Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

[Shortround6]

The US in 1940-42 was in some ways where the British were in the late 30s.

Roosevelt called for a 50,000 plane airforce in the summer of 1940. Of course some (most) of the factories to build those planes had to be built first (much like many of the British Shadow factories had to be built) and the camps/bases needed to train the aircrew needed to be built so it was going to take a while.

Navy on the other hand, was small and needed to build carriers. Their expansion may have been smaller/slower than the armies. Heck the Navy didn't even get coastal patrol with land based aircraft until they swapped a Boeing flying boat factory to the Army air force for B-29 production for the authority to operate land based bombers/anti sub planes.



Point of bringing up the turret fighter was that a career minded junior officer may have had to pick which camp he was in in order to fast track his promotion, or at least pretend to join a camp if his commanding officer was firmly in one camp. In any case, such a division of effort of training/tactics/thinking is not likely to produce a coherent RAF training program. At least in some periods of time. Some officers may have thought the turret fighter was a really bad idea at the time and tried to train their pilots for conventional combat. ( How many Hawker Demon Turret fighters used as trainers in the late 30s?). I have read about squadrons going to 'annual' gunnery camps in the 30s. I believe it was in Flight magazine but they are off line so cannot check. Once a year is not enough although other air forces may have done similar things. Budgets were small in the 1930s and England was not blessed with large areas of land/sea where live fire ranges could be placed near most air fields in peace time. Likewise British weather was not conducive to year round training in peace time.

Why was Thach in San Diego at the time of Pearl Harbor?
Because the weather there was much more favorable for training than the weather in North west Washington. The Saratoga (parent carrier) had been under going a refit in the Bremerton Naval yard over 1000 miles away by air. The Saratoga steamed from Bremerton to San Diego to pick up her squadrons of aircraft.
The US purse strings had been loosened considerably in the summer of 1940.

The British had a lot of hurdles to overcome. Many were just circumstances/timing. Only a few were self inflicted.

 

[stona]

I think that there is a misunderstanding of how British pilot training was conducted during this period.
Pilots went through the elementary and service training schools where they learnt to fly. Subsequently they went to OTUs where they flew front line aircraft.
At the end of this a pilot would have learnt how to fly and fight in formation, have learnt the various numbered attacks and may even have fired his guns at a drogue being towed in a straight line at not much more than half the speed of a German bomber.
His training was completed at his squadron. Pilots did not emerge from the OTU's as operational, combat ready pilots. The problem, by the time of the Battle of Britain was that this 'on the job' training had become impossible. All the experienced pilots were needed for fighting and the dispersal of squadrons away from the Sector stations made it impossible. These newly qualified pilots could not be sent on operations with any realistic chance of survival. It is one of the reasons why the stabilisation system was introduced. The Class C squadrons, particularly in 13 Group but also in 10 and even 12 Groups, became effectively non-operational training squadrons, many with as few as three operational pilots, where the sector training flights could be undertaken in relatively safe skies.
It was deemed impractical to open more OTU's in September 1940 because such units themselves put a strain and demand on Fighter Command's limited resources. They required front line aircraft, ground crew and support, and suitably experienced pilots to serve as instructors. It is no coincidence that several OTU's were opened at the conclusion of the BoB in November to train fighter pilots, at the same time the stabilisation system was abandoned.

Rather like a limited overs cricket match, there is no point in saving your best bowlers for the 'death' overs if you are beaten before you get to them. Fighter Command had first to come up with ways of mitigating the pilot shortage (going downhill as slowly as possible) and survive the Battle, before it could instigate the policies which would ensure a long term supply of pilots to win the war.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Pursuant to the original question, in a time altered, revisionist history, I think some properly equipt 2 stage R-1830 powered F4F-3's would have been well received by the RAF during the BoB, but only if the aircraft came with a full complement of ground crew and pilots to operate them.
BUT, if we can now magically transport 1941/42 era aircraft back in time, I don't think the Wildcat/Martlet would be high on anyone's list.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots.

If there's any American aircraft available in 1939 that would be useful during the BoB it is the Consolidated PBY Catalina. The German's Seenotdienst (sea rescue service) and their Dornier Do 24 and other seaplanes were able to rescue many downed LW pilots. The RAF could use more PBYs to save more RAF pilots.

 

[pinsog]

In terms of the discussion, what is a "mistake". To replace pilot losses at the height of the BoB with pilots who have 200 hours on type and 25 hours of gunnery training you need to start expanding your training schools long before war is declared and send many front line pilots and planes into those schools? Did "Thatch" instigate such a programme or anyone else in the USA? The Battle of Britain was a battle of attrition. The aim of the LW was to destroy the RAF and the aim of the RAF was to destroy so many LW bombers and crews that they gave up. The whole "thing" for the LW was to destroy RAF fighters with pilots quicker than they could be replaced, if you take out the experienced and elite then the new to theatre combatants are easy meat, this is the same in all theatres of warfare. I can accept any discussion of poor training, or lack of training or lack of focus on marksmanship and poor marksmanship. What I cannot accept is that there was no training, that no one cared about lack of training or poor marksmanship and I will not accept that the RAF hit nothing. The "helpful" suggestion that RAF pilots in the BoB should be told to aim for the engines, fuel, or crew compartment is an insult to the intelligence, some of them were aces and they were actually winning in the battle from its start to its end. There is no doubt that the US had an excellent pilot training programme in place by 1943 but its pilots were finishing their training in UK and they had to postpone their Bombing strategy for a long time to achieve it. In the adoration of Thatch I am surprised this wasn't mentioned. Similarly with such brilliant training and marksmanship in US forces they would surely have swept the LW out of Africa in weeks? Why didnt they? I am a great admirer of John S Thatch and all he did, until someone tries to portray everyone else in the world at the time as an imbecile.

Read post 282, it's a well written post on how they actually trained, apparently they didn't get gunnery training. I have read, in the last 40 years, pilots saying the very first time they fired their guns was at a German. I have also read of one pilot who said he got to shoot at his own shadow on the ocean one time before combat and that was it for gunnery training.

READ THIS CAREFULLY: I have repeatedly said on this thread that no one else in the world to my knowledge was doing much better on gunnery training except the US Navy. (I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese Navy was thoroughly teaching gunnery skills but I have no evidence). I have also repeatedly said the USAAF was certainly not doing a good job early in the war, Richard Bong said his gunnery training and gunnery skills were awful and the only way for him to hit someone was to get so close he couldn't miss. That is about the 5th time I have said that the USAAF was doing no better than Britain. Please read that paragraph again.

I never said that British pilots didn't know to aim for the engine, fuel tank or cockpit, I never said that. A 5 year old would know to aim for those parts. I did say imagine the effect an 8 gun Hurricane would have on the all glass cockpit of an HE111 from an accurate beam attack or head on attack, but again, anyone older than 5 that isn't a drooling moron would understand that, being able to do it is another matter. How do these pilots aim for a specific part of an aircraft when they are opening fire from 1,000 yards away?

Not being able to shoot and hit a target has nothing to do with being an imbecile, it simply has to do with training. (Although some people are naturals and some people never get it). The only imbeciles in this situation were the world leaders that caused it in the first place! These poor 18-22 year old kids flying planes on both sides should have been chasing girls. All training isn't equal either. As Shortround pointed out, yes the RAF had training pre-war but was it once a year for a day or 2? Twice a year? You don't get proficient at anything doing it once or twice a year, especially something as complicated as air to air gunnery.

I also said the British didn't need a different plane, the 2 they had were fine. They didn't need different guns, 8 303's especially the way the Hurricane guns were mounted, were about as good as anything in the world. What they needed was air to air gunnery training. I stand by that statement. Excellent gunnery from each individual pilot would have made a drastic difference. Was it possible to get everyone on Thach's level? Absolutely not. Could they have done better than they did? Absolutely yes they could have. The USAAF could have done better than they did as well and in my opinion had less of an excuse than Britain did. Could Britain have taught 90 degree deflection shooting to the masses? Very very doubtful. They should have at least set up a twin engine bomber on an airfield with a hurricane propped up behind it at 200-250 yards and said "here is what he should look like in your sights when you open fire" and set up a couple more at 500 and 1000 yards and said "this is too far away".

