Corsair and Hellcat in Europe
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
Glider IIRC the F6F was barely operaztion in Dec 1943, ditto F4U-1A.. so the numbers available are about the same as the P-51B in ETO.
Second consideration is that the F4U-1A has more internal fuel than the P-47D-11 which was in theatre in Dec 1943 but small numbers. Its range was greater than the F6F and less than F4U-1A. All three less than P-38/P-51. The LW was sparring over the Lowlands but all the twins were basically pulling back from Holland/France in Dec 1943 to roughly a line from Dummer Lake to Frankfurt - and waiting out the Jugs. By definition they would pull back perhaps to Hanover/Stuttgart line for F4U-1A.
The FW 190A-7 and me 109G5/6 would have been an equal adversary to F4U-1A as they were to the P-47 at B-17/B-24 altitudes.
- Thread starter
- #103
GregP
Major
I believe the Corsair would generally out-perform the P-47 as a fighter below 30,000 feet. I was also under the impression that the B-17's and B-24's moved down from their service ceilings over Europe (to increase bombing accuracy) and bombed from the mid-20's, where the Corsair or Hellcat would have done just fine versus Axis fighters.
Greg, then if that's the case, so much the better for the F6F-5s, in terms of how I'd utilize them in the ETO. I'd be looking to them to blaze the trail, so to speak. Why not utilize that capability? The bombers would find where the bases were through the fighters they'd draw to them. We could have sent whole squadrons of F6Fs after those bases in advance of the later missions to address that intercepting aircraft at their root. There would have been a number of ways we could have systematically incorporated that dive-bombing capability into those missions, were we of the mind for it. Instead, we let those bases alone, and the Luftwaffe fighters racked up ace after ace for it. That's where I'm thinking on this question. The F6Fs wrecked the Japanese fleet while engaging and ducking that fire, and they could very well have done the same thing, here, I believe, with respect to those land bases, had they been available and so utilized.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
We have been over this a number of times before. Range or radius figures are pretty much useless unless they include altitude and speed.
According to the British Data card the F6F-5 was good for a RANGE (not radius) of 1115 miles carrying 333 Imp gallons of gas after making the following deductions. 5min take-off, climb to 20,000ft, 15 minutes combat at 20,000ft, and 20minutes at M.E.C.S. (Most Economical Cruising Speed) at 2,000ft. Speed for cruise was 237mph at 20,000ft which is just about useless for escorting bombers or even surviving in European skies.
Lets look at it another way, Hellcat takes-off on drop tanks (not really done) climbs to 20,000ft and heads into France for Germany. It gets bounced (or bounces the Germans) and drops tanks leaving FULL internal fuel of 250 US (208IMP) gallons. 15 minutes at Military power will burn about 70 US (59Imp?) gallons. Plane needs about 15-20 gallons reserve to find and land at home field. Our F6F has 160 US gallons to get home and it burns about 80-90 US gallons an hour at around 293mph at 20,000ft.
Actual combat radius is under 600 miles in European conditions. Maybe way under depending on take-off allowance and cruise speed and altitude on the way in and out and how long the 150 US gallon drop tank lasts on the climb and cruise in.
According to the British Data card the F6F-5 was good for a RANGE (not radius) of 1115 miles carrying 333 Imp gallons of gas after making the following deductions. 5min take-off, climb to 20,000ft, 15 minutes combat at 20,000ft, and 20minutes at M.E.C.S. (Most Economical Cruising Speed) at 2,000ft. Speed for cruise was 237mph at 20,000ft which is just about useless for escorting bombers or even surviving in European skies.
Lets look at it another way, Hellcat takes-off on drop tanks (not really done) climbs to 20,000ft and heads into France for Germany. It gets bounced (or bounces the Germans) and drops tanks leaving FULL internal fuel of 250 US (208IMP) gallons. 15 minutes at Military power will burn about 70 US (59Imp?) gallons. Plane needs about 15-20 gallons reserve to find and land at home field. Our F6F has 160 US gallons to get home and it burns about 80-90 US gallons an hour at around 293mph at 20,000ft.
Actual combat radius is under 600 miles in European conditions. Maybe way under depending on take-off allowance and cruise speed and altitude on the way in and out and how long the 150 US gallon drop tank lasts on the climb and cruise in.
- Thread starter
- #106
GregP
Major
C'mon, European condtions don't change the range or radius.
I have several references that disagree with one another. One says combat radius was 945 miles. Two more, now that I checked it, say combat range was 945 miles. A couple of others say combat range was 945 mile and absolute ferry range was 1,530 miles. Looking at it logically, if the radius is 945 miles, then the range is twice that, and the 1,530 miles would be a LOT more for a one-way trip.
I believe the range naysayers are right on this one. From almost any standpoint it looks like the 945 miles is probably range, not radius. That changes things a bit as far as an escort goes, but I still think it would have fared just fine in Europe as a fighter. It's fighting qualities were VERY good.
In the real world, the Hellcat first saw action in September 1943, so decent numbers probably weren't available until early 1944. They probably could not have been successfully deployed to both the ETO and PTO at the same time.
It would have been interesting though.
I have several references that disagree with one another. One says combat radius was 945 miles. Two more, now that I checked it, say combat range was 945 miles. A couple of others say combat range was 945 mile and absolute ferry range was 1,530 miles. Looking at it logically, if the radius is 945 miles, then the range is twice that, and the 1,530 miles would be a LOT more for a one-way trip.
I believe the range naysayers are right on this one. From almost any standpoint it looks like the 945 miles is probably range, not radius. That changes things a bit as far as an escort goes, but I still think it would have fared just fine in Europe as a fighter. It's fighting qualities were VERY good.
In the real world, the Hellcat first saw action in September 1943, so decent numbers probably weren't available until early 1944. They probably could not have been successfully deployed to both the ETO and PTO at the same time.
It would have been interesting though.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
There were versions of the Mosquito for use on carriers. They arrived too late for WW2, and had their orders cut.
Size wise the Mosquito had the same wing span and was slightly longer than the Avenger. It did weigh quite a bit more, however.
It was much the same size and weight as the F7F.
FlakDancer
Airman
- 23
- Mar 22, 2013
This article here should shed some insight into the range -- radius issue with the F6F-5. I am not a real world pilot but I think this will help clarify the issue. Seems like some great info! http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Yes they do.
A lot of the Navy ranges are figured at 180-200mph at altitudes of 5,000-15,000ft. Cruising conditions that are not only useless for escorting bombers but guaranteed to set up the fighter flying that way to be bounced with the most possible benefit to the German attacker. Not to mention being a practice target for every flak battery in range.
You can fly at those speeds and altitudes in the Pacific as there is nothing under you but water and the Japanese held Islands and air bases are pretty well known.
Try checking the range chart here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5.pdf
over 900 N. miles at a cruising speed of 180 knots but at at 260kts the range has dropped to 600 N. miles. At 280 knts the range is under 500 N. Miles and that is with the 150 gallon drop tank and at 15,000ft.
The Army figured combat radius at 25,000ft at 210mph IAS or a bit over 300 mph true airspeed.
Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it.
How's that?
How's that?
- Thread starter
- #111
GregP
Major
Nah, European conditions don't change range. And the bombers cruised at 180 - 200 mph. A Hellcat has NO problem cruising at 250 mph.
If the Hellcats were already at high altitude, they could see the enemy coming in and were MUCH faster accelerating than P-51's were.
It would have done just fine.
If the Hellcats were already at high altitude, they could see the enemy coming in and were MUCH faster accelerating than P-51's were.
It would have done just fine.
Last edited:
But not if it happens that a bomb centers a tank ...... rarely seen on the airports nowadays, expecially in winter, I have to admit......
