What was wrong with the F4F Wildcat?

[renrich]

The IJN pilots in the early going were extremely well qualified but attrition diminished the overall quality and their training programs could not keep up. On the other hand the USN training which includes the Marines,prewar, was lengthy, comprehensive and included, according to Lundstrom, an emphasis on deflection shooting which was equaled by no other air force in the world. He gives much of the credit for the ability of the Navy pilots to hang in with the crack IJN pilots in superior AC to that emphasis on gunnery skills. The training program in the US was streamlined after the war began but the fresh pilots coming to the fleet were still well trained and ready to contribute unlike the IJN fledglings.

 

[Amsel]

Michael, if you can, do yourself a favor and get copies of Lundstrom's books. They address the issues we are discussing here as well,IMO, as they have ever been addressed. I only wish that he would follow through and get into early 1943. My impression is that the IJN were even more enthusiastic in overclaiming than the USN pilots. But the intersting point is, and you alluded to it is that neither side in 1942 had very many AC, at least not by ETO standards. The actual number of kills by USN Wildcats over IJN Zekes and vice versa was very small, somewhere around thirty each but regardless it was pretty even. Both sides labored under tremendous handicaps, shortages, breakdowns, bad intelligence, poor weather forecasting and in the case of the land based elements, poor food and living conditons and hygeine.

The lack of modern radar played probably the most significant role in the confusion. It is interesting to see how many technological advances were made so quickly. Fleets of ships trying to gauge enemy fleets with constant disinformation. The Americans had the advantage of a better plan for combing the seas with a/c then the Japanese; for some reason the Japanese did not adhere strictly to a coordinated grid search and it cost them dearly in ships.

 

[fly boy]

I have wondered for quite some time what it was about the Wildcat that made it such a poor performer in the Pacific Theatre. The F6F was a very similar design (essentially an F4F scaled up in size and power), and was the most numerically successful aircraft in the history of the US military.

So I came up with a few rudimentary thoughts and since you lot know more about this stuff than I do and seem tolerant enough to put up with an aircraft novice who thinks outside the box, and comes up with crazy ideas, I'll share them.

Claire Chennault learned that the Japanese airplanes and tactics were vulnerable to climb and dive tactics by American planes. The F4F would be ideally suited if it weren't for one thing: its climb rate was a joke, or would have been if it wasn't terribly unfunny.

The Zero's climb rate wasn't to be matched by any American plane but with a head start a good plane could enough altitude to outdive it and disengage if in trouble. With the F4F-4 I think you'd need an hour.

Here are two features that I think could have been included in the design to make it a specialist in the field of vertical fighting.

1. Wider eliptical wings for more lift and wing surface without making it more difficult to pack into escort carriers. Level top speed would not be helped but since it was a brick, it would still dive fast and be far more maneuverable in a dive than the Zero, plus it would be able to climb effectively and turning might well be better as well.

2. Just at a glance, the prop on the F4F looks tiny. I think a 4 or 5 blade prop with big fat air-eating blades would take better advantage of the 1200 HP offered by the Twin Wasp. Perhaps landing gear would have to be lengthened to accomodate it.

Additionally, I think a 4-Gun 1000 round weapons loading was best load for that model, even if you needed to give the pilots extra time in gunnery school blasting targets. Including extra guns at the cost of ammunition gives arguably very limited advantage anyway, but considering the increase in weight I think it's unjustifiable.

three things bad about it 1 power 2 range and 3 turning

 

[renrich]

As earlier stated the Wildcat was at least as good a climber as the P40 and the early F4F3 and Late FM2 were better climbers. The P40s of the Flying Tigers under Claire Chennault did not have to compete against the IJN and A6Ms.

 

[Clay_Allison]

As earlier stated the Wildcat was at least as good a climber as the P40 and the early F4F3 and Late FM2 were better climbers. The P40s of the Flying Tigers under Claire Chennault did not have to compete against the IJN and A6Ms.

Were they mostly fighting Oscars then?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Were they mostly fighting Oscars then?

Oscars and Nates.

