F5F or F4F. Did the U.S. Navy make the right choice?

...Since we can't actually view alternate realities the next best thing would be running a very sophisticated war game simulator where the F4F is replaced with realistically nonwankish appropriate to the situation number of F5Fs and then can we analyse the results to see if it would have been a better choice or not.

I'd also want to run multiple simulations with a 4 & 5 mix. Say a 20% F5F, & 35% F5F. Not sure how the mix would fit the carriers, but land based squadrons like the Marines would benefit. Perhaps with 100% 5s.
 
I'd also want to run multiple simulations with a 4 & 5 mix. Say a 20% F5F, & 35% F5F. Not sure how the mix would fit the carriers, but land based squadrons like the Marines would benefit. Perhaps with 100% 5s.

At the time there was no good way to paper play fighter on fighter combat in a Krieg-spiel. (German style war-game) Post WW II results (hindsight) shows that a cheap single engine attrition unit is the way to go in the air war as long as you keep your other attrition unit in the system of systems up to spec. (Pilots). Near parity is good enough. IOW give the USNAS 25,000 Zeroes and the high quality aviators they turned out, the slaughter of the IJNAS should remain about the same as the mix of F4F, F6F, F4U and USAAC land based types also used. Pilots are fundamental in that era.
 
I acquired 20+ years of experience in Guvmint contracted military simulations & have my own thoughts on that. Without getting into detail most were useful or accurate in a narrow application & ran off the rails quickly as soon as any deviation occurred. Altering the simulation to prove ones argument was as common as dirt in my observation. All points I've kept in mind when using commercial entertainment strategy games, or trying to write business plans.
 
At the time there was no good way to paper play fighter on fighter combat in a Krieg-spiel. (German style war-game) Post WW II results (hindsight) shows that a cheap single engine attrition unit is the way to go in the air war as long as you keep your other attrition unit in the system of systems up to spec. (Pilots). Near parity is good enough. IOW give the USNAS 25,000 Zeroes and the high quality aviators they turned out, the slaughter of the IJNAS should remain about the same as the mix of F4F, F6F, F4U and USAAC land based types also used. Pilots are fundamental in that era.

I agree about the paramount importance of good, accurate and intensive training for pilots. It's hard to overstate the value of that. But I think you underestimate the value of having superior aircraft. For that allows even modestly skilled pilots a better chance to prevail and to survive combat.
 
Actually the spotter would usually sit, (or lay) on the wing over the wheel to guide the pilot. All factors considered I suspect the fact he's wearing shorts is the reason he's walking :)
Randy

AWM_026647_P-40_Milne.jpg


Good point considering that tropical sunshine. He didn't want to "put another shrimp on the barbie."
 
I agree about the paramount importance of good, accurate and intensive training for pilots. It's hard to overstate the value of that. But I think you underestimate the value of having superior aircraft. For that allows even modestly skilled pilots a better chance to prevail and to survive combat.

Nice to have, but you cannot count on the tech. You can count on the man. Example (and it is a classic) Brewster Buffalo + Finnish pilot > Yak 3 + Russian pilot. Or you can stuff the same Russian in a Mig 15 and pit him against an American in an F-86 Sabre. The Mig was a better aerodynamic exercise and better armed, but the Russian WWII veteran's chances against a USAF WWII veteran in a Sabre are NTG.
 
What would New Guinea be without its mosquitoes? That place left a bitter taste in the mouth of many veterans. Or maybe it was the Atabrine.
 
Muddy ground, windswept trees and large pools of standing water by the taxi way. Yep definitely the weather for a barbie.

Actually it's not just THAT heat he has to worry about. The 'position' for the wing-riding spotter tended to be right over the guns so the pilot could see him and he could see a bit past the nose towards the opposite side of the aircraft.

Really it's probably that he didn't want to take the time to climb up and frankly you can see BETTER from there and assuming the pilot keep an eye on you he won't lose you (which is pretty iffy in the pic and I note the guy driving the aircraft is NOT looking at him :) ) under the wing.

Randy
 
Top