Pre-WW2 Carrier Comparison

[JOE BRENNAN]

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.

Oh deeyah right back at you, pal. As usual you quote a fairly long post then address almost none of the points it made.

 

Let's back it up and simplify. The topic sentence of your key paragraph was:

"USN and IJN carrier aircraft were inferior to land based aircraft"

1. Did you mean something more limited than the implied generalization? here's your chance to restate your position.

 

The context was: discussion of general design and use of carriers and carrier a/c in the WWII era. Therefore the implication of the statement was that such inferiority was the norm, or categorically true, in the same era, especially when design and doctrine was being considered, ie. early in or before the war itself.

2. Was the context something else, something somehow mainly relevant to jets at the end of WWII that everybody else missed?

 

Taking the statement and context as they appear in plain English, the jet example doesn't prove your broad statement, or make disagreement with it 'false' .

 

3. But the jet example itself has weaknesses (poor fighter-fighter combat record of the Me-262, even besides the point you responded to, only thing at all you responded to )

 

When one person says "your example does not prove your general statement, and has factual weakness itself", and the response is repeatedly strictly limited to "oh deeyah no, my example is not factually weak", seems to me that cumulatively concedes the example's failure to prove the general statement, aside from failing to fully address the weakness of the example.

 

Joe

Edited July 11, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[Guest aevans]

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

 

Technically true, but twisting the facts -- most of Me 262s destroyed were destroyed on the ground, which makes the above literally factual, but which skirts around the well documemented inability of the 262 to succeed in a turning fight -- IOW a "dogfight" -- against Allied fighters. Compared to the P-51, for example, the Me 262 had 20% higher wing loading.* They could only "fight" by making surprise diving attacks. If they were caught at low airspeed anywhere near Allied fighters, they were at such a disadvantage in their only option was to extend away from the fight.

 

(*While the Me 262 had significantly better power to weight at maximum thrust, jet engines of the era were extremely sluggish accelerators, making straight wing loading a fair figure of merit for comparison -- a Mustang driver could goose his a/c around a tight turn with power in situations where a Schwalbe driver would be lucky to stay in the air, waiting for his jets to generate enough thrust.)

[Guest aevans]

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

 

King was stating a fact -- that you find it insulting is your own problem.

[Jeff]

This discussion was painful enough on one topic, now that it's in stereo, I want to beat myself over the head with a ball peen hammer to make the pain go away. The only thing more pathetic is that I actually continue to read both topics. I take my hat off to those who persistently try to beat sense into a doorknob.

[KingSargent]

Insults as an argument - you can always tell when someone is losing it. Yes. I should not have used the term. I was mistaken to express myself so, even if accurate in character judgement.

 

The Battle squadrons were tasked with both (in modern terms) battlefield and medium interdiction. When and by whom? As I said, they may have been tasked as such in emergency, but the AASF was part of Bomber Command. They were in France because they could not reach Germany from the UK, not in order to 'cooperate with the Army.'

 

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. Suppose you cough up 'the facts.' Try for a manual or even a directive from the Air Staff directing Coningham to develop CAS tactics, or describe how CAS should be performed, and PRE-DATING their use in North Africa.

[philgollin]

Technically true, but twisting the facts -- most of Me 262s destroyed were destroyed on the ground, which makes the above literally factual, but which skirts around the well documemented inability of the 262 to succeed in a turning fight -- IOW a "dogfight" -- against Allied fighters. Compared to the P-51, for example, the Me 262 had 20% higher wing loading.* They could only "fight" by making surprise diving attacks. If they were caught at low airspeed anywhere near Allied fighters, they were at such a disadvantage in their only option was to extend away from the fight.

 

(*While the Me 262 had significantly better power to weight at maximum thrust, jet engines of the era were extremely sluggish accelerators, making straight wing loading a fair figure of merit for comparison -- a Mustang driver could goose his a/c around a tight turn with power in situations where a Schwalbe driver would be lucky to stay in the air, waiting for his jets to generate enough thrust.)

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.

[KingSargent]

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.

You have this as a macro, don't you....

[philgollin]

Oh deeyah right back at you, pal. As usual you quote a fairly long post then address almost none of the points it made.

 

Let's back it up and simplify. The topic sentence of your key paragraph was:

"USN and IJN carrier aircraft were inferior to land based aircraft"

1. Did you mean something more limited than the implied generalization? here's your chance to restate your position.

 

The context was: discussion of general design and use of carriers and carrier a/c in the WWII era. Therefore the implication of the statement was that such inferiority was the norm, or categorically true, in the same era, especially when design and doctrine was being considered, ie. early in or before the war itself.

2. Was the context something else, something somehow mainly relevant to jets at the end of WWII that everybody else missed?

