Fulmar II = 15
Martlet = 9

And just prior to Indomitable's damage:

SH1B = 24
Fulmar II = 12
Martlet = 8

The kill claims indicate the frequency with which each fighter type was able to intercept enemy aircraft and make firing passes against them.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Do you have evidence of Kittyhawks doing this routinely? The absolute ceiling of a Kittyhawk I is >30,000 ft.

Yes I can quote many, many examples. You can read them yourself easily in Shores Mediterranean Air War series if you have access to that. And I never said anything limiting such examples to Kittyhawk I, though they shot down Ju 88s with those many, many times.

This statement cannot be taken seriously.

Oh yes, I'm 100% serious. And I haven't finished relevant posting data to this thread.

Regarding the Hurricane vs Zero/KI 43 I have posted this many times. This is written by an actual Hurricane pilot who flew many combat missions against these types.

The dismal record of Hurricane vs Ki 43 speaks for itself.

 

[Shortround6]

The dismal record of Hurricane vs Ki 43 speaks for itself.

The question is if any other fighter of the time, in similar conditions , have done any better? Or perhaps much better?

Now in Europe the Hurricane in late 1941/early 42 was past it's 'best use by date' but then the Japanese aircraft had a number of deficiencies.

And consider the advantages the AVG had at about the same time. One of which was an organized and wide spread early warning system that took about 3 years to work up before the AVG even got there.