The F4F / FM-2 alone would have won the war in the PTO

[Broncazonk]

After reading several detailed accounts of the carrier battles at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, and the air combat over Guadalcanal, I'm becoming convinced that the US navy could have achieved TOTAL air superiority over Japan by 1944 with the F4F Wildcat and certainly with the FM-2 alone (The F6F and F4U were completely unneccessary.) Darn near every time the Japanese attacked anything-anywhere they lost 50% of the strike force from the deadly combination of radar - AA fire - the Wildcat CAP.

When a Zero shot up a Wildcat, it seems the Wildcat made it home more often than not. When a Wildcat shot up a Zero, it caught on fire and then the wings fell off killing the pilot. The Vals and Kates were just as bad.

The attrition of the Solomons destroyed Japanese carrier aviation. After Santa Cruz, Japanese naval aviation in both men and machines were a shadow of it's former self and by 1943, it was a ghost of a shadow.

Bronc

[syscom3]

And what about the allied air units in New Guinea? Did they do anything?

What about the allied air forces in Burma? Just drink tea and eat biscuits?

[B-17engineer]

Hi Bronc,

I'm not sure that the F4F/FM-2 could win the war. Do you mean as a fighter and multi-role? Or just a fighter? Plus, Japan had good planes towards the end of the war that could do some damage.

[Broncazonk]

The universal utilization of the F4F / FM-2 by all Allied forces in the PTO (regardless of where they were based) would have resulted in complete air superiority by 1944. Hell, I think the P-40 could have done it.

Bronc

[lesofprimus]

I personally think u ate too many purple mushroom caps.... This is one of the silliest things Ive seen on this board....

[JoeB]

Wildcats as only carrier fighters would probably not have prevented an Allied victory in the Pacific War, so great was Allied numerical superiority becoming by 1944; but it would have made it a much harder slog, with undoubtedly more carrier losses (note that while CV's operating F4F's at least one CV was seriously hit or sunk in almost every case where carrier TF's came under Japanese air attack, compare that to the F6F period), as well as more losses among escorted attack a/c. The FM-2 handled itself pretty well even against later Japanese fighter types when it met them, in the overall circumstances of combat at that time, but had major deficiencies in speed as interceptor, and in range as offensive fighter, compared to the F6F and F4U, which also meant more risk to carriers.

For land based fighters, range was an even more important factor since getting closer wasn't just a matter of ramping up risk to a carrier by moving it closer to its target but having to seize more islands and bases and bypass fewer of them, since each new base had to be within land based fighter range of the previous one (moving up the coast of New Guinea, for example, carriers generally not available in that theater).

P-40's did widely serve until 1945 in China, and also did well enough, real outcomes in the range of 1:1 or even a bit better against even the later Japanese fighter types, and generally had some advantage over the Army Type 1, their main opponent for most of the war. The Japanese were so outnumbered that 1:1 fighter kill ratio, broadly what they could hope for with the Type 1 and Zero against well flown P-40's and F4F's, wasn't anywhere near good enough from their POV. But from Allied POV, the extra advantage of the later fighters was very welcome in pure fighter combat, and as mentioned it had other important implications such as carrier losses with F4F/FM rather than F6F's and having to stage landings supported by land based fighters at closer intervals with P-40 compared to P-38 (or other long range fighters).

Joe

[Broncazonk]

In battles of Attrition, the side with the most ALWAYS wins.

In a hypothetical PTO air campaign lets give the Zero a whopping 50% kill advantage over the
Wildcat (it wasn't even 1:1, but just for discussion.) Each side starts the campaign with 100 aircraft
AND on each day of combat the Zeros down 20 Wildcats. The Zeros are NOT replaced, because
they weren't able to (neither pilot nor machine) but the US is able replace it's loses every day
(which it did.)

Day 1 - 100:100 - Zeros down 20 Wildcats and Wildcats down 10 Zeros
Day 2 - 90:100 - Zeros down 20 Wildcats / Wildcats down 10 Zeros
Day 3 - 80:100
Day 4 - 70:100
...
...
...
...
Day 9 - 20:100
Day 10 - 10:100
Day 11 - 0:100

In eleven days Zeros downed twice the number of Wildcats, and the loss of Wildcat pilots and
aircraft caused a temporary strain on local resources, BUT the Japanese lost ALL their Zeros
AND the campaign. They won every battle, but lost the campaign.

When the Wildcat is given a 1:1 kill ratio (which still shorts the Wildcat) the Japanese situation
becomes a whole lot worse awhole lot quicker.

Bronc

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Sorry Bronc, as much as I love the F4F, there's a slim chance we would've won the Pacific campaign with just it. The Japanese were developing more advanced fighters later in the war. Planes such as the George and Tony could outperform the F4F, not the mention the allied countries in the parts of Asia using second-rate fighters.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

In battles of Attrition, the side with the most ALWAYS wins.

In a hypothetical PTO air campaign lets give the Zero a whopping 50% kill advantage over the
Wildcat (it wasn't even 1:1, but just for discussion.) Each side starts the campaign with 100 aircraft
AND on each day of combat the Zeros down 20 Wildcats. The Zeros are NOT replaced, because
they weren't able to (neither pilot nor machine) but the US is able replace it's loses every day
(which it did.)

Day 1 - 100:100 - Zeros down 20 Wildcats and Wildcats down 10 Zeros
Day 2 - 90:100 - Zeros down 20 Wildcats / Wildcats down 10 Zeros
Day 3 - 80:100
Day 4 - 70:100
...
...
...
...
Day 9 - 20:100
Day 10 - 10:100
Day 11 - 0:100

In eleven days Zeros downed twice the number of Wildcats, and the loss of Wildcat pilots and
aircraft caused a temporary strain on local resources, BUT the Japanese lost ALL their Zeros
AND the campaign. They won every battle, but lost the campaign.

When the Wildcat is given a 1:1 kill ratio (which still shorts the Wildcat) the Japanese situation
becomes a whole lot worse awhole lot quicker.

Bronc

Where do you get this 50% superiority ratio?

[Broncazonk]

Now what are the odds that the Zeros will down 20 Wildcats everyday when their numbers
are decreasing by 10% plus EVERY day? Actual attrition would look something like this...

Day 1 - 100:100 - Zeros down 20 Wildcats and Wildcats down 10 Zeros
Day 2 - 90:100 - Zeros down 18 Wildcats / Wildcats down 10 Zeros
Day 3 - 80:100 - Zeros down 16 Wildcats / Wilcats down 12 Zeros
Day 4 - 68:100 - Zeros down 13 Wilcats / Wildcats down 15 Zeros
Day 5 - 53:100 - Zeros down 10 Wildcats / Wildcats down 20 Zeros
Day 6 - 33:100 - Zeros down 5 Wildcats / Wildcats down 33 Zeros
Day 7 - 0:100 -

And again, the kill ratio DID NOT favor the Zeros by 50%. It was 1:1 or even worse for the Zero.

Attrition means you have to show up EVERY SINGLE day with men and machines or you lose...PERIOD.

Bronc

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Okay buddy, do you mind posting your facts, via link or text. I'm just not fathoming your data.

[GrauGeist]

Let's just say, for the sake of the argument, that the U.S. Navy did keep the Wildcat as the backbone of thier fleet. Outliving the A6M by virtue of attrition is a pretty costly decision, both in human lives and material.

You also need to take into consideration that the Japanese did not operate only the A6M series, but had some extremely deadly aircraft being developed and deployed later in the war. Just for example, the KI-61 and KI-100, were very capable of tearing a Wildcat to shreds, and went head to head with the best the Allies had to offer. Fortunately, they were a bit late and too few in numbers (like many later Axis aircraft) to do any good.

Had the Wildcat been kept in service in significent numbers late in the war, instead of allowing newer and more powerful aircraft take the lead, there would have been real trouble for the Allies.

[Broncazonk]

I made it up. (Re-read the post.) It's an absurdly inaccurate number used to prove a point. The Zero
DID NOT even have a 1:1 kill ratio, much less a 2:1 kill ratio.

In warfare QUANITY KILLS QUALITY EVERY TIME.

Mk VI Tiger tank vs. T-34 - Give the Tiger a 20-1 kill ratio.
(It was more like 10-1) The Russians did not care. They showed
up with a 50-1 advantage in tank numbers EVERY time.

Give the Luftwaffe 3000 Me-262's in operation against 15,000 P-51's, P-47's, P-38's,
Spitfires, Tempests, Typhoons, etc. etc. and it does not matter. The Me-262's are
cleared from the skies in very short order.

If you can't show up EVERY SINGLE DAY in equal numbers, YOU LOSE.

Bronc

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Buddy, you still haven't answered my question. And take Grau's statement into consideration.

[GrauGeist]

I'm not sure if the "Meat Grinder" style of warfare is all that effective. It's been used time and again over the ages, but you can produce faster results by besting your opponent by having a superior weapon.

That's also a fine balancing act, because German equipment was "too superior" but not in enough quantities. On the otherhand, having superior numbers of inferior equipment eats up manpower and resources that could have been better used elsewhere.

I think that the Wildcat served it's purpose, but the U.S. Navy upgrading it's equipment as it became available, meant that the pilots were better protected and were able to reduce the enemy's numbers while bringing home thier machines. This would be preferable because it's one less aircraft to replace and one less pilot to train...and one less bad guy to worry about.

That's the main objective, afterall...isn't it?