 

Taking the statement and context as they appear in plain English, the jet example doesn't prove your broad statement, or make disagreement with it 'false' .

 

3. But the jet example itself has weaknesses (poor fighter-fighter combat record of the Me-262, even besides the point you responded to, only thing at all you responded to )

 

When one person says "your example does not prove your general statement, and has factual weakness itself", and the response is repeatedly strictly limited to "oh deeyah no, my example is not factually weak", seems to me that cumulatively concedes the example's failure to prove the general statement, aside from failing to fully address the weakness of the example.

 

Joe

 

???? Pardon ?

 

Could you actually tell me what that was about ?

 

The rest of the post was meaningless reiteration, I just cut to the chase - and guess what, you ignored it.

[philgollin]

King was stating a fact -- that you find it insulting is your own problem.

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.

[philgollin]

Insults as an argument - you can always tell when someone is losing it. Yes. I should not have used the term. I was mistaken to express myself so, even if accurate in character judgement.

 

The Battle squadrons were tasked with both (in modern terms) battlefield and medium interdiction. When and by whom? As I said, they may have been tasked as such in emergency, but the AASF was part of Bomber Command. They were in France because they could not reach Germany from the UK, not in order to 'cooperate with the Army.'

 

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. Suppose you cough up 'the facts.' Try for a manual or even a directive from the Air Staff directing Coningham to develop CAS tactics, or describe how CAS should be performed, and PRE-DATING their use in North Africa.

 

Just because it was called "bomber command" it doesn't mean it wasn't intended to or didn't co-operate with the army.

 

There are pre-war manuuals covering such things as straffing (sp ?) and "hedge-hopping" attacks (and, of course, there is the inter-war policy of "Imperial Policing" in co-operation with the army)

[Guest aevans]

You have this as a macro, don't you....

 

He can't form a reasoned response, so he engages in Big Lie tactics.

[KingSargent]

He can't form a reasoned response, so he engages in Big Lie tactics.

Oh, you noticed?

[Guest aevans]

Oh, you noticed?

 

It took me a while to see it for what it was. But after the thrid time he posted exaclty the same response (down to whitespace characters), I caught on. But it's okay. Every time he uses that response, I know I've exposed more of his ignorance.

[DesertFox]

Using Phil's idea that land based aircraft are superior, what aircraft were operated at the same time period as the Peashooter and how do their compare in your opinion on them.

 

I am thinking that the F2F might be the best example for the US Navy. While a Biplane, it is about as fast and had retractable landing gear. How does it compare in maneuverability, climb rate, armor, and other factors. They appear to carry the same number of guns - 2 .30 caliber.

Edited July 11, 2007 by DesertFox

[DesertFox]

A big old tomb called "Royal Navy". Don't have the author handy since I'm far away at the moment. IIRC it was written in the 60's. Their being fragile was mentioned but also that their performance was not up to expectations. Though that would make sense if they were conversions of old aircraft. I always assumed they were new builds.

 

Edit: The author didn't elaborate, it was just a remark. However I was at an impressionable age when reading the book and thought at that time that the Spitfire was the best thing since sliced bread, so finding out that a close relative wasn't, left it's mark.

 

Don't get into the same situation as Phil. Even a well reasoned writer can make mistakes....

 

 

A curiosity, with the Corsairs and Hellcats already on British carriers, why did they adopt Seafires in the first place.

Edited July 11, 2007 by DesertFox

[Guest aevans]

Using Phil's idea that land based aircraft are superior, what aircraft were operated at the same time period as the Peashooter and how do their compare in your opinion on them.

 

I am thinking that the F2F might be the best example for the US Navy. While a Biplane, it is about as fast and had retractable landing gear. How does it compare in maneuverability, climb rate, armor, and other factors. They appear to carry the same number of guns - 2 .30 caliber.

 

The P-26 had a power/weight ratio of .18 hp/lb and a wing loading of 22.4 lb/sqft.

 

The F2F had a power/weight ratio of .17 hp/lb and a wing loading of 16.7 lb/sqft.

 

Based on that, they should have had similar maneuver characteristics, with the Navy plane having a slight advantage in requiring less power to hold a turn of a given radius. (Which is what you'd expect of a biplane.) They had almost the same rated service ceiling and max speed.

Edited July 11, 2007 by aevans

[Guest aevans]

A curiosity, with the Corsairs and Hellcats already on British carriers, why did they adopt Seafires in the first place.

 

NIH Syndrome.

Edited July 11, 2007 by aevans

[DesertFox]

Are there any good sources which people would recommend for Pre-WW2 Naval fighters? Someone who both reads well and gives good information.

