Ted Williams flew F4Us when he switched to the Marines. He got his wings on F6Fs when he was in the Navy.The Marines got the F4Us because the F6Fs were a lock on the carriers. The post-war was a Marine war, not a Navy war. That's what's telling about that.
Corsair and Hellcat in Europe
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
GregP
Major
Choosing the F4U was a matter of the logistics in place at the time. They had more spares for Corsairs after the war ended.
The Hellcat was fast enough and had a far better performance in combat as a fighter than any other fighter I can think of. With a 19 : 1 kill ratio in air-to-air combat, it was 50% better than the F4U's performance in combat. Performace in a test obviously isn't necessarily an indicator of combat performance.
The Hellcat was fast enough and had a far better performance in combat as a fighter than any other fighter I can think of. With a 19 : 1 kill ratio in air-to-air combat, it was 50% better than the F4U's performance in combat. Performace in a test obviously isn't necessarily an indicator of combat performance.
Catch22
Major
I disagree with the spares argument, since the F4U-4 and later were the ones used post-war, and the F4U-4 just barely snuck into service in WWII. So all of those spare -1Ds are essentially scrap after 1945.
You're correct about the post-war era turning out as a Marine War, but the Navy still ordered an air-superiority version of the F4U in the F4U-5 because they weren't sure how jets were going to pan out, and yet they didn't ask for the same of an F6F.
However this may be better left for another thread.
You're correct about the post-war era turning out as a Marine War, but the Navy still ordered an air-superiority version of the F4U in the F4U-5 because they weren't sure how jets were going to pan out, and yet they didn't ask for the same of an F6F.
However this may be better left for another thread.
Granted, the F4U was a terrific performer, but it was extensively used as a ground attack aircraft in the PTO, not just by the USN, but also RNZAF and FAA, so its air-to-air combat figures are generally going to be lower than the Hellcat.
I can't really agree, since who would be operating it? The USN didn't have a great presense in the ETO and the FAA didn't use the Corsair extensively in that theatre. The USAAF certainly had its own performers, so while F4Us might have made an impact, I doubt there would have been a desire to spur development of it specially to suit the needs of the ETO. Its performance wasn't that much greater than ETO fighters.
I can't really agree, since who would be operating it? The USN didn't have a great presense in the ETO and the FAA didn't use the Corsair extensively in that theatre. The USAAF certainly had its own performers, so while F4Us might have made an impact, I doubt there would have been a desire to spur development of it specially to suit the needs of the ETO. Its performance wasn't that much greater than ETO fighters.
Last edited:
Catch22
Major
Excellent point about the kill figures.
The whole thing was a pretty "what-if" type scenario, particularly what if the Mustang hadn't panned out, and things along that line. Basically it would be the USAAF operating a version of it, that retained the fuel tanks in the wings and was modified to be better at high altitudes.
Probably would'a loved them. Might have been a bit tricky for them initially and of course they are a big aircraft compared to Russian fighters, but I'm sure once they got the hang of them they would have seen their benefit. Mind you, you never know with the Russians; one constant about them is that they are unpredictable.
Sounds terribly implauseable, but for the sake of interest, why not.
Catch22
Major
Exactly.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
The USN tested the FW190 against the Corsair and Hellcat, and IIRC the verdict was that the 190 was a pretty much equal to the Corsair, and perhaps a bit better then the Hellcat, though the pilots agreed they would be happy to fly either against the German fighter. both the American fighter out-turned the 190 and were in turn out-rolled by the 190, surprise.
As a yardstick, how would the Hellcat have stacked against the Spit V? On paper they look similar but the Sit was struggling in Europe by 1943
As a yardstick, how would the Hellcat have stacked against the Spit V? On paper they look similar but the Sit was struggling in Europe by 1943
- Thread starter
- #30
GregP
Major
The spares thing comes from Navy pilots who were flying the Corsait at the time and were ina position to know. The Navy was building up their F4U invertory and spares and the Hellcat spares were running out bacasue the war was almost over and they weren't really maiing nay more spares.
That's what I've heard ... but I wasn't around at the time to veryify the information. In any case, if I had a warbird today, a Hellcat or Bearcat would be my first choice ... whichever came available first, and I wouldn't regret either one, ever.
That's what I've heard ... but I wasn't around at the time to veryify the information. In any case, if I had a warbird today, a Hellcat or Bearcat would be my first choice ... whichever came available first, and I wouldn't regret either one, ever.
Catch22
Major
I wasn't around either, but the spares thing can't really be truly valid because as I mentioned, any spares left over would have been relegated to training duties at best besides the -4s that had already been built. Over 2000 of those were built, and all F4U-5s and AU-1s were built post-war. They could have continued development of the Hellcat instead, and continued to produce them, but didn't, because the performance envelope was apparently greater on the F4U's basic design. In my mind that makes the Corsair the better aircraft, because the Navy continued with its development, and not the Hellcat's.
I'm not surprised that the Fw 190 outrolled the Hellcat to be certain, I'm a little surprised about the F4U as it was noted to have an excellent roll rate. That said, I'm certainly not shocked either.
I'm not surprised that the Fw 190 outrolled the Hellcat to be certain, I'm a little surprised about the F4U as it was noted to have an excellent roll rate. That said, I'm certainly not shocked either.
