Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 86

Thread: WWII Fighter Comparison II Corsair v Mustang.

  1. #61
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Yes, but the Soccer War is hardly proof. Like I said the F4U shot down more F4U's in that war than it did P-51s.
    Because there were more F4Us than there were P-51s. Only 8 P-51s in country and after one was shot down they didn't fly the rest.

  2. #62
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Bunker Hill wasn't sunk. She survived the war and was sold for scrap in 1973..

    Yorktown (CV-5) Was sunk by torpedo while being towed after Midway.

    Lexington received 2 torpedoes and 3 bombs. DC had righted her and put the fires out , and she was ready to take on aircraft when fuel vapors exploded below deck. The Navy put 2 torpedoes in her to sink the ship.

    Wasp was sunk by submarine torpedoes.

    The Hornet was sunk by japanese Destroyers. After the US Navy had tried to sink her with 9 torpedo's and around 400 rounds of 5".


    No fleet carriers were sunk by air action alone.

    The Princeton (CVL-23) St Lo (CVE-63) Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) and Bismark Sea (CVE-95) were sunk by aerial bombs or Kamikaze
    Langley was a converted collier. Then converted to a seaplane tender. No longer a Aircraft Carrier. She was also scuttled.

    Princeton (Indy class) was a stopgap measure that took the Sagamon design and put it on a light cruiser hull. The CVEs were purposely designed and built with only splinter protection. Thats how they laid down, built and commissioned 50 of them in less than 2 years

    Your examples say nothing about any advantage of the armored flight deck concept. Nor were the RN carriers
    My mistake on Wasp, the others I mnetioned however were rendered useless as weapons of war by air power.

  3. #63
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    But it was the torpedoes that put them out of action not bombs.

    The armored hanger deck vice flight deck played no part in being rendered useless.

    It was shown, in after war studies, that a carrier with a armored flight deck took longer to get back into action than one where the armor was on the hanger deck.

    The wood covered light steel flight decks could be repaired quickly compared to a damaged armored flight deck. All the British armored deck carriers were scrapped soon after the war. The British experience during Okinawa showed that having the flight deck armored meant that, what would otherwise be light damage for an American Carrier, caused major structural damage.

    Armored flight decks also limited the number of planes that the ship could carry (less fighting ability) Where the lusty class could carry 57 planes and the Implacable class carried 81 the Essex class carried 100. (Lex 110). The Essex class served into the 1970s as front line carriers and until 91 as a training carrier.

    People often cite the advantage of the british design and armored flight decks. But they fail to noth that the Japanes also built Carriers with armored flight decks. Didn't work out too good for them.

    Stuart Slade wrote a good piece about the subject.

    Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 30 Mar 11, at 04:10.

  4. #64
    Senior Contributor clackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Nov 07
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    810
    Rightly or wrongly, the experiences of armoured flight decks led to Japanese and (to this day) all American carriers adopting them too, Gun Grape.

    It is a divisive issue, and while the opinion pieces you've quoted are very interesting, I'd also suggest to people the wikipedia summary on the subject:

    Armoured flight deck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by clackers; 30 Mar 11, at 05:36.

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,924
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Just one really big one called Great Britain....

    How many jets did the Corsair shoot down?
    How many 800 miles one way missions did the Corsair fly?
    Okay, lets play this game....

    How many ships did the Mustang sink?

    How many aircraft did the Mustang shoot down as a configured night fighter?

    You are missing my overall point.

    It is not a valid comparison of aircraft because they were designed from the start for 2 different missions. That the Corsair was able to operate very effectively from land bases is a plus and got it into operation sooner.

    And it didn't need to go on 800 mile missions because the carriers moved closer.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  6. #66
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    But it was the torpedoes that put them out of action not bombs.

    Bunker Hill was a kamikaze plus bomb attack. USS Lexington took two torps- by your own admission a less than effective weapon but three bomb hits that started raging fires. USS Yorktown likewise took three bomb hits that crippled her ability to defend herself when the second attack came in. The USS Enterprise was knocked out of the war by a flight deck hit kamikaze. The USS Hornet took 3 bomb hits 2 semi-kamikaze and 2 torps.

    The Intrepid, Essex, Frnaklin, Ticonderoga each lost months of service to flight deck hits.

