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

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


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?
 
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.
 
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."
 

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.
 
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.
 

I think Glider literally posted a thread on it
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • terrence kellyhurricane vs zero.pdf
    3.2 MB · Views: 26
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread