Pre-WW2 Carrier Comparison

[JOE BRENNAN]

The Me-262 and Meteor III were operational in WW2 and were much better than any operational naval aircraft.

 

The point being discussed was the false claim that USN naval fighters were the equal of their land based contemporaries.

Talk about wriggling, onto another thread

 

Your original statement (or what seemed the first clear statement of position)

"USN and IJN carrier aircraft were inferior to land based aircraft - it was not just a FAA problem. I think you have some strange ideas if you believe that any USN or IJN aircraft was better than the best available land based equivalent or opponent. The Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires, Avengers and Barracudas were not superior to land based aircraft."

 

That sounds pretty categorical at the beginning, though ambiguous at the end (WWII fighter matchups are a not a precise numerical quantity where "were inferior" and "were not superior" can be used as synonyms; "were broadly competive in performance and the outcome depended on pilots and numbers" was the most common real case). Anyway finding one period or comparison of combatants where landbased fighters were superior does not prove your convoluted statement. In fact on the other thread specific examples of the contrary were offered (this thread too) and not answered, Type 96 was among the best fighters in 1936, Zero similarly in 1940 (its 1943 exchange ratio v the Spit V of several:1 showed it clearly competitive, even if the result might have been less onesided in different circumstances), F4U similarly ca. 1943 (Alfred Price's contention in "WWII Fighter Combat", not a US fan-boy). And the jet example has two obvious weaknesses even as a single example: paradigm shift in a/c design it represented, plus the fact that the Me-262 didn't in fact have a successful record at all combatting piston fighters, several to one ratio against it, and no, it wasn't all in landing patterns and such The 262 was an effective multi-engine bomber destroyer but not a practical fighter-fighter a/c in its actual state of development; it represented the future of fighter design. But your original statement needs more than a single example anyway, needs a discussion of how this was systematically true to fulfil the original categorical statement, which it clearly was not, so good luck.

 

Joe

Edited July 10, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[DesertFox]

Also, fron an engineering stand point with its engines in the wing root is not the FH-1 Phantom more developed in the actual body than either the Me-262 or the Meteor.

 

Jet fighters were a complete change in aircraft designs. Maybe an aircraft may be introduced type might be better for a short period but this is more just a temporary dynamic.

 

I want more and a better example of what your statement is!

[DKTanker]

More to the point, when was it ever valid to make performance comparisons between jets and prop jobs -- except to point out that they are in entirely different classes?

Perhaps a comment best directed towards Phil, he's the one making the faux comparison.

[Richard Lindquist]

The FAA worked out night tactics before radar and apart from Taranto, it also operated at night in the Mediterranean quite often using Swordfish (and later Albacores) as night bombers attacking coastal targets and airfields.

 

The problem with your asking about a successful night time torpedo attack is the problem of the lack of targets. If you look at the nighttime operation of aircraft versus U-boats there are plenty of examples.

 

It also helps if your only opposition is the Italians. The RAF and FAA did none to well against the Japanese until re-equipped with US aircraft.

[Ken Estes]

It also helps if your only opposition is the Italians. The RAF and FAA did none to well against the Japanese until re-equipped with US aircraft.

Very reminiscent of the classic quote by AJP Taylor in his The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1914:

It becomes wearisome to add 'except for the Italians' to every generalization. Henceforth it may be assumed.

[intro; fn4]

[Shortround6]

I think that the conventional wisdom that said that carrier based fighters/aircraft were inferior to land based planes started in the 20s or 30s. Carrier based planes had to be rigged for arrestor hook landings and needed beefer landing gear. Many carrier planes also carried life rafts or floatation bags in case of ditching. If both the carrier plane and it's land based counterpart used the same engine then the extra weight and perhaps bulk of the carrier equipment would count against it's performance.

As aircraft got a bit bigger and faster (and engines started to go over 600hp;) the need for larger wings on the carrier planes to permit lower speed take-offs and landings also told against them. Folding wings, when fitted, also added weight that a land based plane didn't have.

By 1941-42 however the allies and especially the Americans began to edge ahead in the horsepower race. Carrier planes and land based planes were no longer using the same engines. By 1944 US carrier fighters had 2000hp + engines. American carrier planes had a several hundred horsepower (or more) advantage over their Japanese land based counterparts that allowed them to carry all the carrier equipment, structural bracing and wing folding gear and still keep up performance.

