Warbirds Thread

[bintananth]

I will note that the F4F Wildcat had a Kill/Loss ratio of 5.9 to 1. Meaning that for every Wildcat lost in action, they shot down almost 6 enemies.

And contrary to Bintanarth, the primary tactic for Wildcats was always 'boom and zoom', the Thach Weave was actually only used on a very limited basis, despite its fame, and was intended for situations in which the Wildcat was caught at too low of speed and altitude to properly boom and zoom. A Wildcat in a dive was faster and conserved energy better than a Zero. Ideally, a Wildcat pilot should attempt to avoid a turning engagement with a Zero and keep the engagement to one of 'boom and zoom'.

I will not disagree with you about the Wildcats and their pilots' ability to go toe-to-toe with Japanese aircraft. That nearly 6:1 kill:loss ratio, however, has a lot more to say about how it was used than to how good it was when compared what came later. The F6F had a 19:1 kill:loss ratio.

 

[LordSunhawk]

I will not disagree with you about the Wildcats and their pilots' ability to go toe-to-toe with Japanese aircraft. That nearly 6:1 kill:loss ratio, however, has a lot more to say about how it was used than to how good it was when compared what came later. The F6F had a 19:1 kill:loss ratio.

Not a very good comparison, however. The F6F came into service after the cream of the Japanese pilot crop had been destroyed, by the F4F and P-40. By the time the F6F was in general service the skill gap between the pilots had pretty much flipped completely.

Basically, the F4F and P-40 fought the Japanese at the time of their greatest strength, the F6F and F4U fought them after that strength had already been seriously eroded. Were they better birds than the F4F? Most certainly, but the F4F held the line, did the job, and took the very best hits that the Japanese could deliver, and came out on top. The Wildcat and the Kitty Hawk aren't glamorous birds, but they were the ones who took the blows.

 

[bintananth]

Not a very good comparison, however. The F6F came into service after the cream of the Japanese pilot crop had been destroyed, by the F4F and P-40. By the time the F6F was in general service the skill gap between the pilots had pretty much flipped completely.

Basically, the F4F and P-40 fought the Japanese at the time of their greatest strength, the F6F and F4U fought them after that strength had already been seriously eroded. Were they better birds than the F4F? Most certainly, but the F4F held the line, did the job, and took the very best hits that the Japanese could deliver, and came out on top. The Wildcat and the Kitty Hawk aren't glamorous birds, but they were the ones who took the blows.

And neither was the Fairy Swordfish.

A torpedo from of those string and fabric biplanes disabled the Bismarck and a carrier launched strike using 21 of those from one carrier in the middle of the night crippled the Regia Marina in ways 355 aircraft launched from four Japanese carriers didn't cripple the USN at Pearl Harbor despite the Japanese taking notes and trying to replicate the feat in a well defended shallow harbour.

 

[LordSunhawk]

And neither was the Fairy Swordfish.

A torpedo from of those string and fabric biplanes disabled the Bismarck and a carrier launched strike using 21 of those from one carrier in the middle of the night crippled the Regia Marina in ways 355 aircraft launched from four Japanese carriers didn't cripple the USN at Pearl Harbor despite the Japanese taking notes and trying to replicate the feat in a well defended shallow harbour.

Agreed that the Swordfish was impressive, but again you are making a flawed comparison.

In both the Bismarck and Taranto operations the Swordfish was able to effectively operate without opposition. Bismarck had flawed AAA and Taranto was a soft target for night attacks with no actual night fighters in the sky and limited AAA. When the Swordfish faced actual opposition it was grist for the mill, being too slow and too fragile to survive enemy fire.

And if the Regia Marina had the DC and industrial capability of the USN, then Taranto would have been just as temporary a victory. Again, apples and oranges.

So yes, Swordfish gets an honorable mention, it certainly outclassed the Devastator, but it cannot compare to the Japanese torpedo bombers.

Now if you want a frightening thought, the SBD Dauntless... 3.2/1 kill/loss ratio. Lowest number of losses of any aircraft type in the Pacific. Only reason the ratio isn't better is that generally the Dauntless wasn't sent after enemy aircraft. Slow... But Deadly.

 

[bintananth]

Now if you want a frightening thought, the SBD Dauntless... 3.2/1 kill/loss ratio. Lowest number of losses of any aircraft type in the Pacific. Only reason the ratio isn't better is that generally the Dauntless wasn't sent after enemy aircraft. Slow... But Deadly.

Poke's upthread. That's the aircraft I mentioned which started this discussion on Japanese and American WWII aircraft.

 

[ATP]

Along with "don't get into a dogfight if you can avoid it."

The Hawker Hurricane Mk.I proved pretty definitely during early encounters with Italian biplanes that maneuverability doesn't matter much when a single pass by something much faster with at least four times the firepower* can shred you.

* 8 wing-mounted guns vs. 2 cowl-mounted guns firing through the propeller hub.

