HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > World War II

Notices and Announcements

World War II Discuss WW2. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 09 Sep 16, 14:21
RLeonard's Avatar
RLeonard RLeonard is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 209
RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
Whistling Death: The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair Hardcover –
by Boone T. Guyton
Yup, one of my sources, from the actual hardback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway
By John B. Lundstrom
Yup, and the 'naval aviator of my acquaintance' mentioned in my post wrote the forward for that tome . . . fella named Bill Leonard.
__________________
hmmm . . . I wonder what THIS button does . . . uh oh
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09 Sep 16, 20:59
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,716
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
On a lighter note, and for those old enough to remember:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-bW9igI_3g



__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 09 Sep 16 at 21:22..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10 Sep 16, 06:50
Nick the Noodle's Avatar
Nick the Noodle Nick the Noodle is offline
General of the Forums
Wales
Distinguished Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls SPQR Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Tin Pot Noodle
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land of the Red Dragon
Posts: 17,710
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
According to the following well known comparison test of a captured Zero, the F4F was inferior to the Zero in climb and altitude performance.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...um85-dec42.pdf

That is a major leg of supposed advantage ripped away.

It didn't leave much except for numbers and tactics, as I pointed out before.

See the attachments below, page 10 of the report, for a very short but conclusive statement concerning altitude/climb and a general overall(unfavourable for the F4F) comparison.

Once again, not my opinions, but pertinent comments from those in the drivers seat, or cockpit, if you like.
As with your opinion of the Me 262, you cannot see the wood for the trees. You spend too much time looking at details that you think proves yourself right.

However, looking at the big picture, the Zero in 1941 had a favourable kill ratio against enemy aircraft of 12-1. In 42 the F4F had a favourable kill ratio of c6-1, rising to c7-1 from 43 onwards. Further, in 1942, many of the Japanese were veterans, while the US pilots were not. Against superior pilots, to gain a 6-1 advantage, the Wildcat was obviously the superior machine. Its ruggedness also meant rookie pilots could afford to make mistakes, being all but immune to the Japanese 7.7mm mg rounds, and Zeros only carried a few seconds worth of 20mm cannon fire.

This meant when the Hellcat and Corsairs arrived, the US now have veteran pilots in even more superior machines. It was the Wildcat that was the game changer, and therefore the most influential fighter in the PTO.
__________________
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11 Sep 16, 03:06
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,716
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
As with your opinion of the Me 262, you cannot see the wood for the trees. You spend too much time looking at details that you think proves yourself right.

However, looking at the big picture, the Zero in 1941 had a favourable kill ratio against enemy aircraft of 12-1. In 42 the F4F had a favourable kill ratio of c6-1, rising to c7-1 from 43 onwards. Further, in 1942, many of the Japanese were veterans, while the US pilots were not. Against superior pilots, to gain a 6-1 advantage, the Wildcat was obviously the superior machine. Its ruggedness also meant rookie pilots could afford to make mistakes, being all but immune to the Japanese 7.7mm mg rounds, and Zeros only carried a few seconds worth of 20mm cannon fire.

This meant when the Hellcat and Corsairs arrived, the US now have veteran pilots in even more superior machines. It was the Wildcat that was the game changer, and therefore the most influential fighter in the PTO.
I note that in your previous posts in relation to your assertions re the Wildcat, you have not provided any actual figures for claims vs losses but only in this post somewhat nebulous "ratios".

Do you have any actual figures that you can post that would help support your assertions?

Considering that the Corsair began to replace the Wildcat by late 1942 and by the Hellcat later in 1943, I imagine that you would need to make credible your support for the Wildcat by this same time frame.

As I have poined out in post #'s 36 and 48, in theatre Allied front line pilots had some disparaging things to say about the level of performance of the Wildcat in comparison to the Zero.

I find it hard to believe that an aircraft with such an acquired reputation can be credited with the kill ratios, and the level of superiority, you ascribe to it.

Would it be possible that you are overstating your case in favour of the Wildcat, to a greater or lesser extent?

In attachments below are some more comments on the Wildcat's level of performance - again, from "Lundstrom" who I quoted in my earlier posts.

Quote:
The performance of the folding wing Wildcat was "exceedingly unsatisfactory". The weight , he felt , simply was too much for the available horsepower, a fact most detrimental to the aircraft's climb and maneuverability. He noted that the F4F-4 fighter had the "feel of a fully loaded torpedo plane."
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ClimbRateLundstrom.jpg (117.2 KB, 8 views)
__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 11 Sep 16 at 04:06..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11 Sep 16, 21:48
RLeonard's Avatar
RLeonard RLeonard is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 209
RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
Then perhaps he had respect for Eric Brown when he had this to say . . .
I am sure he felt Captain Brown was entitled to his opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
And can I ask why the British were using the Corsair successfully on carrier operations months before the US?
FAA Corsairs made their combat debut on 2 April 1944 when 1834 squadron, HMS Victorious, provided fighter cover for aircraft attack the Tirpitz at Kaajford - no actual combat, but they were there. 1820, HMS Illustrious, started flying sweeps over the Bay of Bengal at about the same time, though, again, I am unaware of any opposition.

On the other hand, one might note that VF(N)-101 operated from USS Enterprise from January 1944 through July 1944 with a detachment operating from USS Intrepid from January 1944 through February. VF(N)-101, as can be seen by the “(N)” in the designation was a night fighter squadron. They flew the F4U-2, the early night fighter version of the Corsair. So, the USN was not only operating F4Us from carriers in combat before the FAA, but in the more operationally difficult role of a night fighter. The detachment aboard Intrepid scored no credits; from Enterprise the squadron was credited with 5 shoot-downs, 1 damaged, and 3 probables.

And I suppose it might be well to remember an event transpiring even before VF(N)-101’s carrier based sojourns, that is, VF-17, the USN’s first F4U squadron, on 11 November 1943 flying up the Solomons to provide CAP for the TF-50 carriers while their planes were off working their mischief on Rabaul. Operating out of Ondonga, the F4Us of VF-17 and the F6Fs of VF-33, out of Segi Point, were on station over the TF by 0600. For refueling VF-33 landed aboard USS Independence while 12 of the VF-17 F4Us came in on Bunker Hill and 11 landed on Essex (all without mishap . . . after all, these were carrier qualified F4U pilots). Resuming their CAP duties, they had a busy afternoon, as has it worked out, after about three hours into their second CAP rotation the Japanese showed up in earnest. The VF-17 fuel situation was approaching bingo state and the carrier decks were occupied with launching additional fighters. VF-17 had time for a couple of passes before being forced to return to Ondonga due to their fuel situation, except for one Ira Kepford, who stuck around to help out with a couple of additional Japanese strike groups. He finally landed, again, aboard Bunker Hill, refueled and re-armed (he was out of ammo) and by 1630 was back on the way to Ondonga, arriving at about 1800 after spending about eleven of the previous fourteen hours in the air, accounting for 4 Japanese attackers, and making two carrier landings and takeoffs under combat conditions in a plane that the some will tell you the Americans could not and would not operate from carriers. VF-17 credits for the day totaled 18.5; two planes ditched from fuel exhaustion on the way back to Ondonga; and three suffered combat damage; none were lost in combat.

By the time the USN’s first carrier qualified F4U squadron was ready to deploy the decision had already been made that, for the time being, carriers would carry F6Fs. That was decided, not by BuAer, but at a CinCPac conference on 23 September 1943: “. . . When Halsey stressed the need for air reinforcements for his Bougainville landings, scheduled to take place 1 November, all agreed [Ed. note, “all” being King, Nimitz, Halsey, and Towers, the only ones' whose opinions mattered] that the Bunker Hill’s new F4U Corsair fighter squadron [Ed. note, VF-17] should be replaced by an F6F Hellcat squadron and moved to airstrips in the Solomons for additional fighter cover. This change eliminated the Corsair from the carriers, for the F6F handled better in shipboard landings . . .” See Clark Reynolds, Admiral John H Tower, 1991, page 437.

After VF-301, a training squadron, completed 113 carrier landings without incident aboard USS Gambier Bay in April 1944, seven months after the decision at the CinCPac conference, the F4U was certified for full scale carrier operations and the rest, as they say, was history.

But, no, obviously from the historical record, the FAA did not operate F4Us aboard carriers before the USN and most assuredly did not operate them in combat from carriers before the USN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
And have you proof that it wasn't an FAA innovation on deck landing?
Just the on the scene pointy end of the stick descriptions of technique from USN aviators at the time . . . are you calling them liars? And your proof?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
The same as FAA pilots were trained to fly their Corsairs (and other types) by US instructors. So too were U.S Pilots trained by the RAF on British types with the bonus of U.S fighter pilots being trained in fighter/fighter-bomber tactics by experienced RAF/Commonwealth personnel.
USN and USMC aviators of the F4U, F6F, and even FM-2s, in their fighter-bomber modes were not trained by the FAA or any RAF type. Maybe you are thinking of the USAAF . . . I wouldn't know I have little interest in the USAAF and less interest in the war in Europe or north Africa. The USN and the USMC were well aware of the concept and had doctrine in place for attacking land targets. Squadrons, both fighter and fighter-bomber worked pretty hard at this before deployment. You should probably read up on the subject. Oh, and no, the F4U was not a better fighter bomber than the F6F . . . another popular misconception.

Frankly, other than one single VCS squadron operating Spitfire Vb's over Normandy in June 1944, and a really nice Mosquito (when the canopy panes did not blow in) at NAS Patuxent post-war, I do not recall the USN using a whole lot of RAF or FAA aircraft. And those VCS aviators were trained to operate their Spitfires by the USAAF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
As a summary, Britain/Commonwealth and the U.S scratched each others backs.
I'm sure, but certainly not to extent you seem to want to believe in terms of naval aviation in WW2.
__________________
hmmm . . . I wonder what THIS button does . . . uh oh

Last edited by RLeonard; 11 Sep 16 at 22:04..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11 Sep 16, 22:01
RLeonard's Avatar
RLeonard RLeonard is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 209
RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
I note that in your previous posts in relation to your assertions re the Wildcat, you have not provided any actual figures for claims vs losses but only in this post somewhat nebulous "ratios".

Do you have any actual figures that you can post that would help support your assertions?
Perhaps this might help, for the record since the question was raised, USN and IJN F4F and A6M2 combat related losses through the end of June 1942 (and note these are not claims, these are recorded combat related losses):

USN F4F Combat Related Losses:
12/7/1941 - 4 ea VF-6 F4F; cause: “friendly” fire
2/20/1942 - 2 ea VF-3 F4F; cause: shot down by IJN G4Ms
5/4/1942 - 2 ea VF-42 F4F; cause: forced landing fuel exhaustion (Tulagi)
5/7/1942 - 1 ea VF-2 F4F; cause: MIA after night action (Coral Sea)*
5/7/1942 - 2 ea VF-42 F4F; cause: MIA after night action (Coral Sea)*
5/8/1942 - 1 ea VF-2 F4F; cause: forced landing fuel exhaustion
5/8/1942 - 8 ea VF-2 F4F; cause: lost aboard CV-2
5/8/1942 - 3 ea VF-2 F4F; cause: MIA after action (Coral Sea)
5/8/1942 - 2 ea VF-2 F4F; cause: shot down by IJN A6M2s (Coral Sea)
5/8/1942 - 1 ea VF-42 F4F; cause: forced landing damage A6M2 (Coral Sea)
5/8/1942 - 1 ea VF-42 F4F; cause: lost aboard CV-2
6/4/1942 - 1 ea VF-3 F4F; cause: crash landing CV8, damage A6M2, jettisoned (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea VF-3 F4F; cause: forced landing damage A6M2 (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 3 ea VF-3 F4F; cause: shot down on CAP by A6M2s (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea VF-3 F4F; cause: shot down on strike escort by A6M2 (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea VF-8 F4F; cause: shot down by A6M2 or own AA
6/7/1942 - 5 ea VF-3 F4F; cause: lost with CV-5

Summary, F4F losses to A6M2s
VF-2: losses to IJN A6M2s = 5 (2 confirmed, 3 presumed)
VF-3: losses to IJN A6M2s = 5
VF-42: losses to IJN A6M2s = 1
VF-6: losses to IJN A6M2s = 0
VF-8: losses to IJN A6M2s = 1 (possible)
Total Losses to IJN A6M2s = 12 to 13

IJN A6M2 Combat Related Losses:
5/7/1942 - 3 ea A6M2 off Shoho; cause: CAP, forced landing at Deboyne Island (Coral Sea)
5/7/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Shoho; cause: CAP, shot down by VF-42 F4F (Coral Sea)
5/8/1942 - 3 ea A6M2 off Shokaku; cause: CAP, forced landing, fuel exhaustion (Coral Sea)
5/8/1942 - 2 ea A6M2 off Shokaku; cause: CAP, shot down by VF-42 F4F (Coral Sea)
5/8/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Zuikaku; cause: Strike escort, forced landing, fuel exhaustion (Coral Sea)
6/4/1942 - 4 ea A6M2 off Akagi; cause: CAP, forced landing, fuel exhaustion (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 3 ea A6M2 off Akagi; cause: CAP, shot down by US non F4F aircraft (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Akagi; cause: Strike escort, shot down by AA (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Hiryu; cause: CAP, forced landing at sea, damage by USN SBDs (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 5 ea A6M2 off Hiryu; cause: CAP, shot down by US non F4F aircraft (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Hiryu; cause: VB Strike escort, forced landing damage by USN SBDs (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 3 ea A6M2 off Hiryu; cause: VB Strike escort, shot down by VF-3 F4Fs (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Hiryu; cause: VT Strike escort, shot down by VF-3 F4Fs (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Hiryu; cause: VT Strike escort, shot down by VF-6 F4Fs (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 5 ea A6M2 off Kaga; cause: CAP, forced landing, fuel exhaustion (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 5 ea A6M2 off Kaga; cause: CAP, shot down by VF-3 F4Fs (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Kaga; cause: Midway Strike escort, shot down by VMF-221 F4F (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 1 ea A6M2 off Kaga; cause: VT Strike escort, forced landing, fuel exhaustion (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 4 ea A6M2 off Soryu; cause: CAP, forced landing at sea, fuel exhaustion (Midway)
6/4/1942 - 3 ea A6M2 off Soryu; cause: CAP, shot down in action (own AA, USN F4F or SBD) (Midway)

Summary A6M2 losses to F4Fs:
Shoho losses to F4Fs = 1
Shokaku losses to F4Fs = 2
Hiryu losses to F4Fs = 5
Kaga losses to F4Fs = 6
Soryu losses to F4Fs = 3 (possible)
Total Losses to F4Fs = 14 to as many as 17.