Same goes for the Germans. Just how many 2,000-2,400hp engined fighters did the Germans really have?

 

The British may have trailed the Americans but Seafires could out horsepower most Italian aircraft. Later British carrier planes like the Griffon engined Seafire coming on line in May 45 and the Fireflys gave up little to their lower powered land based opponents.

 

With Bearcats, Tigercats, Seafurys and other aircraft comming along (prototype Skyraider flew in March 1945) with engines going to 2,400-2,700HP no enemy land based plane was going to equel them and they were starting to run into the same problems as their land based counterparts. Compressability, supersonic propeller tip speeds and just overall drag rise.

 

I think it goes back to comparing apples to apples. With deveopment moving so fast in those years differences of even a year might make a difference as to which engine a plane got and that might affect how much power it's later production versions got 3-4 years down the road.

[Guest pfcem]

Simple (apart from all the others) - which Navy Fighter was better than the Me-262 or Meteor III ?

At the time the Me-262 & Meteor entered service most naval fighters which entered service around the same time were better overall fighters. The Me-262 & Meteor had GREAT speed (which made them excellent intercepters) but that was about the only advangate they had over "contemperary" piston fighters. They did not out accellerate, climb, role, turn et cetera "contemperary" piston fighters. They were also HUGELY expensive & since so many use that as an argument against modern US weapons systems I guess it is just as valid to use that against the Me-262 & Meteor.

[Guest pfcem]

I wanted to do this as a new thread instead of continuing in the original thread.

Thank you. Maybe that topic can get back on track now.

 

 

 

Reading KS's post, he stated that the British Navy had to go through the air ministry to purchase aircraft while the US Navy and Japanese Navy had their own procurement agencies. What happened? The British Navy was always the darling of the British Nation and was one of the first Navies to get involved in Aviation. HMS Hermes and HMS Eagle were extremely early designs and were both commissioned before Lexington and Eagle. As well, the Birtish Navy did have the funds to be reboilered and refitted in the early Thirties. Did the British Navy see limited actual value in their carriers and what type of observations were made of the carriers being operated across the pond?

It more-or-less boils down to it was not until mid-war that Britain truely considered the carrier an offensive weapon. To the British Navy the carrier was an auxiliary meant to support the main battle fleet. Therefor carrier aviation was a low priority.

 

 

 

Also from KS, he talks about warming up planes one at a time on deck. Was that a direct consequence of having such small air groups or was it for another reason? Also, is it literally ONE at a time or kind of slow, a couple of time? As well, what kind of reaction did their observation of carrier operations in the US and Japan cause among the British Navy?

As KS has said it was primarily a safety procedure. Once they realized how Japan & the US did things (& how that made for MUCH more effective & efficient carrier operations) they quickly changed their procedures to be more like those of Japan & the US.

 

 

 

Finally with regard to open hanger designs, would the Lexington and Saratoga be consider to be open hangers?

No, the Lexintons had hull plating all the way up to the flight deck. An "open" hanger carrier only has hull plating up to the hanger deck with the hanger & flight deck essentially being a separate structure "sitting" on top of (rather than being an intagral part of) the ship.

[philgollin]

Talk about wriggling, onto another thread

 

Your original statement (or what seemed the first clear statement of position)

"USN and IJN carrier aircraft were inferior to land based aircraft - it was not just a FAA problem. I think you have some strange ideas if you believe that any USN or IJN aircraft was better than the best available land based equivalent or opponent. The Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires, Avengers and Barracudas were not superior to land based aircraft."

 

That sounds pretty categorical at the beginning, though ambiguous at the end (WWII fighter matchups are a not a precise numerical quantity where "were inferior" and "were not superior" can be used as synonyms; "were broadly competive in performance and the outcome depended on pilots and numbers" was the most common real case). Anyway finding one period or comparison of combatants where landbased fighters were superior does not prove your convoluted statement. In fact on the other thread specific examples of the contrary were offered (this thread too) and not answered, Type 96 was among the best fighters in 1936, Zero similarly in 1940 (its 1943 exchange ratio v the Spit V of several:1 showed it clearly competitive, even if the result might have been less onesided in different circumstances), F4U similarly ca. 1943 (Alfred Price's contention in "WWII Fighter Combat", not a US fan-boy). And the jet example has two obvious weaknesses even as a single example: paradigm shift in a/c design it represented, plus the fact that the Me-262 didn't in fact have a successful record at all combatting piston fighters, several to one ratio against it, and no, it wasn't all in landing patterns and such The 262 was an effective multi-engine bomber destroyer but not a practical fighter-fighter a/c in its actual state of development; it represented the future of fighter design. But your original statement needs more than a single example anyway, needs a discussion of how this was systematically true to fulfil the original categorical statement, which it clearly was not, so good luck.

 

Joe

 

So basically - oh dear it's not fair to compare piston engined fighters with jets ! - unfortunately that what was the result of someone ignoring the truth of the matter.

 

The squirming is delicious to see

[philgollin]

Also, fron an engineering stand point with its engines in the wing root is not the FH-1 Phantom more developed in the actual body than either the Me-262 or the Meteor.

 

Jet fighters were a complete change in aircraft designs. Maybe an aircraft may be introduced type might be better for a short period but this is more just a temporary dynamic.

 

I want more and a better example of what your statement is!

 

Why ?

 

The statement was made that at the end of the war naval fighters were as good as their land based contemporaries - I pointed out the most obvious examples showing the incorrectness of this statement - why not point this out to the person making the original comment ?

[DesertFox]

Why ?

 

The statement was made that at the end of the war naval fighters were as good as their land based contemporaries - I pointed out the most obvious examples showing the incorrectness of this statement - why not point this out to the person making the original comment ?

 

Phil:

I am trying real hard to have a neutral opinion. I am an ex Squid so of course there is some pride in the US Navy. Still, you may want to consider why basically everybody is arguing against you.

[irregularmedic]

Why ?

 

The statement was made that at the end of the war naval fighters were as good as their land based contemporaries - I pointed out the most obvious examples showing the incorrectness of this statement - why not point this out to the person making the original comment ?

 

 

Wait a second!

When did it become "at the end of the war"?

 

This wasn't your statement? -

"USN and IJN carrier aircraft were inferior to land based aircraft - it was not just a FAA problem. I think you have some strange ideas if you believe that any USN or IJN aircraft was better than the best available land based equivalent or opponent. The Corsairs, Hellcats, Seafires, Avengers and Barracudas were not superior to land based aircraft."

 

On what basis are you measuring 'better'? It's already been mentioned that the Me-262 wasn't a great fighter, and suffered at the hands of piston engined fighters. This is pretty common knowledge these days and shouldn't need citing of sources. Personally, I know little of the Meteors combat performance, but I thought it had never been deployed outside of the UK doing duty combating V weapons. Pretty hard to get an impression of how it would have performed against other fighters from that.

[KingSargent]

No. The RAF did quite a lot of work and put a high priority on Army Co-operation (witness the Battle and Lysander). Once the Battle of Britain was over the Desert Air Force (and eventually the Second Tactical Air Force) followed on.

You are such a dumshit. The Battle was not an army cooperation a/c, it was a light bomber. The Advanced Air Striking Force with Battles wasn't in France to support the Army, they were there to be within operational range of the Ruhr. Sure they were used for low-level attacks on bridges in a desperate effort to stop German - so were Amiot 143s and I doubt that even you are crazy enough to claim that that makes the Am143 an army-support a/c.

 

As for the Lysander, it was hardly a combat a/c and AFAIK wasn't even used for tactical recon like the Hs126.

 

The Desert Air Force was in spite of the Air Staff, not because of it, and the Tactical Air Forces were a combined Alliance innovation to get some cohesion into CAS.

[KingSargent]

I think that the conventional wisdom that said that carrier based fighters/aircraft were inferior to land based planes started in the 20s or 30s. Carrier based planes had to be rigged for arrestor hook landings and needed beefer landing gear. Many carrier planes also carried life rafts or floatation bags in case of ditching. If both the carrier plane and it's land based counterpart used the same engine then the extra weight and perhaps bulk of the carrier equipment would count against it's performance.

