What does your 1941-1942 carrier plane force look like?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by MacArther, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. MacArther

    MacArther Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Junior Historian, Paintballer, Student
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Home Page:
    Fighter= F4F-3
    Bomber/attack= Dautless (which ever one was the most recent)
    Nightfighter= Fairy Fulmar
     
  2. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    F4F-3 fighter
    Dive Bomber - SBD
    Torpedo/ Strike - TBM
    ASW/ Observation - Kingfisher
     
  3. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I didnt think Kingfishers operated off of carriers. Werent they BB and CA based?
     
  4. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    No, they were land based as well

    "At the time of Pearl Harbor, all the Navy's battleships were equipped with the OS2U. Additionally, the carriers Saratoga, Wasp, and Hornet as well as the seaplane tenders Albemarle, Barnegat, Biscayne, Casco, Curtiss, Heron, Humbolt, Pocomoke, Tangier, and Wright, used the type for utility work."

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,720
    Likes Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    Fighter - F4F3/Zero
    Divebomber - SBD Dauntless
    Torpedo - Swordfish
     
  6. rebel8303

    rebel8303 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Patras
    Fighter:Seafire
    Torpedo Bomber:Swordfish
    Dive Bomber: SBD
     
  7. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Virginia

    But when they’re talking about carrier use what they’re neglecting to say is that these ships carried one, at most, two, of these types. All the prewar carriers carried at least one utility aircraft, usually a seaplane type such as OS2U or the SOC; all were referred to as “hacks”.

    Some squadrons also carried on their books ‘squadron hacks,” but they were usually the result of transitioning from one type to another. For example Ranger’s VS-41 was redesignated VF-42 in March 1941. They had been operating SBCs, but with the new designation transitioned to F4F-3s. When the dust settled, they still had one SBC which they left behind when they transferred over to Yorktown. RAG turned in the SBC because they already had an SOC.

    Some squadrons (especially VFs) carried SNJs in their organizations for use as hacks. These utililty planes gave them dedicated two-seaters for use as needed.

    So, when you read that these carriers were operating these planes, don’t get the idea that they were being included in operations, because they weren’t.

    Their use was limited to in-port generated flights or while operating from land and their primary purposes was transporting folks from one place to another, one-by-one, or for specific training purposes. For example in August 1942, when my father was in VF-11, his next assignment after the Battle of Midway, he used the squadron hack, SNJ #01905, on four occasions. One was a courier flight to March Army Air Field. The other three were for instrument proficiency re-qualifications; once for himself and twice where he re-qualified others. Later, in December 1942, while still in VF-11, he borrowed the VF-3 hack, a SNJ, #01858, for a round trip from Maui NAS to Ford Island NAS to attend an awards ceremony for Midway action.

    Just as a point of interest, types such as the SOC or OS2U were delivered with fixed landing gear and hard points for installation of floats. The floats were manufactured separately (by Elco, I seem to remember) and installed by Navy maintenance facilities as needed.
     
  8. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    As usual, great information Len! - my point was the Kingfisher did operate off carriers (with fixed gear of course). I've seen photos of one landing on the Saratoga (I think)....
     
  9. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Swordfish over the Avenger.

    Thats an interesting pick, for 2nd half of 1942 at least.
     
  10. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I agree - the Swordfish was a great old bird and served well in the theaters it was deployed, but it definitely was not as good as the Avenger.
     
  11. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    I wonder why nobody mentiones the japanese planes. They should be a reasonable option for 1941-42 (incl. training).
    Plane by plane the Zeke outmatches the F4F Wildcat and the B5N isn´t a worse torpedo bomber, also.
    The SBD however beats the D3A, no doubt.
    Carrier task forces also include tactics and ships, so up to lets say Midway, the japanese did a heavy toll with their toys in 41/42, or am I wrong?
     
  12. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    The F4F really wasn't outclassed by the zero (especially the A6M2) if flown right, that's been proven. The TBM was WAY superior to the B5N -

    The only heavy toll was Pearl Harbor - Coral Sea was sought of a draw (and the zero barley managed 2 to 1 kill ratio over the F4F, a supposedly "inferior" aircraft) and Midway was the beginning of the end of the JIN. I didn't pick any Japanese aircraft because I felt they were all inferior and burnt very easy! :evil4:
     
  13. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Zekes were light designs but better armed, too. And the F4F could come about equal only by use of superior tactics, this has nothing to do with the planes performances. In any way it did not dominate over the Zeke in 41-42.
    The TBM Avanger wasn´t statisfying in 42 also. It´s first operations weren´t that encouraging. Some pre production units entered service in june 42, they were often mauled by Zekes: All six in Midway get lost, in august 7 out of 26 Avangers were lost in a single sortie at the Salomons, in Santa Cruise all 18 Avangers were lost, at least they managed to sink the crippled Hiei at Guadacanal) Usual production of TBM1 began in spetember 42, that´s very late for 41-42, or isn´t it? The total production quantities are therefore low in our timeframe:
    up to Nov. 42 only 165 TBF and a single TBM was produced.
    If we consider the poor quality of US torpedo´s in this timeframe I would generally prefer the B5N Kate. Avangers were often forced to do bomb attacks because the torpedos were crap.
     
  14. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    After Midway the F4F attained about a 2 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. Eventually it rose to about 4 to 1. We posted this before, only about 190 F4Fs were lost in air-to-air combat, I'm sure Leonard will chime in here soon. The Zero was only a killer under 300 mph, over that it was dead meat! At higher speeds the F4F was able to out-dive, out roll and in some cases out turn the mythical Zero!
    The TBM was eventually used as a light bomber, bombing from altitude, I say that was a plus for this aircraft that carried 1,000 pounds more than the Kate. The battles you site where they were "mauled" occurred because the USN did not have full aerial superiority at the time and the IJN was able to put up a sizable force of fighters, the USN in all did not have a numerical superiority. The TBM could take a beating, was very strong and robust, the Kate way typical of Japanese aircraft, light, fragile, and it burned very easily...

    But yes, the torpedoes were crap!
     
  15. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Yep, using bombing the Avenger is way better, but it was placed as torpedo bomber here. In this very role it was way inferior to the B5N, even if we suppose that this belongs to the torpedos more than to the airplane. Both belongs together. The production figures are low also, so I would choose some hundred B5N with well trained crews (avaiable in 41-42) instead of a few dozen Avengers with crap torpedos and crews which only began to realize this planes full potential. (just for this role)
    And I would stick with the Zeke, since it dominated over the F4F for almost a year, while the F4F eventually reached maturity in deployment with better tactics in late 42 (when our timeframe closes).
     
  16. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I see your point about the time frame. It wasn't until Midway when the F4F started dominating the Zero. And yes, better training and tactics made much of the difference

    Some credit has to be given to the machine. For many years we heard about the superior performance of the Zero. That superiority was only evident at speeds below 300 mph. Although we know it had a slightly faster top speed when compared to the F4F, it was at those speeds where the Zero's performance (maneuverability) began to diminish and where the F4F excelled.

    At the end of the day the F4F established a kill ratio of 6.9 to 1: 178 lost, for 905 'confirmed' kills. Split that in half for argument sake and that's still impressive for an aircraft that was supposedly outclassed in all categories by its main opponent.
     
  17. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Yes it is impressive, I don´t want to underrate the Wildcat.
     
  18. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    I like FBJ's list and dont think I can think of anything better to pic, so I will just his also, if that is okay with you FBJ.

    F4F-3 fighter
    Dive Bomber - SBD
    Torpedo/ Strike - TBM
    ASW/ Observation - Kingfisher
     
  19. rebel8303

    rebel8303 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Patras
    I think that the Japanese planes were quite good but the japanese pilots did not have proper training
     
  20. Magister

    Magister Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    programmer
    Location:
    Cupertino, CA
    As has already been pointed out, tactics were what gave Wildcat pilots an edge over their Zero flown opponents. If proper counter tactics had been employed by Zeke pilots, they would have waxed the Wildcats.

    I say the Zero (exclusive of tactics employed) was the best carrier fighter of the time.
     
Loading...

Share This Page