You may compare at your leisure. But, if the IJN was so good, pilots and aircraft, why did they not do better? Why were more A6M2s lost the F4Fs than F4Fs lost to A6M2s in the first six months or the war when the Japanese were popularly supposedly at their peak and the USN at it nadir?

No one ever said the A6M was not a superior dogfighter, in fact, quite the opposite, but, of course there is always a caveat, it was such only in its optimal maneuver speed envelope and only when its adversaries played the game the way the Japanese wanted or expected them to play. Of course, when a IJN pilot was not paying attention, or simply feeling overconfident, he was just as vulnerable as anyone else. I’m not saying the American aviators or their planes were better, but they were obviously good enough, something the USN could afford and the IJN could not.

And in response to another issue, it is true, John S Thach was less than enthusiastic of the F4F in his BuAer interview (I have the BuAer copy and a retyped transcript), but, one might read further and find that he also said, referring to its gunsight arrangement, about the F4U, “. . . In the F4U I understand that the cowling comes up to cut the 100–knot ring. It will be extremely difficult with that to make those particular deflection attacks – and they are the ones in which we encounter practically no free gun opposition, and which we usually get a chance to make.”

Gee, do you suppose someone might have taken that as a “. . . maybe we should raise the seat? You know, take full advantage of the sight and improve deflection gunnery capability? Oh, but we’ll need a new canopy.”

Thach’s BuAer interview was on 28 August 1942, when the F4U was but a gleam in the FAA’s eye. I don’t doubt for a moment that some person or persons in Great Britain looked at the F4U-1 (after all, the almost a year later, June 1943 equipping of the first FAA F4U squadron was with Corsair I’s, the “bird cage” canopied F4U) and said something along the same lines, but that does not mean it was an FAA idea. Guyton in his Whistling Death is pretty clear that Vought and the USN were discussing raising the seat 8 inches in late mid 1942 and raising the seat is clearly the solution to the problems noted by Thach (he was complimentary of the 6.5 degree downward slope of the F4F from the cockpit to the cowl, a measure similarly found in the F6F). You may chalk the raised seat and improved canopy up to a solution arrived upon by several great minds, but never as an independent FAA driven production concept.
__________________
hmmm . . . I wonder what THIS button does . . . uh oh
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11 Sep 16, 23:33
Dibble201Bty's Avatar
Dibble201Bty Dibble201Bty is offline
General of the Forums
England
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Paul B
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Albans
Posts: 10,956
Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLeonard View Post


FAA Corsairs made their combat debut on 2 April 1944 when 1834 squadron, HMS Victorious, provided fighter cover for aircraft attack the Tirpitz at Kaajford - no actual combat, but they were there. 1820, HMS Illustrious, started flying sweeps over the Bay of Bengal at about the same time, though, again, I am unaware of any opposition.

On the other hand, one might note that VF(N)-101 operated from USS Enterprise from January 1944 through July 1944 with a detachment operating from USS Intrepid from January 1944 through February. VF(N)-101, as can be seen by the “(N)” in the designation was a night fighter squadron. They flew the F4U-2, the early night fighter version of the Corsair. So, the USN was not only operating F4Us from carriers in combat before the FAA, but in the more operationally difficult role of a night fighter. The detachment aboard Intrepid scored no credits; from Enterprise the squadron was credited with 5 shoot-downs, 1 damaged, and 3 probables.

And I suppose it might be well to remember an event transpiring even before VF(N)-101’s carrier based sojourns, that is, VF-17, the USN’s first F4U squadron, on 11 November 1943 flying up the Solomons to provide CAP for the TF-50 carriers while their planes were off working their mischief on Rabaul. Operating out of Ondonga, the F4Us of VF-17 and the F6Fs of VF-33, out of Segi Point, were on station over the TF by 0600. For refueling VF-33 landed aboard USS Independence while 12 of the VF-17 F4Us came in on Bunker Hill and 11 landed on Essex (all without mishap . . . after all, these were carrier qualified F4U pilots). Resuming their CAP duties, they had a busy afternoon, as has it worked out, after about three hours into their second CAP rotation the Japanese showed up in earnest. The VF-17 fuel situation was approaching bingo state and the carrier decks were occupied with launching additional fighters. VF-17 had time for a couple of passes before being forced to return to Ondonga due to their fuel situation, except for one Ira Kepford, who stuck around to help out with a couple of additional Japanese strike groups. He finally landed, again, aboard Bunker Hill, refueled and re-armed (he was out of ammo) and by 1630 was back on the way to Ondonga, arriving at about 1800 after spending about eleven of the previous fourteen hours in the air, accounting for 4 Japanese attackers, and making two carrier landings and takeoffs under combat conditions in a plane that the some will tell you the Americans could not and would not operate from carriers. VF-17 credits for the day totaled 18.5; two planes ditched from fuel exhaustion on the way back to Ondonga; and three suffered combat damage; none were lost in combat.

By the time the USN’s first carrier qualified F4U squadron was ready to deploy the decision had already been made that, for the time being, carriers would carry F6Fs. That was decided, not by BuAer, but at a CinCPac conference on 23 September 1943: “. . . When Halsey stressed the need for air reinforcements for his Bougainville landings, scheduled to take place 1 November, all agreed [Ed. note, “all” being King, Nimitz, Halsey, and Towers, the only ones' whose opinions mattered] that the Bunker Hill’s new F4U Corsair fighter squadron [Ed. note, VF-17] should be replaced by an F6F Hellcat squadron and moved to airstrips in the Solomons for additional fighter cover. This change eliminated the Corsair from the carriers, for the F6F handled better in shipboard landings . . .” See Clark Reynolds, Admiral John H Tower, 1991, page 437.

After VF-301, a training squadron, completed 113 carrier landings without incident aboard USS Gambier Bay in April 1944, seven months after the decision at the CinCPac conference, the F4U was certified for full scale carrier operations and the rest, as they say, was history.

But, no, obviously from the historical record, the FAA did not operate F4Us aboard carriers before the USN and most assuredly did not operate them in combat from carriers before the USN.
Not evidence of pioneering Corsair safe landing techniques on carriers I'm afraid. And I suggest that Operating the Corsair safely from a carrier is not stating that that they weren't being used before that time with unfortunate occurrences.

Quote:
USN and USMC aviators of the F4U, F6F, and even FM-2s, in their fighter-bomber modes were not trained by the FAA or any RAF type. Maybe you are thinking of the USAAF . . .
If you want to have a reread of what I said about who trained who in WWII you will see that I was commenting on aviation training in general, so stop trying to spin what I posted.

Quote:
I wouldn't know I have little interest in the USAAF and less interest in the war in Europe or north Africa. The USN and the USMC were well aware of the concept and had doctrine in place for attacking land targets. Squadrons, both fighter and fighter-bomber worked pretty hard at this before deployment. You should probably read up on the subject. Oh, and no, the F4U was not a better fighter bomber than the F6F . . . another popular misconception.
I did not comment on the capabilities of the aircraft you have listed?

Quote:
Frankly, other than one single VCS squadron operating Spitfire Vb's over Normandy in June 1944, and a really nice Mosquito (when the canopy panes did not blow in) at NAS Patuxent post-war, I do not recall the USN using a whole lot of RAF or FAA aircraft. And those VCS aviators were trained to operate their Spitfires by the USAAF.
Where do I say anything about what aircraft the USN used? And who originally trained the USAAF in flying the Spitfire? Just as who originally trained the FAA in how to fly the Spitfire? And who originally trained the FAA in how to fly the Martlet, Avenger, Hellcat, Corsair etc? Who originally showed the the USAAF how to fly the Beaufighter and the greatest combat aircraft of all time, the Mosquito?....Like I said! 'Back scratching'

Quote:
Just the on the scene pointy end of the stick descriptions of technique from USN aviators at the time . . . are you calling them liars? And your proof?
Did I accuse anyone of lying? No I did not! What I do on every thread and site in which I participate, is to avoid any one-off, hearsay comment as proof, you should do the same too!

Quote:
I am sure he felt Captain Brown was entitled to his opinions
Ahem!

Anyway! You are the one who came on this thread saying that the pioneering FAA technique for safely operating Corsairs from carriers was a myth. It would be presumed that I and many others on this site would just love to see your evidence which will show all these aviation historians since the war, the err of their ways.

Paul
__________________
‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
All human ills he can subdue,
Or with a bauble or medal
Can win mans heart for you;
And many a blessing know to stew
To make a megloamaniac bright;
Give honour to the dainty Corse,
The Pixie is a little shite.

Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 11 Sep 16 at 23:50..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11 Sep 16, 23:57
Pruitt's Avatar
Pruitt Pruitt is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
France
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
100 Greatest Generals, 2008 Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign 
Summer Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Real Name: Richard Pruitt
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sulphur, LA
Posts: 27,455
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Can't we all just get along?

Pruitt
__________________
Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12 Sep 16, 04:14
At ease's Avatar
At ease At ease is offline
General of the Forums
Australia
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft 
 
Real Name: John Giles
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Sydney
Posts: 5,716
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800] At ease gives and gets respect [800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
As MarkV has suggested, I would agree that the curved approach was a Fleet Air Arm innovation, but such a technique was introduced to "tame" the difficult landing characteristics of the Supermarine Seafire.

The necessity to do the same with the Corsair came somewhat later, well after the Seafire was in regular service with the FAA.

<SNIP>

In post #35 above, I suggested that the "curved approach" was an FAA innovation.

I now recognise I was probably hasty in saying so.

Quote:
HOW TO - TAKE OFF AND LAND A 'SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE'
Mk1, Mk11, and MkV. In the early years of WW2.

(capitals for emphasis in the quoted text are not mine - only bold is mine - Ae)

INTRODUCTION
The following notes put together from many wartime sources, have since been checked over by a WW2 Spitfire Pilot. The record should only be regarded as an averaged guideline, acting as an aid towards further understanding and appreciation of R.A.F. Fighter Pilots experiences during WW2. It is acknowledged that much of the procedures and checks that have been outlined below would not have had time to have been carried out under war conditions. Only a few essentials, using a memory guide cockpit drill, like T.M.P.F.F.R or R.A.F.T.S, based on individual pilot experience, would have been possible in the haste to get their machines up into the air. It is acknowledged that there were a number of technical differences between the Spitfire Mk 1, Mk11 and the Mk V, which have not been outlined below. However, it is felt, within these limitations the following notes try to present an historical guide and impression of how to fly the early Marks of the Supermarine Spitfire.
[.....]

LANDING THE SPITFIRE :-

GENERAL ADVICE FOR A SAFE LANDING : -
The Spitfire STALLS at at about 64 m.p.h. with FLAPS and WHEELS DOWN. Before the stall is reached the plane will give a warning shudder. If you are NOT COMFORTABLE with your approach, for ANY REASON at ANY TIME BEFORE LANDING, you must IMMEDIATELY push the THROTTLE FORWARD and ONCE PAST 120 m.p.h., start to CLIMB back up and ROUND AGAIN for another attempt. NEVER LOOSE SIGHT OF THE RUNWAY. In a Spitfire this entails adopting a STEADY AND CONTINUOUS CURVED APPROACH.
[.....]
Feel the Spitfire slow up as you begin the steady and continuous curved downward approach into wind, half a mile from the boundary hedge.
[.....]
SIDESLIPPING your Spitfire is a useful way to LOOSE HEIGHT, while still keeping a curved approach
[.....]
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...-Landing-Guide

As far as I am able to ascertain, it goes back even further than this to 1936 and the very first Spitfire, K5054.

Spitfire
By Leo McKinstry

Quote:
But when he was making his final curved approach towards the grass of the airfield, 'I had a funny feeling that something was wrong. Then it suddenly occured to me. I had forgotten to lower the undercarriage!'
https://books.google.com.au/books?id...ach%20&f=false
Attached Images
File Type: jpg CurvedApproach.jpg (99.3 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg Spitfire.jpg (6.1 KB, 2 views)
__________________
"It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
"You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

"Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
— Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

Last edited by At ease; 12 Sep 16 at 04:57..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12 Sep 16, 18:11
Nick the Noodle's Avatar
Nick the Noodle Nick the Noodle is offline
General of the Forums
Wales
Distinguished Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls SPQR Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Tin Pot Noodle
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land of the Red Dragon
Posts: 17,710
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by At ease View Post
I note that in your previous posts in relation to your assertions re the Wildcat, you have not provided any actual figures for claims vs losses but only in this post somewhat nebulous "ratios".

Do you have any actual figures that you can post that would help support your assertions?

Considering that the Corsair began to replace the Wildcat by late 1942 and by the Hellcat later in 1943, I imagine that you would need to make credible your support for the Wildcat by this same time frame.

As I have poined out in post #'s 36 and 48, in theatre Allied front line pilots had some disparaging things to say about the level of performance of the Wildcat in comparison to the Zero.

I find it hard to believe that an aircraft with such an acquired reputation can be credited with the kill ratios, and the level of superiority, you ascribe to it.

Would it be possible that you are overstating your case in favour of the Wildcat, to a greater or lesser extent?

In attachments below are some more comments on the Wildcat's level of performance - again, from "Lundstrom" who I quoted in my earlier posts.
Corsair first kill was unlikely before the end of 43, when the Japanese air force was already beaten. To imply the Corsair was in action against the Japanese in 42 proves you are trying to post to 'win'.

That the Wildcat had an inferior climb rate to the Zero is not in question, nor is which is the better dogfighter. The Zero is simply a far more agile fighter than the F4F.

However, war is not fair. The F4F had both an offensive (max ceiling and dive) and defensive methods (roll, armour, thatch weave) to deal with Zero's, which the Japanese aircraft could not match.