Italian send Fiat Cr42 to France during battle of Britain.They could win every dogfight,but british never gave then chance for it,so they achieved almost nothing there.
Italian better pilots could avoid every attack,but they never had chance to attack themselves.The same goes for africa.

About fighting on Pacyfic - there is great book about it,"Bloody schambles" /Christopher shores/,and i found there fragment of memories of dutch pilot who first used Curtiss CW21,then Bufallo,and later Hurricane.
He said,that CW21 was best of them,and Hurricane actually worst.Bufallo,when mediocrate,was not bad plane in his opinion.
Interesting,why nobody except dutch buy CW21,if it was so good.

 

[bintananth]

Italian send Fiat Cr42 to France during battle of Britain.They could win every dogfight,but british never gave then chance for it,so they achieved almost nothing there.
Italian better pilots could avoid every attack,but they never had chance to attack themselves.The same goes for africa.

About fighting on Pacyfic - there is great book about it,"Bloody schambles" /Christopher shores/,and i found there fragment of memories of dutch pilot who first used Curtiss CW21,then Bufallo,and later Hurricane.
He said,that CW21 was best of them,and Hurricane actually worst.Bufallo,when mediocrate,was not bad plane in his opinion.
Interesting,why nobody except dutch buy CW21,if it was so good.

The CW-21 was 25-ish mph slower than a Hurricane despite the latter being about 1,250lbs heavier when dry than a CW-21 was when fully loaded. The Hurricane also outperformed the CW-21 in practically every respect.

Hurricane pilots shot down more Axis aircraft than Spitfire pilots did and no one in their right mind will say that the Spitfire wasn't one of the best WWII-era fighters.

 

[ATP]

The CW-21 was 25-ish mph slower than a Hurricane despite the latter being about 1,250lbs heavier when dry than a CW-21 was when fully loaded. The Hurricane also outperformed the CW-21 in practically every respect.

Hurricane pilots shot down more Axis aircraft than Spitfire pilots did and no one in their right mind will say that the Spitfire wasn't one of the best WWII-era fighters.

Well,i never were a pilot,only read what dutch pilots who used them though.

 

[bintananth]

Well,i never were a pilot,only read what dutch pilots who used them though.

The Hawker Hurricane was the last front line fighter to use fabric covered wings and production ceased in 1944. Late model Hurricanes - armed with four 20mm cannons along with bombs and/or rockets - were ground attack but could still hold their own in a dogfight against much newer fighters despite being slow and clumsy compared them because those four 20mm cannons could say "be somewhere else" about as effectively as the M61 Vulcan many modern military aircraft are equipped with.

 

[BF110C4]

One thing to remember is that planes are often judged differently due to the location and use given to them. Take for example the P-39 Peashooter which in american service was deemed unsuitable due to a unremarkable operational ceiling that enemy fighters could easily surpass and attack from above at will making it unsuitable for the Pacific and european bomber raids that characterized early US involvement. On the other hand the russians who used it as a low alttitude ground attack plane and as a ground attack killer loved it and most of their aces earned their first kills on it.

 

[bintananth]

One thing to remember is that planes are often judged differently due to the location and use given to them. Take for example the P-39 Peashooter which in american service was deemed unsuitable due to a unremarkable operational ceiling that enemy fighters could easily surpass and attack from above at will making it unsuitable for the Pacific and european bomber raids that characterized early US involvement. On the other hand the russians who used it as a low alttitude ground attack plane and as a ground attack killer loved it and most of their aces earned their first kills on it.

I'm trying to look it up but there is an anecdote of US and Soviet pilots exchanging fond stories about the P-39 when US pilots visited the USSR during the cold war. Chuck Yeager was involved (and the storyteller) if IIRC.

BTW: The P-39 was the Airacobra (Kobrushka ("little cobra") or Kobrastochka ("dear little cobra") by the Soviets). The P-26 was the Peashooter.

EDIT: The main reason the P-39 was deemed unsuitable by the USAAF was entirely the bean counters' fault: 2-stage superchargers were too expensive. The P-51A used the same Allison V-12 as the P-39 and also didn't have a 2-stage supercharger.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

EDIT: The main reason the P-39 was deemed unsuitable by the USAAF was entirely the bean counters' fault: 2-stage superchargers were too expensive. The P-51A used the same Allison V-12 as the P-39 and also didn't have a 2-stage supercharger.

I would point out that the main reason the USAAF didn't have two-stage superchargers wasn't actually that they were too expensive, but that the USAAF was betting on the superior performance capability of two-stage turbo-superchargers as opposed to "plain" superchargers. The original prototype XP-39 had a turbosupercharger, but the turbosupercharger was stripped out on the recommendation of NACA, which reasoned that the required performance could be achieved by a simpler and less powerful single-stage supercharger setup combined with careful drag reduction. They were technically correct, but this also meant that the P-39 had pretty much no room for performance growth *and* was crippled at high altitude, something the USAAF deemed acceptable because they failed to anticipate just how much the performance marks for fighter aircraft would increase in the future.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

To be fair, pretty much *everyone* failed to anticipate the dramatic explosion in performance; pretty much everyone's pre-war theorycrafting on what the future of air combat would look like was completely wrong on multiple levels, particularly on the "need" for twin engine bomber-destroyers with heavier, longer-range guns to outmatch bomber defensive weapons.

 

[bintananth]

To be fair, pretty much *everyone* failed to anticipate the dramatic explosion in performance; pretty much everyone's pre-war theorycrafting on what the future of air combat would look like was completely wrong on multiple levels, particularly on the "need" for twin engine bomber-destroyers with heavier, longer-range guns to outmatch bomber defensive weapons.

The British sorta got it right.

When the Hurricane, Spitfire, and company were being developed they asked the question "How many guns do we need?" thinking four was the right answer and were told - with the assistance of a schoolgirl helping her dad do the math - "Four is not enough. We need eight."

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The British sorta got it right.

When the Hurricane, Spitfire, and company were being developed they asked the question "How many guns do we need?" thinking four was the right answer and were told - with the assistance of a schoolgirl helping her dad do the math - "Four is not enough. We need eight."

Not really. The British made a huge mistake in sticking with rifle-caliber .303 machine guns instead of HMGs; even eight or twelve of these were really inadequate firepower. You'll notice that literally *every* other major power went to heavy caliber machine guns (Browning M2 for the US, MG 131 for the Germans, ShVAK for the Soviets, and Ho-103 for the Japanese).

 

[BF110C4]

The British sorta got it right.

When the Hurricane, Spitfire, and company were being developed they asked the question "How many guns do we need?" thinking four was the right answer and were told - with the assistance of a schoolgirl helping her dad do the math - "Four is not enough. We need eight."

Not really. The British made a huge mistake in sticking with rifle-caliber .303 machine guns instead of HMGs; even eight or twelve of these were really inadequate firepower. You'll notice that literally *every* other major power went to heavy caliber machine guns (Browning M2 for the US, MG 131 for the Germans, ShVAK for the Soviets, and Ho-103 for the Japanese).

Plus no one who funded the Boulton-Paul Defiant can ever gloat about getting armament right.

 

[bintananth]

Not really. The British made a huge mistake in sticking with rifle-caliber .303 machine guns instead of HMGs; even eight or twelve of these were really inadequate firepower. You'll notice that literally *every* other major power went to heavy caliber machine guns (Browning M2 for the US, MG 131 for the Germans, ShVAK for the Soviets, and Ho-103 for the Japanese).

I said "sorta got it right"

The British started replacing light machine guns with 20mm autocannons quite quickly when they realized that enormous volumes of .303 wasn't as effective as they desired.

They asked the question, did the math, and got an answer: "we need a lot more dakka than we thought we needed". Everyone else was basically playing "follow the leader" and stuffing bigger guns wherever they'd fit.

 

[Vargas Fan]

Plus no one who funded the Boulton-Paul Defiant can ever gloat about getting armament right.

The Defiant was successful at first when enemy fighters jumped it from behind mistaking it for a Hurricane at distance. It's when they learned that there was no fixed forward firing armament and the turret couldn't cover the frontal field of fire that things changed.

The Defiant served relatively well as a night fighter after that. Something that her naval equivalent, the Blackburn Roc didn't.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The British started replacing light machine guns with 20mm autocannons quite quickly when they realized that enormous volumes of .303 wasn't as effective as they desired.

No, I'm afraid that's the opposite of what actually happened.

The British were one of the very last major powers to adopt 20mm autocannons on single-engine fighters; the Japanese and Germans had autocannon fighters even pre-war, whereas the British only had a low-priority development program which produced no usable autocannon fighters. The British did not actually prioritize autocannon fighters until the Germans effectively rubbed their faces with the relative ineffectiveness of rifle-caliber machine guns, and even then, only the Hurricane was successfully fitted with four 20mm Hispano early on. Early attempts at a four-cannon Spitfire demonstrated severe freezing issues with the cannon feeds, so this armament was only used in the tropics; a fully reliable all-cannon Spitfire was not achieved until mid-1944 with the introduction of the "E" pattern wing.

The United States planned to go all-autocannon even before the war, but their efforts were completely ruined by the Bureau of Ordnance making an incorrectly sized firing chamber on the 20mm Hispano and then doubling down on its mistake by outright prohibiting production of correctly sized chambers.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The Defiant served relatively well as a night fighter after that. Something that her naval equivalent, the Blackburn Roc didn't.

The problem with the Defiant wasn't that a turret armed fighter was a fundamentally bad concept; the problem was that an early war power turret was just too heavy and bulky to fit to a fighter without crippling its performance. Along these lines, it is fair to note that the original prototype Defiant was experimentally fitted out without the turret as a potential supplement to the Hurricane and Spitfire, in the early days of the Battle of Britain when production was badly bottlenecked. The modified Defiant was nearly as fast and maneuverable as a contemporary Spitfire while mounting the heaviest gun armament of any single-engine British fighter: four 20mm autocannon *AND* four .303 machine guns.