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

Nonskimmer · Jul 24, 2005

Yep, it was all that and tough as nails.

KraziKanuK · Jul 24, 2005

FLYBOYJ said:
the lancaster kicks ass said:

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

Click to expand...

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 · Jul 24, 2005

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

FLYBOYJ · Jul 24, 2005

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 · Jul 25, 2005

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

FLYBOYJ · Jul 25, 2005

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

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

plan_D · Jul 25, 2005

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 · Jul 25, 2005

plan_D said:
Christ, Flyboy, I hate you.

I know

the lancaster kicks ass · Jul 25, 2005

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

FLYBOYJ · Jul 25, 2005

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

cheddar cheese · Jul 25, 2005

In my opinon, it counts as quite versatile 8)

Nonskimmer · Jul 25, 2005

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

I'd say so, yeah.

plan_D · Jul 25, 2005

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

Nonskimmer · Jul 25, 2005

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 · Jul 26, 2005

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 · Jul 26, 2005

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 · Jul 26, 2005

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 · Jul 26, 2005

Would this make it "VERSATILE"?!?

evangilder · Jul 26, 2005

Probably, but it also makes it ugly!

FLYBOYJ · Jul 26, 2005

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

Captain

Banned

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Captain

Lieutenant Colonel

Captain

Lieutenant Colonel

Captain

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Attachments

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads