What other fighters could have been made available to the marines at Battle of Midway

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


I suppose breaking up your military into command or services has advantages but it also has disadvantages this being one of them. The US Navy designed the perfect Marine Core aircraft.
 

Corsair would indeed have been a serious ungrade to the F2A-3. But according to wikipedia:

"The Navy entered into a letter of intent on 3 March 1941, received Vought's production proposal on 2 April and awarded Vought a contract for 584 F4U-1 fighters, which were given the name "Corsair", on 30 June of the same year. The first production F4U-1 performed its initial flight a year later, on 24 June 1942.."

IIRC, the first two F4U squadrons were actually ready for deployment toward the end of 1942. There was a recent forum thread that dealt with F4U production and squadron deployment readiness wrt to its potential for use in the European Theater as a bomber ecscort. IIRC, the conclusion was that in terms of numbers F4U's were roughly contemporary with the P-47/P-38 in that regard.

Siegfried said:
I suppose breaking up your military into command or services has advantages but it also has disadvantages this being one of them. The US Navy designed the perfect Marine Core aircraft.
Click to expand...

USMC fighter Pilots might say, It's about d*mned time! I believe the Midway battle was the last act in the dreadful USN practice of providing the USMC with castoff USN fighters, although in the case of the F4F-3, they were probably better off than with the "upgrade" to the F4F-4!
 
oldcrowcv63 said:
I believe the Midway battle was the last act in the dreadful USN practice of providing the USMC with castoff USN fighters, although in the case of the F4F-3, they were probably better off than with the "upgrade" to the F4F-4!
Click to expand...

Actually, in many respects the F4U was a cast-off. The USN didn't like operating it from carriers because of the long nose. VMF(N)-513 during the Korean War provides a post-war example of the cast-off mentality continuing, the unit being equipped with a hodge-podge of Tigercats, F4U-5Ns and F3D-2s.
 


Thanks for the perspective Buff!... In the case of the F4U, I'd imagine the USMC pilots said, "Throw us in that briar patch, PLEASE!"

I recall seeing images and film depicting those WWII designs in action over Korea, in USMC markings. Never thought about the fact that the USN was flying FH-1, FH-2 and F9F jets while the USMC was flying F4U and F7F. Of course the USN was still flying the AD-1 and F4U as well I believe. I thought the F3D, while not a stellar performer, was an effective night fighter. OTOH, it looked as if the USN was trying to get it right, just after the war, it introduced the FH-1 Phantom I to USMC Service with VMF-122, as its first jet fighter (VF-17A) within months of equipping its own pioneering squadron.

I wonder if it wasn't just the roles defining the aircraft? No one is reputed to do CAS as well as the USMC. It's their cultural paradigm. Much like dive bombing was for the USN right through Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
Corsair was not a cast off. The USN had a Corsair squadron ready to deploy and carrier ready but all the spares and maintenance personnel for Hellcats were already on their way to the Pacific and the Navy decided to keep the Corsair as a land based only fighter for the Marines and Navy until comparison tests showed that the F4U was a better carrier and landbased AC than the Hellcat at which time the Navy replaced as soon as practicable the Hellcat with the Corsair. The early Corsair had a number of issues which made it less suitable than the Hellcat for carrier duty and the long nose had little to do with it.
 
I found this very interesting document regarding the performance and combat attributes of the Hurricane, Spitfire, P38D, P39C, P39D, and P40E:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf

However, I have some reservations regarding the P39 and P40 performance as the USAAF seemed to be getting much better performance from these aircraft than seems to have been reported by pilots in combat or by RAE testing. I suspect that in some cases the P39/P40 were using unrealistically high boost levels and/or lighter weights than the combat versions used later. I don't doubt that the Hurricane would have trouble catching a B26 or A20 but the B25 does should not have been a problem for the Hurricane so I wonder what was happening there. Also the exact Hurricane and Spitfire variants tested are not stated.
 
Part of your wondering can be laid to rest by figuring what version of the B-25 they were using. The first ones (B-25 and B-25A--64 made) could do 315-320mph at 15,000ft. but they only had three .30 cal hand held guns (no top or bottom turrets) and a single .50 in the tail. The B-25B with the turrets isn't delivered until Aug of 1941. It is quite possible the B-25 used in the test was one of these early ones.
 
i think that the report when write B-25 and B-26 talking of the orginals B-25 (the first 24) and B-26 (the first 200)
 
Contrary to the mainstream, the B-25 B-26 went slower as the war progressed.
As SR6 noted, the added turrets MGs slowed the B-25, while the bigger wing, with bigger incidence, was doing the same to B-26.
 
If the corsair is out, about 6 months late for Midway, then my option would be the P39. at the altitudes that were faught at Midway, if USMC pilots were able to use the zoom and boom tactics that the flying tigers were already using in China, the P39 has a large top speed advantage over the zero. If a large quantity of p39s were stationed at Midway, operating from the land base there, I think that so long as they didn't dogfight the Japanese fighters in slow turning manouvers, the P39 would have made a vast difference. Although not considered very successful when used by the US in Europe, the P39 did gain some success in New Guinea, when helping to defend Port Morseby

Did the P39 have good range?
 
Last edited:
Looks like the P-39D (the contemporary mark) had about 100 miles less range than the P-40E and was the shortest legged of all army fighters according to America's Hundred Thousand. Don't know how many were based in Hawaii.

From: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_17.html

The 15th Pursuit Group's 47th Pursuit Squadron became active at Wheeler Field in Hawaii on December 21, 1941. One squadron should be no more than about 20+ aircraft. That would be enough a/c to make a difference and given the comparison of P-40(probably E mark) vs the P-39D described in RCAFson's post above, it would seem preferable however the roughly 10% shorter legs makes an already challenging ferry even more difficult. I've been thinking such a flght by any of the three available alternative fighters to be so difficult as to be out of consideration. Except of course by the F2A-3 which had a max range on a full bag of fuel comparable to the A6M!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
12
Views
1K
GregP
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
7
Views
943
Frog
F
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
MIflyer
M
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
5K
Holtzauge
S
Battle of Britain:
Replies
15
Views
1K
fubar57
Menu
Log in
Register