Britain receives two A6Ms in Oct 1940

Not really. The U.S. was still in its transition. At best you get an order for more F4F, although at the time there was limited production capacity.

Folks tend to forget that the F4F had a POSITIVE win:loss ratio against the A6M (Lundstrom, The First Team).

Another possibility is that the Fleet puts more emphasis on the F4U. Maybe they can figure out how to deck qualify the Corsair without the FAA leading the way (wouldn't seem like taking a curved glide path was that hard to figure out, but it just shows how the simplest solutions can be the hardest to find).
But isn't that positive scorecard spread over the course of the war?
What is the F4F Vs A6M score like before the start of the Guadalcanal campaign?
And weren't the Zeros fighting over Guadalcanal in a similar situation to Argentina's Mirages over the Falklands, flying at the limit of their range, against an opponent on the defensive that could choose the way they fought?
 

marathag

Banned
. Enroute Hermes mechanics work to repair the aircraft to give the restoration and evaluation teams back in Britain a head start.

Now what?

They say
"Ah, just like those French Hawk75s we tested a few months ago. RAF _still_ has no need for a long range fighter with exceptional maneuverability: and this Japanese example doesn't even dive well, like the Curtiss did"
 

MatthewB

Banned
They say
"Ah, just like those French Hawk75s we tested a few months ago. RAF _still_ has no need for a long range fighter with exceptional maneuverability: and this Japanese example doesn't even dive well, like the Curtiss did"
That wasn't Capt. Brown's assessment.
 
Having Zeros at the end of 1940 isn't going to change production policy for either Britain or the US, it's going to change tactics so that existing fighters can effectively fight them.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
But isn't that positive scorecard spread over the course of the war?
What is the F4F Vs A6M score like before the start of the Guadalcanal campaign?
And weren't the Zeros fighting over Guadalcanal in a similar situation to Argentina's Mirages over the Falklands, flying at the limit of their range, against an opponent on the defensive that could choose the way they fought?
Actually that was, IIRC prior to the Solomons.
 

McPherson

Banned
I don't think much changes, by the 1st of November 1940 the Spitfire has already proven itself a winner in the Battle of Britain and the Mosquito is 3 weeks away from it's maiden flight. That's where British aviation's focus is going to be, and where it's future lies. On the other hand, if the Americans get thier eyes on a Zero a full year before Pearl Harbor that might change something.

It sure as hello does. Makes the Corsair a life or death project for the USN.
 

McPherson

Banned
AdA said:
But isn't that positive scorecard spread over the course of the war?

What is the F4F Vs A6M score like before the start of the Guadalcanal campaign?

And weren't the Zeros fighting over Guadalcanal in a similar situation to Argentina's Mirages over the Falklands, flying at the limit of their range, against an opponent on the defensive that could choose the way they fought?

Actually that was, IIRC prior to the Solomons.

Yup.

F4F data can be found here. Prior to CARTWHEEL, the air to air exchange rate was approximately equal. IJN faulty air to air tactics can account for a lot of that surprising parity, but THE FIRST TEAM was plenty good, too.
 

nbcman

Donor
It sure as hello does. Makes the Corsair a life or death project for the USN.
I'd add the Avenger torpedo bomber to the priority stack for the USN since a USN CV had to approach entirely too close to a IJN CV to get in range of a Devastator. Not to mention Devastators were death traps in 1941/2. Hopefully the USN would beach the Devastators and beef up the numbers of SBDs and whatever fighters they had for the CV groups until Avengers were available.
 
I'd add the Avenger torpedo bomber to the priority stack for the USN since a USN CV had to approach entirely too close to a IJN CV to get in range of a Devastator. Not to mention Devastators were death traps in 1941/2. Hopefully the USN would beach the Devastators and beef up the numbers of SBDs and whatever fighters they had for the CV groups until Avengers were available.

Sure, TBF/Ms were good planes. But just as important fix the damn torpedoes. The air dropped torpedoes at that time were lousy too. Fragile and too slow.
 

McPherson

Banned
I'd add the Avenger torpedo bomber to the priority stack for the USN since a USN CV had to approach entirely too close to a IJN CV to get in range of a Devastator. Not to mention Devastators were death traps in 1941/2. Hopefully the USN would beach the Devastators and beef up the numbers of SBDs and whatever fighters they had for the CV groups until Avengers were available.

Avenger and Sea Wolf run into developmental troubles. I don't see them serial ready before September 1942, even if the plane crashes and landing gear problems are taken away. OTOH, the N3PB is ready for prime time if somebody will kick Jack Northrop, the flying wing nut, awake in 1940 and tell him to adapt an SBD's landing gear to it. Gives a viable interim torpedo bomber/scout better than the Devastator in early 1941 to operate from flattops. Of course none of it means a damn if the Mark XIII doesn't work and is not discovered not to work. It was the torpedo that was the reason the Devastators failed at Midway. Enough of them survived to reach their launch points to kill two, maybe three IJN carriers IF the damn torpedoes had worked. I go through that scenario in the ATL "Those Marvelous Tin Fish" during the Midway treatment.
 

McPherson

Banned
The Corsair was already a priority and had significant technical problems in 1940. I don't think it can be speeded up by much.

6 months was a critical and COSTLY delay. In time for Midway... maybe. Definitely in time for CARTWHEEL if the USN hustles. Does it read as if I have nothing good to write about BuAer or that !@# $%^& Rear Admiral John H. Towers?
 

marathag

Banned
That wasn't Capt. Brown's assessment.
Considerable interest in the Hawk had been aroused in Britain as a result of a test flight carried out with an Armee de l'Air Hawk by an RAF pilot in France. The Hawk 75A possessed remarkably good controls and the ailerons were fairly light at high speeds in contrast with the early Spitfire which had ailerons which were almost immobile at speeds over 300 mph. At the end of 1939, the Royal Aircraft Establishment arranged for a loan of a Curtiss Hawk from France (the 88th production Hawk 75A-2) for comparative trials against a Spitfire I (K9944). In many respects, the Hawk turned out to be superior to the Spitfire. The RAE found that the Hawk did indeed have exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonized controls. In a diving attack at 400 mph, the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire I owing to its lighter ailerons. In a dogfight at 250 mph, the Hawk was again superior, because its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-round view was better. However, the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its much higher speed. When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, the Curtiss could avoid its opponent by banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk around and would overshoot the target. The Hawk 75A displayed appreciably superior take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on takeoff was smaller and more easily corrected than on the Spitfire, and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective. However, the Hawk tended to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive.

Based on these trials, the British government briefly toyed with the idea of ordering the Hawk for the RAF. For whatever reason, these plans were never carried out. However, the fall of France in June 1940 caused quite a few Hawks to fall into British hands
.
...
The RAF decided that its Mohawks were not suitable for the European theater, and sent 72 of them to the South African Air Force (where they were flown by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Squadrons which operated in East Africa), while others were flown by the 5 and 155th RAF squadrons based in India. At one time, eight Mohawks provided the sole fighter defense of North-East India, and the fighter remained operational on the Burma front until finally replaced by more modern types in December 1943

LINK


Per the Curtiss manual, had a loadout of (1) 500GP pounder on centerline, and (1) 100GP pounder and (3) 25 pounder chemical bombs under each wing and two fuselage guns, or delete 166 pounds of wing bombs for wing guns and full ammo. Listed with 163 gallons of fuel, would have a cruising range of 915 miles, with Oxygen and Radio
Pg21 from _Detail Specifications for Curtiss Hawk 75-A Airplane_ Curtiss Wright corporation 1939 document# 6895-A

Armor for the Pilot was an available, that manual doesn't list how many pounds it was. At this time, no self sealing tanks.

Could the Spitfire carry that for a bombload, flying that 900 mile distance?

No they did not.

So they sent these to the ends of the Earth.

RAF would also find the A6M not suitable, even with the cannons and still longer range over the H-75.

And they would do this, with having the FAA flying Sea Gladiators.
 

marathag

Banned
ives a viable interim torpedo bomber/scout better than the Devastator in early 1941 to operate from flattops. Of course none of it means a damn if the Mark XIII doesn't work and is not discovered not to work. It was the torpedo that was the reason the Devastators failed at Midway.
The biggest problem with the Devastator, besides the awful early torpedo, was that it never had an update.
In the field, twin machine mounts from SBDs were fitted in the rear, but it never got what it really needed, the higher HP output
P&W R-1830 that were around in1940.

The TBD was a huge plane, it could have easily fitted an R-2600 or R-2800, it was the size of the later Skyraider, flying on 1/4th the horsepower
 
Considerable interest in the Hawk had been aroused in Britain as a result of a test flight carried out with an Armee de l'Air Hawk by an RAF pilot in France. The Hawk 75A possessed remarkably good controls and the ailerons were fairly light at high speeds in contrast with the early Spitfire which had ailerons which were almost immobile at speeds over 300 mph. At the end of 1939, the Royal Aircraft Establishment arranged for a loan of a Curtiss Hawk from France (the 88th production Hawk 75A-2) for comparative trials against a Spitfire I (K9944). In many respects, the Hawk turned out to be superior to the Spitfire. The RAE found that the Hawk did indeed have exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonized controls. In a diving attack at 400 mph, the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire I owing to its lighter ailerons. In a dogfight at 250 mph, the Hawk was again superior, because its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-round view was better. However, the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its much higher speed. When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, the Curtiss could avoid its opponent by banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk around and would overshoot the target. The Hawk 75A displayed appreciably superior take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on takeoff was smaller and more easily corrected than on the Spitfire, and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective. However, the Hawk tended to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive.

Based on these trials, the British government briefly toyed with the idea of ordering the Hawk for the RAF. For whatever reason, these plans were never carried out. However, the fall of France in June 1940 caused quite a few Hawks to fall into British hands
.
...
The RAF decided that its Mohawks were not suitable for the European theater, and sent 72 of them to the South African Air Force (where they were flown by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Squadrons which operated in East Africa), while others were flown by the 5 and 155th RAF squadrons based in India. At one time, eight Mohawks provided the sole fighter defense of North-East India, and the fighter remained operational on the Burma front until finally replaced by more modern types in December 1943

LINK


Per the Curtiss manual, had a loadout of (1) 500GP pounder on centerline, and (1) 100GP pounder and (3) 25 pounder chemical bombs under each wing and two fuselage guns, or delete 166 pounds of wing bombs for wing guns and full ammo. Listed with 163 gallons of fuel, would have a cruising range of 915 miles, with Oxygen and Radio
Pg21 from _Detail Specifications for Curtiss Hawk 75-A Airplane_ Curtiss Wright corporation 1939 document# 6895-A

Armor for the Pilot was an available, that manual doesn't list how many pounds it was. At this time, no self sealing tanks.

Could the Spitfire carry that for a bombload, flying that 900 mile distance?

No they did not.

So they sent these to the ends of the Earth.

RAF would also find the A6M not suitable, even with the cannons and still longer range over the H-75.

And they would do this, with having the FAA flying Sea Gladiators.

Repeat after me: Not Invented Here.

I'd also wager that the FAA might place sliiiightly more importance on the life and wellbeing of its pilots then the IJN, with the result that most of the Zero's performance is stripped away with such silly additions as armor, self sealing fuel tanks, reliable radios.. you know, that sort of thing. Plus even if it was some ASB powered uberplane, well guess what? The FAA sure as hell ain't getting priority on it over the RAF.
 

marathag

Banned
The FAA sure as hell ain't getting priority on it over the RAF.

Pretty sure the RAF would bulldoze them, and set fire to the remains, rather than the FAA getting a decent fighter

Armor and Radio would have cost the FAA'd Zero a few MPH off the top and maybe a 100-150 miles off the range
 

McPherson

Banned
Repeat after me: Not Invented Here.

I'd also wager that the FAA might place sliiiightly more importance on the life and wellbeing of its pilots then the IJN, with the result that most of the Zero's performance is stripped away with such silly additions as armor, self sealing fuel tanks, reliable radios.. you know, that sort of thing. Plus even if it was some ASB powered uberplane, well guess what? The FAA sure as hell ain't getting priority on it over the RAF.

Repeat after me...

b8be99c1a17c1b9ce78c5e7126698c56.jpg


I am a BRITISH aeroplane!
 
I am a BRITISH aeroplane!

There is a WEE bit of difference between adopting a foreign design you've been handed large supplies of for free by a friendly ally manufacturing thousands of them and something you're going to have to reverse engineer and then make a bunch of changes to in order to fit your doctrine, changes which will in large part ruin the special characteristics of the design. They'd be better off just sailing a battleship up the Thames and trying to hold the government hostage in a coup to get Spitfires earlier.
 
Last edited:
Top