As usual Soren you get your exercise jumping to conclusions, I believe that the ME262 had gas turbine engines. I said that the F4U was the finest fighter bomber and arguably the finest PISTON ENGINE fighter of WW2 and arguably the finest PE fighter of all time. The TA152 played almost no role in WW2. The F4U played an enormous role. You can argue all you want to about best PE fighter of all time. The Germans never fielded a carrier borne fighter. Simon, The Battle of Atlantic the biggest battle of WW2. That is like saying that Gallipoli was the biggest battle of WW1. Have you no knowledge of the Russian Front. The Germans never came close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, thanks to US ship building capacity. On June 1, 1943, the first Royal Navy Sdn. #1830 was formed at Quonset Point, RI using Corsair Is. In January, 1943, the first US Navy squadron VF12 was operational. In June, 1943, VF17, the Jolly Rogers was aboard the Bunker Hill. Do you seriously think the British, training at Quonset Point, not even aboard a carrier, beat the US Navy to learning to operate the Corsair off a carrier. That is another wartime myth, like the "Forked Tail Devil." Take a little friendly advice. Before you jump head long into this forum, be advised that there are people on here who have twice the knowledge of you and I put together and we would both do well to be cautious and not expose too much of our ignorance.
You seem unaware of the difference between a 'war', a 'campaign' and a 'battle'. The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic. Take a look at a map and look at the huge area the battle took place over, and include the distance north to south. I am not ignorant enough to have grown up unaware of the Eastern
Front. In fact if any one country 'won the war' it was more likely to have been the Soviets. The reason they did this was by countering then driving the Germans right back to Berlin. But suppose the Soviets Union had failed at Stalingrad. Image what would have happened. German forces tied up holding the western Soviet Union against continual partisan attacks and a campaign from the East. How would this have impacted the overall outcome of the war compared to an Allied defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic? The Allies came very close to losing this battle and support from across the Atlantic was a vital life-line to the UK. Had the Kriegsmarine triumphed the game would have been over. Again, this is my opinion formed from a strategic point of view. There are very few military historians who do
not refer to the Battle of the Atlantic as the biggest battle of WWII. Yet again, the Soviet numbers of killed etc. are not the whole picture. Do you see my point now?
(My Grandfather and his brother were both wounded at Gallipoli and I still fail to see the connection you made)
As for the Pacific
War, the clue is also in the title. Does exactly what it says on the can.
As for the original point I made over the Corsair. It was a superb airplane once mastered. The Royal Navy receiving 95 Mk Is and 510 Mk IIs. By the end of the war they furnished 19 FAA Sqns. However, the point I made related more to aircrew standards of training and wartime experience, and I stated that the USN had had such a terrible time with accidents trying to land them with the units formed (like USS Bunker Hills' Jolly Rogers...yada...yada...yada...) that Corsairs were seen as ineffective as carrier aircraft as they were impossible to land safely. As such they were then farmed off to the USMC with the tail hooks removed to operate from airfields only.
The early US aircraft had poor stall characteristics for carrier approaches, leaked oil on the windscreen and the long nose obscured the pilot's view. They bounced too much on landing often causing the aircraft's tail hook to miss the arrester wire. After prolonged tests the USN stated that their new 'wonderplane' was a dud. It had the ability to outperform and outgun the Zero but it needed time to get its sea-legs and the Navy was not prepared to wait. They decided to relegate the Corsair to play only a supporting role in the Pacific theatre. (Remember the theme of this thread- Best Air Force of WWII)
The USMC found a place for the Corsair in the Soloman Islands campaign as a close air support aircraft. There can be little doubt that what the USN and USMC pilots lacked in initial experience and strategic know-how they more than made up for in bravery. In fact, it was 'The Black Sheep' squadron's bending of the rules and regulations counter to what they were told to do that made them so successful. (Remember the theme...best air force)
The Fleet Air Arm was the first operational carrier Corsair force. The FAA corrected most of the Corsair's faults and resurrected it as a carrier aircraft in 1944. The Royal Navy used it in both Europe (for air cover during the attacks on the Tirpitz etc.) and in the Pacific.
'Red' James, the USMC Corsair pilot stated that "Well, they gave the Corsair to the Limeys to let them worry about it, and they worried about it, and they fixed it. The Royal Navy played a great role in the Corsair's development".
According to Hill Goodspeed from the Naval Aviation Museum in the USA, the Royal Navy had Corsairs operating from flat-tops a full 8 months before the US did. I have just watched film of Fleet Air Arm pilots teaching the USMC pilots how to land. They taught the USN and USMC pilots how to land on carriers by approaching the flight deck at a right angle from the port quarter so as to increase visibility, then to swing that aircraft round in a gentle curve on final approach to land it safely. It was this event that heralded the first use of USMC aircraft on USN carriers.
The entire story is recounted on the Corsair episode of the History Channel's 'Battle Stations' TV series as well as on the Corsair's Wikipedia entry.
I think you should perhaps take your own advice about spouting off. I have something to contribute but lots to learn, and that's the way I like it. I would like to point out that it was my contribution to the discussion that breathed new life into the British Commonwealth Air Forces being the best, when the American contributors to this site could only see the USAAF as the one winner. It is a question of
lateral thinking, at being able to
see the bigger picture, of
sticking to the original question, of appreciating the circumstances under which the RAF operated, the huge area they operated over and of considering the long, hard
6 years they fought. I would like to think that by raising these points, I have at least put them in the Best Air Force of the middle of WWII in even the most cynical mind.8)
As a European, I was accused by Flyboy of thinking only in terms of one continent (Europe, I suppose). Prior to that statement I had already mentioned the British campaign in Burma killing four times as many Japanese troops as were killed in the US Island hopping campaign.
I have a BA in Int'l Business Japanese from both a UK and a Japanese University, an MA in Advanced Japanese Studies, live in Japan with my Japanese wife, am a Japanese language translator/interpreter and have been in Japan since 1994. I live in a city totally destroyed by USAAF bombing and have frequent coversations with older Japanese in Japanese about those raids. I have also been many, many times to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention Tokyo. I have also spoken to A-Bomb victims and the orphans of those killed by the A-Bombs in their own language. I am well aware of the Pacific War and the massive US effort in it. Perhaps now I have showed my hand I may pass your strict criteria for taking part in this discussion?
By the way, my specialisation in the Japanese academic world is wartime responsibility, the rewriting of history, creation of patriotic myth and general epistemology (why we think we 'know' what we 'know'). This whole discussion has been as revealing on that subject as it has on WWII air forces!
Flyboy, please do not feel free to group a double-posting of mine into one. You have not done that for your own sequential posts or those of Bill etc. By doing this a few pages ago you made my two different comments run together and lose their intended, individual meanings. You then admonished me for it.
It is a fact that, when many are writing, online posts come in within minutes of each other. The new ones unseen whilst the current one is being typed. Often one post refers to a different post than the other. The fact that they appear sequentially one immediately after the other is not on purpose.
Many thanks for your understanding in advance.