One of the archival documents that came to our attention during the research
for CFS2 was this interview with Major J.N. Renner, USMC, conducted at the Bureau
of Aeronautics in Washington, D.C. in July 1943.
Renner was a veteran of fighter operations on Guadalcanal, and his no-nonsense
approach underlines the urgency of the situation halfway through the war. The tactics
Renner prescribes for staying alive in an F4F while fighting Zeros are clear and
compelling. His comments on the F4U Corsair and its reliability problems during
early deployment are equally unvarnished. His discussion of morale issues, especially
his remarks about pilots who find they can't face combat, provides a hard-core look
at a seldom-discussed problem.
The excerpts below give a clear and forceful picture of the issues confronting
fighter pilots-and their squadron commanders-at a point in the war when no one knew
what the outcome would be.
U.S. CONFIDENTIAL
BRITISH SECRET
NAVAER
Interview of
MAJOR J.N. RENNER, USMC
First Marine Aircraft Wing, Ass't Operations Officer
Commanding Officer VMO-251
Operations Officer MAG-11
in the
Bureau of Aeronautics
17 July 1943
TRAINING
In training, I allowed one hour for solo, to get the pilots
used to the airplane. The second hour they started flying section and division tactics.
About the fourth hour they were in gunnery. We went through a very hurried syllabus,
trying to cover everything we would need at Guadalcanal. One of the most important
things is individual combat, the same thing we had practiced in peacetime, except
that we took up two teams of four planes each, and got up there and mixed it up.
There are going to be mid-air collisions in combat, and you may as well get used
to looking out for seven other men in the sky besides yourself.
The most important rule I made was "stick together." The formation
ultimately breaks up, but each wing man must stay with his section leader. What
it amounts to is that several small columns revolve about each other. Whenever in
training a pilot lost his section leader, I gave him hell.
TACTICS
Since there was time to practice only one pass, we emphasized
the overhead pass in tactics against bombers. If a man can do the proper overhead
pass, he can do an above-side from either side. A direct overhead pass gives the
enemy less time to fire, and he can't bring his guns to bear.
We also stressed altitude work. We had pilots arrive at Guadalcanal
who had never been above 15,000 feet; and out there on practically every hop we
could expect to go up on oxygen. In the overhead pass that I speak of as being the
primary pass against the enemy horizontal bomber, the training started in at 12,000
foot with a tow plane at 8,000 feet. We made one set of dummy runs and started firing
on our second flight. The altitude was gradually increased, and firing stopped around
16,000 feet. We made runs on another fighter at 22,000 with the attacking planes
at 26,000. A pilot who has made only low altitude passes around 10,000 to 15,000
feet misjudges his distance in rarified atmosphere and does not come in close enough
to the target to get hits.
After all this training on how to attack enemy bombers, my
squadron had a chance to attack twin-engine enemy bombers only once, and that time
at an altitude of 500 feet! One of my boys said, "Gee, there they are! Let's get
up above them and make that overhead pass." He started to climb; then realized that
if he made the overhead pass it would be the end of him, not the enemy. In training,
we had tried to cover each type of plane the enemy had, and the type of approach
to be used against it. The twin-engine Mitsubishi had been used as a torpedo plane.
The tactics against the torpedo plane was to make an above-rear pass or an above-side
pass, pulling up above the target plane. So when this pilot saw the overhead pass
wouldn't work, he immediately thought of making the above-rear pass. The squadron
shot down five out of the six twin-engine bombers they encountered that day.
On the dive-bombers with the fixed landing gear, the theory
was to get just low enough behind so that the rear gunner would have to shoot through
his own horizontal stabilizer and elevator. We came directly in on practically a
no-deflection shot from underneath to blast them.
Against the bi-plane float we cautioned pilots about maneuverability
and the rear gunner, but explained that if you could get down below the stabilizer
into the rear it was "duck soup."
Against the Zero, because of its maneuverability and climb, we
used tactics developed by Foss
, Bauer, and Smith. In order to knock Zeros down the Grummans stuck together, and
each pilot paid less attention to the man on his tail than to the Zero on somebody
else's tail. The Grumman fighters tried to stay in the same air, as we called it;
once the dogfight started, we all revolved about in the same area. If a Zero dived
out from the dogfight, our instructions were not to follow him but to swing back
into the middle of the merry-go-round. In swinging back, you look for a Zero on
some other Grumman's tail. This tactic worked out because a Zero can't take two
seconds' fire from a Grumman and a Grumman can take sometimes as high as fifteen
minutes' fire from a Zero. If you can summon up the courage in yourself to quit
worrying about the guy peppering at you from behind end go after the Zero peppering
your wing man from behind, gradually the Zeros all disappear from the fight; and
only the Grummans are left. Now it's damn hard to instill in a pilot the idea that
even though there is somebody on his tail he's got to work on the guy that's on
another's tail. That's exactly what we did, however, and it worked out very successfully.
Naturally, the characteristics of the plane determine the
tactics. The Zero could outmaneuver, outclimb, outspeed us. One Zero against one
Grumman is not an even fight, but with mutual support two Grummans are worth between
four and five Zeros, and so on up.
MORALE
After determining that a man wanted to be a fighter pilot,
I asked him if he thought he was a "hot" pilot. One boy who was just coming in said,
"No, sir." I said, "Then I don't want you." "Well," he said, "What do you mean?
I've always been brought up with the idea that only senior pilots were hot pilots;
that young pilots are supposed to keep their mouths shut and listen and learn how
to fly." "Well," I said, "I want the hottest outfit that's ever been collected;
and if you're not hot, there's no place here for you." He said, "Now that you bring
it up, I'm the hottest boy that ever graduated from a naval training station." I
said, "Okay." Well, it turned out he was pretty hot.
I tried to build up a winning spirit in the boys; tried to
convince them that they were the very best; that there wasn't anybody who could
beat them; that it was going to be fun to go out there and knock the [Japanese]
down. It isn't always possible to convince them that it's going to be fun; but you
can get them out there under one ruse or another; and if their first two or three
combats are successful, and if their pals come back and say, "I knocked down two
Zeros today," they soon get enthusiastic. If, however, the first flight goes out
and gets its tails shot off, enthusiasm dies out in a great hurry. Our enthusiasm
increased during the time we spent up there.
PILOT FATIGUE AND REPLACEMENT
We became greatly fatigued because of the hours we had
to fly. In the Guadalcanal area, at least, pilots have been required to fly too
many hours a day. For a period of six days, one group of fighter pilots were flying
an average of six-and-a-half hours a day. The time we weren't flying, we were on
scramble standby, which meant that we had to get up before daylight and either take
off on a dawn patrol or assume a scramble standby. If we had to stand by, we were
on that until noon; and then in the afternoon we flew a combat patrol over the area.
Probably at 1645 we went out on a mission and came home after dark. It doesn't take
long to burn the boys out at that clip.
The thing that bothers them more than anything else is this:
they are sent into the combat area with a scuttlebutt rumor that they will come
out in four weeks or five weeks, and [then]find themselves there indefinitely. Pretty
soon they think, "Well, we're never coming out; they're just going to wait until
we all get shot down and then they won't have to worry about pulling us out, and
feeding in replacements all the time." If the going is tough, fighter squadrons
should be relieved in three weeks' time. Otherwise they lose their desire to close
with the enemy and their power to recuperate.
BUREAU COMMENT
: Requests for replacement pilots have been filled to the extent permitted by the
number available. Replacement squadrons and groups are formed as fast as pilots
and planes are available. It is believed that an orderly rotation of duty in combat
area can now be effected.
THE F4U
The boys flying the F4U are very enthusiastic about it. It's the
first airplane I have flown that will do everything the manufacturer says it will
do -- but it will only do it one day a week
. The maintenance problem is terrific. Perhaps when our mechanics and our engineering
crews are adapted to the plane and find out its idiosyncrasies, they will be able
to straighten it out; and maybe we'll be able to get it to fly two days a week.
The planes are very sturdy. A pilot from Fighting Squadron l24, who in one scrap
with the [Japanese] shot down three Zeros, said the F4U would do everything the
Zero would do except a tight flipper turn at low speeds. Whenever a Zero went into
a tight flipper turn, he just poured on the coal and climbed back to altitude to
make another pass.
EQUIPMENT
In the rear areas we had difficulty convincing pilots
they should fly with their sleeves rolled down. Many of them pulled their shirts
off after they left the ready room to get in the planes, and flew in their undershirts.
They'd fly without goggles, and land with their hoods closed (takeoffs and landings
should be with hood open; combat flying with hood closed) and do everything we told
them not to do. But once on Guadalcanal, we never had to tell anybody to roll down
his sleeves or wear his goggles on a flight. One or two of the boys came back with
their faces filled with 20-mm shrapnel and pieces of broken plastic from the hood.
The only parts of their faces not scarred up were the parts covered by goggles.
They thought the goggles a pretty good thing.
One day on Guadalcanal when the field was wet and very muddy,
the [Japanese] decided to make a big push and establish aerial supremacy over us.
They came down about seven o'clock in the morning at 2,000 feet when all our fighters
were on the ground. We were on the ground for a very good reason -- none of us could
get in the air; we couldn't even taxi to the end of the strip to take off. (The
tri-cycle landing gear and large tires of the P-38 and P-39 make them far superior
to our planes when operating from a muddy field).
MORALE
Another thing that's affecting morale out there is the
failure of some combat pilots after they arrive in the battle zone. A definite policy,
I think, must be established. It's not so much what you do with the pilots who refuse
to fight, or who find one excuse or other not to go out on a combat mission, as
it is the effect the treatment given them has on the rest of the squadron. For a
while the policy was to remove these people and send them back to the training bases
to be instructors. Now there isn't a pilot out there who has been fighting the [Japanese]
who doesn't want to come back to the U.S.A. It seems to them that the man who is
a failure is the one who gets that reward. Although we're short of pilots and we're
trying to turn out as many as possible, we'd do the combat operating outfit more
good if we'd reach down and pull the wings off the chest of these boys. It wouldn't
have to be done to many before they'd stop singing the song. And if a pilot says,
"I haven't had enough training and I have to be trained a little more" -- under
no circumstances send him back to the United States to get trained. Leave him down
there; and when he's had sufficient training, send him back in. If he comes out
with the same plea again, don't listen to him. Take his wings away; and if he's
no good as a ground officer, take his uniform away.
A letter went in from our Command suggesting wings be taken
from these boys, and in some cases, uniforms too. They all began to flock around
and say, "Well, if I'd known you were going to treat me like this I'd never have
said a word. But old Joe Doe got to go home. He couldn't stand the gaff, and he's
back instructing at Pensacola. I thought you'd do the same thing for me. I didn't
have any idea you'd treat me as an outcast and take me off flight status, and just
leave me sitting around here to do nothing, waiting for somebody to rule on what
was going to happen to me." With a little strong arm, a little strict discipline,
you'd find that type of person would practically disappear. They would turn in their
wings of their own volition when they found themselves approaching the combat area.
MORALE
Q. What percent of pilots do not wish to go into combat?
A. I'd say if you took a squadron of thirty pilots up there
you could expect one to three of them to be "giggle girls," as we call them, or
"rover boys." One of them will come up and admit that he's afraid to fly -- "Send
me back, I've had enough." The other two will use different tactics. When the time
comes to scramble, such a man will run out and jump in a plane, and it'll be dropping
300 r.p.m. on the left mag. He'll jump out and give it a down; the mech turns it
up and it's dropping 25 on the right mag and 25 on the left mag. He'll run down
the line and jump in another plane, anxious to get off with his outfit. He'll get
his parachute on, his throat mike on, his gloves on, and be all ready to turn her
up -- when he looks out and finds the left wing gone! The plane was one of the wrecks
we had around the field to fool the [Japanese]. He runs to the next plane; and when
he gets in, finds no engine in it. By that time it's too late to get off. And the
same pilot that does it on Monday, does it on Tuesday. On Wednesday he's got a stomach
ache, and he thinks he's getting malaria. By Monday of the next week he's ready
to come back to duty; and he runs out; and, sure enough, his plane won't start (he's
flooded it purposely). He gets in the next plane, and it's out of commission. He
runs all around, and he can't find one that will go. That goes on day after day,
until everybody gets to realize that he hasn't been up in the air. Finally you get
one of these birdies in the air on a mission and look around and can't see him --
well, his prop went out, and he had to land again. It's impossible to get them into
combat.
Q. You suggested taking wings and uniform off them? Do you
really recommend that we do that a few times?
A. Yes. The recommended plan was this. If a pilot entered
a plea that he didn't think he had sufficient training, we would send him down to
New Zealand or some place in the rear area, but still in the South Pacific, for
further training. He would be placed on probation during that time. That training
period would not exceed six months. The probation period would not count as part
of his time in the South Pacific. Otherwise, you can see what would happen: some
fellow with about six months to go would appear before the Board and get placed
on probation, and at the end of the six months he'd come back to the States. He'd
never have to go back in and fight, and he would have escaped all the way around.
Well, if he's put on probation, the time not only would not count, but he could
not be promoted. At the beginning of that six months' time he would be given his
choice of what type plane he wanted to fly: fighters, or dive bombers, or torpedo
planes. Sometimes they think they're in the wrong type. He'd get trained in the
type he wanted to be in and come back. Then he'd be sent up with an organization
to the front lines, and if he panned out, all would be forgiven. If he failed the
second time, he would not rate a second period of probation. He would be through
as an aviator. But it may be that he would be a good ground officer -- Engineering
officer, an adjutant, or something like that, where he wouldn't have to fly. The
Board could ask him if he wanted to try to be an aviation ground officer. If he
said, "Yes," he could be given a trial. If he proved satisfactory, he could be carried
on throughout the war as a ground officer. If he were a failure as a ground officer,
he should be told, "You'd better get back and face your draft board, because you're
not doing the job you took a pledge of allegiance and swore on oath to do, to defend
the United States against all her enemies, as an officer. That plan, I think, would
straighten that problem out in short order.
CASUALTY RATES
Q. Is the death rate among fighter pilots considered greater
than in other types?
A. Definitely not. That's the reason I wanted to be a fighter!
I think you've got a better chance of living. That's the feeling among the fighter
pilots; I don't know how the rest of them feel. -- It goes deeper than that, though;
I mean it is not just the fact that you think you have a better chance of living.
It's that you close in and shoot down the enemy that interests most of the people.
But I really feel a fighter pilot has a better chance of living. At least when you
go, you know you're the one that didn't do it right!
COMPARISON OF AIRCRAFT
Q. What do Marines think of carrier-type aircraft?
A. I believe that all the active combat pilots in the Marine
Corps agree with me on this: though at various times they have voiced loud criticisms
of the Navy carrier plane and wished they had the Army P-38 or the Army P-51, they
believe the Navy has scooped the Army on the F4U and the F6F. If Grumman or Vought
were given the job of building a land-based fighter, they would be able to build
a fighter superior to anything the Army now has and one which would be ideal for
Marines or Navy squadrons based ashore. As the war in the South Pacific expands
and there are more and more island bases to be held by the Marines and by the Navy,
and ever-increasing number of squadrons, both Navy and Marines, will be land-based.
I therefore see a need now for planning a land-based Navy fighter.