PDA

View Full Version : A historical question regarding the F4U/F6F...



Unknown_Target
11-29-2005, 05:41 AM
Sorry if this has been answered/done to death before, but it has always puzzled me as to why the USAAF never used the F4U or the F6F (or even the F4F) in the European theatre? It's not uncommon today for the two services to share aircraft, so why didn't they do it back then? Was it against policy or something?

BaldieJr
11-29-2005, 06:17 AM
The P51 was already doing a fine job of winning the war.

p1ngu666
11-29-2005, 06:56 AM
maybe the navy had the entire production tied up for them..

otherwise i dunno

WOLFMondo
11-29-2005, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Unknown_Target:
Sorry if this has been answered/done to death before, but it has always puzzled me as to why the USAAF never used the F4U or the F6F (or even the F4F) in the European theatre? It's not uncommon today for the two services to share aircraft, so why didn't they do it back then? Was it against policy or something?

My guess would be the P47, P38 and P51 were all doing fine. Adding 2 or 3 more aircraft into the mix would mean additional logistics, spares and supply chains for those aircraft, additional ground crew or training.

Also the F6F was designed to fight the Japanese at there own game. I bet it would have suffered against the much faster German aircraft.

MEGILE
11-29-2005, 07:32 AM
USN planes sucked... didn't take a genius to figure that out.

gx-warspite
11-29-2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
USN planes sucked... didn't take a genius to figure that out.
That's a little harsh, but essentially true.

The Grumman fighters, while they had stellar records in the Pacific, generally underperformed compared to their western front contemporaries, especially at high altitudes. Of course, this lack of performance didn't matter since they were generally facing mostly Zekes and Ki-43s for much of the war.

BSS_Goat
11-29-2005, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
USN planes sucked... didn't take a genius to figure that out.

I wonder if the IJN felt the same?

Sharpe26
11-29-2005, 08:16 AM
that's kind of odd, considering I read somewhere that the F4U was an attempt to bring carrier planes up to landbased planes performance.

berg417448
11-29-2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown_Target:
Sorry if this has been answered/done to death before, but it has always puzzled me as to why the USAAF never used the F4U or the F6F (or even the F4F) in the European theatre? It's not uncommon today for the two services to share aircraft, so why didn't they do it back then? Was it against policy or something?

My guess would be the P47, P38 and P51 were all doing fine. Adding 2 or 3 more aircraft into the mix would mean additional logistics, spares and supply chains for those aircraft, additional ground crew or training.

Also the F6F was designed to fight the Japanese at there own game. I bet it would have suffered against the much faster German aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Grummans did pretty well actually:


€œ€¦The F6F served with distinction in Europe as well. USN Hellcats flew missions over France in support of the Allied landings. During the invasion of southern France (operation Anvil-Dragon), Hellcats flying from the escort carriers Kasaan Bay and Tulagi (VF-71 and VFO-1) performed deep penetration attacks up to 100 miles inside France and flew CAP over the invasion fleet. Five Hellcats were lost to anti-aircraft fire. These same two squadrons also accounted for three Heinkel 111's and three JU-52 transports, shot down over France. They were denied an opportunity to engage German fighters, who fled at their approach. All 6 German aircraft were downed on August 19, 1944, D-Day +4.

The British used the F6F in significant numbers. The majority of these saw their only combat in the Pacific. However, Fleet Air Arm Hellcat I fighters achieved success against the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. Royal Navy Hellcat I's (F6F-3) were involved in escorting attacks on Tirpitz from April through August 1944. One of these missions, on May 8, 1944, the Luftwaffe came up to protect the battleship. Some #800 squadron Hellcats from HMS Emperor took on the German fighters and shot down 1 Fw-190 and two Bf-109G fighters. The Hellcats suffered one loss to the Luftwaffe and another to anti-aircraft fire. RN Sub/Lt. B. Richie got the Focke-Wulf and went on to total 6 kills, becoming one of only a few Royal Navy Hellcat aces.€

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Grumman.html



.
F4F info too

An export version of the F4F-3, powered by the Wright Cyclone R-1820, served with the British Fleet Air Arm (FAA), as the Martlet Mark I. Other Martlet versions included the Mark II, Mark III, and Mark IV. They served primarily on escort carriers in the Battle of the Atlantic. Among the notable achievements of FAA Martlet pilots was the downing of a four-engine Fw 200 Condor off Gibraltar in September, 1940.
A modified version of the U.S. Navy's F4F, the Grumman Model G-36A provided the Royal Navy with its first high-performance single-seat monoplane carrier fighter. Named "Martlet I" in British service, these 81 aircraft had originally been ordered by France and were taken over by the British after France surrendered. Powered by 1,240 horsepower Wright "Cyclone" radial engines, the first "Martlets" entered service in September 1940, and achieved the first "kill" for any American-built fighter in British service on Christmas day of that year, when a German Ju-88 was forced down near Scapa Flow.

€œIn March 1945 882 Squadron flying Wildcat IVs (FM-2s) engaged Bf-109Gs from III Gruppe/JG5. The outcome was one damaged Wildcat versus 4 destroyed Bf-109s.€

berg417448
11-29-2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Unknown_Target:
Sorry if this has been answered/done to death before, but it has always puzzled me as to why the USAAF never used the F4U or the F6F (or even the F4F) in the European theatre? It's not uncommon today for the two services to share aircraft, so why didn't they do it back then? Was it against policy or something?


Part of the reason is that the Army and the Navy did not get along....much like the Japanese Army and Navy. Politics....

WOLFMondo
11-29-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
These same two squadrons also accounted for three Heinkel 111's and three JU-52 transports, shot down over France. They were denied an opportunity to engage German fighters, who fled at their approach. All 6 German aircraft were downed on August 19, 1944, D-Day +4.


Truly impressive, clever use of artistic license. Now I wonder the real reason the German fighters didn't enter into a fight.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Estocade85
11-29-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Part of the reason is that the Army and the Navy did not get along....much like the Japanese Army and Navy. Politics....

Yeah that's pretty stupid, kinda like your balls not agreeing with your d!ck on a jailbait one-nighter. It's like...WTF?

berg417448
11-29-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
These same two squadrons also accounted for three Heinkel 111's and three JU-52 transports, shot down over France. They were denied an opportunity to engage German fighters, who fled at their approach. All 6 German aircraft were downed on August 19, 1944, D-Day +4.


Truly impressive, clever use of artistic license. Now I wonder the real reason the German fighters didn't enter into a fight.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Probably low on fuel.

redfeathers1948
11-29-2005, 10:53 AM
I believe it had to do with the type of powerplants best suited for respective T.O.'s and carrier operations. Most early war aircraft used liquid cooled inline cylindered type engines. The U.S.Navy looked at the big aircooled 'round' raidial engined aircraft as easier maintenance and better surviability chances over the vast stretches of ocean..I'm sure there were other consideration..political,econonomical, ect but I do recall reading something about powerplant type sometime back....

luftluuver
11-29-2005, 02:19 PM
The USN was looking at the P-51 and it did pass its carrier qualifying trials in 1944.