F4U in Europe (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

VA5124

Senior Airman
478
95
Apr 8, 2021
I'm wondering how the corsair would do in the ETO could it go toe to toe with the Germens ?
 
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.

I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.

That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
 
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.

I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.

That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
Thank for your oppinon sir i just wondered because I'm a huge fan of the Corsair she was the best of her time. She would have done very I think it had speed and a high ceiling and decent turning . What would hurt us though is the early ones didnt have cannon !!!!
 
Thank for your oppinon sir i just wondered because I'm a huge fan of the Corsair she was the best of her time. She would have done very I think it had speed and a high ceiling and decent turning . What would hurt us though is the early ones didnt have cannon !!!!
It would have been ideal for CAS during and after D-Day.
 
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.

The F4U-4 didn't arrive until late in the war. Deliveries began in early 1945.


I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.

900 mile range you stated above suggests that a ~1,200 mile round trip to Berlin may not be feasible.


That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.

The disposal of Lend Lease aircraft was, no doubt, part of the agreement.

I'm sure that the USAAF and USN would not want thousands of aircraft returned to them when they had more than sufficient aircraft in their inventories.
 
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.

I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.

That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
After VE and VJ day the world was full of aircraft no one wanted. Here is a picture of RAF Thruxton in May 1945, it says in the caption that they were returned to USA but many werent, just as Typhoons werent always returned from Germany. With Corsairs in the Pacific I think they wanted to clear the hangers for use as hospitals or similar, sorting out the mess of ex POWs and civilians in Singapore Hong Kong etc.

Thruxton-may45.jpg
 
I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us
As CAS it doesnt have to in Normandy, just give a good account of itself, even 6 x 0.5 mgs will ruin anyones day.
 
As CAS it doesnt have to in Normandy, just give a good account of itself, even 6 x 0.5 mgs will ruin anyones day.
if we would have sent them what fighter do you think would be the biggest threat to us
 
Could have been used in Project Danny by MAG 51, but the Army dryly rejected any USMC prominent role in the ETO...
 
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.

I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.

That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?

Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?
 
Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?

Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?
Not all. At least one squadron returned to the U.K. in 1946 to fly its aircraft ashore. After that who knows what happened to them. Those ashore in the U.K. probably joined all the other Lend Lease aircraft sold off to the scrapman. At least one survives to this day at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton.

 
Wasn't the terms of the Lend Lease agreement to either pay for them, scrap them, or return them?
The US didn't want them back, and the UK couldn't afford, nor want/need them anymore. So the problem was made to go away.

Reminds me of a story behind a local Hawker Hurricane on museum display. It was salvaged from a farmers field, who had purchased it post war, for only a few dollars no doubt, for the sole purpose of using it as a tractor tug around the farm. He removed the wings, and used a damned fighter plane to taxi around and pull a trailer. What a waste, but better than getting pushed off the side of a ship I suppose.
I used to work at an air museum that had a Bristol Bolingbroke on display, which was also recovered from a local farmer, who had used the fuselage as a chicken coop for 50 years. Was much cheaper than building a shed
 
Hi Wayne,

I wasn't saying I need agreement from anyone on disposal of Military equipment.

Disposal of Military hardware is a very sore subject with me and I could likely write a 100-page thread about it. Let's just say that not everyone agrees with things their government does. I'm one of them.
 
Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?

Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?
IIRC, one condition of Lend-Lease is that everything sent had to be returned (it was lent, after all) or destroyed.
 
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.

I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat.

I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?
 
I think we've been down this road before, the F4U is more along the lines of doing the Thunderbolts job but not really able to handle the Mustangs job. Range is one thing, altitude of ETO ops is another, I think drgondog drgondog addressed that in a post a couple of years ago, generally with the Mustang, you don't need the Corsair as it would have taken several modifications to do the job the P-51 was handling.

You have to take into account the speed (and altitude) you have to use getting to and from the targets in the Reich, not the same as slow cruise over the Pacific.

The Corsair was a great airplane, the best? Dunno about that.
 
I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?
Range increases to 1500 nautical miles max with just one 150 external fuel tank. They could carry two of this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back