Did they shoot down German fighters and bombers? Of course they did. Did they win? Of course they did. Would they have done better with even some very basic air to air gunnery training? Of course they would. If you are not instructed on what your doing wrong then you'll never get better. I have helped several people shooting skeet. They shoot and shoot and shoot and they miss and miss and miss. Then you give them a few pointers and they start hitting. A few more pointers and they hit more.

Were these boys brave? YES Were they stupid? NO Did they need more gunnery training? YES Was it possible to do it under the conditions and time constraints at the time? Not to the level a person would want, but I believe they could have done better than they did. Was the USAAF in the same boat for the first couple of years? YES

 

[fastmongrel]

There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots.

If there's any American aircraft available in 1939 that would be useful during the BoB it is the Consolidated PBY Catalina. The German's Seenotdienst (sea rescue service) and their Dornier Do 24 and other seaplanes were able to rescue many downed LW pilots. The RAF could use more PBYs to save more RAF pilots.

I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.

Go Grumman! Hey, I'm from Long Island.

 

[GrauGeist]

There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots.

The P-36 (Hawk) was quite capable and served France well against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of France.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.

Good point, the few Geese did well with the RAF and RCAF. I'd also say the Grumman Gosling (Widgeon) would be useful too.

Go Grumman! Hey, I'm from Long Island.

With the Martlet, Hellcat and Tarpon (Avenger) the British FAA did very well by Grumman.

 

[SaparotRob]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Admiral!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Admiral!

I forgot the first Grumman fighter to serve under the British Commonwealth, the Canadian-produced G-23 Goblin.

 

[SaparotRob]

I forgot the first Grumman fighter to serve under the British Commonwealth, the Canadian-produced G-23 Goblin.

A superb aircraft indeed! Perhaps the finest naval aircraft of its type.
Now I have to Wiki it to see what it is.

 

[stona]

There is no USAAC fighter available in 1939 that would be of any use to the limited number of RAF fighter pilots.

If there's any American aircraft available in 1939 that would be useful during the BoB it is the Consolidated PBY Catalina. The German's Seenotdienst (sea rescue service) and their Dornier Do 24 and other seaplanes were able to rescue many downed LW pilots. The RAF could use more PBYs to save more RAF pilots.

They had the Walrus which eventually served in this role. What they didn't have was a properly organised Air Sea Rescue organisation.

The British also targeted and shot down German float planes of the Seenotdienst, usually He 59s, despite them being clearly marked (white with red crosses) and their crews being registered with ICRC in Geneva. This was on the grounds that they were serving as reconnaissance aircraft for the Luftwaffe, a charge always denied by the Germans and one which has little evidence to support it.

 

[GrauGeist]

And the Seenotdienst crews took great effort to rescue Allied and Axis pilots (and mariners) alike.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And the Seenotdienst crews took great effort to rescue Allied and Axis pilots (and mariners) alike.

As long as one's not Jewish, for the RAF pilots it's better to be captured by the Germans than by the Japanese.

Best to be captured by the Italians, you can take their aircraft and fly home.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I think the PBY is a bit big and ponderous for the job. Now a Grumman Goose that would have been ideal small and quite nippy for an amphibian.

Actually, given "the chops of the channel" the PBY is ideal for the job. It can handle rough water better than the short coupled amphibians and has two major advantages:
1) It has a bow mooring station that can be used for fishing people out of the water, keeping them away from the props.
2) The pylon mounted high wing gets the props out of the way of rescue operations.
Neither the Goose or Widgeon has these advantages, in fact the aft mounted access door makes maneuvering around a life raft without getting close to the props awkward, to say the least. Have you ever taxied a plane on the water? It's a different experience!

 

[GrauGeist]

Even though the He59 was a floatplane, unlike the Bv138 and Do24, it was still an effective air-sea rescue type and handled the rough waters of the Channel well.

The Seenotdienst crews also did not check to see a person's credentials before fishing survivors out if the water, they were rescued regardless: sailors of the Royal Navy, Italian Navy, any pilot of any nation and even fishermen in distress were all rescued along with Luftwaffe & Kreigsmarine personnel.

