Did the US Navy use the Corsair?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Did the US Navy use the Corsair?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Did the US Navy use the Corsair?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Did the US Navy use the Corsair? - 9/30/2003 12:36:32 AM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

I lost the Lexington and Wasp in a carrier battle near Gili Gili early in the war, but was able to salvage the Navy Squadrons from both carriers and have been using them as landbased air.

All of my USMC F4F squadrons have upgraded to the Corsair. As I was going through my squadron lists I noticed that VF-71 (Wasp) had upgraded to the Corsair. Is this because they are landbased? Is this a bug? What happens when the Hellcat becomes available?

Thanks

Post #: 1

- 9/30/2003 12:46:13 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE=Mike Carroll]I lost the Lexington and Wasp in a carrier battle near Gili Gili early in the war, but was able to salvage the Navy Squadrons from both carriers and have been using them as landbased air.

All of my USMC F4F squadrons have upgraded to the Corsair. As I was going through my squadron lists I noticed that VF-71 (Wasp) had upgraded to the Corsair. Is this because they are landbased? Is this a bug? What happens when the Hellcat becomes available?

Thanks[/QUOTE]Corsair was definietely a carrier-based plane and it is available along with the Hellcat later in the war. Corsairs are practically indestructible and this may be a bug.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 2

- 9/30/2003 5:15:21 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE=Mike Carroll]I lost the Lexington and Wasp in a carrier battle near Gili Gili early in the war, but was able to salvage the Navy Squadrons from both carriers and have been using them as landbased air.

All of my USMC F4F squadrons have upgraded to the Corsair. As I was going through my squadron lists I noticed that VF-71 (Wasp) had upgraded to the Corsair. Is this because they are landbased? Is this a bug? What happens when the Hellcat becomes available?

Thanks[/QUOTE]

Mike, from my experience I think land based units will follow the upgrade path like VMF units - F4F to F4U. Only carrier based units should get the Hellcat unless a land based unit already has then assigned as original a/c when it comes in. I haven't played far enough in to get many Hellcats used that much as playing the Allied vs AI, I'm normally so far ahead that I quit & start another game.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 3

RE: - 2/7/2004 5:26:52 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi JCJ
LOL, do you go with the same battle plan in BTR ? once you get so far ahead you start again :)

by the by, know what you mean

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 4

RE: RE: - 2/7/2004 5:36:33 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

This is a know game bug, the US Navy did not Use F4U's from CV's untill mid 44 ifrc, certainly not withen the time frame that UV cover's. Their were a number of reasions for this.

Simply put F4U's should Never operate on a US CV in UV.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 5

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/8/2004 7:25:33 PM

SeaWolF K

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/1/2003
Status: offline

The Navy did and could use F4U's from carriers in 1943 (VF-17 operating off the Bunker Hill on Nov 11, 1943). Do to the intense combat in the south pacific and supply shortfalls it was decided base the Navy F4U's ashore with the Marines and use the F6F's on carriers. That way all F4U supplies went to the south pacific and the Navy didn't have to support one-two carriers with a different aircraft. As the size of the logistical trains increased and the number of carriers did as well this ceased to be a problem and the F4U was based on carriers again. Given that the reason was logistical and not performance based, there is no reason the NAVY F4U squadrons shouldn't be able to be carrier based in UV, because the South Pacific was supplied with the necessary spare parts. However, marine units did not recieve carrier F4U training and should not be. The F4U was carrier qualified in Feb-Mar 1943.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 6

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/9/2004 2:01:53 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Oh this one again
what makes you think Marines were not Carrier trained pilots ? who do you think the Marines flew for ?

go back and read the old posts, it has already been shown that the Marines were carrier trained from before the war

(now it can be said that later trained and rushed pilots did not go though all of the normal Marine training and that would cut out some of the carrier training, but most prewar Marine pilots had to go though Carrier training)

and saying such, most of the pilots in 1942 were not the rushed into action pilots, but Old Corps Pilots

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to SeaWolF K)

Post #: 7

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/10/2004 12:20:05 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

IIRC all prewar and most early war marine pilots had carrier training. However, as it was the norm to use them as LBA many lost their edge and many of the replacement pilots were never fully qualified. A perfect example is the famous Black Sheep squadron. It was decided to place them back in carrier operations but they had to be withdrawn to the US for many months for extensive carrier training before they were considered ready for carrier work. The squadron then went to the Franklin where most of the pilots were lost when she was nearly destroyed by a suicide attack.

