Battle Experience V's Sound Tactics

[Ruy Horta]

Pre-war USN and IJNAF pilots were also a highly trained cadre of men, hardly inferior to anything the Luftwaffe could field.

[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

[Ruy Horta]

I've always regarded calling the Luftwaffe a tactical AF somewhat of a misnomer, certainly by 1939-41 standards.

[Juha]

Ruy
I’d say that it depends how one definite a strategic air force. To me a strategic air force is a force which can achieve strategic goals by its own actions. 1939 – 42/43 there was IMHO no truly strategic airforce anywhere. IMHO LW was never a good strategic AF. Early in the war it had first class navigational aids but lacked carrying power ie it could not carry enough bombs for truly decisive results. It also lacked good target intelligence. Which mean more than an ability to produce target maps. LW could sometimes made effective strategic attacks, for example the attack on Coventry and the attack on Bristol a/c factory at Filton by KG 55 in late Sept. 40 but it lacked ability or knowledge to strike repeatly and effectively to choosen targets to achieve decisive results. Generally IMHO LW’s strategic campaigns tended to be rather haphazard. So IMHO in 1939 – 42 LW was generally good in tactical operations but not so successful in pure strategic operations. Of course it was sometimes (in Norway and in Holland) effective terror weapon and if we think Douhet’s ideas that was one way to achieve a strategic goal. So one can say that in Holland LW achieved a strategic goal. In Norway the results were tactical. But if one thinks USAAF 9th AF in 44, IMHO LW was more like it than like the 8th in its destructive power and its reach.

Juha