Slitherine

quote:

I disagree 100%...


Training in AT-6 Texan is nothing like flying Wildcat.

You can't train combat in aircraft that is 2x slower than actual aircraft you will go into combat with. The incredible speeds and overall performances (rate of climb for example) brought by brand new and advanced fighters of 1939/1940/1941 throw away all concepts and training that were valid before.

It's like saying that you can prepare to be Formula One (F1) driver (or CART if you prefer US variant of the motor sport) by driving your own car...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It is not as though pilots trained in 1939+ in the USN trained in biplanes beyond elementary flight. Advanced training featured the At6, which was fast enough to put a premium on pilots who were good at deflection shooting. And also, the last sentence is really not very germane because by definition deflection shooting rarely occurs with aircraft head to head or making a stern approach. These are low deflection shots. Many of the high deflection shots occurred when the Japanese pilots would use their old favorite tactic from China. A section leader and his wingmates would attempt to make a passing run, low delfection, on an enemy (front or stern approach), dive under, zoom up, and turn round for another run. Unfortunately for many veteran Japanese pilots, zooming up in front of an F4F gave the Wildcat driver an excellent deflection shot.

I disagree 100%...


Training in AT-6 Texan is nothing like flying Wildcat.

You can't train combat in aircraft that is 2x slower than actual aircraft you will go into combat with. The incredible speeds and overall performances (rate of climb for example) brought by brand new and advanced fighters of 1939/1940/1941 throw away all concepts and training that were valid before.
Well,actually you can train in slower aircraft,and all air forces have been doing so since World War One..
The training of pilots however does NOT end at the graduation of the flight school,but continues thruout a pilot's career,(with whatever plane his unit is assigned to fly).
This too applies to every Air Force in the world..
This is not an opinion,if you do need verification,almost anybody here can provide it..


It's like saying that you can prepare to be Formula One (F1) driver (or CART if you prefer US variant of the motor sport) by driving your own car...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Oh, I'm not so sure I agree with that reasoning. That's like saying when you purchase a new automobile you have to learn how to drive all over again.
Also, once you have the skill at shooting it doesn't just go away. It might need more refinement when getting used to a new gun platform, but the skill is still there.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:


His most "classic" combat, by some analysts, was on June 6, 1942 at noon. While in a bomber escort mission, he saw a formation of 16 P-40 Tomahawk fighter and ground attack aircraft, but initially remained with his formation, escorting the german bombers. After ten minutes, he left his formation with the escorted bombers and flew alone to attack the 16 Tomahawks, but his faithful wingman followed him. Marseille climbed above a tight formation of four, then dived at them. From a range of just 200ft he selected his first victim and turned at him. From a very short range of just 150ft he fired and shot it down. He then pulled up, turned, and dived at his 2nd victim, shooting it down from a range of 150ft. The others began to dive, but Marseille dived at them, turned at his 3rd victim and shot it down at altitude of about 3500ft (1km). He passed thru the smoke from his 3rd victim and leveled at low altitude, and then climbed again. He then dived again, at his 4th victim. He fired from just 100ft, but his guns didn't fire, so he fired his machine guns from very short range and passed thru the debris from his 4th victim. At the moment he hit his 4th victim, his 3rd victim hit the ground after falling 3500ft, approximately 15 seconds between victories, an indication of Marseille's speed. The remaining Tomahawks were now all at very low altitude. He leveled at them and quickly closed distance. He found himself beside one of the Tomahawks, he turned at him and fired, hitting his 5th victim in the engine and the cockpit. He climbed again, watched the remaining Tomahawks, selected a target, dived, levelled, and fired, and passed just above his 6th victim. He then climbed to his wingman which observed the battle from 7500ft above, and then, short of fuel and ammunition, flew back to base.

In 11 minutes of combat, fighting practically alone against a large enemy formation, he shot down six victims, five of them in the first six minutes. He was the only attacker in the battle, and not a single round was fired at him. The surviving Tomahawk pilots said in their debriefing that they were attacked "by a numerically superior german formation which made one formation attack at them, shot down six of their friends, and disengaged". In a post-war analysis of this dogfight these pilots testified the same.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drongo

Charles,

Haven't you read any history of the air war in North Africa?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Oh yeah, sure, but what fighting could there have been? Most Me109 action down there was against the Brits. Maybe the depleted corp they had left over there after the retreat from El Alamein saw some action against P40's, but how long did the Germans last after the Torch landing, 3 months?

quote:

The fast monocock full metal low wing fighters started to appear in air forces in 1939/1940/1941.

quote:

Those designs were so radically new that all the knowledge that pilots gained from WWI and in post war years become practically obsolete.

quote:

Thus, saying that USN had extensive deflection shooting training from 1925 onwards means practically nothing because all that training and tactics were done in aircraft that were far far inferior to new hot fighters they all received before the war started (and practically useless because everything changed in meantime when new machines arrived).

quote:


Thus, saying that USN had extensive deflection shooting training from 1925 onwards means practically nothing because all that training and tactics were done in aircraft that were far far inferior to new hot fighters they all received before the war started (and practically useless because everything changed in meantime when new machines arrived).

Again this is same for all air forces (in Europe, US and Japan).

New things had to be learned and, basically, everything had to be done anew...


This is what I am saying guys... everything was new to almost all warring parties except for Germans and Japanese who had opportunity to test their new machines in Spain and China - other nations lacked that...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:



Original Apollo11

You can't compare USA vs. Japan in WWII with USA vs. Iraq nowadays.

That would simply be ridiculous.

Japan was truly world power in WWII with extremely highly trained 1st class Navy, Army and Air Force.

quote:

(but I'm still thinking USN pilots used stern attacks except when against fighters)

quote:

Japanese pilots shot down USN fighters with deflection shots. (why Allied pilots liked to make the A6M2 turn left rather then right.

quote:

Every gunner assigned to a MG on any aircraft from WW1 on had to use deflection shooting. There was nothing "USN" about it.

quote:

The "USN" thing about it was the amount of effort dedicated to pilots, while they were training, to become proficient at it. Although pilots of all air forces at times attempted it, often successfully, it seems according to Lundstrom that the USN worked harder at training pilots to be good at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jon_Hal

Leo, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Myself and several others have provided historical examples that seem to disagree with you position. You have yet to provide any proof of your position besides your opinion. Your statement is fine and good if you want to believe it, I'm not going to try to convince you anymore. I will let the historical record stand on it's own.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

The fast monocock full metal low wing fighters started to appear in air forces in 1939/1940/1941.

Sorry to be annoying, I am NOT a spelling nazi, but please... monocoque. And it doesn't mean "1 wing." It means that the exterior is also the major stress-bearing element in the design. That element of design was common in some combat biplanes in the mid-1930s. The F3F, for example, was a monocoque biplane. The difference is primarily in the "skin." A fabric covered surface is not a monocoque design. An aluminum surface generally was.

quote:

quote:

Those designs were so radically new that all the knowledge that pilots gained from WWI and in post war years become practically obsolete.

Errr. No. Nothing terribly radical about the designs at all. If you look at the progression from biplane to monoplane it's not a "great leap forward." It's a series of incremental progressions from frame&fabric, low HP biplanes to aluminum-skinned, higher HP-engined monoplanes. Withing the general category of things 1-winged and monocoque there was a huge degree of variation in characteristics affected by things like weight and drag and of course especially by powerplant output.

quote:

quote:

Thus, saying that USN had extensive deflection shooting training from 1925 onwards means practically nothing because all that training and tactics were done in aircraft that were far far inferior to new hot fighters they all received before the war started (and practically useless because everything changed in meantime when new machines arrived).

That is just pure, off the cuff, taking off the top of your head speculation and it is nonsense. It's hard to imagine what sort of training cycle you think that the USN used. People did not transition from Wright Fliers to F4Fs 48 hours before being sent into combat, so this business about the 'new fighters being radically different' in whatever you think they differed in ... is just not applicable. F4F pilots trained extensively in F4Fs at deflection shooting and were very, very good at it. And the proof is in the performance. Thach, Flatley, other famous pilots at the time attributed USN pilots' ability to hold their own to good deflection shooting. Lundstrom's analyses prove that good deflection shooting was instrumental in obtaining victories over the A6M. So, you seem to have a "theory" with no good statement of why the theory ought to make sense that is not supported by extant information about training practices nor by extant information from combat.

Now I don't know what you imagine to be radically different. Airspeeds increased, but that happened at a pretty constant rate from 1914 through 1945. The only "great leap" in airspeed occurred with the transition to the jet age.

quote:


I also fail to see how this could matter in combat, because high rates of closure in deflection training could be obtained using almost any aircraft. Consider an AT6 Texan pilot training at aerial gunnery. His target is a banner towed by, perhaps, a Hudson or some other aircraft. In any quartering from behind to dead astern approach, the AT6's closing rate is on the order of anything from nil to 100 mph, depending on the AT6's pilots desires. This is certainly much greater than the speed differential of any F4F on a quartering approach on an A6M in a combat where, for example, both planes may have turned once. It's certainly a much greater difference than that for which F4F pilots would have compensated when and A6M making a stern approach pass on an F4F would dive under then zoom up in front of the F4F (a favored tactic of A6M pilots as a matter of training and doctrine).

Finally, there is the fact that the deflection shooting worked. You don't have to take my word for it. Read what Thach and Flatley said about it. You don't have to take their word for it, read what Lundstrom said about it. You don't have to take his word for it, read the detailed descriptions of a2a combat and see for yourself the numerous instances of Zekes falling to F4Fs in deflection shots. You don't have to beleive those are typical, but if you read any history of the aerial war the usual conclusion is that the dcotrinal emphasis on deflection shooting gave the USN the edge. Heck, if I remember right even the "usual suspects" Japanese pilot anecdotes credit the USN pilots with being crack shots.

You don't have to believe THEIR word for it either. Ask yourself how an a/c that was less maneuverable at slow speed than the Zero, with inferior acceleration, inferior climb, and slower maximum WEP speed at all altitudes managed to shoot down more Zekes in direct confrontations than they lost? It wasn't done by pounding one's fists on the controls and shouting harsh words at the Japanese.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

Day Air attack on TF, near Darwin at 36,84 

Japanese aircraft 
A6M2 Zero x 36 
G4M1 Betty x 9 

Allied aircraft 
F2A Buffalo x 11 
F4F-3 Wildcat x 15 
Wirraway x 3 

Japanese aircraft losses 
A6M2 Zero: 26 destroyed 
G4M1 Betty: 7 destroyed, 4 damaged 

Allied aircraft losses 
F2A Buffalo: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged 
F4F-3 Wildcat: 8 destroyed, 1 damaged 
Wirraway: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Well I can see where that would be the case. If they say "We are not attacking from the stern" then the only option left is deflection shooting.

You know the Japanese learned they had to attack B-17 with deflection shooting but 2x7mm does not do the damage 6x.50cal (or more) does. Getting hits with the 20mm using deflection shooting would limit an A6M2 pilot to only one or two shots. Much better for him to fill his sight with enemy aircraft close up.
Hi Mogami!!!!!!
Well,I have read your various threads for over a year,and generally I feel you are very knowledgeable about things,but here you are wrong..
Suburo Sakai made a profound case in his book "Samurai" that the B 17 was the hardest plane to knock down,and he states they eventually learned the most efficient way to do it was to make continuous "head on" passes..
(Later,the Germans followed this practice as well and the USAAF countered with their powered chin gun on the "G" model..)
Ref the arms you mentioned on the Zero,actually the common arms were 2 MG's and 2 cannon on the Zero..(The Oscar was the one with only 2 MG's)..
In nearly all other matters,(especially game knowledge,I defer to you)..
The Luftwaffe used deflection attacks against B-17 as well. Where they came over the top rolled over and passed under. The whole time they were firing at empty space that was full of B-17 when it mattered.

All fighter pilots do the "snap shot" where you quickly turn your nose and fire before going into another move and your not astern of the enemy.
If it is what you do then it is not surprising you get good at it.
It was the perfect match for Allied aircraft. It makes Japanese aircraft lose their advantage and the only cost to the Allies is higher ammo bills. (Not that deflection shooting wastes more ammo for good shots) It's just like skeet shooting only your flying and using a maginegun.

quote:

But let me ask you one question - the Japan expanded in 6 months but it took US 3 years to beat it (and to free what Japan took at the beginning).

quote:

If US was so strong at the beginning of WWII with clear superiority in everything (with such great Army, Navy, Marines, aircraft, ships, equipment, generals, soldiers) why it took so long to beat poor Japan who was so inferior even at the start of war (with poor ships, poor aircraft, poor generals, poor soldiers, poor economy)?

quote:

The 1939/1940/1941 fighter designs were "light years" ahead of anything biplanes (and likes) had to offer from WWI onwards... everything changed...

quote:

So you say that it really doesn't matter at all that new fighters were almost brand new in service when war started (i.e. that there wasn't so much time for all pilots to train all new tactics/doctrines in their new fighters)?

quote:

As for USN using deflection shooting I never said that USN didn't use it - but to say that all USN pilots were thus better than their counterparts because of that is exaggeration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

But let me ask you one question - the Japan expanded in 6 months but it took US 3 years to beat it (and to free what Japan took at the beginning).

There are four reasons.
1. When Japan started the war in the Pacific, they had a vast numerical advantage in aircraft, ships, and men.

quote:


2. They also had a superior strategic position throughout most of the war vis a vis lines of supply and communication. Basically "interior" lines of supply. If you think of the Pacific "front lines" as points on a ragged circle, Japan was rather near the center of the circle, so moving assets between bases along the perimeter of the circle was easier for the Japanese through 1943 (after which time their ship losses really began to adversely affect basic supply). In contrast the Allies, to get from A to B, had to move along the perimeter of the circle. And before the Allies could even GET to the perimiter of the circle they had to travel the equivalent of 1 diameter (to get assets from the US to any point on the circle from the US) or 3 diameters (to get assets from the UK to any point on the circle).

quote:


3. The vast bulk of the island air bases throughout the Marshalls, the Bonins, the Ryukyus, Taipei, etc had been under Japanese control since 1920, so Japanese "conquest" does not equate with the Japanese perimeter at its maximum. The Japanese started the war with much of the region already in thier pocket, and the areas that they conquered were more or less surrounded (in the case of Guam, and the PI) before the war, or like Indonesia-Borneo-Northern New Guinea-Davao depopulate or under the control of a fourth rate military power (Netherlands East Indies).

quote:


4. The Allies pretty much had to invade heavily fortified positions in places that increasingly lacked friendly land air bases and became ever more replete with enemy land air-bases. In effect, each invasion was much like the effort required of old to reduce a fortified position.

quote:

quote:

If US was so strong at the beginning of WWII with clear superiority in everything (with such great Army, Navy, Marines, aircraft, ships, equipment, generals, soldiers) why it took so long to beat poor Japan who was so inferior even at the start of war (with poor ships, poor aircraft, poor generals, poor soldiers, poor economy)?

This is known as the "straw man" argument. The question isn't one of people arguing that the US was so strong or so great at everything. The issue to hand is whether or not the USN pilots warrant high EXP values and what the basis for that may be.

quote:

quote:

The 1939/1940/1941 fighter designs were "light years" ahead of anything biplanes (and likes) had to offer from WWI onwards... everything changed...

This is known, in the Baloney Detector Kit, as "the fallacy of the excluded middle." (Arguments in the form of "If not this then the only one other possibility exists.") In this particular instance your argument seems to require that we beleive that no one, prior to 7 December 1941, had flown or trained in anything other than an 1918 vintage biplane.

quote:

quote:

So you say that it really doesn't matter at all that new fighters were almost brand new in service when war started (i.e. that there wasn't so much time for all pilots to train all new tactics/doctrines in their new fighters)?

No, I'm saying that it is just plain factually incorrect to state that all the new fighters (for ex the P40 and the F4F) were brand new conceptually from the ones that immediately preceded them (see below), and it is likewise factually incorrect to state that pilots lacked the time to train in the newest fighters, and finally that it is factually incorrect to claim that new tactics and doctrine were mandated (at least in the USN) with the introduction of the F4F.

Progression of aircraft USAAF:

1931: Boeing P-26 (1 wing monocoque radial design)
1937: Seversky P-35 (direct lineal ancestor to P-43 --> P-47)
1938: Curtis P-36 (radial engine precursor to the P-40)
1940: Bell P-39 (600 deployed prior to December 1941) -- laugh as much as you want. Below 10,000 feet it was an A6M or Ki-43 driver's worst nightmare come true. Dirty rotten shame that the USAAF castrated the thing at altitude by taking away the supercharger.

Progression of aircraft USN:
1936: Grumman F3F-1 (monocoque biplane) -- at 262 mph more than 100 mph faster than non monocoque biplanes and with a service ceiling of 33,000 feet. Definitely not a plane that Richtofen would want to have encountered in his Dreidekker and definitely NOT your garden varienty biplane trainer or WW1 biplane.

1940: Brewster F2A-2 (monocoque 1-wing) -- at 344 mph/26,500 it was *faster* than the Japanese A6M2. For a variety of reasons (including inferior landing gear, a problem that plagued Japanese late-war designs, lack of armor, and the general state of grab-assedness that characterized Brewster as a manufacturer), the plane was phased out in anticipation of the Grumman F4F. VF-2 and VF-3 had been flying F2A-2s for almost a year prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.

1941: Grumman F4F-3... had replaced the F2 in all but two USMC and USN squadrons and was the only destination fighter for new units in training in 1940.

Now, these are basically "deployment dates." The specifications were typically 5 years older than the deployments, which means that for any given one of them, 5 years of innovation in doctrine and tactics, at minimum, preceded their use.

quote:

quote:

As for USN using deflection shooting I never said that USN didn't use it - but to say that all USN pilots were thus better than their counterparts because of that is exaggeration.

That startement reiterates the fallacy of the excluded middle. USN pilots were better at defection shooting because by all accounts they trained much more intensively at it. No one ever said that other nations pilots did not take deflection shots. Just that as a matter of central tendency USN pilots were better at it. They were better at it because they practiced at it and developed doctrine around it and had been emphasizing it for 20 years more or less prior to the US entry into the war.

Like most things, the more you practice, the better you are.

quote:


Most pilots (all sides) were not expert at deflection shooting, that's why thousands of pilots (all sides) fly their tours but never shot down a plane, becuase they just didn't have a) shooting eye and b) hunter instincts. Of course the pilots that had those skills, became legend(foss, Yeager, campell, sakai, hartman, etc.,). Even Eric Hartman, said that strategy was to manuever the plane really close(preferably rear) before openning up.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE