Naval Warfaretards/Churchillians, to me!

[Razgovory]

Artillery sucked though.

[Viking]

The USN and IJN had developed tactics of attacks on multiple axes and with different kinds of planes simultaneously.  That's the way to make air power count.  The Brits, Italians, Germans, et al didn't develop that prewar, and in fact didn't develop that during the war, to any great extent.

Did the British actually have a carrier aircraft that was as good as those of the Pacific powers, other than the Seafire?

Sea Fury?

[Razgovory]

I had to look that one up.  I have to say that the aircraft was almost certainly better then anything Japan had when it went into service.  In 1948.

[Neil]

Did the British actually have a carrier aircraft that was as good as those of the Pacific powers, other than the Seafire?

Someone was arguing that

Mind you, it's not like the US and Japanese would have been much more impressive in 1939.  All of the higher-performance planes that fought at Midway didn't come into action until late 1940.

but I'd say no. 

My point was about tactics, not aircraft, though.

I was thinking late-war in that last post though.  I was reading a book about Renown's career, and I found it interesting when they were operating in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia that the British were still using the Barracuda, and how much more capable the Saratoga's air wing was when it came to ground attack.