Bunches of things you didn't know about the Corsair

[turnkey4099]

What still kills me is that they identified a need (zero out the Zeroes), designed it, built in quantity, shipped them, trained crews and got them in combat all in a matter of a few months in some cases.

Today, they bicker about it in DC for years, sometimes decades, and all too often STILL don't get it right.

Of course today's designs are built to be multi purpose. and with all 'multi-purpose' tools, do none of them outstandingly.

 

[bcp]

It would be interesting to read the Japanese initial reaction to the Hellcat, which looks so much like the Wildcat.

Bruce

 

[k0ua]

it looks like the Hellcat has a much wider landing gear stance and hydraulic retraction, so should be easier/safer to land, yes?

 

[2LaneCruzer]

It would be interesting to read the Japanese initial reaction to the Hellcat, which looks so much like the Wildcat.

View attachment 594500


Bruce

I know their tactics too advantage of some of the Wildcat's shortcomings, and they were in for a big surprise when they mistook the Hellcat for the Wildcat...e.g. A Wildcat pilot was as good as dead if he tried to climb out with a Zero on his tail. The Wildcat would eventually stall and he was dead meat. Not so with the Hellcat; the Zero was in for a big surprise, because he would stall out first and the advantage was reversed.

 

[dodge man]

I have done a lot of reading on WW II and one thing the US was really lacking was in a heavy tank. We really let our troops down when it came to tanks. We made up for it with some decent tank destroyers. If the Sherman had just had decent armor but the weak gun, it might have been O.K. If it had a decent gun but the weak armor, it would have been OK. The problem is it had neither. They did up gun it and if you have seen Fury, it was an up gunned Sherman. The US developed the Pershing but the Sherman was pushed first and the Pershing didn't get put into the war in Europe until very late. It was probably the equal to any of the German tanks.

The reason I say we let our troops down is because every other area, small arms, ships, planes, artillery, trucks, etc. we were pretty much equal or superior to the axis, but not in tanks.

 

[Diggin It]

People dispute it, but I still say if the ME262 had gotten into the air in quantities a few months sooner, things could have been very different.

 

[ArlyA]

People dispute it, but I still say if the ME262 had gotten into the air in quantities a few months sooner, things could have been very different.

A few problems with the ME262 that comes to mind is they needed to fuel it and they had very little left. Its engines were also very problematic and lasted a very short time. What else? This is what happens when you put new machines out asap.

 

[dodge man]

The ME262 was without a doubt a game changer, it just came along to late, part of that due to ****** wanting to make it into a bomber.

 

[bcp]

Not far behind:

From:
Lockheed P-8 Shooting Star - Wikipedia


Before World War II ended, however, two American pre-production Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star fighter jets did see limited service in Italy with the USAAF on reconnaissance, in February and March 1945. Because of delays in delivery of production aircraft, the Shooting Star saw no actual combat during the conflict.


After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262A concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number (the Me 262A's being at M 0.86), from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."


Bruce

 

[Diggin It]

And just imagine if they had been able to develop reliable guidance for the V1 and V2.

I'm not sure how much of any of that would have made it to the Pacific (getting back to the OP) or if Japan would have been able to use it effectively.