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
The USN Naval Combat statistics gives a 19:1 aerial claims to loss ratio for the Hellcat and an 11:1 ratio for the Corsair. An exceptional performance. Even including losses to AAA does little to blunt their success. The Hellcat goes to better than 6 to 1, the Corsair to better than 4:1
I'd posit that these aircraft would have much reduced, but still positive, kill/loss rates over the ETO.
Here's my reasoning:
The Hellcat/Corsair's success in the PTO was the result of a number of exceptional circumstances.
1. The primary Japanese fighter types - the A6M and the Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-44 - in 1943/1944 were significantly outperformed. The USN types had speed advantages of 30-40 mph at most heights, and generally even more significant margins of performance at higher altitudes.
2. When better Japanese fighters - Ki-84, J2M, N1K1-J - did become availabe, progressively through mid-1943 to the beginning of 1945, the Japanese had neither the necessary production capacity or the pilot cadre available to take advantage of this. In comparison, the USN may have produced the finest body of trained combat pilots of any air force of the war, with the possible caveat of the Germans in 1939-1941 and the Finns.
I present the FM-2 as evidence to support my case. This diminuitive and obsolescent (but not obsolete) fighter scored an impressive kill/loss ratio of 17.5 to 1, even though it was generally out-performed by the Japanese types.
3. The Japanese kamikazi fixation - while an effective tactic against ships - meant that a large number of non-defending targets were presented to USN aviators in the closing nine months of the war. This was so much the case that at battles such as Leyete, FM-1/2s reported running out of ammunition (430 rpg, or 35 seconds trigger time) when attacking kamikazes.
4. The lack of a dense AAA envelope in comparison to Europe. In shooting down 9291 Japanese aircraft, 1982 USN/Marine aircraft were lost to AAA, of which 988 lost were fighters, or just under half. This give us a rough ratio of nine claims per loss to AAA.
In comparison, the USAAF lost 2,449 fighters to AAA in the ETO, in exchange for 7422 kills claimed. A ratio of three claims per loss to AAA.
Even if we posit that the USN birds were significantly more rugged and resistant to ground fire than the P-51 and P-38, and roughly similar to the P-47, I still believe that there would have been significantly more losses to ground fire in Europe.
Pt 2 in next post
I'd posit that these aircraft would have much reduced, but still positive, kill/loss rates over the ETO.
Here's my reasoning:
The Hellcat/Corsair's success in the PTO was the result of a number of exceptional circumstances.
1. The primary Japanese fighter types - the A6M and the Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-44 - in 1943/1944 were significantly outperformed. The USN types had speed advantages of 30-40 mph at most heights, and generally even more significant margins of performance at higher altitudes.
2. When better Japanese fighters - Ki-84, J2M, N1K1-J - did become availabe, progressively through mid-1943 to the beginning of 1945, the Japanese had neither the necessary production capacity or the pilot cadre available to take advantage of this. In comparison, the USN may have produced the finest body of trained combat pilots of any air force of the war, with the possible caveat of the Germans in 1939-1941 and the Finns.
I present the FM-2 as evidence to support my case. This diminuitive and obsolescent (but not obsolete) fighter scored an impressive kill/loss ratio of 17.5 to 1, even though it was generally out-performed by the Japanese types.
3. The Japanese kamikazi fixation - while an effective tactic against ships - meant that a large number of non-defending targets were presented to USN aviators in the closing nine months of the war. This was so much the case that at battles such as Leyete, FM-1/2s reported running out of ammunition (430 rpg, or 35 seconds trigger time) when attacking kamikazes.
4. The lack of a dense AAA envelope in comparison to Europe. In shooting down 9291 Japanese aircraft, 1982 USN/Marine aircraft were lost to AAA, of which 988 lost were fighters, or just under half. This give us a rough ratio of nine claims per loss to AAA.
In comparison, the USAAF lost 2,449 fighters to AAA in the ETO, in exchange for 7422 kills claimed. A ratio of three claims per loss to AAA.
