Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
WOW! Ok that is a BIG cannon strike no doubts about that. Was it from a 20mm?
FAA Seafire vs Corsair
- Thread starter aircro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
WOW! Ok that is a BIG cannon strike no doubts about that. Was it from a 20mm?
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
The Russian GSh-30-1 strikes a pretty impressive balance of rate of fire, muzzle energy and total installed weight. Only real downside is that they wear out rapidly, but that never really seemed to bother the Russians.
Seems pretty hard to beat for a fighter cannon.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
No idea, but I would guess it was from some sort of anti-aircraft gun.
It looks about like the damage caused from a MK 108 mine shell
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
yah that would be my guess too. That is a lucky pilot.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
if you know of any images of Axis aircraft likely struck by 20mm Hispano please post 'em
Barrett
Senior Airman
FAA Hellcats tangled with 109s and 190s during Norway ops in early 44. Article expanded from my 1979 (!) F6F book.
When Hellcats Took the Fight to the Luftwaffe
For the intriguing matchup of 190s v Corsairs, see Eric Brown's excellent "Duels in the Sky."
When Hellcats Took the Fight to the Luftwaffe
For the intriguing matchup of 190s v Corsairs, see Eric Brown's excellent "Duels in the Sky."
Thumpalumpacus
Major
What a fine article! Thanks for posting it.
GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 753
- Mar 16, 2014
A point to note is that the USN, starting with the F4U-1C Corsair and continuing with the F4U-4B/E/N & F4U-5, the F8F-2 and the FJ-2 Fury - the 6 x .50 MG of the earlier versions of these aircraft were replaced by 4 x 20mm cannon - not 2 x 20mm & 2 x .50 mg.
I think 4 x 2mm cannon were initially fitted to P-51s.
GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 753
- Mar 16, 2014
The initial production of the Mustang was for the RAF - the Mustang 1, with 2 x .50 mg under the nose and 2 x .50 mg & 4 x .30 mg in the wings (the RAF had specified 2 x .50 mg & 4 x .30 mg, but NAA added bonus guns).
150 Mustang 1As (93 of which ended up with the USAAF as the P-51 {no variant letter} did have 4 x 20mm cannons... but these were British ordered aircraft - the USAAF never ordered any with the cannons.
Beginning in mid-1943, the RAAF fitted a Mustang I with a modified wing and two Vickers 40-millimeter "S" guns, one under each wing. The two 12.7-millimeter guns in the nose were retained in this configuration, but the wing armament was reduced to a single 7.62-millimeter gun in each wing. This particular weapons fit was not judged worth pursuing further, and no other Mustang ever featured it.
The P-51B/Cs had just 4 x .50 mg in the wings, but all other Mustangs had an armament of 6 x .50 mg (first 2 in the nose & 4 in the wings for the A-36/P-51A, then 6 in the wings for the P-51D/K) until the P-51H, which reverted to the 4 x .50 mg in the wings fit.
150 Mustang 1As (93 of which ended up with the USAAF as the P-51 {no variant letter} did have 4 x 20mm cannons... but these were British ordered aircraft - the USAAF never ordered any with the cannons.
Beginning in mid-1943, the RAAF fitted a Mustang I with a modified wing and two Vickers 40-millimeter "S" guns, one under each wing. The two 12.7-millimeter guns in the nose were retained in this configuration, but the wing armament was reduced to a single 7.62-millimeter gun in each wing. This particular weapons fit was not judged worth pursuing further, and no other Mustang ever featured it.
The P-51B/Cs had just 4 x .50 mg in the wings, but all other Mustangs had an armament of 6 x .50 mg (first 2 in the nose & 4 in the wings for the A-36/P-51A, then 6 in the wings for the P-51D/K) until the P-51H, which reverted to the 4 x .50 mg in the wings fit.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Excellent. And boy, this is pretty damning:
"Ian Cameron, a British naval aviator, lamented, "Between the first day of war and the last, the Fleet Air Arm received not one single British aircraft which wasn't either inherently unsuited for carrier work or was obsolete before it came into service."
Admiral Beez
Major
I can think of no circumstances where the Seafire would be preferred over the Corsair. The Corsair was introduced into USN service in December 1942, only a few months after the Seafire first enters RN fleet service. If through earlier lend lease or licensed production we could swap out every Seafire with a Corsair the FAA pilots and mechanics would be ecstatic. This would mean flying the Fulmar, Sea Hurricane and Martlet into 1943, so there is that.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
To be fair, it did take a while to work out best practices for the Corsair and fix a few of the teething issues, especially for Carrier use.
I think some would have been very helpful on Malta too, to be frank.
I think some would have been very helpful on Malta too, to be frank.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
A Group Build.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"a while" - Not really. Read "Jolly Rogers" written by Tom Blackburn, CO of VF-17, the second unit that received the Corsair. Blackburn details the timeline of when VF-17 received the first Corsairs, carrier trial and qualifications and modifications made to the aircraft (which were minimal). VF-17 was established January, 1943 and saw their first combat in October 1943, pretty remarkable for training up a new squadron with green pilots, getting new aircraft and deploying to the South Pacific. From what I got out of his book, it was a matter of logistics that kept the F4U from carrier operations rather than any operational issues that any other fighter of the period encountered when they first entered service.
Admiral Beez
Major
If you mean building them alongside the Spitfire, thus achieving economies of scale, then yes. Which brings us to one potential advantage the Seafire "could" have had over the Corsair, that of a much earlier introduction to service. There was nothing in the Seafire that entered service in 1942 that was not reasonably feasible in 1939, albeit with a less powerful and differently blown Merlin. Skip the Fulmar, threaten the future Sir Charles Fairey with nationalization of his firm if he persists with his Fulmar folly and force him and Vickers-Supermarine to get making Seafires. Will this be a detriment to the available Spitfires for the Battle of Britain? Perhaps, but the Seafires can join in the fight as well.
Last edited:
Except Corsairs folded won't fit in the 14ft high upper hangar in Indomitable nor both 14ft high hangars in the Implacables. Each wingtip had to be trimmed by 8" to allow Illustrious, Victorious and Formidable to carry them in their 16ft high hangars. It is why the RN standardised on 17ft 6in hangars on the Colossus and Audacious class carriers to match the USN Standard.
That is why Indomitable got Hellcats from mid-1944. And due to demand from the USN for Hellcats as the primary fighter for the Pacific carriers from late 1943, it quickly became clear to the FAA that the supply of Hellcats would be insufficient in 1944 to allow squadrons on Indefatigable and Implacable to be equipped with, and maintained on, Hellcats.
Don't be too sure about FAA preferences. When the first FAA pilots arrived at Quonset Point in mid-1943 is was to daily news of US pilots killing themselves in "the bent-winged bastard from Connecticut". On his first night there Norman Hanson, Senior Pilot in 1833 squadron, and his boss took a wander over to the squadron hangar to see their new mounts. After viewing them he went back to his quarters and typed his last will and testament!
The first FAA squadron received its Corsairs at Quonset Point on 1 June 1943 with another 7 following up to 1 Oct 1943. The first squadrons to see action were 1834 & 1836 on Victorious during the Operation Tungsten raid on Tirpitz on 3 April 1944, just over 7 & 8 months respectively after formation. 2 more squadrons on Illustrious in the Indian Ocean saw action later that month alongside aircraft from the USS Saratoga. Most of the aircrew were fresh from training, only squadron COs, Senior Pilots and flight commanders generally having some prior experience.
Yes. A deliberate choice in late 1943 to simplify the supply chain for the Fast Carrier Groups then building up. Things didn't change until Dec 1944 when the Kamikaze threat became so great as to force an increase in fighter numbers. Ultimately 10 USMC squadrons flew from the Essex class fast carriers in the first 6 months of 1945 until sufficient USN aircraft and pilot numbers could be built up to replace them. And a lot of the replacement air groups VF/VBF squadrons were flying Corsairs.
Admiral Beez
Major
That would present an issue. I see in these photos Corsairs aboard Indomitable, but perhaps they were not stowed below. Or the photo is mislabeled.
Frank Mitchell pictures - Ch 4 HMS Indomitable
Landings on HMS Indomitable, HMS Indomitable alongside, Avengers, Corsairs
www.frankmitchell-photographer-rn.co.uk
The photo was taken on Indomitable. The give away is the Mark V HACS atop the island and the SM-1 radar set at the front of the island. She was the only Illustrious class with those features. The SM-1 was fitted during her repair and refit at Norfolk NY that completed in May 1944. The funnel shows evidence of a camouflage scheme. So that dates it to before she arrived in the Indian Ocean in early July 1944. Her Hellcat squadrons were already based in Ceylon when she arrived as were her Barracuda squadrons.
There are photos of her with Avengers around this time which also were not part of her air group until Nov 1944.
So for me the photo is of Indomitable ferrying aircraft either from the US to the U.K. or from the U.K. to Ceylon between May and July 1944.
