F4F-3 or F4F-4 - which is best?

[moose1999]

I'm having a hard time seeing the advantage of upgrading my F4F-3's to F4F-4's.
It seems the F4F-3 is better than the 4 in both manoeuvre an climb, while the 4 has a better load and 12 guns instead of 8.
Is this difference to the advantage of the F4F-4?
It doesn't really look like it to me.
I would say manoeuvre and climb are very important to a fighter, and since I can't see what load would matter to a fighter, the sole purpose of upgrading should be to get 4 more guns on the plane (paying for it in climb and man.)
Is the 4 extra guns worth it ?

I'm playing Nikmod, by the way.

[Wolfie1]

Personally I think the F4F-3 is the better aircraft.

[moose1999]

So do I.
In the game at least.
Don't know if that was the case too in real life.
Anybody know what the historical truth is in this case...?
Which version did the real pilots prefer?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

I'm having a hard time seeing the advantage of upgrading my F4F-3's to F4F-4's.
It seems the F4F-3 is better than the 4 in both manoeuvre an climb, while the 4 has a better load and 12 guns instead of 8.
Is this difference to the advantage of the F4F-4?
It doesn't really look like it to me.
I would say manoeuvre and climb are very important to a fighter, and since I can't see what load would matter to a fighter, the sole purpose of upgrading should be to get 4 more guns on the plane (paying for it in climb and man.)
Is the 4 extra guns worth it ?

I'm playing Nikmod, by the way.

In the game (even more so in NM IMO) fire power is very important, so I would prefer the F4. Would be cool to have 4 .50 cal more though there are only two more... [;)]

[spence]

F3F-3s lacked armor (though some was added in the field) and some at least lacked self sealing gas tanks. Also, their wings didn't fold so the size of the fighter group was limited. Recognized as something less than the ideal dogfighter the 6 guns put out more firepower in the short intervals (as deflection shooting was doctrine) when the plane's guns might bear.

[Mistmatz]

In CHS you're trading one point of maneuverability plus an increased extended range and 12knots higher speed for one armour, +8 on guns and a replacement rate of 90 vs 1.

A much easier decision I'd say. [:D]

[AW1Steve]

[:)] From what everyone has said , it seems the logical deployment is  to put F4F4s on carrier (for larger numbers) and use F4F3s in VMF squadrons ashore (manueveability). I always find that I seldom have enough F4F4s and that deployment should help.[:)]

[Nikademus]

F4F-4 hands down in Nikmod. The extra firepower of the Browning Sixpack coupled with good pilots will give Betty and Zero coniption fits

[Big B]

In the B-Mod, it may be a toss-up.  Just as I gave the Oscar, Claude, and Nate an accuracy bonus for an all center-line armament (which has proved worthwhile) - I gave the F4F-3 an accuracy bonus to account for the fact that they carried 450 rds pr gun compared to 270 rpg for the F4F-4.  Reading sources like Lundstrom bears out the fact that USN pilots were addament about the loss of ammo.

However, I still gave the F4F-4 better armor than the F4F-3, and the F4F-4 will still have a better barrage value when it fires...so numbers aside, I think it will be a toss-up in B-Mod.

[wdolson]

One thing the game should have, but doesn't is how much space each aircraft takes up on a carrier.  The F4F-4, with it's folding wings took up much less space on a carrier, which allowed the number of fighters to be increased.  Even that aside, as others have said, the F4F-4 is  tougher, and since the game doesn't track ammo usage, it has more punch.  The F4F-4 carried less ammo per gun, so it had more punch, but for a shorter time in combat.

Bill

[herwin]

In reality, the F4F3 was a better aircraft, but it took up 50% more deck area, so the carriers couldn't operate as many.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Big B
Reading sources like Lundstrom bears out the fact that USN pilots were addament about the loss of ammo.

IIRC they also didn't like the slower speed & apparent lowered maneuverability. Though admittedly my memory's a little fuzzy.

[Feinder]

I use F-4 on my CVs, since the range on your DBs is only 4 anyway.  I use the F-3s in the USMC squadrons, so they can escort something out to range 5 if necessary.
 
