Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Could a SB2C drop torpedoes?
yes, and by late 1944, with the introduction of the SB2C-4, there were calls to beach the Avenger and carry only the Sb2C. Prior to the SB2C-4 it took many hours to convert the Sb2C to a torpedo bomber, but a rapid conversion kit was apparently introduced with the Sb2C-4 and then it became a true combined dive/torpedo bomber.
It's interesting to note that the F4U was in the production stage while the F6F was still for the most part in concept. Why, then, didn't the Navy just go with the F4Us? There were a number of reasons for that. One probably was, the F4Us were a little more complicated of an aircraft, not only from a production standpoint, but from a maintenance standpoint. Probably the biggest reason, however, had to do, simply, with that Grumman plant. If ever there was a model of assembly-line efficiency and organization in a plant manufacturing carrier-qualified fighter-bombers, that plant was it, hands down. Couple with that Grumman's philosophy, build it simple, and build it strong, and it's hardly a surprise they manufactured some 12,000 of these in just three years. You ask anybody who actually flew or serviced the F6Fs and I'm sure they'll attest, they not only performed like gems, they rarely, if ever, experienced any mechanical problems, much less, breakdowns. Gumman also knew exactly what it was doing with the retractable wing designs, as it already had those on the F4Fs. I believe the Navy early on even considered the P-51, as it was that dead-set against the F4Us. The P-47, too, I believe. But, of course, neither did those qualify for the job, and, well, as they say, the rest is history.My 1943 fighter of choice of course would either be F4U or F6F. Probably leaning toward F6F if only because early Corsair marks weren't ideal as carrier planes.
Same reason P-39 and Me-210A were poorly regarded. Tricky / dangerous handling characteristics.
You don't refuse 4,719 (per Wikipedia) free fighter aircraft when fighting a major war. I'd hazard a guess Germany, Japan or Italy would have flown P-39s too if over 4,000 were delivered free of charge.surely the Soviets wouldn't have kept using it over their own designs or had that many P-39 aces if it was that much of a dog.
You don't refuse 4,719 (per Wikipedia) free fighter aircraft when fighting a major war. I'd hazard a guess Germany, Japan or Italy would have flown P-39s too if over 4,000 were delivered free of charge.
It's interesting to note that the F4U was in the production stage while the F6F was still for the most part in concept. Why, then, didn't the Navy just go with the F4Us? There were a number of reasons for that. One probably was, the F4Us were a little more complicated of an aircraft, not only from a production standpoint, but from a maintenance standpoint. Probably the biggest reason, however, had to do, simply, with that Grumman plant. If ever there was a model of assembly-line efficiency and organization in a plant manufacturing carrier-qualified fighter-bombers, that plant was it, hands down. Couple with that Grumman's philosophy, build it simple, and build it strong, and it's hardly a surprise they manufactured some 12,000 of these in just three years. You ask anybody who actually flew or serviced the F6Fs and I'm sure they'll attest, they not only performed like gems, they rarely, if ever, experienced any mechanical problems, much less, breakdowns. Gumman also knew exactly what it was doing with the retractable wing designs, as it already had those on the F4Fs. I believe the Navy early on even considered the P-51, as it was that dead-set against the F4Us. The P-47, too, I believe. But, of course, neither did those qualify for the job, and, well, as they say, the rest is history.
My pick in this thread for the duo? Isn't it obvious? Two F6Fs.