FAA Role in the Pacific.?

[Graham Boak]

It is worth adding that the Seafire L.III, despite (or perhaps because of) its known handicaps of range and strength, was faster and better accelerating at low-level than either the Hellcat or the Corsair, thus being better suited to the close-CAP role.

[Bruce Lander]

Hello Gentlemen,

I just came across this thread - at this late stage I feel that it is also worth noting that by 1944/45 the U.S. firmly believed that the War against Japan belonged exclusively to the U.S. and accordingly only grudgingly allowed the B.P.F. to participate in what was basically a supporting role.

Cheers

Bruce Lander

[John Beaman]

VERY good thread guys. Well done. Heavy discussion w/o personal attacks!


Keep one thing in mind regarding the armored deck RN carriers versus the non-armored USN decks: the USN carriers could be (and were) built much quicker w/o that armored flight deck, and held more a/c (always important), so its problematical whether those trade-offs were worth the occassional loss of a carrier due to Kamakazi attacks. I hate to be cold-blooded, but maybe it was better to have more a/c and more carriers.

[Revi16]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread yet.

After reading the book "The Seafire, The Spitfire that went to Sea" by David Brown, certainly makes the Seafire seem un-impressive.

Taken from the book,

" it will come as a surprise that Seafires were delivered to the Royal Navy in greater number -over 2000- than any other aircraft in the Service's aviation history.

in nearly three years of action and over 50 operations from the Arctic Circle to Tokyo Bay, the Seafire engaged enemy aircraft in fewer than 50 combats, in which it destroyed 37 and damaged another 26 fighters, bombers and reconnaissance aircraft."

Regards,
Mike