Even if we posit that the USN birds were significantly more rugged and resistant to ground fire than the P-51 and P-38, and roughly similar to the P-47, I still believe that there would have been significantly more losses to ground fire in Europe.
Pt 2 in next post
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Pt 2 - Operations in Europe
1. Unlike in the Pacific, the primary 1943-1945 German fighter types - the 190A5/6/8/9, the 190D9 and the 109G6/10/14 and 109K-4 - have little or no performance deficit to the USN types. At some altitude bands and in terms of some aircraft/flight characteristics, they have advantages over the USN types,
Therefore, the crushing superiority in speed, high speed acceleration, dive rate, controllability at high speeds, armament, communications technology, engine performance and build quality that the USN aircraft possessed through much of 1943-1945 evaporates.
2. The quality of German pilots, while declining through 1943/1944, never fell to the sort of low ebb that the Japanese experienced. There was a notable decline in German pilot training hours from early-ish 1944, but not to the extent that the Japanese were scrabbling for pilots.
3. Germany was able to mount strong numerical opposition through-out all of 1943 and most of 1944. Unlike the Japanese, they rarely hoarded fighters for single battles and provided heavy, continual opposition until mid to late 1944. Even after this, they were still capable of heavy blows.
4. The German air defence network was significantly more advanced than the Japanese network, allowing Luftwaffe pilots and commanders to gain local tactical advantages that their Japanese counterparts could only rarely possess. The German command and control set-up was also excellent.
Pt 3 in next post
1. Unlike in the Pacific, the primary 1943-1945 German fighter types - the 190A5/6/8/9, the 190D9 and the 109G6/10/14 and 109K-4 - have little or no performance deficit to the USN types. At some altitude bands and in terms of some aircraft/flight characteristics, they have advantages over the USN types,
Therefore, the crushing superiority in speed, high speed acceleration, dive rate, controllability at high speeds, armament, communications technology, engine performance and build quality that the USN aircraft possessed through much of 1943-1945 evaporates.
2. The quality of German pilots, while declining through 1943/1944, never fell to the sort of low ebb that the Japanese experienced. There was a notable decline in German pilot training hours from early-ish 1944, but not to the extent that the Japanese were scrabbling for pilots.
3. Germany was able to mount strong numerical opposition through-out all of 1943 and most of 1944. Unlike the Japanese, they rarely hoarded fighters for single battles and provided heavy, continual opposition until mid to late 1944. Even after this, they were still capable of heavy blows.
4. The German air defence network was significantly more advanced than the Japanese network, allowing Luftwaffe pilots and commanders to gain local tactical advantages that their Japanese counterparts could only rarely possess. The German command and control set-up was also excellent.
Pt 3 in next post
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Ok, enough playing devil's advocate.
I believe the Corsair and the Hellcat could have been successful replacements for the USAAF fighter types in 1943-1945, but they may have suffered somewhat heavier losses and might have forced the USAAF heavies to fight at slightly lower altitudes.
They posses advantages when it comes to ruggedness and general maneouverability and control harmony (broadly tying with the P-47 in the last two categories). Have a look at the P-51B vs F4U-1 trials Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes (Although the USN bent the rules a little by running the Corsair at higher than normal boost).
Firepower is broadly similar, although the gun setups in the Navy aircraft were slightly more reliable than in the P-51D and much more reliable than in the P-51B/C.
They possess a performance disadvantage compared to the USAAF types above about 25,000 ft. The Hellcat is generally a 390-395 mph bird, the early F4Us about a 400-410 mph bird. With the two-speed, two stage Merlin powered P-51 and the turbosupercharged engines in the P-38 and P-47, high altitude combat was tailor made to the USAAF fighters, to go alongside the high altitude bombing campaign.
At the high altitudes of the European air war, I feel that the Navy fighters may have been roughly comprable to the main German fighter types, while the USAAF types were generally superior, or a least had a greater margin of performance. Apart from the P-38, the USAAF types had better dive performance and high speed performance.
I feel that the F6F could probably have subsitiuted for the P-38, and was probably a superior fighter bomber and fighter at medium altitudes. The F4U could have probably substituted for the P-47 - it would have made a better escort bomber and the two are within shades of each other in the fighter bomber stakes. The P-51B/C/D was probably the fighter of choice in Europe, particularly one the feed and wing/gear problems were fixed. I don't think either Navy type would have been a superior replacement in the long-range, high altitude escort role, which was the dominant mission type for about 18 months.
I believe the Corsair and the Hellcat could have been successful replacements for the USAAF fighter types in 1943-1945, but they may have suffered somewhat heavier losses and might have forced the USAAF heavies to fight at slightly lower altitudes.
They posses advantages when it comes to ruggedness and general maneouverability and control harmony (broadly tying with the P-47 in the last two categories). Have a look at the P-51B vs F4U-1 trials Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes (Although the USN bent the rules a little by running the Corsair at higher than normal boost).
Firepower is broadly similar, although the gun setups in the Navy aircraft were slightly more reliable than in the P-51D and much more reliable than in the P-51B/C.
They possess a performance disadvantage compared to the USAAF types above about 25,000 ft. The Hellcat is generally a 390-395 mph bird, the early F4Us about a 400-410 mph bird. With the two-speed, two stage Merlin powered P-51 and the turbosupercharged engines in the P-38 and P-47, high altitude combat was tailor made to the USAAF fighters, to go alongside the high altitude bombing campaign.
At the high altitudes of the European air war, I feel that the Navy fighters may have been roughly comprable to the main German fighter types, while the USAAF types were generally superior, or a least had a greater margin of performance. Apart from the P-38, the USAAF types had better dive performance and high speed performance.
I feel that the F6F could probably have subsitiuted for the P-38, and was probably a superior fighter bomber and fighter at medium altitudes. The F4U could have probably substituted for the P-47 - it would have made a better escort bomber and the two are within shades of each other in the fighter bomber stakes. The P-51B/C/D was probably the fighter of choice in Europe, particularly one the feed and wing/gear problems were fixed. I don't think either Navy type would have been a superior replacement in the long-range, high altitude escort role, which was the dominant mission type for about 18 months.
Okay, take this a step further and lose all extraneous carrier gear from the F4U and F6F. Redesign the wings without the wing fold mechanisms etc; possibly lighten the undercarriages slightly? Possibly cut down the rear fuselage and add blown canopies? How much weight would be saved?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/FG-1A_14575.pdf
Performance test on cleaned up F4U-1 w/water injection:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf
F6F-3 and -5
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-42874.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/FG-1A_14575.pdf
Performance test on cleaned up F4U-1 w/water injection:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf
F6F-3 and -5
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-42874.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf
Shortround6
Major General
Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it.
How's that?
Not concluding that it is useless, just that it won't do what some people think it will. Hellcat holds 250 gallons of fuel for it's R-2800 while a P-47 holds 305 gallons to start with. The two planes are just about equal in speed at 5,000 ft or so ( or with in a couple %) on equal power so they have about the same drag. Why do people think the Hellcat can fly further?
If you fly the P-47 the same way the Navy flew the Hellcat for range you get about the same or better range. P-47 is supposed to fly 880 miles on 265 gallons of internal fuel at 200-205mph IAS at altitudes from sea level to 12,000ft.
Since it was considered very short legged in Europe why would the Hellcat be considered longer ranged?
We are also changing the game from what would happen if you substituted the Hellcat for plane XXX in Europe to what would happen if you had hundreds of extra fighters/fighter bombers in Europe at the time in question.
drgondog
Major
Both the F6F and F4U-1A would have been excellent and I would have personally preferred the F4U-1A over any version of the P-47D until the -25, and definitely the F4U-4... but they wouldn't have been available to both the PTO and ETO/MTO in numbers of significance..
Just like the P-51B didn't flood the PTO to replace the P-40.
drgondog
Major
Ok, enough playing devil's advocate.
I believe the Corsair and the Hellcat could have been successful replacements for the USAAF fighter types in 1943-1945, but they may have suffered somewhat heavier losses and might have forced the USAAF heavies to fight at slightly lower altitudes.
You jumped back in the hypothetical. The USN was not going to give up ANY F6F and fall back on F4F, ditto F4U-1 and -1A in late 1943. There just weren't any availabe. At the end of the day, they didn't have the effective operational ranges to exceed the P-47 except for Ferry and extraordinary missions which didn't have a probability of forced ejection of external fuel.
They posses advantages when it comes to ruggedness and general maneouverability and control harmony (broadly tying with the P-47 in the last two categories). Have a look at the P-51B vs F4U-1 trials Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes (Although the USN bent the rules a little by running the Corsair at higher than normal boost).
Also notable in those trials was not only the Boost due to WI, but a.) the special surface prep for the 02930 yielding 8 kts improved 8kts speed via drag reduction and b.) doing the speed trails for the P-51B-7 at 9453 pounds GW at takeoff rather than at the 9100 stated in the report. That is Significant disadvantage for turn and climb. It would have been interesting if the USN chose to run the same Corsairs over the same conditions with the P-51B-7 version that had the 1650-7 and capable of 75" for WEP - particularly in climb and acceleration. The net of the report is "Do Not recommend this fighter". Interestingly, 9 months later at the Patuxant Fighter Conference hosted at Patuxent River NAS, the P-51D was rated over the F4U and F6F and P-47 and P-38 as Best Fighter under 25,000 feet.
Having said that, the F4U was better choice for USN independent of the performance.
Firepower is broadly similar, although the gun setups in the Navy aircraft were slightly more reliable than in the P-51D and much more reliable than in the P-51B/C.
No proof points in evidence for P-51D vs F4U..
They possess a performance disadvantage compared to the USAAF types above about 25,000 ft. The Hellcat is generally a 390-395 mph bird, the early F4Us about a 400-410 mph bird. With the two-speed, two stage Merlin powered P-51 and the turbosupercharged engines in the P-38 and P-47, high altitude combat was tailor made to the USAAF fighters, to go alongside the high altitude bombing campaign.
Agreed and USAAF wasn't going to tailor missions to the support altitude.
At the high altitudes of the European air war, I feel that the Navy fighters may have been roughly comprable to the main German fighter types, while the USAAF types were generally superior, or a least had a greater margin of performance. Apart from the P-38, the USAAF types had better dive performance and high speed performance.
I feel that the F6F could probably have subsitiuted for the P-38, and was probably a superior fighter bomber and fighter at medium altitudes. The F4U could have probably substituted for the P-47 - it would have made a better escort bomber and the two are within shades of each other in the fighter bomber stakes. The P-51B/C/D was probably the fighter of choice in Europe, particularly one the feed and wing/gear problems were fixed. I don't think either Navy type would have been a superior replacement in the long-range, high altitude escort role, which was the dominant mission type for about 18 months.
The F4U-1A and F4U-4, IMO are superior choices over any F6F-3 and -5 for ETO. I'm not sure about MTO as altitudes tended lower because the B-24 was primary bomber for 15th on a 2:1 basis.
There is no question in my mind that these primary USN fighters, designed to protect the fleet, are outstanding fighter/fighter aircraft that would do just as well as the P-51 in ETO - but not as well at Berlin and Brux because they weren't coming home if they went there.
drgondog
Major
Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it.
How's that?
Won't happen any better than the P-47... They were flying the same escort profile, Namely Penetration and Withdrawal - then hand off to P-51/P-38. The P-47 ground scores were less than half of the P-51 in the ETO because the primary bases for LW were deep in Germany where they could fly to points within Germany in high numbers to R/V at the attack point with the bombers. The F6F doesn't get near them - only the Western defense line - which is where the P-47 lived and was superior in performance from 25000 and up.