    The armored hanger deck vice flight deck played no part in being rendered useless.
    The HMS Illustyrious suffered two kamikaze hits to her deck and remained in action, it was a third attack a near miss below the waterlien that did more damage. She also served until 1954. HMS Formidable also took two hits and stayed in operation. The dent in her flight deck being filled in with concrete. HMS victorious was hit at least once and remained in operation and served until 1968. Finbnally the last ship in the class Indomitable was also hit and remained in operation. All four ships in the class got hit and not one got knocked out by a flight deck hit.

    It was shown, in after war studies, that a carrier with a armored flight deck took longer to get back into action than one where the armor was on the hanger deck.
    Really, the RN ships were back in action usually within a few hours sicne there was less risk of fire. Just mix up some concrete. The US ship listed above never saw combat again adfter the last hits. The Big E managed to get back in the fight after an earlier attack, but was then laid up for months being repaired- no just mixing concrete for her.

    The wood covered light steel flight decks could be repaired quickly compared to a damaged armored flight deck. All the British armored deck carriers were scrapped soon after the war. The British experience during Okinawa showed that having the flight deck armored meant that, what would otherwise be light damage for an American Carrier, caused major structural damage.
    Strange, thats not what the history shows.

    Armored flight decks also limited the number of planes that the ship could carry (less fighting ability) Where the lusty class could carry 57 planes and the Implacable class carried 81 the Essex class carried 100. (Lex 110). The Essex class served into the 1970s as front line carriers and until 91 as a training carrier.
    The Essex is not a treaty carrier. When comparign the treaty carriers, the British lost zero to bomb hits on the flight deck the US lost all or part of 7 (of 8 she had)

    People often cite the advantage of the british design and armored flight decks. But they fail to noth that the Japanes also built Carriers with armored flight decks. Didn't work out too good for them.
    The IJN had two armoed deck carrier classes a converted Yamato class BB and the taiho class both sunk before becoming operation to damage that should not have sunk them if there had been full crews fully trained in damage control.

    Stuart Slade wrote a good piece about the subject.

    Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?
    Its a hit piece.

  7. #67
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Okay, lets play this game....

    How many ships did the Mustang sink?
    Actually quite a few either directly or as escorts for those who did. it was used by RAF coastal Command and by the USAAF in CBI in an anti-shipping role.

    How many aircraft did the Mustang shoot down as a configured night fighter?
    The F-82 twin Mustang was equipped to do it, but North Korea didn't like to fly at night except for small bi-planes.

    You are missing my overall point.

    It is not a valid comparison of aircraft because they were designed from the start for 2 different missions. That the Corsair was able to operate very effectively from land bases is a plus and got it into operation sooner.
    No, the Mustang was in combat in Feb 42 more than a year before the F4U

    And it didn't need to go on 800 mile missions because the carriers moved closer.
    Wait what...... so its better to drag a few thousand men closer to danger than to give the fighter longer range....

    I understand the two are different in some ways, hell I prefer the F4U. But they are similar in others so its a valid comparison.

  8. #68
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,924
    The F-82 was based on the Mustang but was not a Mustang...that is going a little too far afield.

    You mistook my comment about the Corsair fighting from land getting it into combat sooner. By fighting from land it got into the fight sooner than waiting for the settlement of the carrier issue. Wasn't claiming it got into combat sooner than the Mustang. Of course it wasn't US units which got the Mustang into combat first and they were nto overly impressed with it as the NA-73.

    Ahhh, yeah, carriers sail into harms way...that's way navies have them. If they didn't they would be useless.

    And again you miss my point of the two aircraft...I am not saying one is better than the other. I am saying they can not be compared because they were designed and built for 2 totally different functions....long range escort and fleet defense.

    And as it comes down to it neither is my favorite anyway...I like the FM-2 but that is not germane to this discussion.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  9. #69
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    The F-82 was based on the Mustang but was not a Mustang...that is going a little too far afield.

    You mistook my comment about the Corsair fighting from land getting it into combat sooner. By fighting from land it got into the fight sooner than waiting for the settlement of the carrier issue. Wasn't claiming it got into combat sooner than the Mustang. Of course it wasn't US units which got the Mustang into combat first and they were not overly impressed with it as the NA-73.

    Ahhh, yeah, carriers sail into harms way...that's way navies have them. If they didn't they would be useless.

    And again you miss my point of the two aircraft...I am not saying one is better than the other. I am saying they can not be compared because they were designed and built for 2 totally different functions....long range escort and fleet defense.

    And as it comes down to it neither is my favorite anyway...I like the FM-2 but that is not germane to this discussion.
    I've tried the Mustang, Corsair and FM-2 in flight simulators (Aces of the Pacific, Aces Over Europe) they were all excellent in different ways. The Wildcat was simply available when the others weren't as well as being a fine plane - and the only fighter to operate from little carriers. The Mustang had an edge on long range high altitude bomber escort and bled energy more gradually than the Corsair, making it a different kind of fighter. The Corsair was a powerhouse and better suited to fleet defense and ground attack. Really different kinds of plane, and if they are matched it would only be fair if they were from the same period.
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 31 Mar 11, at 16:34.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  10. #70
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    The Marine Corps plane wins
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The last air combat between WWII era warbirds was Corsair v Corsair and the Corsair proved even better at shooting down the Corsair than it was at shooting down Mustangs.
    I detect Army/Marine rivalry here...
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #71
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    The F-82 was based on the Mustang but was not a Mustang...that is going a little too far afield.
    perhaps

    You mistook my comment about the Corsair fighting from land getting it into combat sooner. By fighting from land it got into the fight sooner than waiting for the settlement of the carrier issue. Wasn't claiming it got into combat sooner than the Mustang. Of course it wasn't US units which got the Mustang into combat first and they were nto overly impressed with it as the NA-73.
    Well not impressed above 15,000' anyway, but my apologies for the mistake in understanding.

    Ahhh, yeah, carriers sail into harms way...that's way navies have them. If they didn't they would be useless.
    Which runs counter to the dominant thinking of the time about "a fleet in being."

    And again you miss my point of the two aircraft...I am not saying one is better than the other. I am saying they can not be compared because they were designed and built for 2 totally different functions....long range escort and fleet defense.
    Other than carrier ops and the associated differences the two have remarkably similar intial design requests- high speed and at least 4 guns for use as an air superiority fighter/interceptor. The comparison is valid because of how the two designs tried to reach roughly similar goals through such different approaches.

    And as it comes down to it neither is my favorite anyway...I like the FM-2 but that is not germane to this discussion.
    experimental Wildcat?

  12. #72
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,924
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    experimental Wildcat?
    No, the FM-2 was the final development of the Wildcat.

    It had a bigger engine, tail surface and rudder. It was built by GM (hence the FM designation) when Grummann made room at Bethpage for the F6F. It was intended for use off of the CVEs and did a fine job in that role. The Hellcats and Corsairs were too big. They formed part of the hunter/killer team with the Avebgers for ASW work plus provided fleet defence and gound attack for the amphibious forces.

    It is near and dear to me since that is what my uncle flew and became an ace.

    As for the rest...I think we are in the "tomaeto" tomahto" area of disagreement.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  13. #73
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Bunker Hill was a kamikaze plus bomb attack.
    And she wasn't sunk as you stated. 4 months after suffering more damage that any other aircraft carrier, she was used for Operation Magic Carpet ride.

    USS Lexington took two torps- by your own admission a less than effective weapon but three bomb hits that started raging fires.

    USS Lexington was hit at 1120. By 1300 all the fires were out, and she was on an even keel. She was making 25kts and was preparing to recover her aircraft when fuel vapors exploded. Less than 2 hours and she was back in action and recovering planes. Fuel vapors came from below deck, caused from the torp hits. The damage caused by the bombs had been repaired.

    Took 2 more torps and another explosion to kill her.

    Once again, this does not show any advantage for an armored flight deck.


    USS Yorktown likewise took three bomb hits that crippled her ability to defend herself when the second attack came in.
    During the Coral Sea battle she suffered a bomb to the flight deck but was able to continue flight operations within an hour.

    During the Midway battle, it wasn't battle damage that crippled her ability to defend herself. She was making 20Kts and launching airplanes.

    It was poor AA weapons and a lack of fueled fighter aircraft to make an effective CAP. It was two torpedoes that stopped her. Then a submarine that sank her.

    At 1420 she is damaged by3 bomb hits. By 1600 she has repaired the damage, conducted some refueling of planes on deck and launched planed to intercept the incoming Japanese strike..

    Less than 2 hours that she is out of action. Again not a good example of how an armored flight deck was superior. Takes longer than 2 hours for concrete to dry



    The USS Enterprise was knocked out of the war by a flight deck hit kamikaze.
    Knocked out of the war was by design. Her repairs were put on a low priority because there were more than enough of the more capable Essex class carriers. Yard space was prioritized. She had less damage than Bunker Hill. And she was only knocked out of the war for 3 months. (May 14 damaged/Aug 14 Japanese surrender.

