|
There you have your proof, perhaps the Seafire III scored high on paper and in certain areas of its performance envelope, no one would consider it a better allround naval combat plane compared to the Hellcat and Corsair.
What made the difference between Zeroes and Wildcats?
Its certainly wasn't performance.
It was tactics and...
...RUGGEDNESS.
The Hellcat and Corsair combined good performance with ruggedness, the best of two worlds. Eric Brown knew what he was talking about.
As has been pointed out before in this thread, the Thunderbolt might have looked like a groundpounder, but generally speaking these a/c didn't differ radically in performance. Different a/c probably dictated slightly different tactics, but I'll repeat it again if you like, the USAAF could have done the same job with the Thunderbolt as it did with the Mustang (the other way around...well that's is a different matter).
The USN/MC would have been hard pressed in their campaign if they had flown the inline narrow geared Seafire instead of the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair, to the extend that they'd probably lost more battles then they did.
Sure tactics would have been a factor, but unfortunately the Seafire simply wasn't as rugged...not in the tradition of the Grumman Ironworks, or Vought's Hawg.
Doesn't matter what a performance list tells you.
__________________
Ruy Horta
12 O'Clock High!
And now I see with eye serene
The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,
A traveller between life and death;
|