Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII Fighter Comparison II Corsair v Mustang.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zraver
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    The Marine Corps plane wins
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    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,, 16:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • clackers
    replied
    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,, 05:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    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,, 04:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Those armored deck carriers were effective though. They saved the RN from the fate of American ships like the Bunker Hill, Yorktown, Lexington, Wasp, Hornet and Langley all sunk by air. Except for the unarmored Hermes, RN losses were to gun fire or submarines not enemy air action.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    The P-51 and Corsair ended the war with almost identical win/loss ratios. yet the Mustang flew against the better equipped enemy and flew almost exclusively against enemy fighters while the Corsair faced more bombers.

    Yes, but how many aircraft carriers did the P-51 operate from?
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    The P-51 and Corsair ended the war with almost identical win/loss ratios. yet the Mustang flew against the better equipped enemy and flew almost exclusively against enemy fighters while the Corsair faced more bombers.

    Yes, but how many aircraft carriers did the P-51 operate from?

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    P-51 shot down during the Soccer War by Corsair also. After the P-51 was shot down they were grounded. Those that were flown by US mercs refused to dogfight and would fly away. The Honduras AF ruled the sky in their F4Us
    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. Most of the F4U's were also later F4U-5 or better variants which completely outclassed the older mustangs. Also given the P-51's known stability problems with its fusealge fuel tanks and the short ranges involved it may not have been a fair fight to start with.

    Using just a couple of examples can lead to skewed results. For example if we compare the Brewster F2A Buffalo to the Supermarine Spitfire based on the combat results of when the two clashed we would conclude that the F2A was the better fighter. The Finnish F2A dominated the Spitfire the same way it did every other plane flown by the VVS. The P-51 and Corsair ended the war with almost identical win/loss ratios. yet the Mustang flew against the better equipped enemy and flew almost exclusively against enemy fighters while the Corsair faced more bombers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X