 

[Amsel]

The AVG fought the Ki-43s' mostly but did engage the "zero" also. Claire Chenault was the one to first report the capabilities of the A6M. The Ki-43 is underated while thew A6M might be overated in their capabilities as fighters. The difference is in the way you fight. The AVG found out early that "dogfighting" was obselete. Pilots from both countries were still being trained to dogfight. As a low level dogfighter the Ki-43 and the A6M-2 was superior to the American "energy" fighters so the AVG turned the tables on them.

The Oscar actually had a better chance early war against the Boom and Zoom tactics. The Ki-43 had better wing loading and power loading than the Zero, had superior initial acceleration, a better roll rate and a tighter turning circle. It also had a substantially better rate of climb. The Ki-43 was, in some ways, more dangerous to deal with than the A6M, chiefly because it had a better rate of roll and was armed with two 12.7mm machineguns.


The P 40 with a zero on his tail could usually break contact with an aileron roll. This was much less likely with the Ki-43. The Oscar driver could plant himself behind the P-40 and stay. It also meant that when the Ki-43 was jumped from above he would only have to roll into a tight turn faster then could be followed and when they bounced the Zero and it turned the American plane could roll with the turn and stay in it for just long enough to make the shot.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The AVG fought the Ki-43s' mostly but did engage the "zero" also. Claire Chenault was the one to first report the capabilities of the A6M.

I think you'll find that is more or less a myth. Check into where the A6M was deployed during late 1941 and early 1942, I don't think you'll find any were land based in Burma.

Chenault's reports were based on early Zero deployment and engagements between the USSR and Japanese as well as Chinese units along the Manchurian frontier.

 

[Amsel]

I think you'll find that is more or less a myth. Check into where the A6M was deployed during late 1941 and early 1942, I don't think you'll find any were land based in Burma.

Chenault's reports were based on early Zero deployment and engagements between the USSR and Japanese as well as Chinese units along the Manchurian frontier.

I understand that Chenault got much of his info from seeing a crashed A6M. EriK Shilling claims that the AVG did engage the Zero fighters. I am looking for his "proof" though.

Also there are those including Dan Ford, a frequent visitor on
this net, who say the AVG never fought the Zero. I believe I have
undisputable proof that we did, but will also post this information
in a sperate posting.


Regards,

Erik

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I understand that Chenault got much of his info from seeing a crashed A6M. EriK Shilling claims that the AVG did engage the Zero fighters. I am looking for his "proof" though.

Several AVG pilots mis-identifed Oscars as Zeros on more than one occasion. I don't know about Chenault seeing a crashed Zero, if he did it was not attained over Burma. According to my sources, when the Japanese deployed 15 Zeros over China, not one was shot down.

In July 1940 there were 15 Zeros (model 11s) deployed to Manchuria and fought against the USSR and Chinese. At the same time the first Model 11s were rolling off the assembly lines. 65 model 21s were delivered by late 1941. The Pearl Harbor attack force had 127 Zeros attached to it. ASAIK most (if not all) of the operational Zeros deployed on carriers during that period which was the same time the AVG was beginning operations.

 

[Amsel]

Roger that.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>According to my sources, when the Japanese deployed 15 Zeros over China, not one was shot down.

Are you aware of "Neumann's Zero"?

Zeros over China, 1941-1942

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Flyboyj,

>According to my sources, when the Japanese deployed 15 Zeros over China, not one was shot down.

Are you aware of "Neumann's Zero"?

Zeros over China, 1941-1942

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Very interesting read - I would of been more accurate to say not one was lost to air-to-air combat.

Also at the end of the text; "It may be impossible to completely disprove, but so far I do not see any evidence that proves the AVG shot down A6M2s or otherwise encountered them in combat over China prior to October 1942." Also interesting.

I would love to get more information on how they were assembled. As the text described, t seems most of the components were had fitted which would be typical of pre production aircraft. I read the 15 Zeros sent to China were the first 15 production models. I do know that the Japanese did have problems with interchangeability of parts on many of their aircraft through out the war, so fact that the aircraft required "filling" may or may not play into the fact that the "captured" aircraft was part of the original 15.

Again, great info!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

After reading that text I did some surfing - it seems Mr. Neumann was quite and interesting character!