As aircraft got a bit bigger and faster (and engines started to go over 600hp;) the need for larger wings on the carrier planes to permit lower speed take-offs and landings also told against them. Folding wings, when fitted, also added weight that a land based plane didn't have.

By 1941-42 however the allies and especially the Americans began to edge ahead in the horsepower race. Carrier planes and land based planes were no longer using the same engines. By 1944 US carrier fighters had 2000hp + engines. American carrier planes had a several hundred horsepower (or more) advantage over their Japanese land based counterparts that allowed them to carry all the carrier equipment, structural bracing and wing folding gear and still keep up performance.

Same goes for the Germans. Just how many 2,000-2,400hp engined fighters did the Germans really have?

 

The British may have trailed the Americans but Seafires could out horsepower most Italian aircraft. Later British carrier planes like the Griffon engined Seafire coming on line in May 45 and the Fireflys gave up little to their lower powered land based opponents.

 

With Bearcats, Tigercats, Seafurys and other aircraft comming along (prototype Skyraider flew in March 1945) with engines going to 2,400-2,700HP no enemy land based plane was going to equel them and they were starting to run into the same problems as their land based counterparts. Compressability, supersonic propeller tip speeds and just overall drag rise.

 

I think it goes back to comparing apples to apples. With deveopment moving so fast in those years differences of even a year might make a difference as to which engine a plane got and that might affect how much power it's later production versions got 3-4 years down the road.

Not entirely true. In the 1920s and 30s the USN and USAAC fighters often used the same airframes (the Boeing and Curtiss biplanes come to mind), and there were definite design relation ships between Army and Navy attack a/c - hardly surprising since Douglas designed both.

 

There was really no appreciable difference in performance between the USN and USAAC clones. Since both services were using the same airframes - except for all those weighty, performance reducing naval mods - there should have been a great difference according to the above theory, there was not. The USN's Boeing F4B and its Army P-12 contemporary had nearly identical performance (I say "nearly" because I'm sure some Gollum type will claim to find a small difference in speed or something, but I can't recall any).

 

The FAA used variations of the RAF's Hart light bomber and Demon 2-seat fighter (which were the same a/c), again minimal performance difference.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[DesertFox]

In that case what accounts for the fact that the Seafires were considered dogs when compared with their landbased brethren?

 

Um, I have never read that...what sources state this?

The biggest thing I have heard is that the fighter was fragile compared to the Hellcat and Corsair, which I can definitely believe.

[KingSargent]

In that case what accounts for the fact that the Seafires were considered dogs when compared with their landbased brethren?

Desertfox has answered, but it could be because early Seafires were conversions of clapped-out old Spits that had been replaced by newer models.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Richard Young]

A few new questions,

If the US Navy was keeping small orders and keeping current with designs, how did the Brewster Buffalo end up being the US Navy's "New" fighter in the start of ww2 when the British were fielding the Spitfire and the Germans were fielding the Me-109 for ground aircraft.

 

The US tended to build TWO designs for every ONE application - as a back-up, so that if anything went wrong with the primary design, they could just ramp up production o fthe other. Examples: B-17 and B-24, P-39 and P-40, B-29 and B-32, and so on. In this case, the other design was the Grumman F4f - which took some time to sort out, as it started life as a biplane design. Early Spits and 109s were not that much better - look at the record the Finns achieved with Buffaloes against German fighters. They were all about 1000 HP, with both the buff and wildcat somewhat hampered by the extra weight required for carrier operations.

 

Also, didn't it fair pretty poorly to the Japanese Zero?

What didn't? The Zero was a remarkable peice of engineering - also about a 1000 HP engine, but using new aluminum alloys and an almost total disregard for pilot survivability, resulting in an extremely light and agile long-ranged airplane - so long as it didn;t get hit. The Buff, on the other hand, really, really suffered when armor, sealing tanks, etx were added - it just fell too far behind the curve compared to earlier versions - at least against the Zero...

 

What caused the United States to seem to fall behind?