Yes, marine pilots were carrier trained, but few were trained to land corsairs. Perhaps some were trained on F3Fs Could you take a 1943 marine squadron and transfer them to a carrier right away with no mishap? I doubt it could happen. Refreshing and retraining would be in order. (Remember carrier technology and doctrine underwent rapid tranformation as well. Anyone not actively operating on a carrier would be hopelessly out of date within half a year. It was not like getting back on a bicycle.)

As for the corsair, it was always a carrier plane. That is what is was designed for. There were some bugs and a learning curve with the earlier model. But the Brits were able to quickly work them out and the problems were solved. If the Americans were fighting as we are in scen #19-facing 8 to ten carriers and a slew of expert zero pilots that manage to massacre equivalent wildcat pilots on a 2-1 scale, then I am willing to bet that they would have figured out pretty darn quick a way to get corsairs onto the flattops!! For that reason I really don't mind if my opponents use them that way.

It is a minor bug but not a cheat as some have claimed in the past.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 8

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/10/2004 4:42:04 AM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
It is a minor bug but not a cheat as some have claimed in the past.

It is a pretty significant bug in the fact that the F4U is more than twice as effective as the F6F. CV-Based planes are supposed to upgrade to F6Fs. I'm actually surprised that the upgrade isn't based on the airgroup's position in the database (refreshingly surprised). The only thing that could make one consider this a minor bug is the fact that the Japanese player should have already won before F6Fs/F4Us arrive and if he hasn't, he probably won't.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 9

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/10/2004 8:57:48 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Crsutton

nice try, but the Black Sheep had been returned to the states before this, those were "new" pilots that went to the Franklin

most of the Black Sheep from Pappy's time, were rotated out already, with the squadron staying in place

which and while I agree, they would have to be retrained, I do not believe it would of been a complete start over, these wern't poorly trained pilots, the main idea was already known, and it would take a refeasher course to get back into the groove

which also don't forget, most prewar Marine Fighter Squadrons, had to be refreashed and pass Carrier landing trails before they could become Opp in a new Zone, every time they moved into a new area (ie east coast to west coast, west coast to Pac and so on)

that is the whole point, it was common training

HARD_Sarge

LOL, Just like a Grunt, we had to go to the rifle range twice a year, and run our PFT every month, I knew how to shoot and I knew how to run, but we still did it over and over again (that's one thing about the Corps, you may not know much, but what you do know, you know it very well :) )

_____________________________

(in reply to Damien Thorn)

Post #: 10

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/11/2004 1:57:37 PM

DJAndrews

Posts: 305
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Toronto, ON, CA
Status: offline

My understanding was that it wasn't just logistics that limited the use of the corsair on US carriers, but that it had some major problems with the role and was clearly inferior to the Hellcat. The main problems were the poor forward visibilityand a natural "bounce" when landing, both of which are special problems in carrier operations. The corsairs were operated primarily from British carriers because the Americans preferred Hellcats. It was really a safety issue. When the British squadron leader who first tested the corsair made his first landing on a carrier he immediately went and wrote out his will. The British lost more corsairs to crashes on carriers than to enemy action.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 11

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/11/2004 6:22:50 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi DJ
hmmm, interesting idea, but I don't think it holds water

end of the war, every Fleet carrier had at least 1 F4u Sqaudron on it, and the Cat was put to rest

the hassle was learning how to land it, normal Carrier landing is a racetrack, where you obit and when you are done and ready, you are at the rear of the flight deck and have a nice long approch, the F4u, had to come in from the side, flare his nose up and swing his tail to line up with the flight deck, a little tricky (and with the size of the props, which is why the F4u is the bent wing bird in the first place, the shocks where bouncey, no doubt about it, it took skill to land the thing)

end of the war, the Cat had some hassles with the new style of JP combat, it was not a fast climber, and was not a fast fighter, they needed something that as soon as the alert was given, the planes could get up and get out and engage before the JP got close to the fleet, and that was the F4u

the Cat was a easyer plane to fly and to land, but in the end, it didn't have the Speed needed, the Cat was a workhorse, the F4u was a race horse

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to DJAndrews)

Post #: 12

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/11/2004 8:34:16 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

in a nutshell, the USN could afford to be conservative because they knew the F6F was coming, therefore they tended to take a very sangquine view of the XF4U and yes, were very concerned over the teething issues, mainly the bounce, the visibility issue, not to mention the plane's tricky and unforgiving mannerisms revolving around it's spin characteristics....a major concern for a org that is currently training hordes of green recruits. The plane wasn't called the "Ensign Eliminator" for nothing.

The Brits were in the opposite position...and were pining for a new and high preformance airplane to base on their carriers after having suffered from years of neglect as the RAF's poor stepchild. Thus they were more than willing to "tackle" the challenge of the Corsair on carriers and very quickly succeeded in working out the bugs and issue.

After this, combined with the success the Marines (and VF-17 which was sort of used as a "test lab") had with the Corsair, + the looming threat of the Kamakazis requiring a fast interceptor made the USN reaccess it's prior viewpoint on the F4U and began to transition it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 13

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/11/2004 9:18:52 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
It is a minor bug but not a cheat as some have claimed in the past.

It is a pretty significant bug in the fact that the F4U is more than twice as effective as the F6F. CV-Based planes are supposed to upgrade to F6Fs. I'm actually surprised that the upgrade isn't based on the airgroup's position in the database (refreshingly surprised). The only thing that could make one consider this a minor bug is the fact that the Japanese player should have already won before F6Fs/F4Us arrive and if he hasn't, he probably won't.

Then perhaps the bug is the corsair as much as any thing else. It certainly was not twice as good as the F6F. Both were far superior to the zero and I really think that either should whup up on zeros without too much trouble. If the corsair is that far superior to the f6f then perhaps that should be fixed.

While you are at it, fix the zero so that it is no better than the P40 and wildcat-like it should have been all along. (Oh, sweet Jesus, I'm gonna pay for that ramark

)

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Damien Thorn)

Post #: 14

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/11/2004 9:33:45 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Hi Crsutton

that is the whole point, it was common training

HARD_Sarge

LOL, Just like a Grunt, we had to go to the rifle range twice a year, and run our PFT every month, I knew how to shoot and I knew how to run, but we still did it over and over again (that's one thing about the Corps, you may not know much, but what you do know, you know it very well :) )

Hard Sarge,

My point exactly. Carrier operations are not as simple as basic rifle training. As long as you remember where to point the rifle, you might just survive

There is no margin for error for a carrier landing. A unit that has been operating on land for a number of months would be very rusty and out of date. I don't think you would be able to move them directly to a carrier and expect them to do any thing but crash and burn a lot. A two weeks refresher or two months-something would be required. But to transfer a corsair squadron to a carrier and then send it in to combat such as we do in the game, I don't think it would have worked.

That said: I really do not have any problems with other players doing it in the game. There are a lot of other ahistorical things going on in the scenarios we play. It really does not matter. If the problem is that if the corsair is so uber, then that should be addressed-not how it is used. (However, I would like them to fix the upgrading bug.) As it is, any zero can be transferred to a carrier as well as all vals and kates. I don't think they were all carrier trained as well but am not sure.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 15

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/11/2004 11:37:24 PM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
That said: I really do not have any problems with other players doing it in the game. There are a lot of other ahistorical things going on in the scenarios we play. It really does not matter. If the problem is that if the corsair is so uber, then that should be addressed-not how it is used. (However, I would like them to fix the upgrading bug.) As it is, any zero can be transferred to a carrier as well as all vals and kates. I don't think they were all carrier trained as well but am not sure.

I agree completely:

1 let any cv-capable plane fly from a cv.
2 fix the upgrade path bug
3 look at the uber corsair's stats

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 16

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/12/2004 6:11:51 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

From: Americas 100,000 by Francis H. Dean

p. 515

"Sept. 25th 42- Initial carrier tests are preformed on the USS Sangamon, CVE 26, with four landings made. Problems surface imadeatly; cowlflaps actuator leaks, engine oil leaks from valve push rods, flouling the windsheild, the forward view is very poor, the aircraft bounces on landing and swings because the low tail wheel puts the flaps very clsoe to the carrier deck."

" Nov. 42 the 5th production model is modified to raise the piolets eat 8 incjes toimprove visabality, and a modified canopy is added. This modifacation is later added in production on the 689th aircraft in mid-43"

"Mar 43,Two corsars are equiped with pneumatic tail wheals on longer struts and tested...their is some improvement on carier landings, but tail wheals tend to blow out, during VF-12's training 14 piolets are killed in landing acedents, It is considered tricky to fly, VF-12 later switches to Hellcats."

"July 15 43, Navy Coursare unit VF-17 goes aboard the Bunker Hill and heads for a shakedown cruse in the Carabiean. They encounter tail hook problems; Hooks snap off and are replaced, Vought promises that they will have the new F4U-1A waiting for them apon their return to Norfolk."

"Sept 28th 43, the Bunker Hill Leaves San Diego for the South Pacific with VF-17 aboard"

"Oct 2, 43- The Bunker Hill docks at pearl Harbor; VF-17 and it's F4U-1As are off loaded with orders for esprito santo. They are replaced on the carier by VF-18 equiped with Hellcats. VF-17 has so far been the only Coursare squadron on a carier."

" Mar 44- The chief of Naval operations Training at NAS Jacksonville is preparing a letter indicating that the Coursare carrier deck landing characteristics are dangerious and the acedent rate, espichaly with young piolets, is unacceptably high...."

" Aprial-44- New Carier Trials with Coursairs modified with the new longstroke landing gear oleo shockstrut....are prounced suxcessfull after 113 landings and the Coursare is is finialy cleared for carrier operations."

So as you can see No F4U's should be available at anytime for any reasion from a US CV withen the scope of UV.

(in reply to Damien Thorn)

Post #: 17

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/13/2004 2:57:58 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

So? In Bradylike fashion, let's trace a somewhat different line of historical development:

Sep 25, 1942. Tests demonstrate serious problems with F4U Corsair as carrier fighter. In recognition of need for superior carrier-based aircraft to F4F, crash program of improvements ordered.

Nov 15, 1942. Follow-up training and tests completed. Several serious problems remain to be resolved. Due to failure of F6F prototypes to satisfy conditions required for air superiority role, accelerated re-development of F4U continued.

Jan 30, 1943. Re-designed F4U passes tests and is declared to be primary USN carrier fighter. As several factories have re-tooled for production of redesigned prototypes, mass production of type ordered. First copies roll of assembly lines in late February. Anticipated production of F6F halted, orders for aircraft type halted. Factories commence emergency re-tooling for F4U production.

March 15, 1943. USN pilots begin training with F4U in preparation for assignment to front-line duty.

May 30, 1943. First deliveries of F4U to USN carrier-based fighter units.

"Let us hex the Pentateuch and insert a book of Brady."

Seriously, though, please do not reduce the capabilities of the F4U. Instead, improve the game's (and I mean WitP as well as UV) rendering of the F6F, which was, as far as I have been able to determine, an excellent design in its own right.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 18

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/13/2004 4:14:10 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Americas 100,000 by Dean is an excelent referance source, it is quiet clear from reading the chronaligy I sight passages from above in the Chapter on the F4U that the plane has no place at all on any US CV withen the scope of UV, and no place unitll mid 44 in WitP on US CV's, British CV's did operate them First in a Combat role in Norway then later in the Pacific, slightly before the US did.
Helcats should enter service operationaly in about Aug. of 43 off US CV's in the Pacific.

SO we have somthing that looks like this:

Pearl to Aug. 43 Wildcats on US CV's.

Aug. 43 Increasing Helcats on US CV's untill mid 44.

Mid 44 till the end of the war F4U's on US CV's.

Their was considerable overlap though, FM2's being used on Jeep CV's ect untill war end, and Hellcats remaining on some US CV's untill war end as well.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 19

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/13/2004 4:44:23 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

You've posted this before. While the facts are not inaccurate, they are incomplete and therefore misleading. In fact, VF-17 demonstrated in 1943 that experienced pilots could safely operate the F4U from carriers; VF(N)-101 deployed afloat in January 1944 and proved that it could be done at night, with a big honkin' radar pod hanging off one wing! In fact, once the Navy finally decided to get serious about operating F4Us from CVs, it took less than six months to make the bugs go away (and the Brits did it even faster). There certainly were reasons why that didn't happen historically until late 1943/early 1944, principally the availability of the F6F in even greater numbers; there were, however, no reasons why it couldn't have happened: the desired changes to the F4U were all things that could be done by maintenance at the squadron level, plane by plane, or in bulk at the depot level.

...

How very fitting - in so many ways! - that someone should quote Inherit the Wind in a discussion of fighter aircraft!

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 20

RE: RE:Navy F4U - 2/13/2004 5:31:32 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

It is in no way misleading it is quiet clear at least to me that they have no place operating before then, as the Navy did not Operate them untill then, it makes no differance that they could of been, they simply were not. If were sighting historical precedent to determine the availability of units withen UV and WiTP then it is revelent if operational dates (historical ones) are not the criteria for the avalibality I would like to know what is.

(in reply to CynicAl)

Post #: 21

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Did the US Navy use the Corsair?

Page: [1]