The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair (1 Viewer)

[Ambaryerno]

So I've spotted another one I've seen reported: That the British were the ones who figured out to wire the upper cowl flaps closed to prevent fluid/oil splatter on the windscreen.

You know, other than...

Spirit of '76, c. June 1943 with the upper flaps replaced by a sheet.

Or this one I've seen dated to March, where you can see a sheet installed in place of the upper flaps on the two closest machines.

The first FAA Corsair squadrons weren't even formed and didn't begin training prior to July, but the sheet was clearly being used within only a month of the type entering combat.

Honestly, I haven't found a picture at all of a Corsair that still had the top flaps as described. I've only ever seen them replaced with the aluminum panel.

 

[fannum]

There are accounts of this being done for mid-30s SBC Helldivers and other radial Curtiss fighters of the time. Even if Curtiss didn't talk to Vought, they were maintained by the same Navy AD mechs, who didn't keep secrets.
I'd rack that up as more early examples of "fake news!"

 

[Steve Hnz]

So I've spotted another one I've seen reported: That the British were the ones who figured out to wire the upper cowl flaps closed to prevent fluid/oil splatter on the windscreen.

You know, other than...

View attachment 828238

Spirit of '76, c. June 1943 with the upper flaps replaced by a sheet.

Or this one I've seen dated to March, where you can see a sheet installed in place of the upper flaps on the two closest machines.

The first FAA Corsair squadrons weren't even formed and didn't begin training prior to July, but the sheet was clearly being used within only a month of the type entering combat.

Honestly, I haven't found a picture at all of a Corsair that still had the top flaps as described. I've only ever seen them replaced with the aluminum panel.

I've not seen that attributed to the FAA air before, so maybe we should let them off that.

 

[fannum]

I've not seen that attributed to the FAA air before, so maybe we shouYold let them off that.

"There are lies, damned lies, and self-serving claims of having invented radio, television, the airplane, cowl flaps and the Internet ..."

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

"There are lies, damned lies, and self-serving claims of having invented radio, television, the airplane, cowl flaps and the Internet ..."

Americans think of the Alaskas as "battle-cruisers" and call the Kongos "battleships", which is clearly wrong. The Brit call the Scharnhorsts "battleships" and the Alaskas "supercruisers", just as dubious. Hood is now a fast battleship, and the Iowas are perhaps a battle-cruiser iteration of the Montanas, according to one channel.

It's irritating. Depending on the source, something is super, or something is crap, and it's fairly predictable based on national origin rather than rational outline.

 

[Glider]

Personally
The Alaska are large cruisers and the Kongos always were Battlecruisers. The Scharnhorst was a battlecruiser that sacrificed firepower instead of protection for speed.
When built the Hood was a fast battleship with protection and firepower of the then current battleships, in the same way that the Iowa a generation or two later, were fast battleships with the protection and firepower of the current modern battleships.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Alaskas were large heavy cruisers. They did not carry a frontline USN grade battleship armament, which would've made them battlecruisers by most standards.
I think of them as battlecruisers 'cause battlecruiser sounds cool.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Alaskas were large heavy cruisers. They did not carry a frontline USN grade battleship armament, which would've made them battlecruisers by most standards.
I think of them as battlecruisers 'cause battlecruiser sounds cool.

I've changed my views on the Alaskas; I now think of them, too, as large cruisers, not because of armament, but because their torpedo defenses, such as they are, nowhere near approach BB requirements.

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
The book 'The Secret Years, Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939-1945' by Tim Mason, has some information relating to the testing of various marks of the Corsair, which may be of interest:

Mike

 

[don4331]

I've changed my views on the Alaskas; I now think of them, too, as large cruisers, not because of armament, but because their torpedo defenses, such as they are, nowhere near approach BB requirements.

Alaskas are capital ships: Cost $45.6M for Alaska versus $39.4M for Alabama; the guns are larger than were allowed by type a or b cruisers by treaty. Capital ships were either battlecruiser or battleships by treaty definition, pick which one you want to refer to refer to the Alaskas as. Their sacrificing armament and defense (belt/tds) for speed doesn't change the cost.

Otherwise, the Deutschland class are heavy cruisers aka type a cruisers. Note: Versailles didn't define a standard (pun intended) for displacement, so 10k tons light is within definition.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Alaskas are capital ships: Cost $45.6M for Alaska versus $39.4M for Alabama; the guns are larger than were allowed by type a or b cruisers by treaty. Capital ships were either battlecruiser or battleships by treaty definition, pick which one you want to refer to refer to the Alaskas as. Their sacrificing armament and defense (belt/tds) for speed doesn't change the cost.