 

 

It didn't "fall behind" - it was just at a different point in the roughly 10 year cycle of design for new fighters - and was also hampered by the legacy of previous decisions that de-emphasized performance above medium altitudes in favor of supporting ground troops closely. The consequences, in terms of the types of supercharger stages and gearing fitted to the fighters, along with the consumption of turbosuperchargers by bomber, cargo, and patrol aircraft, would mean that not until the -51 and paddle-bladed -47 could we compete on an even footing with German designs at altitutde. This was further hampered by the fact that the P-38 was not designed for mass production, and had to be "re-engineered" (along with its compressibility and cabin heating problems), and the oleo problems that delayed the F4U Corsair.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Richard Young

[Guest aevans]

Perhaps a comment best directed towards Phil, he's the one making the faux comparison.

 

It was, in the sense of pointing out that DF didn't even have to mention naval efforts with jets in order to refute phil's ridiculous assertion.

[Guest aevans]

Why ?

 

The statement was made that at the end of the war naval fighters were as good as their land based contemporaries - I pointed out the most obvious examples showing the incorrectness of this statement - why not point this out to the person making the original comment ?

 

Because it's not valid analysis. To reiterate, the F6F's and F4U's contemporaries in operational date (meaning date of first assignment to front line combat) terms are, to name a short but distinguished list:

 

P-47

P-51

Fw 190

Ki-84

La-7

 

The jets were operational later and exhibit a fundamentally different set of operational characteristics. Trying to conflate the two different classes of aircraft, propeller-driven on one hand and jets on the other, simply because their service histories overlapped, is disingenuous and ignorant. King was absolutely correct in his above characterization of your fine self.

Edited July 11, 2007 by aevans

[philgollin]

Phil:

I am trying real hard to have a neutral opinion. I am an ex Squid so of course there is some pride in the US Navy. Still, you may want to consider why basically everybody is arguing against you.

 

Have as much pride in the USn as you like - they deserve it - but that doesn't mean that facts have to be forgotten. If anyone wants to dispute that the Me-262 and Meteor III were better than the late war USN carrier planes, please let them, that doesn't take away from the overall excellence of the USN carrier forces or their pilots. Mixing up pride with facts is wrong.

[philgollin]

Wait a second!

When did it become "at the end of the war"?

 

This wasn't your statement? -

On what basis are you measuring 'better'? It's already been mentioned that the Me-262 wasn't a great fighter, and suffered at the hands of piston engined fighters. This is pretty common knowledge these days and shouldn't need citing of sources. Personally, I know little of the Meteors combat performance, but I thought it had never been deployed outside of the UK doing duty combating V weapons. Pretty hard to get an impression of how it would have performed against other fighters from that.

 

The Me-262 was anexcellent fighter - most ones that were destroyed were destroyed returning to base or on the ground.

 

Re. the Meteor - you are mixing up the Meteor I (good but not outstanding) and Meteor III

[philgollin]

You are such a dumshit. The Battle was not an army cooperation a/c, it was a light bomber. The Advanced Air Striking Force with Battles wasn't in France to support the Army, they were there to be within operational range of the Ruhr. Sure they were used for low-level attacks on bridges in a desperate effort to stop German - so were Amiot 143s and I doubt that even you are crazy enough to claim that that makes the Am143 an army-support a/c.

 

As for the Lysander, it was hardly a combat a/c and AFAIK wasn't even used for tactical recon like the Hs126.

 

The Desert Air Force was in spite of the Air Staff, not because of it, and the Tactical Air Forces were a combined Alliance innovation to get some cohesion into CAS.

 

Insults as an argument - you can always tell when someone is losing it.

 

The Battle squadrons were tasked with both (in modern terms) battlefield and medium interdiction.

 

Your arguments disappear and all you can say is "in spite of the Air Staff, not because of it" - desparately trying to claim something that the facts don't support.

[philgollin]

Because it's not valid analysis. To reiterate, the F6F's and F4U's contemporaries in operational date (meaning date of first assignment to front line combat) terms are, to name a short but distinguished list:

 

P-47

P-51

Fw 190

Ki-84

La-7

 

The jets were operational later and exhibit a fundamentally different set of operational characteristics. Trying to conflate the two different classes of aircraft, propeller-driven on one hand and jets on the other, simply because their service histories overlapped, is disingenuous and ignorant. King was absolutely correct in his above characterization of your fine self.

 

Humpty-dumpty Evans -

 

There is no way to have a sensible correspondence with you unless you define your words as you don't acknowledge dictionary definitions,

 

So, please if you wish to discuss something, please include all your definitions.