 

Second on the Seafire, are there any good sources for the fighter. One item is that early Seafires did not appear to have folding wings which must have been horrible as far as effect on airwing size.

 

Third, anyone read Freidman's book on US Carriers. The only book I have that treats carriers in detail is "Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914 to the Present: An Illustrated Encyclopedia" by Roger Chesneau and a book on the USS Lexington

[KingSargent]

NIH Syndrome.

There weren't all that many F4Us and F6Fs when Seafire was adopted. Most 'British' carrier fighters at the time were Wildcats - which served alongside Seafires and F6Fs during the DRAGOON operation (landings in South France). Frontline F4F service that late would seem to argue an insufficiency of Corsairs and Hellcats - or Seafires FTM.

 

Later, when the British Pacific Fleet deployed in 1945 the two biggest CVs Indefatigable and Implacable had insufficient hangar height to accommodate the Corsair (even the clipped wing version the RN used) so they carried Seafires. They could have fitted F6Fs, but possibly the desire to have BRITISH FIGHTERS OVER TOKYO in the newsreels was a factor. F6Fs would have been better, aside from fragility the Seafires lacked the range to accompany the strikes the BPF flew, nor could they carry as much ordnance in the fighter-bomber role.

[KingSargent]

Are there any good sources which people would recommend for Pre-WW2 Naval fighters? Someone who both reads well and gives good information.

 

Second on the Seafire, are there any good sources for the fighter. One item is that early Seafires did not appear to have folding wings which must have been horrible as far as effect on airwing size.

 

Third, anyone read Freidman's book on US Carriers. The only book I have that treats carriers in detail is "Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914 to the Present: An Illustrated Encyclopedia" by Roger Chesneau and a book on the USS Lexington

Chesneau isn't bad, and it's more reasonably priced than the more detailed works.

 

Yeah, I've got Friedman on US CVs. I'd like to get his books on British carrier aviation.

 

D.K. Brown, Nelson to Vanguard is good. While primarily a study on British ship design it gives good accounts of WHY the British made the decisions they did. NtV is my primary source for my postings on RN reliance on AA and disregard of the divebomber threat, for example.

 

Most of my sources on interwar aircraft are long out of print. So are my sources on Seafires. William Green's books are handy if you can find them.

[DesertFox]

D.K. Brown, Nelson to Vanguard is good. While primarily a study on British ship design it gives good accounts of WHY the British made the decisions they did. NtV is my primary source for my postings on RN reliance on AA and disregard of the divebomber threat, for example.

 

I have Browns, "Grand Fleet" and it does have interesting items but it is not detailed like I find Friedman (I have his US battleships, his US cruisers, and "Battleship Design and Development 1905-1945" (another of those out of print but incredibly useful books, it explains much of the WHY)

[philgollin]

You have this as a macro, don't you....

 

Oh dear (yet again) - did you ever look up the definition of the word "believe" ?

 

Do you ever, having had your mis-definition of a word pointed out to you (many times over two sets of posts), then continue to insist that your own idiosyncratic definition is correct and the lexicographers are wrong (!)

 

And even better, do you then try to claim that those who think that dictionaries define words instead of individuals then try to insist on facts not fiction as telling a "great Lie" !

 

Just asking to see if you know what you are commenting on - always interesting to see if someone has an understanding of what they are posting, or merely following blindly.

[philgollin]

There weren't all that many F4Us and F6Fs when Seafire was adopted. Most 'British' carrier fighters at the time were Wildcats - which served alongside Seafires and F6Fs during the DRAGOON operation (landings in South France). Frontline F4F service that late would seem to argue an insufficiency of Corsairs and Hellcats - or Seafires FTM.

 

Later, when the British Pacific Fleet deployed in 1945 the two biggest CVs Indefatigable and Implacable had insufficient hangar height to accommodate the Corsair (even the clipped wing version the RN used) so they carried Seafires. They could have fitted F6Fs, but possibly the desire to have BRITISH FIGHTERS OVER TOKYO in the newsreels was a factor. F6Fs would have been better, aside from fragility the Seafires lacked the range to accompany the strikes the BPF flew, nor could they carry as much ordnance in the fighter-bomber role.

 

Some truth, some conjecture.

 

A lot to do with the inability to obtain sufficient US carrier fighters and the need to keep certain British factories going (plus the Seafire was regarded as a better fighter below 15,000 feet).

 

The arguments in 1942/43 over aircraft allocations were long and convoluted - the Seafire, etc.... were seen as important for certain carriers and conditions plus as a back-up

[DesertFox]

Most of my sources on interwar aircraft are long out of print. So are my sources on Seafires. William Green's books are handy if you can find them.

 

At the time of the F2F and Peashooter, what did other Air Forces and Navies operate and how did they compare to each other?

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO