# Escort Carriers and fighters



## diddyriddick (Feb 10, 2010)

It is common knowlege that the CVEs were equipped with the F4F/FM2 while the CVs had the F6F/F4U when available. I've always understood this was because of the size difference.

My question is: Was the choice made because the shorter flight deck of the CVEs couldn't accomodate the heavier F6F/F4U, or because in choosing the smaller Wildcat they were able to fit more AC on the flight deck. I find it difficult to believe that the CVEs could handle TBFs but not the modern fighters then available. Or was it just that they had the Wildcats and had to use them somewhere?


----------



## parsifal (Feb 10, 2010)

I suspect it has something to do with the catapult capabilities and the landing arrangements available on the CVEs 

Japanese CVEs did not generally accommodate D3As or D4Ys, I am unsure why


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2010)

I hope Leonard sees this post and gives us a history lesson.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 10, 2010)

Good question. I always assumed that the reason was the CVEs were "the second stringers" and got the older equipment. Save the best stuff for the CVs. Only so much to go around.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 11, 2010)

comiso90 said:


> Good question. I always assumed that the reason was the CVEs were "the second stringers" and got the older equipment. Save the best stuff for the CVs. Only so much to go around.



I dont think the USN was ever short of Hellcats and Corsairs (in the latter parts of 1944 at least)


----------



## diddyriddick (Feb 11, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think the USN was ever short of Hellcats and Corsairs (in the latter parts of 1944 at least)



Probably, but the other side of that coin is that the USN did have Wildcats that it had to use. Were the CVEs the only place left for them?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 11, 2010)

diddyriddick said:


> Probably, but the other side of that coin is that the USN did have Wildcats that it had to use. Were the CVEs the only place left for them?



I'm wondering why they ever saw a reason to use Wildcats that late in the war.

There were plenty of Hellcat squadrons available since not all of the fleet carriers were in action at the same time.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 11, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think the USN was ever short of Hellcats and Corsairs (in the latter parts of 1944 at least)



The more land we aquired, the more opportunities there were for forward bases. It would make sense to put the hellcats and corsairs there.. unless like you surmise there was no shortage at all

CVEs did a lot of ASW too.

At least late in the war Kamikazes were the greatest threat. Perhaps the wildcat was considered adequate.

.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 11, 2010)

comiso90 said:


> The more land we aquired, the more opportunities there were for forward bases. It would make sense to put the hellcats and corsairs there.. unless like you surmise there was no shortage at all



The place for the hellcats and Corsairs was not on land, but on a carrier.



> CVEs did a lot of ASW too.



Thats what the Avengers are for.



> At least late in the war Kamikazes were the greatest threat. Perhaps the wildcat was considered adequate.



It wasnt. And the Navy considered the Hellcat marginal at best, which is why the Bearcat was rushed into service.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 11, 2010)

>>The place for the hellcats and Corsairs was not on land, but on a carrier.

Certainly but they both served on land as we spread East.


>>Thats what the Avengers are for.
Yes Captain obvious but if Avengers arent available... wildcats will help. I'm not saying I know the answer.


The Bearcat was "Rushed" into service cause it was a logical evolution... the material at hand is the issue. Wildcats drew alot more blood after 44 than Bearcats.

.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 11, 2010)

Surely lots of Wildcats were going to the RN for their jeep crriers. The GM-manufactured Wildcats with hydraulic landing gear and 6 .50's were quite civilized. 

MM


----------



## renrich (Feb 11, 2010)

A lot of the CVEs had VMF Corsairs aboard. The TBMs and TBFs were good on CVEs because they landed slow, more slowly than the F6Fs and F4Us.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 11, 2010)

The Wildcat was obsolescent in 1943 (later part), obsolete in 1944 and useless after 1945.

As for the Hellcat and Corsair being based on land and not carriers ..... if thats the case, its a wasted asset. The AAF had the fighters to defend the land. But only the navy had the fighters to fly off of carriers.


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 11, 2010)

Escort carriers did indeed field F6Fs. For instance, the Chenango (CVE-28 ) had Air Group 35 with VF-35 fielding 18 F6F-3s and 1 F6F-5p. The Suwanee (CVE-27) fielded 22 F6F-3s. There were others as well.

Corsairs were also used on CVEs. USS Vella Gulf (CVE-111), and others, used FG-1Ds. Corsairs were also used by Britain's Fleet Air Arm, operating from escort carriers, as well as the larger flattops.


tom


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 11, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Surely lots of Wildcats were going to the RN for their jeep crriers. The GM-manufactured Wildcats with hydraulic landing gear and 6 .50's were quite civilized.
> 
> MM



The GM-manufactured Wildcats (FM-1 and FM-2) had 4 .50s, not 6.

tom


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2010)

Absolutely, the FMs carried four MGs rather than six. The Navy never liked the six gun arrangement of the F4F4 and, in fact, some F4F4s were built with only four guns. The six gun suite was forced by the British. Part of the reason the FMs regained the performance of the early F4F3 was having less weight in guns.


----------



## Glider (Feb 12, 2010)

renrich said:


> Absolutely, the FMs carried four MGs rather than six. The Navy never liked the six gun arrangement of the F4F4 and, in fact, some F4F4s were built with only four guns. The six gun suite was forced by the British. Part of the reason the FMs regained the performance of the early F4F3 was having less weight in guns.



I have this picture of the British bending the arm of the USA insisting that they put 6 x HMG in the Wildcat and the USA pleading for mercy giving in. Normally our requests for any change were (correctly) turned down and we were basically told if you want any changes do it yourself.

I admit my understanding was that the first people to want six guns in the F4 were the French who wanted 6 x LMG.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanks machine shop tom - I stand corrected.

MM


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 12, 2010)

The ultimate version of the Wildcat was the FM-2, production version of the XF4F-8, built by General Motors.

Using a more powerful engine, among other refinements, this version served capably and admirably on jeep carriers until the end of the conflict.

http://www.rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=22

tom


----------



## machine shop tom (Feb 12, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Thanks machine shop tom - I stand corrected.
> 
> MM



No problemo.

The F4F-3s were liked by the pilots better than the F4F-4s. The latter version was much heavier due to the added weight of the 2 extra guns and the wing folding mechanism. These detracted much from the performance as compared to the -3.

tom


----------



## diddyriddick (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanks all for the responses. It clears up a lot!


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2010)

Page 444, Lundstrom, "The First Team" " The Bureau seemed to feel guilty about the six gun battery- it's reduced ammunition capacity and additional weight. According to Pearson, the decision for six guns was" very close" inside the Bureau, the deciding point being the need for standardization in production in view of the British insistence on six guns." 
"however, Pearson maintained: After seeing the installation that Grumman cooked up for six guns, this Section as well as Armament has realized we made a mistake, but there again it was too late to tamper with production at that time."


----------



## timshatz (Feb 12, 2010)

renrich said:


> Page 444, Lundstrom, "The First Team" " The Bureau seemed to feel guilty about the six gun battery- it's reduced ammunition capacity and additional weight. According to Pearson, the decision for six guns was" very close" inside the Bureau, the deciding point being the need for standardization in production in view of the British insistence on six guns."
> "however, Pearson maintained: After seeing the installation that Grumman cooked up for six guns, this Section as well as Armament has realized we made a mistake, but there again it was too late to tamper with production at that time."



Bummer. Seems like the 4 gun arraingement was liked by everyone, visa-vie the 6 gun. Probably raised a few eyebrows when it came through. As the pilots used to say, "If you can't hit it with 4, you're not going to do better with 6"


----------

