If Hellcats & Corsairs were in Europe

How successful would you think Hellcats & Corsairs could have been as front line fighters in Europe during WW2? ... perhaps replacing the duties of P-47's and P-38's? Could these Navy planes have been suited well for tank busting? and tangling with 109's, 190's and possibly 262's? I know the Royal Navy used them, but I'm thinking more as a substitute for the USAAF aircraft, and even the Typhoon.

Not sure if we covered these questions before. Maybe we could add some new insight on some old questions.

Mark

[Mgawa]

Hellcats have seen some limited use over Europe and it perform great against German planes.

[CAPFlyer]

The Corsair saw combat over Europe and Africa with the Royal Navy as well, and like the Hellcat, it performed well.

Also, the US did multiple tests during and after the war with captured Axis fighters and found that both were generally superior to most of the German types. Someone posted more detailed information or a link to it on here a while ago, but I don't remember where it is.

[Owen Miller]

Well the Hellcat had a kill ratio of 19 to 1; the best
any ANY allied fighter. While she didn't have the
legs of a P-51 she would have surely held her own.
A lot of people (other that Hellcat pilots) say the
Coprsair was a better mount. I guess we'll never
really know because the air-to-air those types had
in Eurpoe was limited. I'd sure bet on 'em......

[lestweforget]

The Corsair saw combat over Europe and Africa with the Royal Navy as well, and like the Hellcat, it performed well.

Also, the US did multiple tests during and after the war with captured Axis fighters and found that both were generally superior to most of the German types. Someone posted more detailed information or a link to it on here a while ago, but I don't remember where it is.

See this thread http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19745&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Jerry O'Neill]

I think the Corsair was certainly proved as a suberb ground attack aircraft in both WWII and Korea. It would have done well in the ETO as an Air Corp fighter. Maybe there would be more around today if that were the case. The Hellcat would have been no slouch either!
Jerry

[Richard W.]

Compare the post-1943 JNAF and JAAF with the Luftwaffe.

Apples and oranges?

[A2C]

I read somewhere that a few Hellcats served during D-Day.

[Bill Greenwood]

A couple of points to remember. If you are only talking about ground attack, the Corsair was good enough to be used in Korea for that purpose.
As for tests by the U S or other country, I think there is automatically going to be bias for the home product. For instance, I saw a Navy report, not an actual test, that downgraded non Navy planes for the lack of view out the front. Too much was made of this, while it is true that a 109 had some obscured canopy areas, the top aces learned to work with it with deadly results.
If you are talking as an air dog fighter, but the time the last years of the war came the Brits had not only Spit IXs, but the Mk XIV. I doubt the Brits would prefer a Corsair to that. I have been told by a Warbird pilot who has flown most all of them, but not in combat, that a Hellcat is right up there with a Spitfire at low altitude. But once you get up in the 20s or even the 30s, the IX is faster than the Hellcat and the XIV is a lot faster, over 440 mph. The last Corsair was real fast, but don't think it made WW II. The high fuel consumption might have made the Corsair inferior to the Mustang as a bomber escort. If you are talking just fighter vs fighter, they might be close enough that the pilot would make the difference.
The Hellcat had a great kill ratio at the end, but remember the Japanese first team had mostly been depleted by then. They were suffering from everything to being outnumbered to being low on fuel, maintenance, food, medicine, all of it. There are Allied pilot reports about the low ablilty of some of the Japanese pilots after 42-43. Of course you might encounter a top ace with a couple of years combat experience, but even then he may not physically be in top shape.

[Dan K]

Compare the post-1943 JNAF and JAAF with the Luftwaffe.

Apples and oranges?

What are we comparing?

Dwindling numbers of experienced pilots?

Insufficient training syllabus?

Available technology?

[Richard W.]

What are we comparing? ...

Dwindling numbers of experienced pilots?

Insufficient training syllabus?

Available technology?

All of the above, I suppose.

I think if we're going to try to speculate on how the F6F and F4U would have done in Europe by using their record in the Pacific as a yardstick, we'll have to decide how the Japanese compare to the Germans.

[Dan K]

What are we comparing? ...

Dwindling numbers of experienced pilots?

Insufficient training syllabus?

Available technology?

All of the above, I suppose.

I think if we're going to try to speculate on how the F6F and F4U would have done in Europe by using their record in the Pacific as a yardstick, we'll have to decide how the Japanese compare to the Germans.

Got it.

In other words: Something to do for those with too much free time on their hands.

[Richard W.]

Dan- If you're so bored with the "what if" thread, then why post in it (twice)?

[Mgawa]

Maybe one similar comparation- Corsair and Lavockin La-7 have similar performance, regards to the top speed at mid level [were the most fight encountered]. In the East front Soviet pilots did not have any problem to wipe of any variant of Fw190 and this plane definitely rule the sky. I am sure that Corsair deployed in same number as other US fighter could perform excellent.

US fighter are massive and with very strong engines, much more power then the Germans. This mean more fuel consuption but US did not have that problem with fuel as German did. This mean that they should not have problem with wing load as well aramament was placed in wings. Wing armament mean that gun fire is desipersed in wide area and less chance for enemy to escape from being hit. German fighter have central armament and this mean more devastating efect on target but in other hand need more skilled pilot to do that. And Germans did not have it.

Just to note some Mustang tactics against Me262- they start fire from very large distance on Me262 and Germans are usually start to swing and turn to keep away from bullets. This action slow down the speed and Mustang get in much closer distances and get the jet into the sight and down it.

Germans are lucky that US did not deploy enough Hellcats and Corsairs there Mustangs and Lavockins was far enough for them to wipe them off from sky. Off course- regards to all fighters and brave pilots who fight this evel force which wanted to role the world [best regards to all PZL fighters, Ikarus fighters, Rogozarski fighters, Dewoitine, Morane, Fokker, Yak, Polikarpov, Koolhoven...]

Cheers

[Richard W.]

The La-7 comparison is a neat angle that didn't occur to me.

It's a lot more fun around here when members write reasoned responses like the one immediately above.