Escort Carriers and fighters

[diddyriddick]

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]

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]

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

 

[comiso90]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks machine shop tom - I stand corrected.

MM

 

[machine shop tom]

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]

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