Fighters are aircraft employed to destroy other aircraft in aerial combat. During the Pacific War, most fighters were fast, maneuverable monoplanes carrying a single pilot and machine guns or cannon as armament.
Fighters could be sent against incoming bombers (interception) or could accompany friendly bombers to protect them from the other side's intercepting fighters (escort.) They could also be sent out to sweep enemy fighters from a target area (air superiority). The requirements for each kind of mission were slightly different, and some fighter designs were optimized for a particular mission. Interceptors needed to be fast, have an excellent climb rate, and have enough firepower to destroy a large bomber and enough protection to survive the return fire from the bomber's defensive guns. They had less need for long range or high maneuverability. Air superiority fighters were thought to need high maneuverability and speed above all else. Escort fighters needed the attributes of air superiority fighters plus excellent range. In practice, most fighter designs were pressed into service in all three roles at one time or another.
Prior to the war, most airmen were deeply skeptical of the effectiveness of fighters as interceptors. This was in part because the bombers of the day had shown such rapid improvement in performance that contemporary fighters often had little or no speed advantage, making the prospect of successful interception seem dim. Furthermore, it was thought that high-flying bombers would be detected so late and at such a high altitude that fighters would never be able to take off in time to climb to altitude. Maintaining standing patrols of fighters, known as Combat Air Patrols or CAP, seemed hopeless because of the short endurance of fighters.
A number of technological developments just prior
to the outbreak of the Pacific War changed this picture. Fighters
became faster as a result of improved engine design (particularly
the
use of superchargers, which greatly improved high-altitude
performance), better streamlining, and the development of high-octane
fuels. At the same time, the development of observer networks and of radar increased the warning time
sufficiently to allow these high-performance fighters to reach altitude
in time to intercept. The Battle of Britain saw the first
successful
defense against modern bombers by modern fighters.
The Second World War shattered a number of other illusions about the design and employment of fighters. During the First World War, fighters were optimized for maneuverability, and tactical doctrine was based on the turning fight or dogfight. Fighter pilots attempted tight maneuvers to put themselves on the undefended rear of enemy fighters, known as the enemy's "six." Many airmen assumed that air combat in the Second World War would simply be a faster, deadlier version of the same game.
However, a number of fighter experts, such as Claire Chennault,
believed that dogfighting was an obsolete tactic. They noted that, even
in the First World War, most kills were achieved by surprise and most
dogfights ended in a draw. Chennault perfected hit-and-run tactics that
relied on speed, firepower, and ruggedness rather than outstanding
maneuverability, and which took maximum advantage of surprise when it
could be achieved. Such tactics would prove effective against such
outstandingly maneuverable Japanese
aircraft as the Zero and the Oscar.
Another illusion shattered by the war was that heavily-armed twin-engined fighters could effectively escort bombers to their target. The Germans were the strongest proponent of "destroyer" fighters, but most of the major powers experimented with the concept. However, it was found during the Battle of Britain that the "destroyers" were sitting ducks for conventional single-engined fighters. In the end, the only twin-engined fighter of the war to enjoy much success was the P-38 Lightning, which owed much of its success to its high speed, long range, and good high-altitude performance.
First-generation American fighters, such as the P-40 and the Wildcat, tended to be well-armed and very rugged but unremarkable for speed, range, and maneuverability. Second-generation fighters such as the Corsair and Hellcat were much faster and had better range without sacrificing protection; the Hellcat was also one of the most maneuverable American fighters of the war, despite being better protected than the Wildcat. The Mustang, which saw service late in the Pacific War, was possibly the best fighter of the war, combining excellent performance with very long range, though at some cost in ruggedness.
Early Japanese fighters, such as the Zero and Oscar, were extraordinarily maneuverable and had excellent range, but were fragile and lacked firepower. In many ways, they were the ultimate development of the World War I fighter. Allied pilots who attempted to dogfight these fighters were in for an unpleasant and often fatal surprise, but found that hit-and-run tactics were effective, as the Japanese aircraft had a tendency to disintegrate under a solid burst of fire. Although the Japanese later introduced fighter designs with better firepower and protection, the Zero and Oscar remained in service throughout the war and were the two most manufactured of all Japanese combat aircraft, suggesting that the Japanese air combat philosophy was too deeply entrenched to be easily changed.
British fighter development was largely the story of the Spitfire, which was repeatedly improved in successive models. Never as rugged as the American fighters, the Spitfire also lacked for range, but it had excellent performance and maneuverability (though never as good as the Zero) and adequate firepower with reasonable protection for the pilot. The inferior Hurricane fighter saw service in the Far East, as did the dismal Fulmar naval fighter. Not until the arrival of the Firefly late in the war did British carriers have a decent indigenous naval fighter; in the interim, the British relied on unsatisfactory navalized Spitfires and Hurricanes and on American naval fighters supplied through Lend-Lease.
In addition to the other qualities desirable in a fighter, a carrier fighter had to have a low enough landing speed to operate off a short flight deck, enough resistance to corrosion to endure salt air, and a sturdy undercarriage for hard landings on flight decks. These additional constraints were severe enough that most naval fighters were inferior to the best contemporary land-based fighters, the Zero being a notable exception. The Hellcat was very successful in the naval fighter role but was slightly inferior in performance to its best land-based contemporaries. The Corsair was originally designed as a naval fighter but had outstanding performance. However, its forward visibility was so poor that it was relegated to the Marines for operation from land bases. British naval pilots subsequently mastered the art of landing the Corsair on a flight deck using a curved approach path, and Marine squadrons flew the Corsair off carriers in the final months of the war.
References
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia (c) 2007 by Kent G. Budge. Index