[Juha]

Yes, USN fighter tactics were good, especially from 1942 onwards. O’Hare feat (3 Bettys destroyed and 2 badly damaged single-handed in 4 minutes) on 20 Feb 42 shows the merits to USN’s emphasis on shooting skills and good tactic chosen for attack against bombers. I’m not sure how exceptional Finnish AF was generally, except that the pilots and aircrews were ready to accept the fight against really great odds but I agree with Christer that FAF’s fighter arm was very good tactically and it also had emphasized shooting skills. Sarvanto’s feat on 6 Jan 40, 6 DB-3Ms downed out of formation of 7 bombers was really exceptional , especially because DB-3Ms were tougher targets than Bettys and Fokker D. XXIs had only 4 7,7mm mgs not 4 12.7mm as in F4F-3s.

JNAF was also very advanced, not maybe in fighter tactics but generally in carrier operations and tactics, also its torpedo and anti-shipping bombing tactics (incl. land-based medium bombers) were absolutely first rate as the British on Prince of Wales and on Repulse noticed in Dec. 41.

But of course LW was on the whole very good as a tactical airforce.

So, one can draw right conclusions from combat experiences but some, like USN and FAF could also draw right conclusions from theoretical analysis and from peacetime experiments. But in principle the first method (real battle experiences) was more reliable as IMHO usually practice is more reliable guide than theory but both can be misleading and good theory might allow a qualitative leap forward.


Juha