 

[stona]

And the Seenotdienst crews took great effort to rescue Allied and Axis pilots (and mariners) alike.

Fighter Command issued the order ignore the red crosses and to shoot down/force down the ASR aircraft on 14th July. It was already being done by Fighter Command pilots on their own initiative. On the 29th the Air Ministry pronounced that the aircraft were 'being employed for the purposes which the HM Government cannot regard as being consistent with the privileges generally accorded to the Red Cross'. and that any of them flying in operational areas would do so 'at their own risk and peril'.

Among the papers discovered when an He 59 was forced down on 9th July was a log belonging to another Red Cross aircraft (D-AGUI).

"30/4/40 Verbal orders 19.50 hrs, search for Englishmen shot down about 10Km west of Stavanger. Weather perfect. Visibility 50 Km, wind 130 degrees, 25 Km. Start at 19.52 hrs. At 20.15 hrs oil spots in Grid Ref.3125. Sighted man drifting in rubber dinghy, beside him a man swimming. We landed beside them 22.00 hrs. Sea strength 2. The dinghy drifted between the floats and was made fast. Both Englishmen hauled into machine. The first, who was in the dinghy, was slightly wounded on his chin - protested that he did not need First Aid. We made him fast to the 'Tragbahn'. The second was already drowned. Artificial respiration in the machine had no effect...It turned out later that the rescued Englishman was a Staffelfuhrer, with the rank of Major, the other who had been unable to get into the dinghy was his observer."

The rescued man was Squadron Leader KC Doran, his crew both perished, Sgt. R H J Batsrick and P/O F M N Searle. Their Blenheim IV, L9242 of No. 110 Squadron, had been shot down during bombing operations in the Stavanger area. Doran owed his life to the Germans.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to find a justification for the British decision.

 

[fastmongrel]

They had the Walrus which eventually served in this role. What they didn't have was a properly organised Air Sea Rescue organisation.

The British also targeted and shot down German float planes of the Seenotdienst, usually He 59s, despite them being clearly marked (white with red crosses) and their crews being registered with ICRC in Geneva. This was on the grounds that they were serving as reconnaissance aircraft for the Luftwaffe, a charge always denied by the Germans and one which has little evidence to support it.

I think the claims of the LW rescue planes also being recce planes came about from the coastal convoy sailors. They said that a rescue plane would regularly fly over a convoy and bombers would turn up ten minutes later.

Actually, given "the chops of the channel" the PBY is ideal for the job. It can handle rough water better than the short coupled amphibians and has two major advantages:
1) It has a bow mooring station that can be used for fishing people out of the water, keeping them away from the props.
2) The pylon mounted high wing gets the props out of the way of rescue operations.
Neither the Goose or Widgeon has these advantages, in fact the aft mounted access door makes maneuvering around a life raft without getting close to the props awkward, to say the least. Have you ever taxied a plane on the water? It's a different experience!

Not sure I would like to put such a big bird down in the Channel. You have minefields, wrecks and big sandbanks like Godwin Sands and Sandettie Bank. At high water you should be fine but at low water you might have 80 feet under the keel or you might have 8 inches. There's something like 4000 wrecks on Godwin and 2000 on Sandettie. Also from North Foreland to Dungeness you have to dodge the big guns taking pot shots at you from France.

A big flying boat can take I believe up to 2 miles to get off the water, more if it doesn't have the wind to fly into. That will take some nerve if you are in the middle of the Channel and you have to lumber towards France to take off.

Never seen a Flying boat take off let alone piloted one but I have sailed the Channel and there's a reason why little boats are better.

 

[RCAFson]

They had the Walrus which eventually served in this role. What they didn't have was a properly organised Air Sea Rescue organisation.

The British also targeted and shot down German float planes of the Seenotdienst usually He 59s, despite them being clearly marked (white with red crosses) and their crews being registered with ICRC in Geneva. This was on the grounds that they were serving as reconnaissance aircraft for the Luftwaffe, a charge always denied by the Germans and one which has little evidence to support it.

There's no provision in the rules of war for a fighting service to operate an air-sea rescue service without interference from their opponents.