    She was old and worn out. The most decorated ship in the Navy. Needed a full overhaul. The navy needed the yard space for more important things.


    The USS Hornet took 3 bomb hits 2 semi-kamikaze and 2 torps
    .

    Add another torp hit after she was taken in tow. The torpedoes are the reason she went out of action. Then 9 US torpedoes and 4 Japanese Long Lance torpedos to finish her off.

    Again I don't see how this makes a case for an armored flight deck.





    The HMS Illustyrious suffered two kamikaze hits to her deck and remained in action, it was a third attack a near miss below the waterlien that did more damage. She also served until 1954.
    The damage from those hits put her out of action until June of 46. Maybe if she had traded armor weight for aircraft space she would have had enough planes for a effective CAP.

    Lets also take a look at her damage in 1941. Took 6 bomb hits that took her out of action until May of 42.



    HMS Formidable also took two hits and stayed in operation. The dent in her flight deck being filled in with concrete.
    A quote from Wiki "A large steel splinter speared down through the hangar deck and the centre boiler-room, where it ruptured a steam line, and came to rest in a fuel tank, starting a major fire in the aircraft park.[10] Eight crew members were killed and forty-seven were wounded"

    Hit at 1130, wasn't until 1700 that she was able to conduct flight ops. Longer than the American examples.


    On inspection after the war showed that she had been damaged beyond economical repair. Put in reserve then to the scrap yard.


    HMS victorious was hit at least once and remained in operation and served until 1968.

    Finbnally the last ship in the class Indomitable was also hit and remained in operation.
    Not the first time. Took bomb hits in July 42. Wasn't back in action until Feb 43.

    No idea how long after the Kamikaze hit it took her to resume flight ops. If like her sister it took more than the 2 hour average that American carriers took.

    All four ships in the class got hit and not one got knocked out by a flight deck hit.
    Wrong, read the above.


    Really, the RN ships were back in action usually within a few hours sicne there was less risk of fire. Just mix up some concrete. The US ship listed above never saw combat again adfter the last hits. The Big E managed to get back in the fight after an earlier attack, but was then laid up for months being repaired- no just mixing concrete for her.
    The American Carriers that "Never saw action again" were all sunk because/by torpedoes. They were capable of air ops within 2 hours of being hit. (Excluding the Big E)


    Strange, thats not what the history shows.
    Actually that is what history shows and I noted above.


    The Essex is not a treaty carrier. When comparign the treaty carriers, the British lost zero to bomb hits on the flight deck the US lost all or part of 7 (of 8 she had)
    None of the 7 American Carriers, (You seriously are not calling the Langley an Aircraft carrier are you?) was lost to bomb deck hits.

    You also might want to look at usage of British Carriers compared to American ones. Far less action.


    The IJN had two armoed deck carrier classes a converted Yamato class BB and the taiho class both sunk before becoming operation to damage that should not have sunk them if there had been full crews fully trained in damage control.
    Taiho was sunk during the battle of the Philippine Sea. The armored flight deck played an important part of that in the because of the higher weight she sat very low in the water. Her elevator wells were actually below the waterline.



    Its a hit piece.
    Mr Slade doesn't do "Hit Pieces". He's well respected by navy types.

    Enough thread Jacking though. This is about planes.
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 01 Apr 11, at 01:46.

  14. #74
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,921
    All I know that if I had to do some long range escort and tangle with fighters then the Mustang is what I want to be flying. If strafing runs/ground support then fighting my way home, is on the agenda then I use the Corsair. Air to air and head to head......may the best pilot win. Both are examples of winners while using a different approach and I will wager no enemy was happy to see either one in the air.

  15. #75
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,924
    A bit off topic....


    Does anyone know of any combat stories of Martlets and Corsairs against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica Italiana? I assume they would all be FAA actions. I know some Condors did not fare well against some Martlets but wonder about the rest...particularly against FW-190s and ME-109s.

    Thanks
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40
    By zraver in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 24 May 11,, 18:13
  2. P-51 Mustang v. Bf-109K/Fw-190D
    By Triple C in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 26 Jul 08,, 23:31
  3. WWII Germany Vs WWII Russia
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 22:33
  4. India May Split Fighter Buy Between MiG-35 and Western Fighter
    By outofshdw in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28 Feb 07,, 06:54
  5. 2005 Mustang
    By Praxus in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17 Feb 04,, 23:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •