Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIB vs. Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat

[Nonskimmer]

Yep, it was all that and tough as nails.

 

[KraziKanuK]

i wouldn't really call the F4F that versatile..........

Fleet fighter, night fighter, ground attack, land-based fighter bomber (used by the Marines) - used through-out the war even though considered obsolete - if that's not versatile, I dont know what is

It could not carry a Tall Boy or a Grand Slam.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that is true, and tell me, exactly how much modification did she need for those roles??

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very little - as a matter of fact the only major differences between the early models was the wing fold mechanisms, the armament which went from 4 to 6 .50s, and better self-sealing tanks and armor were incorporated in the F4F-4. The Later model FM-2 had a larger Vertical stabilizer.

 

[plan_D]

She wasn't versatile, she was just a remarkable and under-rated fighter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

She wasn't versatile, she was just a remarkable and under-rated fighter.

versatile/ remarkable/ under-rated - whatever?!? She kicked ass!

 

[plan_D]

Versatile means capable of various different roles! The Ju-88, Mosquito, P-38 and Fw-190 were versatile, the F4F/FM-2 was just good!

Christ, Flyboy, I hate you.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Christ, Flyboy, I hate you.

I know

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah i cirtainly wouldn't say she was versatile........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Fighter, Fighter-bomber, Reconnaissance, ASW, - does 4 different roles count as versatile

 

[cheddar cheese]

In my opinon, it counts as quite versatile 8)

 

[Nonskimmer]

Fighter, Fighter-bomber, Reconnaissance, ASW, - does 4 different roles count as versatile

I'd say so, yeah.

 

[plan_D]

No it doesn't because they're the jobs of any fighter.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Which would make any such fighters just as versatile, if they were capable of ASW and fighter-bombing. The fact is, it could perform all of those rolls which makes it versatile. It could be used in any number of rolls.
That's like saying the Chinook isn't versatile because it does transport, heavy lifting, and in the odd case SAR. Those are the jobs of any helicopter, but it doesn't make them any less versatile.

 

[plan_D]

Then every single aircraft and helicopter is versatile. Which would just waste the word "versatile".

The F4F could be used in the roles of a fighter, which every fighter could do. The Chinook being able to do transport and heavy lifting doesn't make it versatile because it involves the exact same actions.

 

[Nonskimmer]

All depends on how you choose to use that wonderful word "versatile" then I guess.
It means basically to have many uses or switching readily from one subject to another, so I think it's use here is proper enough.

But what the hell do I know, I'm no English major.

 

[evangilder]

Considering that in the Pacific in the early years, there was very little else that was up to the job, I would say the Wildcat performed very well.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would this make it "VERSATILE"?!?

 

[evangilder]

Probably, but it also makes it ugly!

 

[FLYBOYJ]