Seafire? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

JSBoomer -> Seafire? (1/18/2005 8:11:02 AM)

Seafire, used where?



Andy Mac -> RE: Seafire? (1/18/2005 11:23:25 AM)

I dont think any FAA squadron upgrades to the Seafire.

One of the UK CV gps arrives with them equipped in 43 I think.

As it has really really short legs I dont think its the end of the world as UK CV's are only really usefull after Corsairs arrive anyway.

After 1.5 comes on stream you will be able to pay PP's to upgrade fulmars to Seafires if you want although you will probably have to pay twice when you want to re convert back to Corsairs in 43.

Andy



Hipper -> RE: Seafire? (1/18/2005 12:39:21 PM)

IRL

The seafire equipped Indomidable in 43 before she changed to to Hellcats for her pacific Deployment, Seafires also equipped Indefatigable and Implacable during their late 44 to 45 Pacific deployments... Their Hanger decks were too low for Corsairs and there were no Hellcats available.

NB andy The short Range of the Seafire was recognised by The Air group commanders on both Carriers so on their second deployment in 45 Off the Japanese coast they used 90 gallon external tanks to double their range

cheers



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Seafire? (1/18/2005 6:04:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

IRL

The seafire equipped Indomidable in 43 before she changed to to Hellcats for her pacific Deployment, Seafires also equipped Indefatigable and Implacable during their late 44 to 45 Pacific deployments... Their Hanger decks were too low for Corsairs and there were no Hellcats available.

NB andy The short Range of the Seafire was recognised by The Air group commanders on both Carriers so on their second deployment in 45 Off the Japanese coast they used 90 gallon external tanks to double their range

cheers


So this upgrade ability ignores the physical realities of CVs as well. Are we gonna see F7Fs on CVEs?



Tankerace -> RE: Seafire? (1/18/2005 6:07:54 PM)

Only if we get to see P-47s.

US CVEs were able to fly off P-47s (namely at the Marianas), just not land them. While in general they had to be catapaulted off the decks, I have one photo that shows a guy actually flying his P-47D-10 off the good ol (to quote the book) "Navy Way".



Raverdave -> RE: Seafire? (1/18/2005 11:17:05 PM)

IIRC the FAA was not that happy with the Seafire, it had a lot of trouble with it's undercarrige.



JSBoomer -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 12:41:29 AM)

Thanks for the info on the Seafire.



Tiornu -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 2:22:20 AM)

quote:

IIRC the FAA was not that happy with the Seafire

The Seafire had a number of operational issues, but it was a superb CAP fighter, arguably the best.



Raverdave -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 2:26:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

but it was a superb CAP fighter, arguably the best.



Thats a BIG statement there mate.......I would argue that the Seafire was NOT the best Naval fighter.



Tankerace -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 2:30:41 AM)

I'd say it was the best, in that it was probably the only naval fighter on any side that could hold its own in the MTO and ETO. US Built Hellcats and Wildcats couldn't perform as well at high altitude as the Mustang and Thunderbolt, and while they could probably handle 109s, going up against Focke Wulfs or Me-262s would have been suicide. The Seafire could probably, like its Spit cousin, hold its own.

For a naval vs land based fighter, I would say its possible to say the Seafire was the best.
For Naval vs Naval, I'd think that would have to go to the F6F Hellcat.



Tiornu -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 3:36:54 AM)

I did not say the Seafire was the best naval fighter. I'd claim that is was certainly NOT the best. However, for flying CAP, where range and structural issues were not so important, a plane with great acceleration was often the key to making an interception, especially when attackers understood the blind spots in radar etc.
The Spitfire is only a limited indicator of what a Seafire could do.
The meager sampling of Grumman vs LW anecdotes shows that the US planes prospered against the Germans; but the sample is meager.



TheElf -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 4:05:55 AM)

I have a great book in Spitfires, to include Seafires. Of the 43 photos in the book covering its service 11 of them are of accidents during recovery.

"Pecking" was a severe problem whereby if the pilot didn't trap in the proper three point attitude, the gyration of the A/C during the deceleration typically caused the proop to strike the deck. Servicability suffered dramatically as parts supply, notably the engines were limited due to logistics at sea. A difficult problem.

Add to this the questionable suitablility of it already fragile undercarriage and you can see that while a great airplane in the air, no doubt, it had its limitations. Hard landings were a problem especially in the FAA's early development and training on the type. The first carrier qulas were ugly.