By the time the Hellcat and Corsair saw service, the US had air superiority. Much of it is due to Midway, but part of it is due to one aircraft, one aircraft type that truly gained air superiority over an entire theatre of operations, and kept it for that nation.
__________________
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #71  
Old 12 Sep 16, 20:40
RLeonard's Avatar
RLeonard RLeonard is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 209
RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
Not evidence of pioneering Corsair safe landing techniques on carriers I'm afraid. And I suggest that Operating the Corsair safely from a carrier is not stating that that they weren't being used before that time with unfortunate occurrences.
The claim has been made that the FAA operated F4Us from carriers before the USN. This is obviously not true from the historical record and all the bobbing and weaving in the world will not change that fact. I regret that reality impinges on cherished beliefs and demonstrates them as false.

As for technique, other than some author(s), I presume you have some evidence for the FAA's reported first? Do your authors have some citation? Or is this a case based on a premise (which we know is false from the historical record) of (A) the FAA operated F4Us from carriers first (I don't know about the east side of the Atlantic, but on the west side January comes before April) plus (B) a landing technique (which experienced USN aviators, more than one, have told me, personally, was the obvious solution to keeping the LSO in sight) equals a "first". No, sorry, I invite your presentation of something from someone with first hand knowledge . . . I already have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
If you want to have a reread of what I said about who trained who in WWII you will see that I was commenting on aviation training in general, so stop trying to spin what I posted.
You raised the issue. In fact, you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
. . . So too were U.S Pilots trained by the RAF on British types with the bonus of U.S fighter pilots being trained in fighter/fighter-bomber tactics by experienced RAF/Commonwealth personnel.
To which I responded to the effect that the FAA and the RAF had no involvement with fighter-bomber training for the USN or USMC. I suggest you read a little more carefully. I invite your evidence to the contrary . . . it was after all your all encompassing claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
I did not comment on the capabilities of the aircraft you have listed?
And my apologies. I know you did not. It has, however, been my experience that as soon as one starts using the term fighter-bomber in the context of the F4U as sure as there are little green apples someone will start down the road of it being the better of the two, F4U and F6F, in this capacity which is demonstrably untrue or at least a questionable conclusion. Somewhat of a pre-emptive on my part or perhaps bait for another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
Where do I say anything about what aircraft the USN used? And who originally trained the USAAF in flying the Spitfire? Just as who originally trained the FAA in how to fly the Spitfire? And who originally trained the FAA in how to fly the Martlet, Avenger, Hellcat, Corsair etc? Who originally showed the the USAAF how to fly the Beaufighter and the greatest combat aircraft of all time, the Mosquito?....Like I said! 'Back scratching'
You did not, but again this goes back to your flat out statement regarding training provided by FAA and RAF to US airmen . . . and my elaborating on USN use of British aircraft. Who trained the USAAF folks? Don't know, don't care . . . please pay more attention, I've little to no interest in the USAAF and am only vaguely aware of a war in Europe. Sure, there was a lot of 'back scratching' as you call it going on, but you were specifically addressing the fighter-bomber issue as did my response . . . you seem to wiggle a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
Did I accuse anyone of lying? No I did not! What I do on every thread and site in which I participate, is to avoid any one-off, hearsay comment as proof, you should do the same too!
I produced the recollections of USN aviators. You apparently discount their descriptions and now you apparently consider these descriptions to be hearsay. True, in the definition of hearsay as the gentlemen to whom I referred are both dead and gone, but these were things they told straight to me. I would suggest that the presentation of some author without some authoritative citation is one step farther removed from my hearsay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
Anyway! You are the one who came on this thread saying that the pioneering FAA technique for safely operating Corsairs from carriers was a myth. It would be presumed that I and many others on this site would just love to see your evidence which will show all these aviation historians since the war, the err of their ways.
You obviously were not paying attention. I gave the descriptions provided by experienced USN aviators with not just a few F4U hours; one of whom was Director of VF Training at ComFleetAirWest at NAS San Diego from August 1943 to November 1944, the umbrella command under which air groups west-bound received their final operational training, and who, along with (maybe you've heard of him, but I won't hold my breath) Jimmy Flatley re-wrote the VF portion of the USN's USF-74, the US Fleet Carrier Operations Doctrine document (oddly enough, I have the complete rough draft with both of their handwriting). I would suggest that he just might have known just a little bit about the subject. The FAA first(s) were a claim presented initially to which I responded with my evidence from first hand practitioners. I invite your presentation from an on the scene operator or more, not some author who adds dubious 1+1 and come up with 3.
__________________
hmmm . . . I wonder what THIS button does . . . uh oh

Last edited by RLeonard; 12 Sep 16 at 21:13..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12 Sep 16, 23:23
Dibble201Bty's Avatar
Dibble201Bty Dibble201Bty is offline
General of the Forums
England
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Paul B
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Albans
Posts: 10,956
Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLeonard View Post
The claim has been made that the FAA operated F4Us from carriers before the USN. This is obviously not true from the historical record and all the bobbing and weaving in the world will not change that fact. I regret that reality impinges on cherished beliefs and demonstrates them as false.

