Corsair vs. Hellcat

[wegman58]

Early 1944, I just had an encounter with the remnants of the IJN carrier force. I was underwhelmed with the performance of my Hellcats. Would I have done better with Corsairs?

I have some marine squadrons and enough to transition a squadron or two to Corsairs (the 2nd generation, NOT the ones without tailhooks).

Just wondering if it would be worth the effort.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: wegman58
Would I have done better with Corsairs?

Yes. Much faster, more manoeuvrable, better durability while the same firepower. What's not to like?

[spence]

While a more advanced model (F4U-4?), the Corsair continued in service into the Korean War. The F6F was relegated to training/replaced almost immediately following the war by the F8F.

[rockmedic109]

Check your replacement rates. If you do not have enough to replace losses, you will need to keep on using the Hellcats. If you're not getting good results with the Hellcats, make sure your pilots are good. Send the worse pilots back to the pool and request a veteran.

[Canoerebel]

Hellcats in escort roles are toast - especially against good LBA fighters. Generally, Hellcats only do well in CAP roles against enemy fighters serving as escorts.

[wegman58]

Thank you all.

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hellcats in escort roles are toast - especially against good LBA fighters. Generally, Hellcats only do well in CAP roles against enemy fighters serving as escorts.

Pray for me when I face John's carrier-capable Jacks and Georges.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hellcats in escort roles are toast - especially against good LBA fighters. Generally, Hellcats only do well in CAP roles against enemy fighters serving as escorts.

Pray for me when I face John's carried-capable Jacks and Georges.

Is that some kind of mod? Jacks and Georges are capable of being carried, is that what you mean?

[JeffroK]

A little handle behind the cockpit.

[rustysi]

Pray for me when I face John's carried-capable Jacks and Georges.

Unless playing a mod, these aircraft aren't CV capable.

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Pray for me when I face John's carried-capable Jacks and Georges.

Unless playing a mod, these aircraft aren't CV capable.

This is John's BTS mod and yes they are carrier-capable in it. [:D][8D]

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Pray for me when I face John's carried-capable Jacks and Georges.

Unless playing a mod, these aircraft aren't CV capable.

This is John's BTS mod and yes they are carrier-capable in it. [:D][8D]

Are ME 262 also Carrier Capable ? Or rather the Nakajima Kikka ?

I would assume so...

[8D]

[Canoerebel]

In one of my early games vs. John III (probably a WitP match, not AE), he had a mod in which he'd made Jacks carrier capable. Apparently a lively discussion erupted in his AAR, for he ultimately decided not to deploy them on carriers in the game. Something must've changed since then?

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Something must've changed since then?

Progress! Japanese scientists have worked around the clock and finally found a solution [:)]

[RangerJoe]

Nope, maybe they can take off from the carrier but not land on the carrier . . .

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Pray for me when I face John's carried-capable Jacks and Georges.

Unless playing a mod, these aircraft aren't CV capable.

This is John's BTS mod and yes they are carrier-capable in it. [:D][8D]

I am in the same boat. I took on a BTSL 5.4 game and then realized that both the Jack and George
are carrier capable. This means that the USN will never have a carrier fighter that is equal or better
the the IJN.

[Cavalry Corp]

In my game of RA 7.9 the Japanese player accelerated the second-generation George which is on his CV and produced in vast numbers. Even at the beginning of 1944 I do not really want to face his carriers. The George has also very much slow the advance of the allies on the ground and it manages to get bombers through to ships quite easily.

[Big B]

The F6F Hellcat under-performs in this game, especially compared to the F4U Corsair.
Both were excellent types for their era.
But the Hellcat did not earn the highest kill ratio of any fighter in the PTO for nothing.

The Hellcat was a bit lighter, with a larger wing, and lower wing loading - along with Better High-Altitude performance than the F4U, with the same engine-supercharger combo, and horsepower.
The game mechanics short the Hellcat in regards to it's true performance envelope, and in the stock game the Hellcats top speed is shortened - it was only about 20mph slower in top speed over most models, but more maneuverable, better altitude performance, and an easier carrier operated fighter - with about The Lowest maintenance requirements of the war.
The US Navy and Marines kept the F4U after the war because more development was done later as a fighter-bomber...when Fighters were transitioned to jets, but that is no reflection on either's WW2 record and performance in the Day-Fighter role.

EDIT: Remember the Marines got the Corsair first...before the Navy.
The Marines then and now - ALWAYS get the cast-offs...it has never changed.
Now ask yourself - Why did the Navy cast off the Corsair in favor of the Hellcat?

[HansBolter]

Wasn't it primarily deck performance issues that caused the Navy to choose the Hellcat over the Corsair?

The large prop, effecting the angle at which the aircraft sat at on deck, and the far to the rear set cockpit of the Corsair made pilot visibility while maneuvering on deck a challenge.

[Gewehr_43]

I noticed this too. I was so excited to start getting the Hellcat in numbers, but when I put them on a fighter sweep over a Japanese base with A6M3s, they got cut to ribbons. My pilots were at a 77 experience level, so they weren't novices by any stretch.