Slitherine

quote:

Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One of the things I have lamented when playing the Allies, was the fact that none of the Allied powers seemed to have an effective fighter aircraft on the outbreak of the Pacific War. Take the Brewster Buffalo for example. Often it's pegged as one of the worst aircraft of the war. HOWEVER I ran across this YouTube clip that I found very informative. I thought many of you might find it of interest as well. Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLIVGvv6yY

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

I'd love to know your Escort/CAP settings with them, because I get straight up trashed when attempting to go up against Japanese carriers with anything less than a 2:1 numerical advantage until the Hellcat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

I'd love to know your Escort/CAP settings with them, because I get straight up trashed when attempting to go up against Japanese carriers with anything less than a 2:1 numerical advantage until the Hellcat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

warspite1

Yes but I don't think they had any in the PI in December 1941

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

warspite1

Yes but I don't think they had any in the PI in December 1941

It wouldn't matter if they had Hellcats until they could put 3 or 4 carriers together and have a battle like Midway that could win the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

warspite1

Yes but I don't think they had any in the PI in December 1941

It wouldn't matter if they had Hellcats until they could put 3 or 4 carriers together and have a battle like Midway that could win the war.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One of the things I have lamented when playing the Allies, was the fact that none of the Allied powers seemed to have an effective fighter aircraft on the outbreak of the Pacific War. Take the Brewster Buffalo for example. Often it's pegged as one of the worst aircraft of the war. HOWEVER I ran across this YouTube clip that I found very informative. I thought many of you might find it of interest as well. Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLIVGvv6yY

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Not to disagree on the Buffalo, but I think the Wildcat is underrated. Particularly with the F4F-4 I feel totally confident in a battle with Japanese carriers.

quote:


I'd rather be a pilot of a Wildcat than a A6M2 Zero any day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So what are your thoughts on this dr.hal? Do you think better aircraft would have made any difference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I thought you were responding to the OP and his request for comment re the real life position facing the US and Commonwealth in December 1941.

Please ignore my comment. My response to you was based on what the OP wanted to know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So what are your thoughts on this dr.hal? Do you think better aircraft would have made any difference?

Well, thanks for asking Warspite1,I appreciate it. In truth, before I did any research on the topic, I would have said that it's the lack of frontline aircraft (afterall my father was a pilot in the RAF during the war in India and Burma so I've a vested interest in it being OTHER than pilots) but upon further looking into it, I think it clearly centers on the infrastructure/training as the clip I originally posted suggests. Thus my real question was not about the Buffalo, but about what was wrong with the far East air game in December 1941? I think it hinged on the mistaken believe that the Japanese were inferior and it wasn't going to take much to put them in their place. With the shattering Japanese victories of the first few weeks of the Pacific war, I think the wind was taken out of the Allies' sails and it took many months to regain a more realistic footing. Meaning that in many instances the Allies were defeated even before being engaged. So in direct response to your question Warspite, NO, I don't think it would have made much difference at all. But that's just my take on a lot of stuff that I've read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think you need to consider the situation from a more global perspective. Britain was still fighting for its life against the U-boats and surface raiders, and only had reinforcement from Commonwealth countries and European states taken by the Nazis (e.g. Poland). Aviation fuel would have been precious, as would all modern aircraft. Consequently, India was left with little in the way of war training goods - especially AVGAS. And because you are correct that the Japanese were underestimated by the Allies, no one felt urgency to improve the situation in the Far East.

A more dynamic commander might have hectored for more stuff, but I am not sure Churchill could have obliged. The Mediterranean and North Africa must have seemed much more urgent and important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think you need to consider the situation from a more global perspective. Britain was still fighting for its life against the U-boats and surface raiders, and only had reinforcement from Commonwealth countries and European states taken by the Nazis (e.g. Poland). Aviation fuel would have been precious, as would all modern aircraft. Consequently, India was left with little in the way of war training goods - especially AVGAS. And because you are correct that the Japanese were underestimated by the Allies, no one felt urgency to improve the situation in the Far East.

A more dynamic commander might have hectored for more stuff, but I am not sure Churchill could have obliged. The Mediterranean and North Africa must have seemed much more urgent and important.

Yes BBfanboy, that's what the clip in my OP argues and I agree with it (thus the desire to start this thread). The Far East was certainly considered a low priority as the home island was struggling for its very survival. And this distribution of priorities was exacerbated by the mistaken perception that the Japanese could be easily defeated by second tier equipment and in many cases relatively green troops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One of the things I have lamented when playing the Allies, was the fact that none of the Allied powers seemed to have an effective fighter aircraft on the outbreak of the Pacific War. Take the Brewster Buffalo for example. Often it's pegged as one of the worst aircraft of the war. HOWEVER I ran across this YouTube clip that I found very informative. I thought many of you might find it of interest as well. Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLIVGvv6yY

quote:

Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffroK

quote:

Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

The bigger question, what frontline aircraft did the Allies have available.
The British could offer either the Spitfire V or Hurricane II. But in addition to Home Defence/Offence into France the RAF had to defend Malta, The Western Desert and provide aid to the USSR. US imports of the P40 Tomahawk were available for the Western Desert, Kittyhawk variants only available in early 1942. The RAF had received 100+ Airacobra I deemed unsuitable for NW Europe, these would be equivalent to the P-400.
The USAAF didnt even have the ability to supply anything better than the P40C & P40E which were stationed in The Philippines and Hawaiian Islands. F4F-3's were the best available as a Carrier fighter.

It could be that a better fight was possible if better trained pilots were available, better support facilities, RADAR, AA support,etc etc etc was available. If the RAF had 100 Spitfire V half of them would still be destroyed on the ground.

The Allies had to survive 1942, 1943 would see the arrival of Corsairs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Mustangs, Spitfires, Kittyhawks & Warhawks in ever increasing numbers, plus the infrastructure to use them efficiently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One of the things I have lamented when playing the Allies, was the fact that none of the Allied powers seemed to have an effective fighter aircraft on the outbreak of the Pacific War. Take the Brewster Buffalo for example. Often it's pegged as one of the worst aircraft of the war. HOWEVER I ran across this YouTube clip that I found very informative. I thought many of you might find it of interest as well. Would it have made a difference in the opening days of the war if the US/UK and other Allied powers had frontline aircraft deployed on 7 December 1941 in the Pacific theater? I look forward to your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLIVGvv6yY