Still I love the idea of it, and have always been a big fan of the Spits. I personally don't see any reason to suggest not having it int he game. In fact as long as accurate operational loss modifiers and a historical build rate are in place I don't care if an allied player upgrades all his units to Seafires. Thats what this game is all about



Tankerace -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 4:17:00 AM)

In flight sims, I love the Spitfire not so much for its combat ability (which is good), but that it is a blast to fly. Its gently, fast, and maneuverable. Of course, like one guy in the Eagle Squadron said, "She's a little bitch on the ground."



CynicAl -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 6:10:19 AM)

Tiornu:
I'm afraid I don't agree. The mission where the Seafire's advantages in climb and accceleration really make it a standout is deck-launched intercept; for maintaining a standing CAP, however, more endurance is better. It translates into more flexibility for the entire force - in particular, more freedom to maneuver (since the CV has to spend less time steaming into the wind cycling fighters). That's why I'd still give the award for Best CAP Aircraft (Naval) to the F6F.

Tankerace:
IMO, the whole "BEST FIGHTER" thing (and the attendant "Fighter X beats Fighter Y" thing) is a bit too much like Rock-Paper-Scissors. That is to say, it depends too much on the situation to yield a definitive answer.

For example: if someone were to claim that the Wildcat was the best-performing Allied fighter of WW2, that would probably stir up a bit of controversy. Maybe even argument. [:D] Nevertheless, it's the truth - below 5-8 thousand feet, anyway. Down on the deck, the FM-2 was a world-beater. Of course that changed with altitude - above 10-15 thousand feet, the FM-2's engine was gasping for air and any of the late-war types could be expected to pick it off with ease.

More examples, from the Eastern Front: the Finns got great service from their Buffalos against the Soviets, and Soviet pilots in turn enjoyed considerable success flying Lend-Lease P-39s and P-40s against Luftwaffe Me109s and FW190s. So, was the Buffalo really the best fighter of the war, without anyone realizing it? Were Soviet pilots so inept they couldn't even down Buffalos - and at the same time such amazing flying geniuses that in their hands even the lowly P-39 and P-40 were transformed? Of course not. General conditions in the East played to these types' advantages, and minimized the advantages of their opponents.

The late-war USN fighters would not have done well escorting four-engine bombers at 35000 feet. That wasn't the mission they were designed for, and it wasn't the regime where they gave their best performance. But as Tiornu posted, F6Fs and F4Us flown by RN and USN pilots did encounter Luftwaffe fighters on a few (5 or 6, IIRC) occasions; and the Allies do seem to have come out ahead in those engagements.



Tiornu -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 7:19:20 AM)

"I'm afraid I don't agree. The mission where the Seafire's advantages in climb and accceleration really make it a standout is deck-launched intercept; for maintaining a standing CAP, however, more endurance is better. It translates into more flexibility for the entire force - in particular, more freedom to maneuver (since the CV has to spend less time steaming into the wind cycling fighters). That's why I'd still give the award for Best CAP Aircraft (Naval) to the F6F."
Good points. I won't disagree with you, as I personally don't have an opinion on the subject. I'm not sure it's possible to crown any plane with a general title, but then again, maybe it is.
The Seafire was part of a system. If I may speak in generalities, RN carriers operated with a fundamental difference from US carriers in their radar fighter-direction. American fighters would often intercept incoming raids at great distances, a hundred miles or so, forcing the enemy to expend himself just to get to the target. The British were in a system that "painted" incoming planes at a shorter range, though with the advantage of superior coverage; low-flying planes had a much better chance of sneaking in to jab American ships.
So, like most things, it's rather more complex than any single component of the system. One thing I'm sure of; though I admire the Sea/Spitfire, if I were a carrier commander, I'd rather have a hangar full of radial-engined, long-range flying bricks.
And I SO WISH we'd had a chance to see what the Bearcat could do.



CynicAl -> RE: Seafire? (1/19/2005 9:09:26 AM)

I'd say it depends on how "general" you want the title to be. If the categories are sufficiently narrow, it becomse possible to pick out the winners. "Best Four-Engined Heavy Bomber" I'd go for. Just plain "Best Bomber," though? Too many choices, in too many different roles.

The Bearcat was a sweet-looking little plane. I wonder - just a few months shaved off the development time could have had the first squadron on station in time for the invasion of Okinawa... Too bad.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625