PDA

View Full Version : Mock combat: Hurricane vs Wildcat!



Waldo.Pepper
02-25-2005, 03:35 AM
EDITED TO CORRECT MY MISTAKE ABOUT THE HURRICANE MODEL

It was actualy done. I'll tell you the conditions, you speculateon who won.

I'll tell you the results after a bit. The mock combat took place July 1943.

4 Hurricane IIB's the one with the 12 .303 MG's vs 4 F4F-4's, each will engage in one on one combat with the plane of the opposite type.

"They would meet fly in formation for a minute or two, then break up and approach each other head on. from then on it was a straight dogfight, with each trying to get on the others tail."

So the objective is to get on the number 6 of the 'enemy' plane.

The USN pilots of the Wildcats had just returned from a combat tour in the Pacific. The Hurricane pilots had also flown combat missions. During the mock combat flight commanders were not allowed to fly on either side.

OK which plane won, and what was the score?

Speculate away...

DeerHunterUK
02-25-2005, 04:17 AM
*Rubs chin thoughtfully*
My heart says the Hurricanes would win but my head says the Wildcats would win. So I'll go with the Wildcats due to their better all round performance.

VF-29_Sandman
02-25-2005, 06:16 AM
hmmm, hurri would easily outclimb the cat, but obviously not outdive it. turn rate on the hurri is poor compared to the cat. if the hurri's were to use the 'thatch weave', it would possibly negate the cat's turn ability's, but the cat's could also b/z them with ease.

chris455
02-25-2005, 07:02 AM
My vote says it was a slaughter, Wildcats=4, Hurris=0.

And I love Hurris. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Yimmy
02-25-2005, 07:22 AM
Not very fair, usng Hurricane I's against F4F4's. My vote goes to the Hurris none the less.

tigertalon
02-25-2005, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
Not very fair, usng Hurricane I's against F4F4's. My vote goes to the Hurris none the less. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second that.

Waldo.Pepper
02-25-2005, 07:34 AM
Ooops Mea Culpa!

Its not a Hurricane 1 it is hte one with 12 Mg's...does that change anyone opinion so far!?

VW-IceFire
02-25-2005, 07:50 AM
So its a Hurricane Mark IIB? Well that should be a pretty fair fight I would imagine. The Mark IIB is 9 mph faster at 1000feet higher for best top speed...so they are very close. Both were agile aircraft...I'd say if the Wildcats were diving away from combat they would be able to escape but if they were fighting it out.

I'm going to say the Huricane IIB by a very small margin. They are very close and I think pilot consideration is the large factor.

If I were the Hurricane, I'd want to extend after the first pass and try and gain altitude advantage. If I were the Wildcat, I'd want to go into a 180 degree turn for a second headon.

EnGaurde
02-25-2005, 07:53 AM
ok.... hmmmm

wing area is down, but so is the weight on the wildcat for the hurri, although power is up by a good deal for the cat except when the hurri is on boost.... hurri is a better climber by a tad but the cat is appreciably faster at sea level but slower further up... hmmm.

hurri is longer and wider, so more stable, possibly at edge of envelope?

goes to the hurri all things considered, by a nose. Or i call it a draw.

actionhank1786
02-25-2005, 08:29 AM
haha even if the Hurricaine pilot got into a good firing position (this is pretending they really are fighting) those weak .303's are just going to massage the Wildcat's back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

harryrriedl
02-25-2005, 10:24 AM
i vote for the hurris becuse of the 12 mg will cut up the place and turn it into swiss chease.

p.s please tell us who won

Waldo.Pepper
02-25-2005, 10:40 AM
Will tell tomorrow... but please note no bullets were fired. IT WAS A MOCK DOGFIGHT flown by friends to test their planes against each other. Just like in an earlier post I made where a Black Widows was tested against a P47N, and like was done above Conneticutt in 1942 (I think it was '42) between Corsairs and Thunderbolts.

They were just horseing around, therfore no amount of .303 will cut anyone up. No bullets were fired. It was a test of airmanship and airplane performance only.

John_Stag
02-25-2005, 10:43 AM
Hurricanes.

reverendkrv1972
02-25-2005, 11:25 AM
I say the Hurri's (not really biast,as i mainly fly wildcats online)though i do love hurri's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Billy_BigBoy
02-25-2005, 11:51 AM
Guess what...
I vote for the Wildcats 3 to 1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Those jocks had probably some more experience.

Shakthamac
02-25-2005, 01:09 PM
since the wildcat pilots had just returned from a combat tour in the pacific, i would pick them, since they flew against much more agile zeros. Therefore they would know when to dive away and how to thach weave and whatever else.

Wildcats 4
Hurris 0

Cragger
02-25-2005, 03:32 PM
I vote neither, that the exercise lead to a disengagement with no clear indication of anyone getting a 'kill shot'

John_Stag
02-25-2005, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "They would meet fly in formation for a minute or two, then break up and approach each other head on. from then on it was a straight dogfight, with each trying to get on the others tail."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yimmy
02-25-2005, 06:46 PM
Put us out of our misery, who won?

Waldo.Pepper
02-26-2005, 03:46 AM
Will tell later today.

Let me add a complextity to the mix though.

What would you say if I told you that the Hurricanes were carrying depth charges when they engaged in the mock dogfight with the Wildcats.

Who would win in that case?

Yimmy
02-26-2005, 05:29 AM
I could only assume the unladen aircrat, but the way yo say it makes me think different. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DeerHunterUK
02-26-2005, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
I could only assume the unladen aircrat, but the way yo say it makes me think different. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with Yimmy, everything is pointing towards an easy Wildcat victory. So I'll change my mind and say the Hurricanes won overall.

johnt
02-26-2005, 07:01 AM
In that case, bonus points points should be awarded... After the Wildcats had crashed into the sea, the Hurricanes could depth charge them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VW-IceFire
02-26-2005, 07:04 AM
Now if the Wildcats were operating under water....

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Billy_BigBoy
02-26-2005, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeerHunterUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
I could only assume the unladen aircrat, but the way yo say it makes me think different. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with Yimmy, everything is pointing towards an easy Wildcat victory. So I'll change my mind and say the Hurricanes won overall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's beginning to look like a bad movie, so I go for the Hurricanes instead.

Cragger
02-26-2005, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Will tell later today.

Let me add a complextity to the mix though.

What would you say if I told you that the Hurricanes were carrying depth charges when they engaged in the mock dogfight with the Wildcats.

Who would win in that case? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice troll line you got out there.

murewa
02-26-2005, 01:23 PM
tried it in-game with AI ace aircraft on both and the wildcats kicked but...and however unlikely it is that the game simulation will have been a fair representation, I'm going with the wildcat squadron

Waldo.Pepper
02-26-2005, 02:34 PM
The first time I started reading the book that I got this from I figured that the Wildcats would win hands down for several reasons that were mentioned. Firstly while the Hurricane pilots were combat veterans but the kind of combat they had been flying in was anti-submarine patrols out of Torbay Newfoundland. I figured that this was hardly the same thing as Pacific combat missions against the Japanese. Secondly, I personally thought that the Wildcats would be superior to the Hurricane, regardless of version of Hurricane.

So without further ado, here is the what happened from;

All the Fine Young Eagles by David L. Bashow
ISBN; 0-7737-2976-3

Page 248-9.

After a few rounds from the bar, a discussion developed regarding the merits of the Wildcat versus the Hurricane. It continued until the American issued a challenge they would have four Wildcats at Torbay the following morning. The tactics were simple. Four pairs, each consisting of a Wildcat and a Hurricane, would meet at an agreed upon altitude, in each of the four quadrants of the sky, North. West. South and East of the airport. They would meet, fly in formation for a minute or two, then break up and approach each other head on. From then on it was a straight dogfight, with each pilot trying to get on the other fellow's tail. Flight Commanders were not allowed to fly on either side. We were part of the large audience assembled on the ground to see the show. Everything went according to plan. The aircraft met. flew in formation for a minute or two, and then began dog fighting. In a couple of minutes there were four Hurricanes on the tails of four Wildcats, and they stayed there, to great applause and shouts from the audience below.

After landing, everyone adjourned to the hangar to hash over the situation. The Americans seemed completely nonplused by the turn of events. They could not understand how things could have turned out the way they had. It must have been some kind of aberration that could never happen again, so they issued another challenge for the following afternoon. This time, they announced. Flight Commanders could fly, so I decided to get in on the fun in Hurricane 5485. That afternoon the two readiness aircraft: equipped with depth charges, were sitting on the tarmac. "Butch" Washburn and "Gibby" Gibbs were the readiness pilots that day and Butch said to me. "You know Bill, I think we can take on these buggers with those readiness aircraft." "Why not?" I replied ... "Have a go." We lined up a fourth pilot and the exercise was carried out all over again with four Hurricanes on the tails of four Wildcats once again. Butch Washburn was so keen that he stayed on the Wildcat's tail until it landed on the runway. The Americans were forced to admit that the Hurricane was the better aircraft. Even when it was ladened with depth charges. We had a party in the Mess that night with the Americans becoming more generous and more lavish with their praise as the evening wore on. According to some of them, if 128 Squadron, complete with aircraft and personnel. could suddenly be transported to the Pacific Theater, we would make short work of the Japanese Air Force. Yes, it was a great party ...

OK so before you jump all over me that Hurricanes can't carry depth charges it was a local improvisation.

From the same book page. 245-46;

Flying at Torbay took on an operational atmosphere. The Cansos and Venturas were almost constantly on patrol, and they occasionally returned to base after encountering a German Submarine. These attacks bolstered everyone's morale.
Shortly after we reached Torbay, someone in our armament section devised a way to make bomb racks out of the angle iron used in the double bunks so familiar to all service personnel. The racks were okayed by Eastern Air Command Headquarters in Halifax, and for the rest of the time at Torbay we were able to carry a depth charge under each wing. Four of our Hurricanes were fitted with these racks, and two aircraft were kept on constant readiness. Also, with twelve machine guns on each aircraft, the Hurricanes constituted a very formidable weapon against an enemy submarine.

A British Major, an armament expert, arrived about this time from London. The purpose of his visit was to discuss with aircrew the latest tactics of German submarines. Instead of diving immediately on seeing a patrol aircraft, the subs were now armed with deck guns and were shooting back. Several patrol aircraft had been shot down. All available crew from the three Torbay squadrons were called together for a talk by the Major, who spent most of his time raving about the Hurricanes armed with depth charges that he had seen on the flight line. "In all my travels to squadrons around the worId," he said, "I have never seen such a deadly combination. The Number One aircraft could clear the deck of all living things with one burst from his twelve machine guns, and Number Two could drop his depth charges at leisure. It's marvelous!" After his talks, the Major visited our Squadron and talked with the pilots. He left an Air Ministry address with Squadron Leader Cannon, the CO, and made him promise to forward to him the results of any encounters a Hurricane might have with a German submarine. "No matter where I am in the world, I'll get the message." There was no message to pass on to the Major for two reasons. Firstly, we never did get to attack a German sub, and secondly, the same day as his visit, a Canso carrying the Major to Botwood, Newfoundland, crashed while landing on glassy water, killing everyone on board, including the Major."

So what does this mock combat prove?

Almost nothing.

It proves that on that day with those pilots in those specific planes that the Hurricane pilots won. That€s all it proves. It doesn€t prove that the USN pilots were inferior or that the Hurricane was superior. It means that on that day they got beat. That€s all, its anecdotal.

Thanks for playing all those who stuck their neck out with an opinion.

Treetop64
02-26-2005, 03:16 PM
Well, well now...

So, the Brits won. Twice. Interesting...

Waldo.Pepper
02-26-2005, 03:35 PM
Ehn sorry not Brits.

Yimmy
02-26-2005, 03:37 PM
I don't think that should come as much of a surprise really.
Although the depth charges must have made it interesting.

This being a one on one fight remember - if it was a group act using tactics, the Wildcats may have been able to use energy fighting more effectiveley.

Cloudy_
02-26-2005, 03:43 PM
Anecdotal it may be but it happened eight times! What are the odds? I would think that definite conclusions could be drawn from this incident.Thanks for the great excerpt.

RocketDog
02-26-2005, 05:10 PM
Thanks for posting, Waldo. Very interesting anecdote.

Regards,

RocketDog.

John_Stag
02-26-2005, 05:56 PM
What it tells you is how vital teamwork actually is to success in combat; as soon as I read the sentance I bunged in quotes previously, I had no doubt of the outcome.

I'm not saying that the Wildcat is a bad fighter, but the circumstances of the engagement were that the Hurricanes were met in a situation where the British aircraft excelled; a Zeke could mix it in that environment, or just about any other contemprary Japanese fighter, but not much else.

Waldo.Pepper
02-26-2005, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:
What it tells you is how vital teamwork actually is to success in combat; as soon as I read the sentance I bunged in quotes previously, I had no doubt of the outcome.

I'm not saying that the Wildcat is a bad fighter, but the circumstances of the engagement were that the Hurricanes were met in a situation where the British aircraft excelled; a Zeke could mix it in that environment, or just about any other contemprary Japanese fighter, but not much else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Exactly! "The Circumstances of the engagement." are everything!

Imagine how much better your team would do on hyperlobby if you could all talk to each other (via teamspeak or some such program) and your opposition could not, and consequently had reduced teamwork and reduced situational awareness.

This is exactly the real world situation that the Wildcats faced and excelled at. Remember that the Japanese frequently had no functioning radios.

The Mock combat over the Torbay base IS the quick mission builder, and does not reflect real combat. The result we get in the QMB likewise do not reflect real combat.

VFA195-MaxPower
02-26-2005, 08:00 PM
The tests were controlled, repeated, and replicated 8 times. I don't know what you people want from a test. Do you think that gravity is different from one day to another? The fact that they matched up different pilots for every pair of trials lessens the influence of individual differences between pilots.. and you can't really seperate pilot training and experience from the aircraft's performance.. the low number of tests limits the generalizability of the results..

There was also low variety in the types of engagements... 180 degree turns into a dogfight.. where one pilot tries to tail another.. so the test only represents these circumstances.

So, what these tests say is that the hurricaine + hurri driver combo is more maneouverable than the wildcats in 8 out of 8 tests. The wildcats didn't win because they couldn't outclimb the hurri, and you couldn't win by running away.

VW-IceFire
02-26-2005, 10:10 PM
Interesting and fascinating. And depth charge armed too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It shows us how different aircraft excell at different roles. In this case, the fight favored the Hurricane IIB. I suspected this but I knew the Wildcat was very similar to the Hurricane II in performance so its a tough call.

chris455
02-26-2005, 10:37 PM
The Hurris won the mock combat. But in the real aerial combat of WWII, these were both GREAT combat aircraft, manned by the pilots of two great allied nations, both fighting for the same cause. The real loser when you really think about it was The Axis.

VFA195-MaxPower
02-27-2005, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
The Hurris won the mock combat. But in the real aerial combat of WWII, these were both GREAT combat aircraft, manned by the pilots of two great allied nations, both fighting for the same cause. The real loser when you really think about it was __The Axis.__ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you hear that the wildcat was a great aircraft? It was markedly inferior to its chief rivals. On another thread in this forum about a wildcat pilot flight testing a focke wulf, the pilot was ashamed to admit he had only been flying the wildcat. If the wildcat was any kind of zero-killer, the USN would have produced it up to the f4f-10 rather than having to commission the development of an actual zero-killer, the hellcat.

SkyChimp
02-27-2005, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
Where did you hear that the wildcat was a great aircraft? It was markedly inferior to its chief rivals. On another thread in this forum about a wildcat pilot flight testing a focke wulf, the pilot was ashamed to admit he had only been flying the wildcat. If the wildcat was any kind of zero-killer, the USN would have produced it up to the f4f-10 rather than having to commission the development of an actual zero-killer, the hellcat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't sound like you really know what you're talking about.

Blackdog5555
02-27-2005, 05:01 PM
Well, Thatch (Thatch Weave) stated that the F4F performance was bad enough to cause moral problems with his men. Even though, it seems, most WWII Pilots seem to have a love affair with the planes they flew, even the poor performers. (mostly). Thatch stated that we (he)+(F4F pilots) were successful because of superior training, tactics, stategy and gunnery. The F4F was heavy because it was a carrier based plane and a well armoured one too. Im sure supior numbers, better resupply and better gas helped too. In the game the HurriIIb with the 12 303s still takes time to knock down a plane. fun to fly and Its a fun one too shoot!

FluffyDucks
02-27-2005, 05:15 PM
Here we go.....sounds like some are REALLY upset by the outcome of those tests...try to live with it guys, Wildcats weren't bad but they weren't great either, thats why the US needed to develop Hellcats, and no matter what way you cut it that is a FACT. No amount of historical manipulation can change that. The ONLY thing that enabled Wildcats to in any way compete with axis aircraft was superior tactics and comms, I seem to recall US pilots stating that 4 Wildcats v 1 Zero were outnumbered.....for instance.
I presume that the Hurris were easily able to out turn the Wildcats slow speed manouvers is about all they were really good at, don't forget also, this was a fairly relaxed contest between fairly relaxed teams who had maybe spent a LOT of time boozing...in other words dont get your knickers in a twist because SHOCK!!! HORROR!! a US aircraft was outflown in a friendly dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I suppose next we are going to get loads of graphs and scientific proof why it was impossible for Hurris to out dogfight Wildcats....really pathetic.

VFA195-MaxPower
02-27-2005, 05:24 PM
Please back up your claim with some kind of counter point, skychimp. I am all for debate, but simply put, vapid oneliners waste bandwidth no matter who makes them.

In all of the books I have read, they describe the wildcat as a craft that was inferior to its foe. If you would like me to quote and cite a few, no problem.

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2005, 05:53 PM
The requirement to get on TAIL to win may be the problem here. Wildcat pilots may not ever have thought of getting on a tail as the most effective tactic for them to win any combat, but here they agree to try it. Of course, how else can one determine the outcome of a Mock combat? You can't just BnZ one pass and claim a win. But that is what often happened against Japanese fighters.

SkyChimp...is this Correct Thinking...?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
02-27-2005, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
Please back up your claim with some kind of counter point, skychimp. I am all for debate, but simply put, vapid oneliners waste bandwidth no matter who makes them.

In all of the books I have read, they describe the wildcat as a craft that was inferior to its foe. If you would like me to quote and cite a few, no problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Go ahead and quote them. I can, too. But regardless of the opinions of pilots, and the performance numbers, one thing is certain, the F4F excelled in the fighter role. Let's look at how well it did its intended job, shooting down enemy aircraft:

From NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT STATISTICS€"WORLD WAR II

For the entire Pacific war:

Carrier Based F4Fs flew 422 sorties that resulted in encounters with enemy aircraft.
417 bombers and 375 fighters were encountered in these sorties.
190 bombers and 112 fighters were shot down.
All for the loss of 47 Wildcats shot down, and 23 damaged.
That's a 6.4:1 kill/loss ratio in favor of the Wildcat.

Land Based F4Fs flew 704 sorties that resulted in encounters with enemy aircraft.
653 bombers and 948 fighters were encountered in these sorties.
228 bombers and 357 fighters were shot down.
All for the loss of 131 Wildcats shot down, and 62 damaged.
That's a 4.6:1 kill/loss ratio in favor of the Wildcat.

Carrier based FM-2s flew 753 sorties that resulted in an encounter with enemy aircraft.
305 bombers and 407 fighters were encounters.
Of these, 131 bombers and 228 fighters were shot down.
All for the loss of 13 FM-2 shot down, and 26 damaged.
That's a 32.5:1 kill/loss ratio in favor of the Wildcat.

The Wildcat was a Zero killer. And it was a Zero killer early in the war when Japanese pilots were at their best. In fact, in only one battle did the Wildcat get bested by the Zero, and that was at Coral Sea, and then only by 1 or 2.

An interesting fact is that no American aircraft achieved a kill/loss ratio as high as the FM-2 Wildcat - which remained in production until the end of the war.

SkyChimp
02-27-2005, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The requirement to get on TAIL to win may be the problem here. Wildcat pilots may not ever have thought of getting on a tail as the most effective tactic for them to win any combat, but here they agree to try it. Of course, how else can one determine the outcome of a Mock combat? You can't just BnZ one pass and claim a win. But that is what often happened against Japanese fighters.

SkyChimp...is this _Correct Thinking_...?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe. I'm not sure that a Hurricane could "outturn" a Wildcat. I've heard anecdotes that the Wildcat could outturn the Spitfire. Who knows - not me.

What was the criteria to "win" that mock battle.? Another "who knows." All I know is that if these two planes were facing each other over open ocean 100 miles or more from their carriers, would you rather be in a 8 .30 gun, liquid cooled plane, or a 4-6 .50 gun plane with a radial?

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2005, 07:44 PM
Good Point. I don't know if I would want to look at the combat stats for Hurricanes in Asia/Pacific after 7 December http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (8 December over there). <<I don't know it might not be bad>>

btw Chimp...remember when last year I said PF should be 1930s Russia vs Japan only, or at least Land Based Pacific only? well..

I was (choke) wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

PF is getting me into the Pacific theatre. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

EnGaurde
02-27-2005, 08:02 PM
yes indeed the pacific is my kind of fight too.

mebbe it due to so many varied aircraft types and styles of fighting, rather than simply high horsepower high speed slashing attacks.

i flew the late war PTO earlier today, first real time to try it.

well, my my my. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

after being repeatedly shot into little bits by marauding everythings i learnt that the late war PTO is not like an early war PTO... low and slow gets you torn to itty bitty bits by pretty much everything, like that scene out of the vin diesal movie set on mars where the bitey flying things come out of the ground and that woman stands up...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

suffice to say i shot down my first F4U, though it did take a Ki84C to do it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and what a simply smashing bit of kit it is, what.

amerifans (no, not a typo) are NOT going to like them in any real numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

aaah. So refreshing. Encore.

pauldun171
02-27-2005, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Just like in an earlier post I made where a Black Widows was tested against a P47N, and like was done above Conneticutt in 1942 (I think it was '42) between Corsairs and Thunderbolts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you link that post?

chris455
02-27-2005, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In all of the books I have read, they describe the wildcat as a craft that was inferior to its foe. If you would like me to quote and cite a few, no problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read at least a couple of books as well, Maxpower. It's interesting that you seem to have drawn very different conclusions about the Wildcat than most students of the air war in WWII. For your information, the Wildcat and it's variants were used throughout the war, for a variety of roles, by several allied nations, and it's performance in combat leave one with very little choice but to conclude that it was indeed a "great" combat aircraft.
Considered "inferior"? By whom? In which role? Versus what adversary?

I don't think you'll find many sources to back you up here.

Oh, and Fluffyducks, the baseless conclusions you draw are what are really pathetic.

huggy87
02-27-2005, 11:04 PM
Skychimp, that nasc document is sure a goldmine. Do you know of any documents or databases for the USAAF that are as complete or detailed?

Wseivelod
02-27-2005, 11:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
[QUOTE] would you rather be in a 8 .30 gun, liquid cooled plane, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

too bad that's not a choice bub

Badsight.
02-28-2005, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Here we go.....sounds like some are REALLY upset by the outcome of those tests.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>boy , doesnt it just lol

FluffyDucks
02-28-2005, 04:20 AM
Yup...here they come, pages and pages of bs, designed to prove the Wildcat should have won the war alone, and that the US should not have developed any other fighters..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Charts,graphs and scientific tests to follow together with the testimony of self proclaimed "experts", its so pathetically predictable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The reality of WWII history is of course in no way relevant, if it doesn't fit in with these "experts" own particular obvious and sad little biases.

The fact is that these trials were SUBJECTIVE, and in no way scientific, they were a few young men full of bravado and beer testing out who had the best car/boat/aircraft/motorcycle/snowmobile type tests. As such there is no way anyone should be getting their panties in a bunch over them.... but of course they will. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

mynameisroland
02-28-2005, 05:03 AM
The Fleet Air Arm should have told the RAF in 1941 - when its Spit V's were getting there asses handed to them by Fw 190 A1's and A2's that they had a world beater in the Grumman Martlet.

Its shocking really that the lack of communication between the two air arms was that bad. Lets face it with a kill to death ratio of something like 30-1 the Raf should have jacked in all Spitfire production (or any liquid cooled fighters at all for that matter ) and produced the Martlet full scale.

Yimmy
02-28-2005, 07:29 AM
Looking at the world of IL2/PF, I can honestly say that in most fighter aircraft I feel like a predator.
I always strive to get some height, then I find an enemy, dive on them, and shoot them down or die trying.
I even feel like a predator when I am flying a Gladiator - yet when I fly an F4F4, I feel like prey.

Just my in game opinion.

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fleet Air Arm should have told the RAF in 1941 - when its Spit V's were getting there asses handed to them by Fw 190 A1's and A2's that they had a world beater in the Grumman Martlet.

Its shocking really that the lack of communication between the two air arms was that bad. Lets face it with a kill to death ratio of something like 30-1 the Raf should have jacked in all Spitfire production (or any liquid cooled fighters at all for that matter ) and produced the Martlet full scale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

First of all the 32.5;1 kill/loss ratio was achived by the FM2 "Wilder Wilcat" not the F4F3/4. Different beast with a boosted engine, increased power, higher rudder and reduced armament.

Secondly, the FM2 wasn't in squadron service until 1943. That makes it a contemporary of the Spitfire IX, not the Vb. I love the FM2, I fly it hard and I fly it often, if ii'm not in a Jug guess where you will find me? But it simply doesn't compare to a Spitfire IX in climb or speed, the two most essential elements in ETO aircombat.

Thirdly, the stats for the Wildcat are for PACIFIC theater operations, not for the EUROPEAN theater. Somehow I doubt that the Martlet would of faired ANY better against planes with a speed, climb and firepower advantage than the Spitfire did. In fact, if the Martlet was running ecsorts in 41 maybe things would of been a little worse.

Finally, in US interviews of captured German pilots guess which plane they feared meeting the most? Thats right, that silly liquid cooled Spitfire. The one that got its **** handed to it. Oh, and the one thay feared the least was the P-38.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Yimmy

Looking at the world of IL2/PF, I can honestly say that in most fighter aircraft I feel like a predator.
I always strive to get some height, then I find an enemy, dive on them, and shoot them down or die trying.
I even feel like a predator when I am flying a Gladiator - yet when I fly an F4F4, I feel like prey.

Just my in game opinion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try taking a Hurri IIb up against 4 Wildcats. Then switch sides and fly a Wildcat vs 4 Hurris.
Tell me, which do you feel safer in now? Then, just for laughs, take a Spitfire Vb up against both of them.

Yimmy
02-28-2005, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


Try taking a Hurri IIb up against 4 Wildcats. Then switch sides and fly a Wildcat vs 4 Hurris.
Tell me, which do you feel safer in now? Then, just for laughs, take a Spitfire Vb up against both of them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hurri IIB vs 4 F4F4's = 3 dead F4's
F4F4 vs 4 Hurri IIB's = 4 dead Hurris
Spit VB vs 2 Hurri's and 2 F4's = 2 dead

I still feel safer in the Hurri. The Spit just isnt for me, although I do like the Seafire for some reason, a FW190 can't seem to escape them online.
The Martlet isn't a bad plane, I have never said otherwise, however given that it only appeared mid-war, it does seem to be one of the worse aircraft of the time.
In a Hurri I can fairly easily deal with 109's, whom I often come up against on Western servers, however in an F4F4 I am always outgunned by Zekes whom the enemy undoubtably are - if the enemies were 109's I may have more luck.

Off the topic, but I do think the Hurricane is a bit undermoddled in this game. I don't mean this to sound like another cry for my fav aircraft to be made best in the game, as for a start, the Hurricane is far from being my fav aircraft! However, I do think the power of 12 x .303 MG's each fireing at what, 1100 rounds per minute, to be vastly understated. One of these MG's is capable of tearing down brick walls, even if they can not penetrate much pilot armour, they would put so many incendiaries into fuel tanks and sever so many controls....
I think the Hurri IIC is fairly modled armament wise however. My complaint on the flight model though, is that I have read that the one thing a Hurricane could do better than a spitifre, was roll rate, while in the game the Spitfire seems to have the better role, while the Hurricane roles like a Heinkel.

JG53Frankyboy
02-28-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
First of all the 32.5;1 kill/loss ratio was achived by the FM2 "Wilder Wilcat" not the F4F3/4. Different beast with a boosted engine, increased power, higher rudder and reduced armament.

. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the FM-2 had the same armament like the F4F-3.

Wseivelod
02-28-2005, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
they had a world beater in the Grumman Martlet.

and produced the Martlet full scale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

then it wouldn't have been an american plane anymore, so the rest of your inane clown possie would have nothing to whine about.

mynameisroland
02-28-2005, 11:41 AM
check my profile im not an American. do you guys have no sense of irony?

PBNA-Boosher
02-28-2005, 11:51 AM
I vote wildcats, can't tell the score, but my reasons are that the Wildcat pilots had just returned from combat duty. Their high experience levels combined with the fact that it had been a very short time since they were in combat just makes me feel like they would win. Plus the Wildcat pilots were BnZers, they had to be, or they died. THe Hurri pilots were TnBers, that's how they would win.

Waldo.Pepper
02-28-2005, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pauldun171:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Just like in an earlier post I made where a Black Widows was tested against a P47N, and like was done above Conneticutt in 1942 (I think it was '42) between Corsairs and Thunderbolts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you link that post? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I cannot link to any post as LONG AS THE GD SEARCH FEATURE IS SCUPPERED!!!

But I can reasonably recreate them.

The first one is interesting but not valuable and tells of a mock combat between P47's and F4U Corsairs.

It is from an excellent book callled Carrier Pilot by Norman Hanson p 103 (Funny how all these tales include a reference to drinking).

"We were out one evening, drinking at a pub between Quonset Point and Providence when we ran into some US Army pilots, working up squadrons of Republic Thunderbolts, the Army's latest interceptors. Inevitably there ensued great argument on the relative merits of 'ours' and 'theirs'. There was extensive waving of hands all over the bar. There were loud shouts of 'Balls!' and 'Nuts!' and 'For Chrissake stop talking ****!' and similarly endearing remarks which invariably punctuate flying talk. A Lieutenant finally suggested to me that all this was getting us nowhere. Why didn't we pitch a mock battle, with gun cameras, to prove which was the better aircraft?
What a great idea! In the absence of our CO, who wasn't much of a drinking man, I committed us to a battle, six a side, for the following afternoon at 1600, at 10,000 feet over the James River Bridge. Done. Handshakes all round.
'The boss' absolutely jumped at it. His eyes sparkled and he just couldn't wait. He grinned even more as he said: 'You said 1600, Hans?'
'Yes, sir. At 10,000 feet.'
'Great! Well show 'em!'
And we did show them. For Charlie Orange (CO) was an old hand and you had to be up very bright and early to put one over him. At 1545 the next day we were sitting up-sun over the bridge not at 10,000 but at 16,000 feet. When the American boys arrived five minutes early in very tiddly formation, we fell upon them from a great height, as the Assyrians, like a wolf on the fold. In two minutes it was all over. I had learnt another lesson: war doesn't 'begin at midnight'; it starts at 2355 and gives you the drop on the sucker."


The second while still anecdotal is more valuabl, as no cheating was involved. It is from Northrop P-61 Black Widow by Gerry R Pape p. 64

The 548th had an Officer's Club that was frequented by the 318th's CO and his friends. Besides enjoying the liquor at the club, the men of the 318th enjoyed poking fun at the 548th, using such snide remarks as "bomber pilots." Col. Dave Curtis, CO of the Black Widow boys, eventually became fed up with this continuous ribbing and announced that he could outdo McAfee and his P-47 with his trusty P-61.

Colonel Curtis told the story this way: "His response was an offer to 'load up the guns, and we'll go up and have it out!' "Though alcohol was an active ingredient in the situation, reason eventually prevailed. His bet with me was $700 to be decided by superiority in two of three competitions. (1) Shortest takeoff roll. (2) Top speed in level flight to be done on the deck over the ocean to preclude cheating by diving. (3) Simulated air-to air combat with gun cameras for documentation.
"In due time the contest started. His Jug was stripped of all reasonably removable weight, including guns and armor plate; I don't know what else. I reduced my ammo load to 20 rounds of 20 mm. The word had gotten around. A crowd of many hundreds had collected and many thousands of dollars were to change owners. The two aircraft lined up, wing tip to wing tip.
"He ran power up to full bore with water injection (2,800 hp) and released brakes. As the aircraft moved forward the tail wheel came up, then back down as the main gear lifted off. He literally hung it on the prop, with tail wheel rolling after the main gear lifted clear. I was impressed (as were many spectators who told me later they figured then that it was over except the payoff).
"My turn. Water injection (2x2,250 hp) and released the brakes. When the air speed showed 75 mph, I started the flaps down and lifted the nose to a steep climbing altitude. I had beaten him by 75 yards!
"In level flight we lined up again, tip-to-tip. At his nod we each turned 90 degrees in opposite directions; a minute later we each turned 180 degrees to come at each other near head on. It had been agreed we would break as we passed-then everything goes. Both of us turned as hard as we could, for a few moments it looked questionable. Then the greater maneuverability of the Black Widow began to show; I moved inexorably towards his tail. He dove sharply, but I remained behind him; but always staying higher (height is nearly always an advantage). Eventually I was right behind his tail, my camera whirling. 'Best two out of three,' was his radio call.
"Back up we went and again squared away. This time I pitched sharply up as we broke. In less than one turn I was grinning through my sights at an uncomfortably rotated face, 'Let's go home!'
"I had frames of gun mm with nothing but Jug in them. Several claimed they could recognize the Colonel's panic filled face. They never came to our club again."

SkyChimp
02-28-2005, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Secondly, the FM2 wasn't in squadron service until 1943. That makes it a contemporary of the Spitfire IX, not the Vb. I love the FM2, I fly it hard and I fly it often, if ii'm not in a Jug guess where you will find me? But it simply doesn't compare to a Spitfire IX in climb or speed, the two most essential elements in ETO aircombat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the Brits that flew FM-2s in the ETO weren't aware of that rule.

In March 1945 882 Squadron flying Wildcat IVs (FM-2s) engaged Bf-109Gs from III Gruppe/JG5. The outcome was one damaged Wildcat versus 4 destroyed Bf-109s.

And you shouldn't degrade the FM-2's climb rate. It was better than both the P-51D and P-47D. In a dogfight, neither plane could match the FM-2s manueverability.

chris455
02-28-2005, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

I guess the Brits that flew FM-2s in the ETO weren't aware of that rule.

In March 1945 882 Squadron flying Wildcat IVs (FM-2s) engaged Bf-109Gs from III Gruppe/JG5. The outcome was one damaged Wildcat versus 4 destroyed Bf-109s.

And you shouldn't degrade the FM-2's climb rate. It was better than both the P-51D and P-47D. In a dogfight, neither plane could match the FM-2s manueverability. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be Chimpster, but inspite of all the evidence, the news is in: The Wildcat simply wasn't a "great" combat aircraft after all. Somebody named "Maxpower" said so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2005, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I guess the Brits that flew FM-2s in the ETO weren't aware of that rule.

In March 1945 882 Squadron flying Wildcat IVs (FM-2s) engaged Bf-109Gs from III Gruppe/JG5. The outcome was one damaged Wildcat versus 4 destroyed Bf-109s.

And you shouldn't degrade the FM-2's climb rate. It was better than both the P-51D and P-47D. In a dogfight, neither plane could match the FM-2s manueverability. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If its one thing I dont do its underestimate either the climb or manuverability of the FM-2. Its an absolute shark at low altitude and I have suprised more than one Zero pilot with its turn and climb off the deck.

Chimp, the FM-2 is a wonderful bird but nothing to it suggests, to me at lest, that it was more capable than a mid war Spitfire mark. Just my feeling though. I didn't have any figures handy but the P-51 and the P-47D (even a paddle bladed model) were never record breakers for the fastest climb either.

Hearing that Wilcats took on 109s and beat them soundly is not a suprise really. I was just expressing that I feel that the Spitfire is a superior combat design for land based European operations.

Oh and what was the armament of the F4F-3 and FM-2? My memory has it as 6 x .50 for the F4F-3 and 4 x.50 with more ammunition for the FM-2.

JG53Frankyboy
02-28-2005, 07:35 PM
F4F-3 and FM-2 has 4 .50cal ,
F4F-4 had 6 .50cal with less ammo per gun

http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/Wildcat.html

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2005, 09:18 PM
Rgr on the 4 for the F4F-3, just double checked some sources. Seems some sites erronously put the F-3 as 6 .50 armed when itonly has 4. Ta.

Badsight.
02-28-2005, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Then, just for laughs, take a Spitfire Vb up against both of them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DONT HAVE TOO!

im laughing already ! !

Badsight.
02-28-2005, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
However, I do think the power of 12 x .303 MG's each fireing at what, 1100 rounds per minute, to be vastly understated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>multi MG planes are not spitting out their genuine amount of rounds

CPU aint good enough

its hardly mentioned at all & not by me either , cant stand MG's , im a lover of cannon & HE

Badsight.
02-28-2005, 10:07 PM
if i was asked this on the spur of the moment , never having heard about that Hurri/Wildcat test , id say with its better TnB the Wildcat should have dominated , especially if it was the FM2 Wildcat

in FB the Hurri feels nicer being pushed real hard in a turn than the F4F , the IIb Hurricane is the lightest & it shows . if i have just one bandit to bag ill take the Feild Mod Hurricane any day

i have flowen hurricanes a lot in FB , if your bandit is left alone to work you , your Hurricane is very eaisly compromised , very similer results flying the Wildcat too i might add

all in all , a interesting match-up , very close . kinda a shame these planes didnt have to fight each other to the death , so we could get to discuss it in cyberspace 60 years later for our amusement

Badsight.
02-28-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
That may be Chimpster, but inspite of all the evidence, the news is in: The Wildcat simply wasn't a "great" combat aircraft after all. Somebody named "Maxpower" said so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>come on Chris , its a dog in FB . you get results from using it with better teamwork , not because its a dominant fighter LOL

im sure those G Bf109s those FM2's met were piloted by real aces , especially seeing as how it was only 1945 & all

take a FM2 against someone who can DF with you in a G Chris & see how well you do in FB , im not sure one of those 2 could lose

chris455
02-28-2005, 11:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>come on Chris , its a dog in FB . you get results from using it with better teamwork , not because its a dominant fighter LOL

im sure those G Bf109s those FM2's met were piloted by real aces , especially seeing as how it was only 1945 & all

take a FM2 against someone who can DF with you in a G Chris & see how well you do in FB , im not sure one of those 2 could lose <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this WUAF Badsight? If it is, Cheers, M8.

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence, I would expect an energy fighter like a late model 109 to dominate (if flown properly) If it was a duffer who tried to turnfight with the FM-2, things could get ugly for the German, quickly.
Now, in a 109F2 or an F4, I think the Wildcat would have even more trouble, those early Friedrich's could turn like hell. What do you think?

Badsight.
02-28-2005, 11:22 PM
there is only one Badsight , WUAF no more (outstanding bunch of guys , dont get me wrong)

i E fight now mainly , & , like fighting a Hurri MkIIb with a Emil , ill get that Wildcat compromised in no time flat in a G

id say that the F might do it as good , but would take a bit longer

chris455
03-01-2005, 12:22 AM
I have found a calling recently doing- of all things- high side attacks versus heavy bombers in less-than-ideal fighter mounts.
Got it down pretty well in fact.
I like flying the early Hurris (MKIs) versus He-111s, Fw-200s, etc. Seeing if I can scratch them without getting hit.
Gonna try it with a Gladiator next.
Good hearing from you my friend-

Badsight.
03-01-2005, 12:59 AM
what you just described is hard work

oh how i know that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

watch that Hurri motor , tis like the P-40s & that He has a nasty tail

Mk1 ? man you like thing hard dont you , scratch is right !

ImpStarDuece
03-01-2005, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
I have found a calling recently doing- of all things- high side attacks versus heavy bombers in less-than-ideal fighter mounts.
Got it down pretty well in fact.
I like flying the early Hurris (MKIs) versus He-111s, Fw-200s, etc. Seeing if I can scratch them without getting hit.
Gonna try it with a Gladiator next.
Good hearing from you my friend- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Head ons Chris? Thats the only way baby! Try Extreme-One an Poymado's BoB campaign. Even the Stukas are a pain in the trousers to knock down!

GerritJ9
03-01-2005, 02:30 AM
The Buffalo would take both F4F and Hurri out...........

chris455
03-01-2005, 09:09 AM
Actually, I feel I have perfected the "high-side attack" of which we have all read so much about, but until now I had never really mastered. I can now drop these bruins fairly regularly without getting hit, or if I do get hit, at least it's usually superficial.
I am kinda jazzed about it, after all these years of playing FB it's fun to learn something new.
Cheers to all, and as I said earlier, the Hurri was always a big fav of mine, so I'm not sore at all about the outcome of the mock battle, but I do feel the Wildcat made it's fair contribution to victory- http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

harryrriedl
03-01-2005, 09:53 AM
also the p40, p39 were both known as dogs to fly yet people still love them in fact there is no **** plane

geetarman
03-01-2005, 10:34 AM
Although I love the F4F for what it is and what it accomplished, primarily, during 1942, most of the accounts of Marine and Navy pilots I've read indicate they did not feel they were flying a "great" fighter plane.

That said, it is interesting to note that the vast majority of Joe Foss' kills were against Zeros! We can surmise with some confidence that his victims were probably very good IJN aviators. In the right hands, and, as always, flown properly, the Wildcat could bite - hard!.

VFA195-MaxPower
03-01-2005, 04:04 PM
Oh yeah.. victory ratio must be a great way to judge and aircraft's performance.

The finnish brewsters scored a victory ratio of 26:1 against soviet and german opponents. In the brewster, the Fins shot down I-153s, I-16's, Spitfires, Hurricains, La-5's, Yak-7's, MiG's, Tomahawks, etc, etc. In the hands of Eino Luukkanen and Hans Wind, a single B-239 (designated BW-393) is credited with 41 air victories. This puts BW-393 a contender for the single aircraft with the most kills in the history of aerial warfare.

By this logic, the Buffalo must have secretly been one of the most incredible air combat performers in the history of aircraft.

I guess the US Navy made the wrong decision when
they decided to use the wildcat over the brewster buffalo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I'll put together a list of sources and quotes and spam you with them when they are ready. I read these books at random and I don't know which quotes come from which books, etc, so I have to scan them for the information I want.

SkyChimp
03-01-2005, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
Oh yeah.. victory ratio must be a great way to judge and aircraft's performance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say it was a good way to judge a plane's performance. I said it was a good way to judge its effectiveness as a fighter. There's a difference.

Hendley
03-01-2005, 07:36 PM
Quibbles about wording aside, MaxPower's point still stands. By K/D ratio, the Brewster was the most effective fighter of the war. Which would be news to most people familiar with the subject... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K/D reflects a massive range of factors, including countless strategic and logistical issues, quality of opposition, non-airframe/engine-related technology advantages such as radio and radar, amount of ground support, overall and local superiority of numbers, tactics and training, pilot experience and quality, etc etc etc. (This goes for the "Team X won the war, so Team X had the better planes" argument also.)

K/D says a certain amount about the opposing forces _in general_, but almost nothing about the plane itself.

SkyChimp
03-01-2005, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
Quibbles about wording aside, MaxPower's point still stands. By K/D ratio, the Brewster was the most effective fighter of the war. Which would be news to most people familiar with the subject... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No question about it. Sort to blows to hell the common perception that the best performing fighters make the best fighters. Not always the case.

VFA195-MaxPower
03-01-2005, 09:39 PM
It still sounds like you're saying that the Brewster Buffalo made the best fighter of WW2. There's something wrong.

chris455
03-01-2005, 11:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It still sounds like you're saying that the Brewster Buffalo made the best fighter of WW2. There's something wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong is that you are putting words in people's mouths. You are the only one I have heard make the above (patently untrue) statement.

Skychimp quoted statistics showing the Wildcat's prowess as a combat aircraft, prowess which you denigrated, and after treating us to several offers to show "proof" of your position, (based on your extensive research)you persistently fail to do so, contenting yourself instead with twisting other people's arguments.

That the Wildcat is widely considered one of the great combat planes of WWII does not need to be "proven" here, we'll assume it. Any astute student of WWII can read as much by picking up nearly any book on the air war in the Pacific (I don't suppose you have read Bergerud's Fire in the Sky for one? No? Well that author has alot to say about the Wildcats fighting qualities. Maybe you should read it).
If it is your contention that the facts are otherwise, share them, but please stop putting words in peoples mouths, and please stop threatening to cite sources and then failing to do so. Until you do, I consider the matter closed.
There really never was any question about the Wildcats reputation, actually.

VFA195-MaxPower
03-02-2005, 12:08 AM
Oh, how dare I denegrate the unmatched fighting prowess of the holy biplane-turned-flying-beerkeg.

Be patient. I will round up the list when I have time.

Here's the logic in case you missed it.

I said the f4f was inferior to its foe.

Chimp said no, look at the numbers.

I said no, numbers are misleading.

He said that the common perception is that raw performance = a great fighter and that this perception is wrong.

Here he is clearly refering to numbers again. ie. that sometimes **** planes can rawk, given the right circumstances. Planes that can rawk under the right circumstances, as the f4f may have, means that the aircraft is superior to its foe.

This is the same logic he used earlier, which is the logic that I am at issue with.

Thanks for your attempt at clarifying my intent, Chris. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FluffyDucks
03-02-2005, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It still sounds like you're saying that the Brewster Buffalo made the best fighter of WW2. There's something wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong is that you are putting words in people's mouths. You are the only one I have heard make the above (patently untrue) statement.

Skychimp quoted statistics showing the Wildcat's prowess as a combat aircraft, prowess which you denigrated, and after treating us to several offers to show "proof" of your position, (based on your extensive research)you persistently fail to do so, contenting yourself instead with twisting other people's arguments.

That the Wildcat is widely considered one of the great combat planes of WWII does not need to be "proven" here, we'll assume it. Any astute student of WWII can read as much by picking up nearly any book on the air war in the Pacific (I don't suppose you have read Bergerud's _Fire in the Sky_ for one? No? Well that author has alot to say about the Wildcats fighting qualities. Maybe you should read it).
If it is your contention that the facts are otherwise, share them, but please stop putting words in peoples mouths, and please stop threatening to cite sources and then failing to do so. Until you do, I consider the matter closed.
There really never _was_ any question about the Wildcats reputation, actually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Chimp's spokesman has spoken. I really think Chimp is big enough and ugly enough to stand up for himself, he doesn't need a minime wannabe running about flaming anyone that doesn't agree with him. Keywords: Organ Grinder, Monkey. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For the rest of you that think the Wildcat was nothing more or less than an "adequate", if "not quite up to the job", fillgap, please don't bother to waste your time, you are not allowed to discuss the reality of the mediocre Wildcat because it doesn't fit in with certain posters brainwashed, and wholly subjective belief that John Wayne films are REAL HISTORY.

arjisme
03-02-2005, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Chimp's spokesman has spoken. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As has MaxPower's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The problem with this discussion is no one is willing to define precisely the terms they are using. What does a person mean when they say an aircraft is "best"? There are really two points of view being discussed here regarding "best": 1.) Given a one-on-one encounter between two planes with theoretically equal pilots, which plane would tend to shoot down the other? And 2.) Which planes were successful in the theatres and mission types they were assigned?


Regarding 1.), at a minimum, you would want to consider that test at several different altitudes. A sterile test like this could define which plane is generally more manueverable than the other, but keep in mind that alone doesn't makes it a better fighter. I'll go out on a limb here and say the Zero is more manueverable than the Wildcat. To determine the better fighter, you would need to factor in armor, firepower, ability to engage/disengage, etc. The Zero, if flown right, can probably avoid letting the Wildcat put holes in it, but I personally don't know whether the Zero could be assured of taking the Wildcat down in these kinds of theoretical matchups (i.e. is the Wildcat a better diver? Is it faster? If so, could it disengage if necessary and live to fight another day?)

But, the other point of view is which aircraft excelled in its assigned role in a combat environment? This brings in many more variables, such as teamwork, operating theater, mission types, etc. When answering this question, one might be able to argue that the Brewster Buffalo was the most successful, if K/D ratio vs. enemy fighters is the appropriate criteria to measure by. The Wildcat gets praise for doing well the job it was asked to do -- operate from carriers and land-based Pacific airfields in air-to-air combat against the Japanese naval and army air forces. It succeeded in that role. That doesn't mean it didn't have weaknesses or that it could inevitably defeat a Zero one-on-one. It means as a tool used by the US pilots, it was effective. Its combat record shows it was not mediocre, but rather that it was quite successful in its role.

If you want to assert that the Wildcat was mediocre, please be specific in saying in what way it was mediocre. I think most A/C can be said to be mediocre in some capacity or other.

chris455
03-02-2005, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Fluffyducks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Chimp's spokesman has spoken. I really think Chimp is big enough and ugly enough to stand up for himself, he doesn't need a minime wannabe running about flaming anyone that doesn't agree with him. Keywords: Organ Grinder, Monkey.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get a load of this guy! And all this time I thought Skychimp was the monkey! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Keywords: ad hominem, personal attacks

Fluffy, it seems you're no more capable of substantiating your "argument" (which at this point consists of, "what Maxpower said!") than Maxpower himself.

I wish one of you would cough up some sources, or STFU.

Hendley
03-02-2005, 10:01 AM
I think you guys are being a wee bit too aggressive toward MaxPower. We all have our favorite planes, but still.

As I understand it, the thread is originally about the mock dogfight between the Hurris and Wildcats.

Chimp brought up the flattering K/D figures for the Wildcat in defense of the plane, at which point MaxPower said "pfft" to K/D ratios.

I too think that K/D ratios are pretty much irrelevant in assessing a fighter plane's worth--especially because almost all these K/D figures come from that one US report about the USN/USM in the PTO.

The problem with K/D ratios, I think, is that with so many other factors involved, slotting any other contemporary fighter into the same situation would result in just about the same ratios.

Personally, I always thought the Wildcat to be in the same class as the Hurri: a goodish fighter that did the job when the going was tough, but its pilots were happy to trade in for the better plane...

horseback
03-02-2005, 10:48 AM
I think that we can all agree that the Wildcat was the second best Naval fighter in the world at the time it operated as the US Navy's primary fighter; the Zero had some excellent qualities that made it a formidible adversary. Particularly at the beginning of the war in the Pacific, it was flown by exceptionally well trained and combat experienced pilots, which made it all the more dangerous as an opponent.

That said, I doubt that most of the US Navy and Marine fighter pilots of the time would have preferred to fly the Zero, once they realized its limitations. Westerners prefer airplanes that get them home most of the time over aircraft designed with an 'all or nothing' philosophy, and with its light design and poor armoring, the Zero was definitely in the 'all or nothing' category. So that makes the Wildcat the best naval fighter the Allies had for 1941 through 1943.

Complaints about the F4F were centered on the realization that it could have been done better, or that something better would be made available. Given the quality problems that Brewster had while making license built Corsairs, I doubt that the carrier equipped Buffalo would have been preferable at that time.

As for the Hurri vs Wildcat match, few Pacific combat veterans would adapt a turnfighting mentality; their reflexes are set for a 'hit and git' strategy (much more effective against the Japanese air arms). The match with the Canadians was by its nature a turn fight between a land based fighter without the weight penalties imposed by folding wings, structural strengthening or tailhooks, and a carrier fighter with all that extra weight.

If the challange had been issued to a Wildcat squadron fresh from training in the continental US, the results might have been a little closer, because they would have had all their dogfighting experience against each other. Hassling with someone flying the same type aircraft places a premium on turnfighting, so their reflexes might have been a bit sharper for that kind of match.

In a shooting match, the advantage would go to the Wildcat veterans, because you don't have to get on someone's 'six' to shoot them down, and six .50s hit a lot harder sooner than twelve .303s.

cheers

horseback

Yimmy
03-02-2005, 01:35 PM
"The match with the Canadians was by its nature a turn fight between a land based fighter without the weight penalties imposed by folding wings, structural strengthening or tailhooks, and a carrier fighter with all that extra weight."

I think we are forgetting that the Hurricane also operated from carriers, and that the aircraft in the said mock battle had depth charges strapped to their wings....

I certainly do not agree that the Wildcat was the second ebst carrier fighter of the time. I put it behind both the Sea Hurricane and the Zero, and the Seafire (although I am unsure we used the type in 42'.)

Zyzbot
03-02-2005, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
"The match with the Canadians was by its nature a turn fight between a land based fighter without the weight penalties imposed by folding wings, structural strengthening or tailhooks, and a carrier fighter with all that extra weight."

I think we are forgetting that the Hurricane also operated from carriers, and that the aircraft in the said mock battle had depth charges strapped to their wings....

I certainly do not agree that the Wildcat was the second ebst carrier fighter of the time. I put it behind both the Sea Hurricane and the Zero, and the Seafire (although I am unsure we used the type in 42'.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can't agree with the Seafire.

The Seafire had a narrow undercarriage track, which meant that it was not well suited to deck operations and had a very high accident rate.

For example:

HMS Unicorn provided fighter cover for both fleet and forces ashore during the first 24 hours following the landings at Salerno. It was nearly four days before the capture of an airfield ashore could relieve the force of the responsibility.

During this time period over 40 Supermarine Seafire fighters were €œwritten off€ in deck accidents alone.

horseback
03-02-2005, 02:43 PM
Yimmy-

The aircraft the Canadians flew was not a SeaHurricane, which was somewhat heavier and slower than the standard MK II, although no version of the Sea Hurri ever featured anything so useful as folding wings. As an adaptation of a landbased fighter for carrier use, it's success and usefullness can be best gauged by the FAA's acquisition of so many Martlets (approximately 1,000) instead of Hurricanes.

Without the advantage of better climb and top speed/accelleration, a Sea Hurri was no match for a Wildcat, and you couldn't put as many on a carrier (and I doubt that they'd fit on the deck elevator, which means they'd always have to be spotted on the fight deck- a real pain for maintenance and repair personnel.

Over thirty FAA squadrons had flown the various flavors of the Martlet/Wildcat by war's end, and only the Fulmar (yes-the Fulmar) had more FAA victories.

The later purpose-built Seafires were formidible fighters, but they tended to be more dangerous to their pilots and carrier deck personnel than their enemies-specifically in attempts to land on carriers. The first Seafires were converted Mk Vbs operated by 801 Squadron starting in October of 1942. As carrier fighters, they were not a success because they rarely lasted out the full cruise, combat or otherwise.

cheers

horseback

VFA195-MaxPower
03-02-2005, 02:52 PM
I think Chris thinks that since we are discussing warplanes that we are, in fact, at war. I haven't threatened anyone with any sources. I offered the gather them. And since I offered, I've been tracking them down and looking through them. There are some web sources that I have yet to find.

If you're impatient and sources obsessed, why not track down a few sources saything that the wildcat was super-duper? Tracking down sources is not nearly as fun as ripping them to pieces. I'm sorry to make you wait on that, btw, your mouth must be watering!

I wonder what the accident rate of the wildcat was. Its landing gear are very narrow track, and from what I have read, they were mushy. The accident rate may have something to do with the carrier landing techniques they were using- training, etc.. and the fact that they were written off might have something to do with the relative ease or difficulty of writing off a spitfire.

whiteladder
03-02-2005, 03:38 PM
I think sometimes people use a fighters ability to dogfight as a measure of its worth. Using this criteria it is easy to say the Zero is superior to the Wildcat.

You could also argue that a measure of a fighter is the number of aircraft shot down against losses.

Both these miss what a fighter is really about, that is gaining air superiority through what ever means possible.

The wildcat failed in its primary purpose at the start of the war because it was unable to gain air superiority, this had two results high losses in the aircraft that it escorted and damage to the carriers that it was suppose to be protecting. This failure is not to say that that the Wildcat was a poor fighter as other factors (such as the limited number of fighters carried at the start of the war)need to be taken into account.

This can equally be said of the Zero, what the difference was that the Americans recognise that they could not gain air superiority with the Wildcat and develope aircraft with which they could. Also the replacements (Hellcat, Corsair) could carry a bombload comparable to the dedicated bombers and could be dual roled. This meant that size of the bomber squadrons could be reduced and the fighter squandrons increased.

SkyChimp
03-02-2005, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
It still sounds like you're saying that the Brewster Buffalo made the best fighter of WW2. There's something wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is something wrong. You can't understand what I am trying to say.

Yimmy
03-02-2005, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
and only the Fulmar (yes-the Fulmar) had more FAA victories.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, I forgot about the Fulmar - which I also rate as a better carrier fighter aircraft than the Wildcat.

SkyChimp
03-02-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
Oh, how dare I denegrate the unmatched fighting prowess of the holy biplane-turned-flying-beerkeg.

Be patient. I will round up the list when I have time.

Here's the logic in case you missed it.

I said the f4f was inferior to its foe.

Chimp said no, look at the numbers.

I said no, numbers are misleading.

He said that the common perception is that raw performance = a great fighter and that this perception is wrong.

Here he is clearly refering to numbers again. ie. that sometimes **** planes can rawk, given the right circumstances. Planes that can rawk under the right circumstances, as the f4f may have, means that the aircraft is superior to its foe.

This is the same logic he used earlier, which is the logic that I am at issue with.

Thanks for your attempt at clarifying my intent, Chris. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for stating my opinion. Maybe I should state it myself.

Raw performance numbers are not an indicator of how well a plane will perform against another aircraft.

A fighter plane's primary goal is the establishment and maintanence air superiority.

The Zero exceeded the Wildcat in some performance parameters, for the most part, it did not achieve its primary goal when facing the Wildcat. And while the Wildcat was inferior to the Zero in some respects, the Wildcat was able come out on top in the majority of its encounters with the Zero.

The Zero exceeded the Wildcat in climb and turn. The Wildcat exceeded the Zero in robustness, firepower, dive characteristics, and lightness of controls at high speed. The Wildcat also had a vastly superior radio that made the tactics that defeated the Zero possible. The Americans would not have been nearly as effective in the air had they been handicapped by the Zero's radio.

So my conclusion is this: under the circumstances, the Wildcat was the superior fighter. Firepower, toughness, dive ability and lightness of controls proved more important than slow speed manueverability and climb rate. And just as important, the Wildcat allowed its pilots to communicate with one another effecitvely, the Zero did not.

You said the Wildcat was not a Zero killer. It was a Zero killer, the numbers I posted prove it. What I wrote above is, in part, why it was possible.

SkyChimp
03-02-2005, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:

Chimp's spokesman has spoken. I really think Chimp is big enough and ugly enough to stand up for himself, he doesn't need a minime wannabe running about flaming anyone that doesn't agree with him. Keywords: Organ Grinder, Monkey. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For the rest of you that think the Wildcat was nothing more or less than an "adequate", if "not quite up to the job", fillgap, please don't bother to waste your time, you are not allowed to discuss the reality of the mediocre Wildcat because it doesn't fit in with certain posters brainwashed, and wholly subjective belief that John Wayne films are REAL HISTORY.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're certainly allowed to discuss it. And I'm certainly allowed to rebut what I see as dogmatic assertions. The difference is, I do it rationally and back up my arguments with fact. You resort to childish twitisms. Grow up.

EnGaurde
03-02-2005, 06:06 PM
i feel i wont make a dint on the rock solid set in steel attitudes towards the wildcat, but...

there are no great planes anymore.

there is only manipulation of data, interpretation and counter-interpretation of events, and general claim followed by counter claim about the capabilities of particular airframes.

when we stop micro analysing, and look at things in a new way:

the wildcat was eaten alive by zeros, until a ( now listen carefully here is the suprisingly simple answer to all the back and forth debate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...) a tactic was developed to make up for the lack of basic capability of the wildcat in maneouver.

are we arguing about effectiveness of tactics and sound combat and teamwork related decisions ( ironically developed by the very real need to find something to give the wildcat a leg up against its prime foe ), or purely an early war aircraft that had its ar$e handed to it when basic flight capabilities were the basis of its effectiveness?

i feel that the wildcat was just a tool for tacticians. The same results would have been evident in an even feebler airframe.

i always think that the thatch weave mentioned here was akin to a defensive circle, limited to two aircraft, but the principle was the same.

SkyChimp
03-02-2005, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:

I wonder what the accident rate of the wildcat was. Its landing gear are very narrow track, and from what I have read, they were mushy. The accident rate may have something to do with the carrier landing techniques they were using- training, etc.. and the fact that they were written off might have something to do with the relative ease or difficulty of writing off a spitfire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Download this file.

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

It will tell you all sorts of things.

horseback
03-02-2005, 07:16 PM
Prior to Midway, where the Thach weave made its debut, there was ONE carrier battle wherein Zeros and Wildcats confronted each other; Coral Sea, where the Zero vs Wildcat boxscore read 6 to 3 in the Zero's favor. Additionally, though, the Wildcats scored at least 2 Claudes (from Shoho), and a number of Kates and Vals in the Japanese attacks on the US carriers. It should be pointed out that the Wildcats were outnumbered by IJN aircraft both during the strikes on the big Japanese carriers and while defending their own carriers on the second day. In the defensive fight, they were held low and slow by inexperienced fighter direction (you can't call it 'ground control' on a carrier).

From that point on, though, the Naval Aviators flying the Wildcat rarely came off worse than even. Bear in mind that the cream of the IJN fighter corps was lost over the Solomons, and the major US player for the first seven months of that campaign was the Wildcat. P-38s were rare, and the F-4U, while it made its squadron debut in February of '43, took a while to get the numbers in theater. It was July before the last Marine fighter squadron converted to the Corsair. From the outset of the war until August of 1943, the Wildcat scored almost 900 kills.

That's not bad for an 'inadequate' fighter. I think the complaints about its inadequacy were prompted by the pilots' belief that they could do better if they had a fighter with just a little more 'oomph.' It was heavy, it was slow, it didn't climb as well as some fighters, but it was the best 'modern' carrier fighter available at the time(Yimmy's apparent ignorance about the Fulmar's limitations notwithstanding).

cheers

horseback

HellToupee
03-02-2005, 08:49 PM
ild say zero was a better fighter than the wildcat, it could outperform and outrange it and all the wildcat could do is dive and runa nd it had cannons.

Badsight.
03-02-2005, 09:43 PM
Cannon are a deal maker to me too

cant stand only having MG's .

Zyzbot
03-02-2005, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
Cannon are a deal maker to me too

cant stand only having MG's . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree...but funny thing...Japanese ace Saburo Sakai did not like th ecannon at all:


"The decision to adopt the 20mm cannon on the Zero is generally believed to be an epoch making advance in fighter design. However, having used the cannon in combat, I had always held this weapon in doubt, despite its great destructive power. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I regarded the cannons in disfavor. 70% of my kills in fighter vs fighter combat was made with 7.7mm machine guns"

Saburo Sakai disliked the 20mm wing cannons because of the small ammunition load and the low initial velocity.

Zero-sen no Shinjitsu , Saburo Sakai ISBN 4-06-205886-3

VFA195-MaxPower
03-02-2005, 10:26 PM
The zero was superior to the wildcat in the following:

Top speed
Range
Agility
Armament
Climb

From Aircraft of World War 2 (edittor in gerenal: Jim Winchester) comparing the a6m3 to the f4f-4.

Now, I don't know exactly how you suppose to dictate whether or not a statement I made is true by introducing your own operational definitions of the terms I was using. Perhaps next time, before you agree or disagree, you ought to ask what I mean by superior instead of flipping out like I stole your last banana.

chris455
03-02-2005, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
The zero was superior to the wildcat in the following:

Top speed
Range
Agility
Armament
Climb

From Aircraft of World War 2 (edittor in gerenal: Jim Winchester) comparing the a6m3 to the f4f-4.

Now, I don't know exactly how you suppose to dictate whether or not a statement I made is true by introducing your own operational definitions of the terms I was using. Perhaps next time, before you agree or disagree, you ought to ask what I mean by superior instead of flipping out like I stole your last banana. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally, a source! Hallelujah!!!

It wasn't the superiority of the Zero, or any other aircraft for that matter, that your lead in to your argument pertained to:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Where did you hear that the wildcat was a great aircraft? It was markedly inferior to its chief rivals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't specify how it was inferior, you simply made a sweeping, generalized statement. You also made an untrue and ill-advised statement that inferred that the Wildcat "wasn't a Zero killer":

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If the wildcat was any kind of zero-killer, the USN would have produced it up to the f4f-10 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As we have seen (thanks to Skychimp's figures and link) the Wildcat was very much a "Zero killer", and a superb bomber interceptor as well, something that would be difficult to claim for the Zero. As has also been stated in earlier posts in this thread, the Wildcat could (in skilled hands, of course) hold it's own vs other late-model Axis fighters.

Now, having failed to specify what you meant by "inferior", you left the door wide open for the rest of us to cite those areas (including a fine combat record) where the Wildcat excelled.

MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT, which you chose to contest, was that the Wildcat was a "great" combat aircraft- obviously subjective. I think that, sentiment aside, it would be difficult to review the Wildcats combat record, versatility, longevity, kill ratio, and overall contribution to victory in WWII and not come to the conclusion that it was indeed a "great" combat aircraft. If you want to talk about specific performance parameters, we shouldn't forget that from a performance perspective, the Wildcat had it's share of "superior" traits too, such as dive speed, high speed turning ability, rollrate, durability, and firepower.
Indeed, the Wildcat's "inferiority" in some areas only make it's outstanding combat record all the more remarkable.

To make a blanket statement "The Wildcat was a great combat aircraft" can be very easily defended, indeed, it's surprising that anyone would contest the claim. To make the unqualified statement
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Where did you hear that the wildcat was a great aircraft? It was markedly inferior to its chief rivals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
is not so easily defended, the overwhelming body of evidence being that the Wildcat was highly capable of performing a wide variety of roles, some of which it was never even designed for, and performing them very, very well.

EnGaurde
03-03-2005, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Download this file.

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

It will tell you all sorts of things.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, then that tells me that the navy didnt have a problem with the enemy much, if at all.

im not being a smartar$e, im seriously thinking that the japanese air force and army air force where nigh on ineffectual in the pacific.

the overwhelming kill / loss ratios mentioned here, are barely a speed bump on operations.

i think, if i take this file as history, that the zero was never the magic fighter it was.

it just didnt get the numbers to be a threat. At all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

all the books ive read about its potential were frankly, wrong. History as i know it is glaringly inaccurate, it seems the wildcat was indeed the magic bit of kit that it was claimed.

that hurricane thing? naah, not indicative of anything but paper victory.

learn something new every day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GerritJ9
03-03-2005, 04:52 AM
The Brewster F2A-3 was ruined by the extra equipment and fuel load the USN specified, as was the B339E used by the RAF. It was inferior to both A6M2 and F4F-3. The F2A-2, however, was a better aeroplane than the F4F-3. It was faster, had a better rearward view, was more manoeuverable and was better suited to carrier ops than the F4F-3 because of its wider-track landing gear. It was even faster than the FM-2 with its 1,350 hp Cyclone- the F2A-2 had a 1,200 hp engine: 332 mph for the FM-2 vs 344 mph for the F2A-2.
Compared to the Hurricane IIB, the F2A-2 had approximately the same top speed, but could easily outturn it.
The F2A-2 would, in a similar scenario as to the one described above, have made mincemeat of both Hurris and Wildcats.

Yimmy
03-03-2005, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
(Yimmy's apparent ignorance about the Fulmar's limitations notwithstanding).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooh, I think I struck a nerve!

So, fancy making a new lecture for the Fairy Fulmar?

arjisme
03-03-2005, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA195-MaxPower:
The zero was superior to the wildcat in the following:

Top speed
Range
Agility
Armament
Climb

From Aircraft of World War 2 (edittor in gerenal: Jim Winchester) comparing the a6m3 to the f4f-4.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wouldn't disagree. But note: this implies the Wildcat was superior to the Zero in the following categories:
Armor
Dive
Communications

Further, when addressing armament, you have to factor in the kinds of targets you are hoping to destroy. So, yes, the Zero had the cannon, but the zero also had little armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks, so was easily destroyed by the lighter armament of the Wildcat. What really has to be said about armament is which aircraft could more readily destroy the other when it had that other in its sights. I'd guess it is about a wash there.

Regardless, what we have here is a rather arbitrary decision to value one certain set of attributes about fighter A/C over another set and, thus, declare one the better fighter. This is why I think it is not necessarily as obvious a call as at first perceived. In fact, IMHO, it is the communications capability that is the critical difference. This is because, in the real environment in which these aircraft functioned, communications was the difference. It allowed for team tactics, as mentioned above.

When people are asserting the Zero was the better fighter, I think what they actually mean is that it was the more manueverable fighter. No argument from me on that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FluffyDucks
03-03-2005, 07:51 AM
And so it continues....as predicted.
The usual suspects with the same old,same old. Some more eloquent and mature than others(Chimp et al though I think the "grow up" comment was a bit pathetic), Chris breaking the forum guidelines with his "STFU" remarks and hopelessly rendering any and all of his spoutings as total rubbish.
You guys have too much free time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

John_Stag
03-03-2005, 08:45 AM
To put this into perspective, did you know that from all historical accounts the average Roman soldier was regarded as a wuss?

Bung a hundred of them together though...


Maybe you should stop for a second and actually define what you think makes a great fighter aircraft?

arjisme
03-03-2005, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
And so it continues....as predicted.
The usual suspects with the same old,same old. Some more eloquent and mature than others(Chimp et al though I think the "grow up" comment was a bit pathetic), Chris breaking the forum guidelines with his "STFU" remarks and hopelessly rendering any and all of his spoutings as total rubbish.
You guys have too much free time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you for your meta-commentary on this topic. However, at least on one small point, I think you are off. I have been chiming in occassionally in this discussion but I don't think you can call me one of "the usual suspects." I don't post here often enough to earn that designation.

Are you actually calling for no discussion on this subject? That is what it seems you are doing. Why not contribute with some thoughtful, intelligent comments directly related to the thread topic? If it just bores you, you always have the choice to not follow the discussion.

John_Stag's comments immediately after your post echo what I think is needed here: clearly define what makes a figher great, then decide which ones qualify as that. It's a good idea in any debate to first get agreement on definition of terms before trying to make your case.

See, there's something a person might take away from this discussion who otherwise does not care about which is better: Zero or Wildcat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

geetarman
03-03-2005, 09:30 AM
I agree. You really must define the parameters in these sorts of "discussions." I think, depending how you argue it, it is easy to make the case that one was "superior" to the other.

That said, if an F4F and a Zero met alone at 15,000, both piloted by competent pilots intent on staying in the fight, I would have to put my money on the Zero as the plane that has the best chance of destroying the other.

chris455
03-03-2005, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
And so it continues....as predicted.
The usual suspects with the same old,same old. Some more eloquent and mature than others(Chimp et al though I think the "grow up" comment was a bit pathetic), Chris breaking the forum guidelines with his "STFU" remarks and hopelessly rendering any and all of his spoutings as total rubbish.
You guys have too much free time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know Fluffyducks,
Even Maxpower has more or less offered argument (albeit a weak one IMO) for his position, and others have contributed their thoughts/arguments/ sources as well. If I had to choose a "suspect" who has to date offered NOTHING but "rubbish", (i.e.,literally not a shred of coherent, logical argument) it would have to be you.
Since you bemoan the fact that we have so much free time, why do you waste yours here? Surely you have homework/chores you could be doing?

FluffyDucks
03-03-2005, 04:07 PM
I enjoy winding pathetic nerds up ...it's so easy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
I neither know, nor particularly care whether the mediocre Wildcat was superior to the Hurricane, I do know that it was a reasonably capable little fighter that had issues, which is why the US developed the Hellcat.
You seem to be the saddo that is getting your panties in a knot though with your "STFU" comments which basically blow your own argument clean out of the water.
I do like the Wildcat in PF, its pretty good I think.
BTW my formula for a 20 page long thread with hundreds of boring,pointless posts full of BS by guys that would have you think they are acknowledged experts on aircraft, even though they have NEVER flown ANY aircraft let alone a WWII Warbird:

1. Slightly criticise ANY US aircraft.

2. Sit back and wait for the bites..which will be swift,savage and entirely predictable.

3. Laugh as they post page upon page of pointless BS that nobody cares about if they have a real life.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Zyzbot
03-03-2005, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
I enjoy winding pathetic nerds like you up ...it's so easy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

1. Slightly criticise ANY US aircraft.

2. Sit back and wait for the bites..which will also be entirely predictable.


3. You guys make it too easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Same goes for the Spitfire. Glance sideways at the bird and they "release the hounds"!

chris455
03-03-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
I enjoy winding pathetic nerds up ...it's so easy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not the one who's "wound up", Cupcake.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/fluffyducks.jpg

arjisme
03-03-2005, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
I neither know, nor particularly care whether the mediocre Wildcat was superior to the Hurricane, I do know that it was a reasonably capable little fighter that had issues, which is why the US developed the Hellcat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do like the Wildcat in PF, its pretty good I think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, agreed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW my formula for a 20 page long thread with hundreds of boring,pointless posts full of BS by guys that would have you think they are acknowledged experts on aircraft, even though they have NEVER flown ANY aircraft let alone a WWII Warbird:

1. Slightly criticise ANY US aircraft.

2. Sit back and wait for the bites..which will be swift,savage and entirely predictable.

3. Laugh as they post page upon page of pointless BS that nobody cares about if they have a real life.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If it provides that needed ego boost, we can humor you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

rcocean
03-03-2005, 08:16 PM
Comments on the Wildcat by a Thatch (US Navy Pilot):

"It is indeed suprising that any of our pilots returned alive. Any success... we have against the Zero is NOT due to the performance of the plane we fly..."

"The only way we can ever bring our guns to bear on the zero fighter is to trick them into recovering in front of an F4F or shoot them when preoccupied in firing on our own planes."

"The Wildcat is pitifully inferior to the Zero in climb, maneuverability, and speed."

Another Pilot:

"Pilots (flying F4F) were helpless unless the japanese plane was shot dwown from above without warning."

Per Lundstrom - the K/D ratio of wildcat vs zero from Coral Sea to Guadacanal was about 1:1. Not very good, given the zero's lack of armor, radios, and losses due to fighting hundreds of miles from a Friendly base.

EnGaurde
03-03-2005, 08:45 PM
none of this first hand evidence above will make a scrap of difference to the Believers.

i still maintain, thru the sheer tonnage of books ive read and general info ive dredged up of that time, that the zero was a relatively terrible opponent indeed and had everyone on the back foot until a remedy was found. I say zero as i understand it was the wildcats primary foe.

yet if you read some posts in here, it was utterly useless in the face of the stalwart of the US Navy. Noone seems to acknowledge it was even mediocre. You just cant criticise it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ive tried to be reasonable, ive tried to consider both viewpoints, but IMO judging from the weight of evidence, that the wildcat was barely adequate.

and the beat goes on...

SkyChimp
03-03-2005, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rcocean:

Per Lundstrom - the K/D ratio of wildcat vs zero from Coral Sea to Guadacanal was about 1:1. Not very good, given the zero's lack of armor, radios, and losses due to fighting hundreds of miles from a Friendly base. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lundstrom doesn't quite say that, and his numbers don't take into consideration the US Marine contribution during Guadalcanal.

In his first book, he says from February to June 1942 VFs (Navy Squadrons) shot down 3 A5M4s and 14 A6Ms, for the loss of 10 Wildcats.

In his second book, he writes that in strictly fighter-versus-fighter combat from 7 August to 15 November, the kill loss ratio was 23:25 in favor of the VF's (Navy's) Wildcats.

There were Marine Squadrons (VMFs) on Guadalcanal, too, which these numbers do not consider. And Marine Wildcats accounted for the principal portion of Wildcats on Guadalcanal.

Numbers look much better when the Marine kill:loss ratio is added. Here are combine Navy/Marine loss:kill ratios:

June 1942:
7 fighters lost to enemy AC, versus 21 bombers and 31 fighters shot down

September 1942:
12 fighters lost to enemy AC, versus 55 bombers and 22 fighters shot down

October 1942:
19 fighters lost to enemy AC, versus 51 bombers and 100 fighters shot down

November 1942:
16 fighters lost to enemy AC, versus 22 bombers and 44 fighters shot down

SkyChimp
03-03-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
none of this first hand evidence above will make a scrap of difference to the Believers.

i still maintain, thru the sheer _tonnage_ of books ive read and general info ive dredged up of that time, that the zero was a relatively terrible opponent indeed and had everyone on the back foot until a remedy was found. I say zero as i understand it was the wildcats primary foe.

yet if you read some posts in here, it was utterly useless in the face of the stalwart of the US Navy. Noone seems to acknowledge it was even mediocre. You just cant criticise it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ive tried to be reasonable, ive tried to consider both viewpoints, but IMO judging from the weight of evidence, that the wildcat was barely adequate.

and the beat goes on... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Critsize the Wildcat all you want. It wasn't a stellar performer. But it's absolutley amazing that you could claim the Zero was vastly superior when it lost to the Wildcat at the rate it did.
It matters little that the Zero performed better in some respects than the Wildcat. If those advantages don't result in winning battles, then what's the advantage? I mean, there are people here claiming the Wildcat was the inferior plane. Why? Because it didn't kill Zeros at a rate of 10:1? 4:1 wasn't good enough?

EnGaurde
03-03-2005, 09:43 PM
my entire point is based around how the plane was used.

this, i believe, give a false reading on its pure capabilities as a fighter.

kill ratios, i think, are a prime indicator of the successful employment / tactical use of any plane, as opposed to the bare characteristics of it. If the odds are stacked in its favour due to clever application of teamwork and coordination, what a bleedin' surprise it came out on top. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

the US employed it using the old noggin, in fact they beat the japanese on paper and in the ready room before they ever got into the air.

but does that indicate its capabilities as a fighter, whittled down to pure performance?

i consider, in those battles indicated, what proportions of fighters met?

i tend to believe from material ive read that numbers favoured the US Navy, consequently the Wildcats operated in superior numbers.

winning battles as you say 'Chimp is not due to pure capabilities alone.

Its down to what you do with what youve got. Or so ive read.

EDIT: id like to see what happened when one wildcat met one zero or ki43. I think those comments from pilots posted above were the result. Yet, skychimp, i dont understand why you wont give these remarks even the slightest respect.

You group the wildcats performance in with the tactical and numerical use of it, that subsequently overcame or prevented its weakness being exposed in its combat record, and not on its sole merits, standing alone on its own dibs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

( ever see the original Seven Samurai movie? In it, villagers armed with nothing but sharpened bamboo poles overcome armed and vicious bandits. What made them win was that there were 20 villagers stabbing one bandit.... one on one, would have meant something very different indeed....)

SkyChimp
03-03-2005, 10:03 PM
There are two distinctly different issues being discussed here:

Raw performance: I've stated many times that I agree the Zero outperformed the Wildcat in some parameters.

Effectiveness: Whatever the differences in performance, the Wildcat was the more effective fighter since it performed its tasks more successfully than did the Zero.

arjisme
03-03-2005, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
yet if you read some posts in here, it was utterly useless in the face of the stalwart of the US Navy. Noone [emphasis mine] seems to acknowledge it was even mediocre. You just cant criticise it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you need to re-read the posts in this thread. You are simply wrong about this, as several, if not most, have acknowledged that, for certain fighter A/C capabilities (i.e. manueverability, speed, climb, firepower), it was mediocre as compared to the Zero. Have you considered that there might be a different point people are making when they assert the Wildcat was a "Zero killer?"

EnGaurde
03-03-2005, 10:30 PM
Effectiveness?

Ridiculous.

Doesnt come into it at all.

Why?

You are referring to the effectiveness of the US Navys tactics, and frankly nothing to do with the aircraft itself.


If I may...

I think what you meant to write was:

Effectiveness: Whatever the differences in equipment, the US Navy was the more effective tactical force since it performed its tasks more successfully with what it had at its disposal than did the Imperial Japanese Navy.

chris455
03-03-2005, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are referring to the effectiveness of the US Navys tactics, and frankly nothing to do with the aircraft itself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (italics mine)

Help me understand here, EnGuarde.
If we assume for a moment that, say, the Wildcat had not been available, and the USN had been forced to develop it's tactical doctrine around the Brewster F2A, there would have been no difference than if the Wildcat had been available? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Conversely, why do we see such a marked ascendancy develop at the tactical level on the part of the USN after the Hellcat becomes available in 1943? If, as you say, the aircraft itself had no bearing on the equation, the Hellcat shouldn't have have made a major difference, no?
If this is not what you are saying, please clarify.

EnGaurde
03-04-2005, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Help me understand here, EnGuarde.
If we assume for a moment that, say, the Wildcat had not been available, and the USN had been forced to develop it's tactical doctrine around the Brewster F2A, there would have been no difference than if the Wildcat had been available? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so the Thatch Weave cannot be used with the Brewster?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Conversely, why do we see such a marked ascendancy develop at the tactical level on the part of the USN after the Hellcat becomes available in 1943? If, as you say, the aircraft itself had no bearing on the equation, the Hellcat shouldn't have have made a major difference, no? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ascendency? Marked ascendency in what? The numbers of sorties flown? The combined use of force chewing away at the IJN and IJA? The war as a whole gaining momentum in the PTO bringing more and more types into combat? Your last point makes no true sense, and is purely argumentative as it ignores completely the complexity of the developing war in the PTO.

Are you attributing the increase purely on the hellcat and not the entire war effort going on around it ie more and more aircraft in the air, greater supply of fighters, broken japanese airbases and supply chains meaning less and less hinomaru marked fighters against more and more white star fighters, and most importantly experienced flyers closely coordinated and well supplied?

the history of great battles, and indeed generals, means employing often wildly outnumbered troops in the right place at the right time. The USN did this very well. The IJN tried to, but simply didnt do it as well as the Americans for many reasons not least of all the culture of no failure and its inevitable price.

so if the hellcat and corsair etc were not carefully applied via tactical common sense, then nothing would have changed, USN still comes out on top?

LATE EDIT: what did one japanese general say about the industrial capacity of the USA? And just what does it mean about the developing war in the PTO? So he was particularly referring to the Hellcat?

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 04:10 AM
Don't forget too that US claimed kill rates were NOT reliable, overclaiming was RAMPANT.

AWL_Spinner
03-04-2005, 04:24 AM
With no requirement for gun-cam confirmation with witnesses this was bound to be the case. Deemed good for morale back home though, and made good copy. One could argue that lax attitudes toward published kill ratios were a necessary part of the war effort when the going got tough.

However, presumably this was less of a problem in the PTO than in the ETO where you'd regularly have scores of kill claims for a single smoking 190 from large formations of B17s and escorts? Overclaiming there really was astounding.

EnGaurde
03-04-2005, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> With no requirement for gun-cam confirmation with witnesses this was bound to be the case. Deemed good for morale back home though, and made good copy. One could argue that lax attitudes toward published kill ratios were a necessary part of the war effort when the going got tough <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm

i made some comments in a separate thread about how performance of axis aircraft was under-reported in comparison to allied planes... not so much a kill report, but a performance based concept.

and i was roundly criticised, labelled a "german sympathiser" by one particular individual madly waving the Star Spangled Banner.

Im happy you have paraphrased my attempts into one term:

"war effort"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 05:04 AM
Ar****e said:

If it provides that needed ego boost, we can humor you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


I think we all know who is ego tripping here...thats why its so easy, predictable and amusing. They really can't help themselves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

arjisme
03-04-2005, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Help me understand here, EnGuarde.
If we assume for a moment that, say, the Wildcat had not been available, and the USN had been forced to develop it's tactical doctrine around the Brewster F2A, there would have been no difference than if the Wildcat had been available? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so the Thatch Weave cannot be used with the Brewster? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd be interested to hear your answer to his question. Not trying to be combative or argumentative here -- I think you definately raise valid points -- but I think it goes too far to imply that the plane itself has little bearing on tactics. If that were true, the USN could have achieved the same success with the Buffalo and would never have needed to move on to something else.

I think maybe the issue here is that, on the one hand, it sounds like people are giving all the credit for killing Zeros to the Wildcat, as if the plane itself was the reason for this success. But then on the other hand we have some suggesting that it was tactics alone (well, that combined with the myriad other factors you rightly point out -- industrial might, supply, etc.) that explain the ability to achieve air superiority while flying the Wildcat. It is too extreme to take either stand. To leave the plane entirely out of the equation is misleading.

That being said, most of what you said I would agree with. It is the total war effort that creates the success. But the plane was one tool used in that effort that enabled that success to happen. It made the tactics viable. There are definately better A/C, but with the Wildcat, it was possible to utilize winning tactics against Japan. I doubt the same could be said for some other A/C if they had been used instead of the Wildcat.

arjisme
03-04-2005, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
I think we all know who is ego tripping here...thats why its so easy, predictable and amusing. They really can't help themselves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Go get 'em Tiger!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 06:06 AM
Nope, I'm just a fluffy little duck, I wouldn't hurt anything.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-04-2005, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
With no requirement for gun-cam confirmation with witnesses this was bound to be the case. Deemed good for morale back home though, and made good copy. One could argue that lax attitudes toward published kill ratios were a necessary part of the war effort when the going got tough.

However, presumably this was less of a problem in the PTO than in the ETO where you'd regularly have scores of kill claims for a single smoking 190 from large formations of B17s and escorts? Overclaiming there really was astounding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overclaiming during the war was prevalent, especially credits given to bomber crews.

However, most if not all of the statistics on air to air kill ratios were conducted post war by comparing the archives of the victors and vanquished. Many pilots had thier claims lowered, probables erased and their 'damageds' increased.

Just because partiotism wins out during a war period, don't expect it to in a period of peace.

EnGaurde
03-04-2005, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by EnGaurde:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help me understand here, EnGuarde.
If we assume for a moment that, say, the Wildcat had not been available, and the USN had been forced to develop it's tactical doctrine around the Brewster F2A, there would have been no difference than if the Wildcat had been available?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



so the Thatch Weave cannot be used with the Brewster?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be interested to hear your answer to his question <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

frankly, i believe i answered it.

i feel i need to answer the question and ignore the hype.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

arjisme
03-04-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> quote:
I'd be interested to hear your answer to his question <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

frankly, i believe i answered it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK. Obviously, I didn't.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
i feel i need to answer the question and ignore the hype.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

perioikos
03-04-2005, 07:54 AM
RE: Zero v. Wildcat

Wildcat was well-armed, well enough armored, and had a good radio ... the Zero, though well-enough armed, had almost no armor, and few had radio's.

The Wildcat proved to be the better aircraft. It's armor allowed enough to survive, and its radio linked it to an ever-expanding radio and radar communications network which allowed a high level of both tactical and strategic organization. Really, beyond the individual skills of the old-hand pilots, the Japanese organization was pretty "bush-league".

In the end, the Wildcat was the US Navy fighter on hand when the back of the Japanese Navy was broken.

In their first encounters with Zero's, Spitfire's fared little better than did the Hurricanes, who fared about as well as the Buffaloes. If something doesn't work, you pick up what remains, and think up a better plan for the next time.

Don't really see anything controversial here ...

Zyzbot
03-04-2005, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Don't forget too that US claimed kill rates were NOT reliable, overclaiming was RAMPANT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as it was in ALL air forces.

Hendley
03-04-2005, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Overclaiming during the war was prevalent, especially credits given to bomber crews.

However, most if not all of the statistics on air to air kill ratios were conducted post war by comparing the archives of the victors and vanquished. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is most certainly NOT true of the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics report which is the sole source, as far as I have been able to determine, of the K/D ratios for USN aircraft that are so frequently cited here (and on other warbird forums).

It would, in fact, be an impossible task to match claims to Japanese losses because Japan's own records of the latter are patchy at best, nonexistent at worse.

The NACS is based on _claims_, therefore large grains of salt should be taken when swallowing all data therein--including Wildcat etc K/D ratios.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
03-04-2005, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Just because partiotism wins out during a war period, don't expect it to in a period of peace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/froehlich/c040.gif
Look at the discussions going on in this forum, and then repeat this to yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Greetings
Chamel

EJGr.Ost_chamel
03-04-2005, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rcocean:
Comments on the Wildcat by a Thatch (US Navy Pilot):

...

"The Wildcat is pitifully inferior to the Zero in climb, maneuverability, and speed." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare this to relative speeds of Zero and F4F we see in PF! http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/a015.gif

Chamel

rcocean
03-04-2005, 08:54 AM
Of course the K/D ratio's are overstated. Lundstrom looked into the claims vs. actual losses in detail found we (USA) were overclaiming by about 2-1. The Japanese were even worse.

I dont know where "Skychimp" gets his numbers but Lundstrom states only 120 Zero fighter pilots were killed or POW from August to November 1942.

For the F4F, navy aviation stats show 375 Nipponese fighters lost for 131 wildcats.
(Landbased only entire war.)

You can assume almost all the F4F's were lost to fighters. Reduce the 375 Nip fighters by 50% and you get ~180 zeros shot down for 131 wildcats. Pretty close to 1:1; since the fighter category includes floatplanes.

BTW, for the Corsair the K/D Fighter is 1,241 vs. 155

ImpStarDuece
03-04-2005, 08:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Hmmm, true that. Still, I like to consider myself blindly optimistic.

Funny but one of my parents grew up in England, one in Australia and America. I have French and Norwegian ancestry, my girlfriend is Dutch and I live in Japan. Maybe thats why i can't understand the strain of patriotism that exists so markedly in some people.

Oscar Wilde said "Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" and G.B.Shaw (i think) said that patriotism was a love of the place of ones birth merely because you were born there. Seems a little strange to me. Then again, so does conforming to the religion that the happy accident of your birth brought you into.

Love of ones country is all well and good, but does love have to stop at the border?

chris455
03-04-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by me:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Help me understand here, EnGuarde.
If we assume for a moment that, say, the Wildcat had not been available, and the USN had been forced to develop it's tactical doctrine around the Brewster F2A, there would have been no difference than if the Wildcat had been available?

Conversely, why do we see such a marked ascendancy develop at the tactical level on the part of the USN after the Hellcat becomes available in 1943? (emphasis added) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You apparently didn't see the word "tactical".
In answering, you begin to cite all kinds of strategic considerations: (deliberatley perhaps? It certainly sets the stage for you to repeatedly avoid the question! )

Originally posted bt EnGuarde
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ascendency? Marked ascendency in what? The numbers of sorties flown? The combined use of force chewing away at the IJN and IJA? The war as a whole gaining momentum in the PTO bringing more and more types into combat? Your last point makes no true sense, and is purely argumentative as it ignores completely the complexity of the developing war in the PTO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
................and end by describing my question as argumentative!

You have even been asked by others to answer my question, and again refused. Your reckless statement that:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are referring to the effectiveness of the US Navys tactics, and frankly nothing to do with the aircraft itself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.........was simply wrong, EnGuarde. At the tactical level, success has ALOT to do with the aircraft employed. And the Grumman Wildcat was a very successful aircraft.

In closing, I find this statement of yours the most puzzling of all:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i feel i need to answer the question and ignore the hype. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My question contained no "hype". It was straightforward, simple, and valid. You have yet to answer it directly, but perhaps by your evasiveness you have answered it indirectly? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EnGaurde
03-04-2005, 02:13 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Don't forget too that US claimed kill rates were NOT reliable, overclaiming was RAMPANT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as it was in ALL air forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not a true statement, you will find that one airforce had VERY strict rules regarding claims only witnessed kills and/or corresponding crash sites were acceptable and claims could take up to a year to be verified, many were turned down.

Zyzbot
03-04-2005, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Don't forget too that US claimed kill rates were NOT reliable, overclaiming was RAMPANT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as it was in ALL air forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not a true statement, you will find that one airforce had VERY strict rules regarding claims only witnessed kills and/or corresponding crash sites were acceptable and claims could take up to a year to be verified, many were turned down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am aware of the VVS rules. Much stricter than RAF or USAAC rules.

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 05:08 PM
You is wrong! Be sure... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(About the air force in question...)

Zyzbot
03-04-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
You is wrong! Be sure... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(About the air force in question...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet claims procedures were strict. To get an individual claim, you had to:

1) have an independent witness, not part of your flight, or part of that combat engagement (ground observer, another flight nearby, etc.).
2) OR, have the wreckage of the victim on the ground
3) AND demonstrate that your actions alone were responsible for the claim.

Any claim that could not meet these criteria were either dismissed altogether, or sometimes awarded as a 'Shared' claim. In 1944, with the Red Army advancing, recovering wrecks became much easier, and so claims could be verified more easily on that basis.



Despite the excellent system that the Luftwaffe had set up they (like the others)still managed to overclaim:

"18 DECEMBER 1939 HELIGOLAND BIGHT
On 18 December 1939, the RAF decided to mount a raid on the German fleet at Wilhelm shaven and orders were drafted for 24 Wellington Medium bombers to carry out the raid. 9 aircraft from 149 Squadron, 9 from 9 Squadron and 6 from 37 Squadron were selected to "Attack enemy warships in the Schillig Roads or Wilhelmshaven. Great care is to be taken to ensure that no bombs fall on shore"
While 24 Wellington's took off, 2 from 149 Sqn returned to base early leaving 22 to carry on. The bombers managed to successfully fly over the German Fleet, but their Orders about bombing German soil caused the abortion of the raid as the leader decided the ships, tied up in Port where too close to shore to be bombed. It was only after they turned for home did the German Fighters attack.
The ensuing massacre saw the shooting down of 10 Wellingtons, nearly 50% of the attacking force, however the Fighters claimed to have destroyed 34 Victories, over 150% of the attackers though OKL pruned this down to 26, still more than the force started with."

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesww2luftwaffe.htm

"Through out the Battle, which continued to 31 October 1940, the Luftwaffe Propaganda machine claimed to have destroyed over 3000 RAF aircraft, clearly exceeding the size of the RAF at the time. OKL officially credited its Pilots with the destruction of about 1955 Spitfires & Hurricanes (I have deducted Defiants, Blenheims and other aircraft) which compares unfavourably with the RAF losses of either 932 ("The Narrow Margin" by Wood & Dempster) or 755 Spitfires & Hurricanes (Fighter Command Losses & Casualties by Frank) Included in the RAF losses are those which were shot down by Bombers, and not included in the OKL figures but not those which "crash landed at an airfield" and were repaired. It is hard to pick out those shot down by the Bombers as many final moments are not clear and they are only listed as shot down."

In 1943, the USAAF flew 2 raids on the German Ball Bearing plants at Schweinfurt, on 17 August, 376 B-17 Flying Fortress's were involved, USAAF losses were about 60 B-17's plus many which were scrapped upon landing. This was a loss rate of around 16%.

However, OKL awarded 94 B-17 and 4 P-47 Victories.


On 14 October, a second raid was mounted, this was an even greater disaster in that of the 291 Bombers sent out, another 60 were destroyed in Combat, nearly 20% losses. But the OKL awarded 146 B-17 Kills, half of the attacking force, and once again it was within their ability to examine wreckage.



I am not picking on the Luftwaffe here...overclaiming occurred in other air forces as well.

horseback
03-04-2005, 05:40 PM
Some of us need to decide whether the purpose of this discussion is to generate light or heat; i.e., try to uncover the truth or win a debate on points regardless of the truth.

Fluffy, please-the LW's anal-retentive documentation bureaucracy was not exactly a war-winning strategy, and practiced mainly after the LW started fighting a largely defensive war over their own territory. It was more truly a reflection of the German mindset of playing for 'points' after things started going south for them than a desire to get good intelligence about their fighter pilots' effects on enemy capabilities.

LW claims were in the same accuracy class (or worse) as the USN's whenever the combat took place over distant enemy held territory or the ocean (where the USN's combats took place almost exclusively). The big tilt factor in overall US claims is the claims of bomber crews operating over Europe and the Med. Separate the those claims out, and the disparity disappears.

But that would hardly fit your needs in this discussion, would it?

USN fighter pilots were generally more effective than their Army counterparts in the Pacific, and USAAF pilots who served in both the Pacific and the ETO were overall MUCH more successful against the LW--do names like George Preddy, Jim Howard, or John D. Landers ring a bell? Howard was former Navy divebomber pilot via the Flying Tigers, and won the only CMH awarded to a fighter pilot in the ETO.

Navy/Marine pilots flying a Wildcat inferior to the P-40s the Army flew in the early Pacific war performed much greater feats at the time these pilots were fighting the cream of the Japanese air forces. Give Joe Foss or John Thach (no extra t, thank you) a Mustang over Festung Europe in the first half of 1944, and I believe that Bong's score would have easily been eclipsed, never mind Gabreski or Johnny Johnson's.

Navy & Marine pilots had to meet a generally more demanding level of professionalism than land based pilots of any other nation, including the Luftwaffe, simply because the demands of landing on a carrier at sea are so great, both in terms of piloting skill and physical courage. The training regimen for US Naval fighter pilots included an emphasis on defection shooting to a degree unheard of in any other air force. The classic high side pass is hard in a fighter with nose mounted cannon; it's a cast-iron biatch when you have to figure in a wing mounted gun convergence range.

Thach was the Navy's acknowledged expert in air to air gunnery; he helped develop the American version of the four a/c flight before Pearl Harbor (if you think it was just 'copied' from the Germans, read a few RAF memoirs-to this day, RAF pilots describe German formations as undisciplined milling about, even when they were flying the same loose formations. In combat, you apparently didn't spend a lot of time identifying enemy formation discipline rather than figuring out which one of the bastages was about to get his guns to bear on your precious person. Add in the problems of developing team techniques for turns or combat maneuvers-"okay, when they come at us from this direction, I'll take my wingman here, and you'll take yours and go there"- and you should see that it was not something easily arrived at, even when it was right under your nose), he was a hell of a fighter pilot in his own right and he was a teacher/leader in the same class as Molders or Bader (check and see who those guys mentored, if you don't get the gist).

Bear in mind also that the American vernacular is one of exaggeration, and we are operating in a multi-lingual forum. For a lot of people here, English is a second language, and nuances clear to most of my countrymen are not clear to a foreign (specifically including British and Commonwealth readers-truly, we are great peoples separated by a common tongue) speaker of English. American pilots focussed on and complained about their mounts' deficiencies because they believed that their country could do better, and it is the nature of young post-teenage males to find fault. Acceptance of second best is not in the nature of people who think that they can afford the best results, and their efforts worked in the case of American fighters. They all rapidly improved in response to pilots' criticisms.

Hence, the original misconception that the P-40 was not maneuverable, because its primary point of reference is the Zero or Oscar. The Wildcat's ONLY point of reference is the Zero; it saw next to no fighter to fighter combat outside of the Pacific against IJN opposition. It was not as fast, didn't climb as well, fly as far or turn as tightly as the Zero at low speeds; what was largely unsaid was that it could handle better once the speed went up, hit harder longer (A6M's cannon had a lot shorter firing time than the F4F's main armament and did less overall damage to the 'Cat than the 'Cat could do to it with the same 'shooting window'), allow you to keep in touch with your wingman and dive away from a fight if the altitude was sufficient.

Oddly enough, the Hellcat and the Corsair retained those same virtues.

The Wildcat was not a bad fighter, given our western cultural emphases and the demands of carrier operations. It would not have been as effective as the Hellcat/Corsair, but the introduction of the F4F-8/FM-2 (delayed by early Hellcat development at the same time it was designed) would have allowed the US Navy to operate and win without them if it had been necessary.

cheers

horseback

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 07:02 PM
Aaaahhhh...revisionist historians, don't you just love them.
Horseback you are talking absolute, unconditional, subjective Sh**e, with regard to the LW system of kill recording, do a bit more research and come back to us with another over wordly post.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW... your credentials for posting what you posted are what?? I somehow missed the fact that you are an acknowledged expert....silly me.

Wow !!! is this post still going???

LOL.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

SkyChimp
03-04-2005, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Overclaiming during the war was prevalent, especially credits given to bomber crews.

However, most if not all of the statistics on air to air kill ratios were conducted post war by comparing the archives of the victors and vanquished. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is most certainly NOT true of the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics report which is the sole source, as far as I have been able to determine, of the K/D ratios for USN aircraft that are so frequently cited here (and on other warbird forums).

It would, in fact, be an impossible task to match claims to Japanese losses because Japan's own records of the latter are patchy at best, nonexistent at worse.

The NACS is based on _claims_, therefore large grains of salt should be taken when swallowing all data therein--including Wildcat etc K/D ratios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmmmm. The information contained in that report was compiled by intelligence officers and contains verifiable kills, not simply any claim that was made. From the report (forgive the types, I cut and pasted directly from the PDF file):

ENEMY AIRCPAFI€ DESTROYED IN COMBAT Airborne enemy aircraft olaismd destroyed by naval aircraft,
In aerial combat only. Planes destroyed by own anti-aircraft fire or in suicide crashes are not
included. Enemy aircraft reported as €œprobably destroyed€ are not included. Squadron claims,
as made in ACA-1 or other action reports, are the basis for these figures. They thus represent
the evaluations only of the squadron intelligence officer, squadron commander, and in some cases
the air group commander. However, rarely was there any further evaluation by higher authority
of squadron claims with respect to airborne enemy aircraft.
In evaluating pilot claims for ACA-1 reports squadron intelligence officers were instructed
to follow the definitions of €œdestroyed€ established for the command or theater. Subsequent to
early 1944 this was the standard Army-Navy definition that the plane must be seen to crash, disintegrate
in the air, be enveloped in flames, descend on friendly territory, or that its pilot
and entire crew be seen to bail out. Prior to this time the definitions varied between commands,
but the definitions used in the principal naval theater (SoPac) were at least equally stringent.
The degree to which squadron in€=lligence officers and commanders succeeded in eliminating
duplicating and optimistic pilot claims is not known, but it is believed the amount of overstatement
is relatively low. Since 93% of all enemy aircraft claimed destroyed by Naval aircraft
were claimed by single-seat fighters and the bulk of the remainder were claimed by twoplace
dive bombers and by lone search planes, the tremendous duplication of gunnere~ claims experienced
by air forces operating large formations of heavy bombers with multiple gun poeitions
is largely eliminated. Duplication of claims between fighter planes can be more easily controlled
by careful interrogation.
Over-optimism has always been difficult to control. During the early part of the war, before
standard definitions were in force, before full-time trained Air Intelligence Officers were available
to apply them, and before the need for conservative operational intelligence was fully
appreciated, action reports may often have overstated enemy losses. Evidence from the Japanese
has tended to indicate that in SOSB of the early actions, and even as late as the Rabaul raids
of early 1944, there was such overstatement.
It must be remembered, however, that the bulk of Naval aerial engagements in the Pacific
did not involve the mass combat of Europe. Even the large-size engagements seldom involved
more than 30 of our planes against 30 of the enemy~e at any one time within visible range of any
one point. By far the greatest number of engagements involved only 1 to 8 of our planes, or the
same number of the enemy!s. Thus in the main the claims under this heading, off set as they are
by the exclusion of planes classified as €œprobably destroyed€, are belie-d to be near the
truth, with only local exception, and to be as conservative as those of any major airforce.

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 08:10 PM
As an ex-Intelligence Officer (British Army Captain), I can honestly say that ANYTHING reported by ANY military personnel has to be treated with the UTMOST caution. In other words, generally, you can't believe a bloody word they say... period. Been there, got the reports, and they are all Sh*te, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
SkyChimp....seriously, intelligence reports aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. They are simply a guesstimate with a great deal of "don't quote me" clauses. No Intelligence Officer is going to put his neck on the block with defintive quotes, believe me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sad but true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW:
Don't you ever get tired of this ****???

SkyChimp
03-04-2005, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
As an ex-Intelligence Officer (British Army Captain), I can honestly say that ANYTHING reported by ANY military personnel has to be treated with the UTMOST caution. In other words, generally, you can't believe a bloody word they say... period. Been there, got the reports, and they are all Sh*te, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sad but true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

**** shame. Glad I didn't serve in the British Army http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
03-04-2005, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
Effectiveness?

Ridiculous.

Doesnt come into it at all.

Why?

You are referring to the effectiveness of the US Navys tactics, and frankly nothing to do with the aircraft itself.


If I may...

I think what you _meant_ to write was:

Effectiveness: Whatever the differences in equipment, the US Navy was the more effective tactical force since it performed its tasks more successfully with what it had at its disposal than did the Imperial Japanese Navy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

I don't think the Americans could have used its defensive beam tactics to the extent, or the effect, that it did had it flown a plane like the Zero.

The Wildcat had a much better radio. Reliable communications were essential to executing the Thach Weave effectively. The Zero had an exceptionally poor radio, such that in many instances it was simply stripped from the plane to save weight. Poor radios were one of the reasons the Japanese failed to develope effective mutual defensive tactics.

Additionally, the robustness and heavy firepower of the Wildcat made it much more suited to head-on attacks than the Zero - which fit in perfectly with its beam defensive tactics.

The Wildcat was well suited to execute effective tactics. The Zero much less so.

So, yes, the aircraft had quite a bit to do with it.

Zyzbot
03-04-2005, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
As an ex-Intelligence Officer (British Army Captain), I can honestly say that ANYTHING reported by ANY military personnel has to be treated with the UTMOST caution. In other words, generally, you can't believe a bloody word they say... period. Been there, got the reports, and they are all Sh*te, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
SkyChimp....seriously, intelligence reports aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. They are simply a guesstimate with a great deal of "don't quote me" clauses. No Intelligence Officer is going to put his neck on the block with defintive quotes, believe me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sad but true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW:
Don't you ever get tired of this ****??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's one who'd be a tough debrief!

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/jasquadron/1941One.WMV

chris455
03-04-2005, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
As an ex-Intelligence Officer (British Army Captain), I can honestly say that ANYTHING reported by ANY military personnel has to be treated with the UTMOST caution. In other words, generally, you can't believe a bloody word they say... period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There may be a certain element of truth to this,
inasmuch as a "British Army Captain" would certainly qualify as "military personnel" and we definitely don't believe a word you say, bloody or otherwise. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
As an ex-Intelligence Officer (British Army Captain), I can honestly say that ANYTHING reported by ANY military personnel has to be treated with the UTMOST caution. In other words, generally, you can't believe a bloody word they say... period. Been there, got the reports, and they are all Sh*te, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sad but true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

**** shame. Glad I didn't serve in the British Army http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really??
And you are "intellegent"?
How, and in what way are you "intellegent" excluding your pathetic,and biased posts?

You do realise that "intellegence", means actually assessing all the information available without imposing biased and untruthful beliefs?

I.E. instead of imposing what you wish to believe you actually have to report FACTS.

chris455
03-04-2005, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Fluffyducks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Really??
And you are "intelligent"?
How, and in what way are you "inteligent" apart from your pathetict,and biased posts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (Emphasis on mispellings mine)

A wee bit too much gin this evening, Captain?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

(Captain Fluffyducks assumes his best "Bridge on the river Kwai" Alec Guiness look and mutters,
"My God, What have I done?")

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 09:28 PM
Chris you really are PATHETIC... LOL
you sad gimp. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
So let me get this straight : you are 12 years old and have no actual experience of life . RIGHT??? lol
And Skychimp is 13 and thinks he is really an expert...yes??? (except he isn't) He just displays how little he knows with every post.
Both of you have NEVER flown ANY aircraft ( certainly NEVER a WARBIRD), therefore both of you talk BOLLOX all the time, RIGHT? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SkyChimp
03-04-2005, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
As an ex-Intelligence Officer (British Army Captain), I can honestly say that ANYTHING reported by ANY military personnel has to be treated with the UTMOST caution. In other words, generally, you can't believe a bloody word they say... period. Been there, got the reports, and they are all Sh*te, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sad but true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

**** shame. Glad I didn't serve in the British Army http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really??
And you are "intellegent"?
How, and in what way are you "intellegent" excluding your pathetic,and biased posts?

You do realise that "intellegence", means actually assessing all the information available without imposing biased and untruthful beliefs?

I.E. instead of imposing what you wish to believe you actually have to report FACTS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say you have a serious self-esteem problem. Given your posts, which reveal your nature, I see your low self-esteem is well justified. Frankly, I don't think you amount to much.

If you'd like to discuss this subject rationally, please do. I'd love to debate the issue with you, or anyone else who presents themselves in a reasonably well-informed and civilized manner. But as long act like a child, I'll ignore you.

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 10:20 PM
Is this one still running??? LOL.

FluffyDucks
03-04-2005, 10:21 PM
You sad gits... you really are too predictable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-04-2005, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Sorry Chimp..your post makes no sense, I.E. its ILLEGIBLE.
When you know how to speak proper english, maybe someone will respond, otherwise as you are currently illiterate (like Chris), no-one will take ANY notice of you(or Chris Chimp). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least SkyChimp knows how to use an imbedded clause properly. FluffyDucks, I was actually thinking, with regard to SkyChimps posts, that "the most eloquent wins". So far you have done nothing for yourself and only appear to be here to mock and incite people. Maybe a better solution would be for you to quietly admit defeat and leave.

horseback
03-04-2005, 11:25 PM
I wasn't going to pile on, but it does strike me as odd that Fluffy has yet to cite a source for his information in this thread, and that his form of debate (and address) seems remarkably inconsistent with my experiences with officers in the Royal Army, or with university educated Englishmen, come to think of it...

As for the subject of the debate, it seems to me that if your aircraft has a counter ability to a perceived advantage enjoyed by another aircraft that the other aircraft cannot counter or negate...oh hell. The Wildcat was better in the horizontal plane or the dive than the Zero A6M2/3 types 21, 22, and 32 as long as you keep its speed over 225 knots indicated.

While the Zero was faster, both in terms of top speed and accelleration, the controls became less responsive the faster it went, until the Wildcat's undiminished control response exceeded it, around 200 knots, and decisively so around 220 knots indicated.

The American response to faster accellerating enemy aircraft was uniformly the same, and impossible to counter. They stayed fast. The only way to make your enemy slow down is to hit him and damage his aircraft or, well, you can't make him stupid without his cooperation, can you?

My sources are The Wildcat in WWII, by Barrett Tillman, 1983, as well as his earlier fine books on the Hellcat and Corsair, and his contributions in the Osprey Aircraft of the Aces series, US Navy and Marine Corps Fighters-WW2 Aircraft Fact Files, by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, 1977, and a number of books and magizine articles read since I built my first Wildcat model (the Monogram 1/48th scale) in 1965 or so.

cheers

horseback

FluffyDucks
03-05-2005, 06:23 AM
Horseback, I have no knowledge of any "Royal Army" so I can't comment.
Chris negated everything he posted and will post by his "STFU" comment anyway.
As for the organ grinder and his monkey, winding them up is fun, predictable and passes the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for sources about Wildcats etc, I neither know nor care, life's too short http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

chris455
03-05-2005, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Sorry Chimp..your post makes no sense, I.E. its ILLEGIBLE.
When you know how to speak proper english, maybe someone will respond, otherwise as you are currently illiterate (like Chris), no-one will take ANY notice of you(or Chris Chimp). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the word you're looking for is unintelligible, although that word would hardly apply to any post made by Skychimp.

Nonsensical is another word which has a similar meaning, and aptly describes most, if not all, of your posts.

EnGaurde
03-05-2005, 06:39 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

horseback
03-05-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
Horseback, I have no knowledge of any "Royal Army" so I can't comment.
Chris negated everything he posted and will post by his "STFU" comment anyway.
As for the organ grinder and his monkey, winding them up is fun, predictable and passes the time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for sources about Wildcats etc, I neither know nor care, life's too short http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry; I thought that you had claimed to have been an intelligence officer, specifically a captain in the British Army, which was more often referred to as the Royal Army when I lived there.

But anyone can claim to be anything on the Internet. You prove your authenticity by demonstrating verifiable knowledge, not denigrating people you don't know, or questioning their sources without providing a more reliable one than your own prejudices.

As for sources about Wildcats, I think the operative part of your statement is "I neither know..."

cheers

horseback

Hendley
03-05-2005, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Hmmmm. The information contained in that report was compiled by intelligence officers and contains verifiable kills, not simply any claim that was made. From the report (forgive the types, I cut and pasted directly from the PDF file):

ENEMY AIRCPAFI€ DESTROYED IN COMBAT Airborne enemy aircraft olaismd destroyed by naval aircraft... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chimp, yes I've read that report, and what those passages are saying is that the kills are based on _claims_. They are not matched against actual Japanese losses. Most air forces demanded similar levels of verification; crash sites, witnesses, gun camera footage etc. That kind of cross checking and post flight interogation were not unique; the numbers still constitute claims.

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 01:55 AM
Jeesh. I like the f4f, not because its good, but because its bad. It easy to get kills in a KI84c. F4F is a challange.

The for rule for f4f pilots was.
1. If you (F4F) meet a Zero 1 vs 1, then you are outnumbered.
2. team tactics (thatch weave)
3. never dogfight.
4. only engage when you have clear advantage.
5. get within 200 yards, less than 10%deflection and fire.
6. always stay fast. (over 250mph).
7. if all fails dive and run away.F4F had no redline in a dive. diving was good
8. cant think of 8. ow well.

Thatch said it was bad tactics and poor gunnery by the Japanese as significant factor in his success. He hated the F4F.

thats how the F4F "survived" the PTO. BTW it was the Battle at Midway that changed the war. So, it was the 220mph SBDs that won the war. You could argue that the Torpedo Bombers (Turkeys) did an effective drag for the SBD attack. Of course, Im sure, Fluffyducks knows more about drag then anyone. LOL. also, BTW, about the early P38, it did poorly in the ETO, but in the PTO it was Saburo Sukai's nightmare.

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 02:04 AM
Suburo Sakia! in CFS2 interview
Interviewer: Did your men have strengths and weaknesses in their flying skills?

Saburo Sakai: Our strength was the individual skill of our pilots (i.e. how to fight one-on-one, and the marksmanship of the pilots - we didn't let our skills lapse, we kept practicing the same things over and over). That was the only strength of Japan in the war. Our weakness on the other hand was our group tactics. When you talk about features of a car or an airplane, they are just machines. They themselves don't fly. They don't try. It's the combination of pilot and machine. The pilot who can maximize the feature of the machine - that is the strong pilot. The good pilot. The Zero pilot can see three hundred and sixty degrees and can find anything much quicker. The pilot of the American fighters can't see behind him (because of the fuselage). Because of that, we targeted to the rear. But the American planes had armor to protect the pilot but the Zero, to maximize its horsepower didn't add anything like armor. The Zero pilot had to use his ability to see the enemy first, instead of armor. The American airplanes' powerful engines and the machine guns were much better than the Zero. When they received hits, the Zero often exploded or burned - it's quite fragile and easy to burn. But the American planes were very strong and were designed to protect the pilots' lives. The Japanese pilot as well as the aircraft were regarded as "consumables". That was the philosphy - a foolish philosophy. Also, the Japanese Navy placed too much emphasis on the warship. They thought the navies would fight each other by huge war vessels so they didn't place much emphasis on the airplane. The Americans had a much better philosophy -America produced more aircraft and trained more, eventually catching up with the Japanese. It was fighter against fighter in WWI, but in WWII it was group against group. The Japanese were very bad at this, but the Americans used the philosophy of American football - teamwork. Excellent.

Blackdog5555
03-06-2005, 02:12 AM
More Sakai!

"On my first confrontation with the P-38, I was astonished to find an American aircraft that could outrun, outclimb, and outdive our Zero which we thought was the most superior fighter plane in the world. The Lightning's great speed, its sensational high altitude performance, and especially its ability to dive and climb much faster than the Zero presented insuperable problems for our fliers. The P-38 pilots, flying at great height, chose when and where they wanted to fight with disastrous results for our own men. The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero fighter Pilot."...Saburo Sakai, Japanese Ace

AWL_Spinner
03-06-2005, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm sorry; I thought that you had claimed to have been an intelligence officer, specifically a captain in the British Army, which was more often referred to as the Royal Army when I lived there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Off on a tangent : I've never heard the British army referred to as Royal. Indeed, I believe that unlike the Royal Airforce and Royal Navy the army lost the right to be referred to as such as they are the only service arm to ever have mutinied against the monarchy (way, way back when).

There are many individual regiments within the army that may bear the "Royal" tag, but not the service as a whole.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
03-06-2005, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> which was more often referred to as the Royal Army when I lived there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fluffyducks may well be the walking oxymoron that is military intelligence but he's right on this (if nothing else). Due to some mutiny or other that occured long, long ago the British Army is not permitted to be called 'royal' (although individual units within it are). Thus, for those who care, it is the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the British Army.
I've never heard the British Army called the Royal Army here in the UK except by foreign media groups such as CNN.

Fluffyducks, please try not to let people know you're British if you're going to act like a child as it's embarassing for the rest of us.

Yimmy
03-06-2005, 10:33 AM
A lot of foreigners tend to call the British army the Royal Army.

There is a simple way of telling if Fluffyducks is genuine or not - Fulffy, what as your army number?

chris455
03-06-2005, 11:13 AM
Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/British-Army

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The British Army is the land armed forces of the United Kingdom. It numbers 99,400 fully trained and professional regulars (as of April 2004).

In contrast to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, the British Army does not include royal in its title, because of its roots as a collection of disparate units. It does still come under the command of the British monarch, who is Commander-in-Chief of the UK Armed Forces.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jex_TG
03-07-2005, 08:55 AM
Tsk... You guys are such noobs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's blatantly obvious that the superiority of a fighter plane is bound only by how great it looks.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jex_TG
03-07-2005, 08:59 AM
Eh... wtf?? How did this conversation go from F4 is great/not great to the Royal british army? (of which there is no such thing lol)

Atomic_Marten
03-07-2005, 09:18 AM
Depends on pilots mucho. With good teamwork skill, any team can won. Also neither have superior advantage, although is obvious that F4F is much more durable than hurricane, so it has slight advantage especially in head ons.

jensenpark
06-07-2007, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Will tell later today.

Let me add a complextity to the mix though.

What would you say if I told you that the Hurricanes were carrying depth charges when they engaged in the mock dogfight with the Wildcats.

Who would win in that case?

Ahh yes...I've read that book.

It was the - ahh, I'll let Waldo tell ya'

Fox_3
06-07-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> which was more often referred to as the Royal Army when I lived there.

Fluffyducks may well be the walking oxymoron that is military intelligence but he's right on this (if nothing else). Due to some mutiny or other that occured long, long ago the British Army is not permitted to be called 'royal' (although individual units within it are). Thus, for those who care, it is the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the British Army.
I've never heard the British Army called the Royal Army here in the UK except by foreign media groups such as CNN.

Fluffyducks, please try not to let people know you're British if you're going to act like a child as it's embarassing for the rest of us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That mutiny was the English Civil War. Ever since the restoration of the monachy the Britsh Army has been considered disloyal to the crown. Royalist and Parliamentary Regiments still serve together side by side to this day. So long as Parliamentary regiments exist the Army will never be honoured with the title of Royal. That's what I was told in basic training anyway.

In 13 years of service I never heard anyone domestic or foreign call us the Royal Army.

slarsson
06-07-2007, 12:39 PM
Here in Canada, I have heard a Canadian Army Officer cadet at the Kingston Royal Military College explain that the College was founded to enable a home-grown Canadian army to be developed for the defence of Canada "when the Royal Army withdrew from North America"

Skoshi Tiger
06-07-2007, 06:29 PM
The tradition seams to have been passed down here to Australia too. We have the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force), the RAN (Royal Australian Navy) and the Australian Army.

Some of the individual regements of the Army are still refered to as Royal. As in the 1st Royal Australian regement, the 16th Royal Westerm Australian Regement, the 10th/27th Royal South Australian Regement etc.

I will have to lookin to the Australian criteria of gaining the 'Royal' title

Korolov1986
06-07-2007, 08:01 PM
Holy ancient thread resurrection, batman!

Rattler68
06-14-2007, 10:15 AM
s
Originally posted by slarsson:
Here in Canada, I have heard a Canadian Army Officer cadet at the Kingston Royal Military College explain that the College was founded to enable a home-grown Canadian army to be developed for the defence of Canada "when the Royal Army withdrew from North America"
I served in the Canadian Army for 13 years, and often with the Brits in Wainwright and Suffield. I have never heard the British Army referred to as the Royal Army.

Secondly, an officer cadet doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. Don't ask them for info. Disregard anything they say on principle.

slarsson
06-14-2007, 01:00 PM
Just telling you what he said, m8.

Did you make General with an attitude like that?

Rattler68
06-14-2007, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by slarsson:
Just telling you what he said, m8.

Did you make General with an attitude like that?
Nope. Officers don't talk that way. They're too political.