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?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.I think a 30 mm Aden or equivalent is probably better for aircraft.
No idea, but I would guess it was from some sort of anti-aircraft gun.WOW! Ok that is a BIG cannon strike no doubts about that. Was it from a 20mm?
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
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."
I think 4 x 2mm cannon were initially fitted to P-51s.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.
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."
A Group Build.I can think of no circumstances where the Seafire would be preferred over the Corsair.
"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.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.
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.A Group Build.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Except Corsairs folded won't fit in the 14ft high upper hangar in Indomitable....
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.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, Corsairswww.frankmitchell-photographer-rn.co.uk