Rights, but I don't rate ships by cost, but by functionality. The Alaskas are indeed capital ships, not by cost but by the fact that you'd better bring a lot of ass-whoop to get the drop. But in terms of design, they are no more battleships or battle-cruisers than the Des Moines -- deadly, to be sure, fast as anything, expensive as all get-out, but BBs? No. Battlecruisers? It's arguable.

Take for instance if Scharnhorst had survived to 1944. Scharnhorst has much better protection, is about 2 kts slower, and has guns not so capable though still very dangerous to Alaska. Radar suites for that year may be slanting to the USN, but German radar was good.

Yet the Brits who sank the Scharnhorst call her a "battleship" whereas they call Alaska a "supercruiser" or whatever. My point is not what the Alaska is, but why different people call her different things.

Otherwise, the Deutschland class are heavy cruisers aka type a cruisers. Note: Versailles didn't define a standard (pun intended) for displacement, so 10k tons light is within definition.

Agreed, they were overarmed heavy cruisers. But the Brits, in their press at least, sometimes referred to them as "pocket-battleships", for some reason, perhaps public consumption?

 

[R Leonard]

US Navy Alaska class designation was CB; that translates to Cruiser Large. Not unlike the Midway class aircraft carriers, designation CVB - Aircraft Carrier Large. The USN designation for a battle cruiser, as found for example in early documents for what became the Lexington class aircraft carriers was CC. Alaska class cruisers were never designated as CC, therefore, according to the USN, they were not battle cruisers, period, full stop.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

US Navy Alaska class designation was CB; that translates to Cruiser Large. Not unlike the Midway class aircraft carriers, designation CVB - Aircraft Carrier Large. The USN designation for a battle cruiser, as found for example in early documents for what became the Lexington class aircraft carriers was CC. Alaska class cruisers were never designated as CC, therefore, according to the USN, they were not battle cruisers, period, full stop.

The USN actively discouraged referring to them as such

 

[Shortround6]

The Alaska's armor used the same layout as the Baltimore/Salem, pretty much just with thicker plates.
Battleships tended to use more layers and compartments to delay shells, catch fragments and limit flooding.
They were not using a battleship armor/protection scheme scaled down.

 

[NTGray]

Americans think of the Alaskas as "battle-cruisers" and call the Kongos "battleships", which is clearly wrong. The Brits call the Scharnhorsts "battleships" and the Alaskas "supercruisers", just as dubious. Hood is now a fast battleship, and the Iowas are perhaps a battle-cruiser iteration of the Montanas, according to one channel.

Size matters (~30,000 tons) but armament is key. Alaska's guns were 12". Battleship guns used to be that size, but not since U.S.S. Arkansas (BB-33, commissioned 1912). Everything from U.S.S. New York (BB-34) and beyond had 14" (through BB-44) or 16" guns (BB-45 through BB-64). So Alaska's guns were too small to qualify her as a battleship, but too large to classify her as a heavy cruiser (which was defined by the 1930 London Treaty as having 8" guns). So the navy's decision to create a category called "large cruiser" made sense.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Size matters (~30,000 tons) but armament is key. Alaska's guns were 12". Battleship guns used to be that size, but not since U.S.S. Arkansas (BB-33, commissioned 1912). Everything from U.S.S. New York (BB-34) and beyond had 14" (through BB-44) or 16" guns (BB-45 through BB-64). So Alaska's guns were too small to qualify her as a battleship, but too large to classify her as a heavy cruiser (which was defined by the 1930 London Treaty as having 8" guns). So the navy's decision to create a category called "large cruiser" made sense.

The 12"/50s on Alaska had essentially the same penetrative ability as the 14"/50s on the California or Tennessee. Of course they were lighter, but with roughly the same capability to deliver explosives through armor.

 

[fannum]

Holy Hell!!!
I thought I might be hijacking the thread by referring to '30s non-Vought Navy birds that used cowl flap blanking ...
How did we get to CRUISER CLASSIFICATION!!!!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Holy Hell!!!
I thought I might be hijacking the thread by referring to '30s non-Vought Navy birds that used cowl flap blanking ...
How did we get to CRUISER CLASSIFICATION!!!!

Threads go feral all the time.

 

[GrauGeist]

To be honest, the majority of thread drift on this forum tends to be quite informative.

 

[WARSPITER]

Naval subjects do tend to involve drift and can become rudderless to and fro's. At least this drift doesn't need to be
propped up by any stern warnings, so those involved can take a bow.

(Wearing long johns so I don't need to be told to remember my coat on the way out........)