-F-

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

ORIGINAL: Big B
Reading sources like Lundstrom bears out the fact that USN pilots were addament about the loss of ammo.

IIRC they also didn't like the slower speed & apparent lowered maneuverability. Though admittedly my memory's a little fuzzy.

Yeah - according to Lundstrom, the USN carrier pilots hated the F4F4 - they felt it handled like a fully loaded torpedo bomber, they didn't like the lowered ammo, etc.

Notably - the US dropped the 6 mg armament when they went to the next improvement. The 6 x .50 cal mgs had been put in at the insistence of the Brits (for an order they placed), and the US wanted to standardize production so everything got 6 x .50 cal - for a while.

[Miller]

The Hellcat replacement, the F8F Bearcat went back to 4 guns. Although I don't know if this was to save weight or because the USN felt 4 was enough........

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Miller

The Hellcat replacement, the F8F Bearcat went back to 4 guns. Although I don't know if this was to save weight or because the USN felt 4 was enough........

The Bearcat was designed as an interceptor with the minimum weight necessary to do the job while mounting the maximum power engine available.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: ctangus

ORIGINAL: Big B
Reading sources like Lundstrom bears out the fact that USN pilots were addament about the loss of ammo.

IIRC they also didn't like the slower speed & apparent lowered maneuverability. Though admittedly my memory's a little fuzzy.

Yeah - according to Lundstrom, the USN carrier pilots hated the F4F4 - they felt it handled like a fully loaded torpedo bomber, they didn't like the lowered ammo, etc.

Notably - the US dropped the 6 mg armament when they went to the next improvement. The 6 x .50 cal mgs had been put in at the insistence of the Brits (for an order they placed), and the US wanted to standardize production so everything got 6 x .50 cal - for a while.

Very interesting thread. Curious though, isn't it, that now we sing the praises of the Wildcat for having armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, when, according to the reports of pilots, this seemed to count less with them than did the maneuverability.

[Big B]

Well,

The best known critic of the F4F-4 was John Thach (after his experiences at Midway). On the other hand Lt Cmdr Flately (XO of VF42, who fought the Coral Sea battle) thought the aircraft workable.

Both Flately and Thach together worked out F4F tactics after Midway and Coral Sea (according to Lundstrom). Flately disagreed with Thach over the wildcats capabilities and liabilities v the Zero, and Flately apearantly won Thach over to the POV that what ever the F4F-4 gave away in performance to the F4F-3 - it really wasn't enough to make a real difference in combat. Both agreed that the worst point of the F4F-4 was the 6x guns with 270 rds pr gun of the F4F-4, compared to the 4x guns with 450 rds pr gun of the F4F-3 (not for the added weight - but for firing time allowed). It appears at Midway, not a few F4F's were out of ammo too early - this appears to be the major source of anxiety between the two models (again according to Lundstrom). On the credit side of the F4F-4, it could carry drop tanks and therefore extend range, Pilots like Flately regarded range as the primary handicap of the F4F-3.

The remark that the F4F-4 "was a dog" is always taken out of context - it was made in reference to the F4F-4 with two wing tanks (Lundstrom 1st Team, page 443).

So to summarize, the F4F-4 did have a bit lower performance than the F4F-3, but not enough to make a difference in relation to combat with the Zero; the F4F-4 had greater firepower - but less trigger time (not a universally accepted virtue); and the provision for drop tanks provided a solution to the F4F's limited range problem(read - limited fuel, which translates into higher cruise speed, which translates into entering combat at high speed...THE biggest problem pilots identified after combat with the Zero - starting combat flying too slow); and folding wings allowed a major increase in the numbers available on board a carrier.

The Wildcat the pilots really wanted was the FM-2, with 4 guns and more ammo, provision for drop tanks (more fuel), folding wings, and most importantly - more horsepower which made maneuvering with the Zero a whole new ball game. test flights with captured A6M5's showed the FM-2 to more than hold it's own in climbing AND turning (besides the usual advantages of high speed roll and controllability, etc)... but it didn't arrive at the fleet until 1943.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: ctangus



IIRC they also didn't like the slower speed & apparent lowered maneuverability. Though admittedly my memory's a little fuzzy.

Yeah - according to Lundstrom, the USN carrier pilots hated the F4F4 - they felt it handled like a fully loaded torpedo bomber, they didn't like the lowered ammo, etc.

Notably - the US dropped the 6 mg armament when they went to the next improvement. The 6 x .50 cal mgs had been put in at the insistence of the Brits (for an order they placed), and the US wanted to standardize production so everything got 6 x .50 cal - for a while.

Very interesting thread. Curious though, isn't it, that now we sing the praises of the Wildcat for having armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, when, according to the reports of pilots, this seemed to count less with them than did the maneuverability.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: ctangus



IIRC they also didn't like the slower speed & apparent lowered maneuverability. Though admittedly my memory's a little fuzzy.

Yeah - according to Lundstrom, the USN carrier pilots hated the F4F4 - they felt it handled like a fully loaded torpedo bomber, they didn't like the lowered ammo, etc.

Notably - the US dropped the 6 mg armament when they went to the next improvement. The 6 x .50 cal mgs had been put in at the insistence of the Brits (for an order they placed), and the US wanted to standardize production so everything got 6 x .50 cal - for a while.

Very interesting thread. Curious though, isn't it, that now we sing the praises of the Wildcat for having armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, when, according to the reports of pilots, this seemed to count less with them than did the maneuverability.

True. But, most of the pilots holding a recently changed opinion on the armor v. maneuverability debate were the ones making a high-speed controlled flight into the ocean while on fire.

Edited for clarity.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Well,

The best known critic of the F4F-4 was John Thach (after his experiences at Midway). On the other hand Lt Cmdr Flately (XO of VF42, who fought the Coral Sea battle) thought the aircraft workable.

Both Flately and Thach together worked out F4F tactics after Midway and Coral Sea (according to Lundstrom). Flately disagreed with Thach over the wildcats capabilities and liabilities v the Zero, and Flately apearantly won Thach over to the POV that what ever the F4F-4 gave away in performance to the F4F-3 - it really wasn't enough to make a real difference in combat. Both agreed that the worst point of the F4F-4 was the 6x guns with 270 rds pr gun of the F4F-4, compared to the 4x guns with 450 rds pr gun of the F4F-3 (not for the added weight - but for firing time allowed). It appears at Midway, not a few F4F's were out of ammo too early - this appears to be the major source of anxiety between the two models (again according to Lundstrom). On the credit side of the F4F-4, it could carry drop tanks and therefore extend range, Pilots like Flately regarded range as the primary handicap of the F4F-3.

The remark that the F4F-4 "was a dog" is always taken out of context - it was made in reference to the F4F-4 with two wing tanks (Lundstrom 1st Team, page 443).

So to summarize, the F4F-4 did have a bit lower performance than the F4F-3, but not enough to make a difference in relation to combat with the Zero; the F4F-4 had greater firepower - but less trigger time (not a universally accepted virtue); and the provision for drop tanks provided a solution to the F4F's limited range problem(read - limited fuel, which translates into higher cruise speed, which translates into entering combat at high speed...THE biggest problem pilots identified after combat with the Zero - starting combat flying too slow); and folding wings allowed a major increase in the numbers available on board a carrier.

The Wildcat the pilots really wanted was the FM-2, with 4 guns and more ammo, provision for drop tanks (more fuel), folding wings, and most importantly - more horsepower which made maneuvering with the Zero a whole new ball game. test flights with captured A6M5's showed the FM-2 to more than hold it's own in climbing AND turning (besides the usual advantages of high speed roll and controllability, etc)... but it didn't arrive at the fleet until 1943.

Thanks Big B for the information. That makes sense; sure there were performance differences but they were largely outweighed by defensive enhancements.

I did not however, realize that there was any significant difference from the FM-2 and the F4F-4. I had always thought of the FM-2 as an F4F-4 made at a different factory. I'm sure your right, but I'll have to go read up on it.