As for technique, other than some author(s), I presume you have some evidence for the FAA's reported first? Do your authors have some citation? Or is this a case based on a premise (which we know is false from the historical record) of (A) the FAA operated F4Us from carriers first (I don't know about the east side of the Atlantic, but on the west side January comes before April) plus (B) a landing technique (which experienced USN aviators, more than one, have told me, personally, was the obvious solution to keeping the LSO in sight) equals a "first". No, sorry, I invite your presentation of something from someone with first hand knowledge . . . I already have.



You raised the issue. In fact, you wrote:



To which I responded to the effect that the FAA and the RAF had no involvement with fighter-bomber training for the USN or USMC. I suggest you read a little more carefully. I invite your evidence to the contrary . . . it was after all your all encompassing claim.




And my apologies. I know you did not. It has, however, been my experience that as soon as one starts using the term fighter-bomber in the context of the F4U as sure as there are little green apples someone will start down the road of it being the better of the two, F4U and F6F, in this capacity which is demonstrably untrue or at least a questionable conclusion. Somewhat of a pre-emptive on my part or perhaps bait for another thread.



You did not, but again this goes back to your flat out statement regarding training provided by FAA and RAF to US airmen . . . and my elaborating on USN use of British aircraft. Who trained the USAAF folks? Don't know, don't care . . . please pay more attention, I've little to no interest in the USAAF and am only vaguely aware of a war in Europe. Sure, there was a lot of 'back scratching' as you call it going on, but you were specifically addressing the fighter-bomber issue as did my response . . . you seem to wiggle a lot.



I produced the recollections of USN aviators. You apparently discount their descriptions and now you apparently consider these descriptions to be hearsay. True, in the definition of hearsay as the gentlemen to whom I referred are both dead and gone, but these were things they told straight to me. I would suggest that the presentation of some author without some authoritative citation is one step farther removed from my hearsay.



You obviously were not paying attention. I gave the descriptions provided by experienced USN aviators with not just a few F4U hours; one of whom was Director of VF Training at ComFleetAirWest at NAS San Diego from August 1943 to November 1944, the umbrella command under which air groups west-bound received their final operational training, and who, along with (maybe you've heard of him, but I won't hold my breath) Jimmy Flatley re-wrote the VF portion of the USN's USF-74, the US Fleet Carrier Operations Doctrine document (oddly enough, I have the complete rough draft with both of their handwriting). I would suggest that he just might have known just a little bit about the subject. The FAA first(s) were a claim presented initially to which I responded with my evidence from first hand practitioners. I invite your presentation from an on the scene operator or more, not some author who adds dubious 1+1 and come up with 3.
Nevertheless, your evidence on the salient matter is hearsay.

The rest of your reply above is just that! You try to misquote and attribute to me, things that I never posted or meant which is an easy way for deflecting from the hard bit, which is the evidence.

As for remarking upon the Corsair. I have only ever once had to respond to someone (who you probably know from another site) on the subject which is in the rather interesting link below.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...hlight=Corsair

Other than that and this thread, I have no interest in the Corsair. My specialty is within the time of the Napoleonic wars where I expect to strive and give, first hand accounts aplenty. But if someone claims to have evidence, it should be put up for those interested to examine it. If you bring definitive evidence then great. If not, then expect to be questioned on the viability of what you have posted. which is what I am doing here on this thread and what I did in the link.

P.S never assume or think that I call people liars. I call a spade a spade if it warrants it.

Paul
__________________
‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
All human ills he can subdue,
Or with a bauble or medal
Can win mans heart for you;
And many a blessing know to stew
To make a megloamaniac bright;
Give honour to the dainty Corse,
The Pixie is a little shite.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12 Sep 16, 23:40
RLeonard's Avatar
RLeonard RLeonard is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 209
RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100] RLeonard has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Nice try, no cigar
__________________
hmmm . . . I wonder what THIS button does . . . uh oh
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 13 Sep 16, 05:51
Dibble201Bty's Avatar
Dibble201Bty Dibble201Bty is offline
General of the Forums
England
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role  Aircraft Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Paul B
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Albans
Posts: 10,956
Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Dibble201Bty has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLeonard View Post
Nice try, no cigar
I don't smoke! And never mind 'trying', I haven't even started.

Paul
__________________
‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
All human ills he can subdue,
Or with a bauble or medal
Can win mans heart for you;
And many a blessing know to stew
To make a megloamaniac bright;
Give honour to the dainty Corse,
The Pixie is a little shite.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 13 Sep 16, 19:57
Nick the Noodle's Avatar
Nick the Noodle Nick the Noodle is offline
General of the Forums
Wales
Distinguished Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls SPQR Campaign Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Tin Pot Noodle
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Land of the Red Dragon
Posts: 17,710
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Nick the Noodle has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Corsair was an awesome aircraft that arrived when the party was almost over.

Stating that the F4U was the best fighter of WW2 is like stating the Comet was the best tank of WW2. Both were too late to have a real impact, despite how good they were.
__________________
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Reply With Quote
Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:58.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.