Originally posted by zraver
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
WWII Fighter Comparison II Corsair v Mustang.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostBunker 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
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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 encyclopediaLast edited by clackers; 30 Mar 11,, 05:36.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostJust 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?
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostBut 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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostOkay, 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.
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.
Comment
-
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostThe 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.Last edited by USSWisconsin; 31 Mar 11,, 16:34.sigpic"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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostThe Marine Corps plane winsOriginally posted by zraver View PostThe 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."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View Postexperimental 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostBunker 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Strange, thats not what the history shows.
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)
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.
Its a hit piece.
Enough thread Jacking though. This is about planes.Last edited by Gun Grape; 01 Apr 11,, 01:46.
Comment
-
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.Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
Comment
-
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
Comment
Comment