Gerhard Neumann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inventor of the Week: Archive

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's more!

About Gerhard Neuman

It turns out there's a memorial for him in one of the buildings at the USAFA (where I work). Next time I'm on "the hill" I'm going to try to track it down.

 

[renrich]

I believe that Flyboy is correct. The AVG only was in action for six months and the JAAF did not have A6Ms at the time. In fact the Claude was a fighter the AVG had success against.

 

[slaterat]

Heres what a couple of American pilots had to say re the Wilcat vs Zero:

LT John Thach

In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we
had against the Zero is not due to performance of the plane we fly, but is
the result of the comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the
Japanese stupid mistakes by a few of their pilots and superior
marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots...

VMF-121 pilot Roger Habermane

...we'd work like hell to get to to climb to 23,000-24,000 feet. At that
altitude when you malke a turn you lose 1,000 ft, and its very easy to
stall out. In theory the F4F had a higher service ceiling but not in
practice. You'd look up and there sit the Japs at 30,000 ft looking
right down at your gazoo. A real fun time. You couldn't get that bird
much higher than 24,000: not you, not Jesus, nobody. The bird
Wouldn't go any higher.

The early war success of the Wildcat when compared to other allied fighters was largely based on the Wildcats toughness, the excellent training of its pilots and that it largely engaged zeros in near equal numbers.

Joe B basically got it right

F4F and Zero numbers were generally comparable in their 1942 combats, which were pretty extensive in a fair variety of tactical situations. Pilots are obviously always a big variable, the problem is always *quantifying* that variable, rather than just using it as a fudge factor when analysis of simple stats gives the 'wrong' answer (as it notably tends to do with the F4F's combat record compared to its simple performance stats).

Slaterat

 

[renrich]

Quote from Jimmy Flatley. " What the F4F4 lacks in climb and maneuverability is more than compensated for by it's excellent armament, protective armor, protected fuel system and greater strength. Add to this the inherent superior ability of the Navy pilot, particularly as regards using his armamnet and the outlook is favorable." "Let us not condemn our equipment. It shoots the enemy down in flames and gets most of us back to base."

 

[HoHun]

Hi Slaterat,

LT John Thach

In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we
had against the Zero is not due to performance of the plane we fly, but is
the result of the comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the
Japanese stupid mistakes by a few of their pilots and superior
marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots...

Thanks for that quote! It's nice to see my point about poor tactics undermining the advantages of superior performance confirmed by a Wildcat pilot as famous as Thach himself

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Amsel]

Here is the text of a despatch from Admiral Nimitz to
Admiral King sent on 20 June 1942:

ALL AIR COMBAT REPORTS BATTLE OF MIDWAY EMPHASIZE EXTREME
AND APPARENTLY INCREASED SUPERIORITY PERFORMANCE OF 0 FIGHTERS
X ALTHOUGH THESE PLANES ARE MORE VULNERABLE THAN OURS THE
PRIMARY SOURCE OF ANY COMBAT SUCCESSES TO DATE BY NAVY FIGHTING
PLANES HAS BEEN OWN EXPERT TACTICS OPPOSED TO FAULTY ENEMY
TACTICS X OVERALL RESULTS HAVE BEEN BAD AND WILL BE SERIOUS
AND POTENTIALLY DECISIVE WITH IMPROVEMENT THAT MUST BE EXPECTED
IN ENEMY TACTICS X

CONSIDER ACTION ALL OF FOLLOWING LINES TO BE OF HIGHEST IMPORTANCE
X PROVIDE P-40F PLANES OR COMPARABLE TYPE FOR ALL MARINE FIGHTING
SQUADRONS ASSIGNED TO OUTLYING BASES X IF P-40F OR COMPARABLE TYPE
CAN BE MODIFIED FOR AIRCRAFT CARRIER OPERATIONS PROVIDE THESE
PLANES FOR CARRIER FIGHTING SQUADRONS X TAKE ANY POSSIBLE STEPS
TO LIGHTEN F4F4 AND INCREASE AMMUNITION CAPACITY EVEN AT COST OF
REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF GUNS X GIVE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY TO
PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY NEW F4U FIGHTERS