F4F-3's

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
wpurdom
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

F4F-3's

Post by wpurdom »

F4F-3's were significantly less easy to pack on carriers - the F4F-4 was the plane with the fold-along-the side wings that took up so little space and allowed one to hang planes on top of others. On the other hand the pilots thought the 3 was a significantly better plane. Will there be any reflection of these differences. If one didn't want to handle two plane types, one could increase the capacity of US CV's after the 4's come on line.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

I've never heard that claim about the preference for the F4F-3 over the F4F-4. Can you provide a source?
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
CynicAl
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Brave New World

Wildcat models

Post by CynicAl »

I'm pretty sure it's in Lundstrom, mdiehl - probably the first First Team. The big problem was that the wing-folding mechanism added weight. So did the additional armor, and the self-sealing tanks. So did the change to six guns (even with the reduced ammo load). As a result the F4F-4 was noticeably heavier than the F4F-3 had been, with reduced performance across the board. US pilots also weren't thrilled with the new armament - they much preferred the 4 X .50" with 450rpg of the F4F-3 to the 6 X .50" with 240rpg of the F4F-4. (And they griped long and loud enough about that one that nearly all the GM-built Wildcats carried the original armament.)
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
wpurdom
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Decatur, GA, USA

F4F-4's more compact, not better

Post by wpurdom »

I was out of town, but CynicAl answered for me. I get the impression from Lundstrom (though he doesn't state it outright) that after Flatley made out his case for the F4F-4, the pilots became reconciled to the greater weight of the folding wings (given the ability to carry more planes), but they never became reconciled to the greater weight and lower ammo of the 3rd pair of guns.
User avatar
showboat1
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Atoka, TN

Post by showboat1 »

If you read Stafford's "The Big E" he points out that many of the Wildcat pilots were not enthusiastic bout wings that folded back. Also I read in the history of VMF-214 during the pre-Black Sheep days (when they were the Swashbucklers) that the pilots weren't excited about the added firepower of two new .50's. I believe it was the fact that it lightened the ammo load carried per gun and didn't allow them to fire long bursts. I guess people hate to be conservative.
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”