Somebody here actually posted copies of the test between the Fw 190 and the Corsair a while back. I think you are correct that overall the report considered them rather equal. Both having advantages and disadvantages over the other, but for the most part pretty close to one another.
In the end it would come down to pilot skill, and who saw who first. Of course is that not the same for most air engagements between any acft type?
- Thread starter
- #33
GregP
Major
Erich Hartmann in a P-40 against a rookie in a Spitfire XIV? I'd take Erich every time as long as he knew he was being attacked. The pilot makes the fighter work.
And I've heard the spares thing about teh Corsair from too many ex-Navy people who know not to give it credence myself.
And I've heard the spares thing about teh Corsair from too many ex-Navy people who know not to give it credence myself.
I agree, pilot skill and who saw who first.
Catch22
Major
And that's fair, I just disagree.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Are we supposed to understand that both, F6F-3 and F4U-1 are operated from carriers ETO in the then prevailing weather and visibility conditions of the North Atlantic?
- Thread starter
- #37
GregP
Major
Fair enough back at you. Who knows? You could be correct.
I don't think the real behind-the-scenes political decision reasons will ever surface if they haven't after all this time. We know WHAT they did, but are speculating somewhat on WHY they did it. A lot of the folks who give talks at the museum on event days were there at the time, but active service pilots were probably not in the loop about the real reasons behind the decisions. Most decisions about military aircraft were made by people who didn't fly them and that still holds true today. It probably had more to do with how much money the aircraft manufacturer or their representative was willing to part with during a campaign or where the plane would be built, thus generating jobs in somebody's constituency who was in the decision-making loop.
I'm not a Washington insider, so I don't have the actual answer as to why they did what they did after WWII with the equipment used to win the war. I'm sure a lot of planes simply got scrapped in place, right where they ended the war. Why spend the money to get them home when you are just going to scap it anyway if you DO get it home? Dig a hole with a buldozer, push the planes in, cover it up, then scrap the buldozer or give it to the locals for construction work. In some cases, they may not have even unloaded the guns or drained the tanks!
I don't think the real behind-the-scenes political decision reasons will ever surface if they haven't after all this time. We know WHAT they did, but are speculating somewhat on WHY they did it. A lot of the folks who give talks at the museum on event days were there at the time, but active service pilots were probably not in the loop about the real reasons behind the decisions. Most decisions about military aircraft were made by people who didn't fly them and that still holds true today. It probably had more to do with how much money the aircraft manufacturer or their representative was willing to part with during a campaign or where the plane would be built, thus generating jobs in somebody's constituency who was in the decision-making loop.
I'm not a Washington insider, so I don't have the actual answer as to why they did what they did after WWII with the equipment used to win the war. I'm sure a lot of planes simply got scrapped in place, right where they ended the war. Why spend the money to get them home when you are just going to scap it anyway if you DO get it home? Dig a hole with a buldozer, push the planes in, cover it up, then scrap the buldozer or give it to the locals for construction work. In some cases, they may not have even unloaded the guns or drained the tanks!
Yes indeed. Actually their British equivalent, Gannet Is (later Hellcat Is) and Corsair IIs. The F4U-1, although supplied to the FAA in the USA never saw combat with the FAA; the British equivalent to the F4U-1A, the Corsair II was the first to go into combat. British Corsairs were different to their US counterparts in that they had reduced wingspans to fit into British carrier hangars, which had lower ceilings.
FlakDancer
Airman
- 23
- Mar 22, 2013
"No pervasive, national security "ideology" characterized U.S. military thinking in the early postwar period. The disorganization, misconceptions, and infighting that had disrupted the military services during the war continued well into the postwar period."
This is from this article which has little to do with the details often discussed in this forum, but was an overriding consideration in that era. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pollard.htm
It seems the Corsair was probably just of a more versatile airplane, and since the fighter world was headed toward the jet age, the Corsair's multi-role capacity won out. Also, the mindset may have also been that the Hellcat was made from scratch to kill Zero's – which it did in an astounding fashion.
The Hellcat vs the FW-190 is one of the more interesting "what if's" of the late war. Two fantasic sucessful planes banging heads, interesting indeed.
This is from this article which has little to do with the details often discussed in this forum, but was an overriding consideration in that era. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pollard.htm
It seems the Corsair was probably just of a more versatile airplane, and since the fighter world was headed toward the jet age, the Corsair's multi-role capacity won out. Also, the mindset may have also been that the Hellcat was made from scratch to kill Zero's – which it did in an astounding fashion.
The Hellcat vs the FW-190 is one of the more interesting "what if's" of the late war. Two fantasic sucessful planes banging heads, interesting indeed.
Glider
Major
As for the construction equipment the original idea was to bring it home as they were new, expensive and could be used in the USA post war. However the manufacturers said that it would bankrupt them as no one would buy new equipment with so much quality second hand gear for sale. It was different in Europe as the reconstruction work was massive and they needed all the equipment they could get their hands on.
As for war material of all sorts i believe most was taken to storage depots and either stored or scrapped in situ.
As for war material of all sorts i believe most was taken to storage depots and either stored or scrapped in situ.
