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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
I've not seen that attributed to the FAA air before, so maybe we should let them off that.
 
fannum said:
"There are lies, damned lies, and self-serving claims of having invented radio, television, the airplane, cowl flaps and the Internet ..."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.

don4331 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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........)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

A
Why did British aircraft production stagnate a bit during the war?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
The last dogfight of WWII
Replies
5
Views
2K
Gnomey
Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
12K
beers
C
B-29 Deployments to the Marianas - and the limits of AI
Replies
19
Views
1K
SaparotRob
Finish copy of the DH "Mosquito"
Replies
6
Views
490
Seppo
S
Menu
Log in
Register