Greatest aircrat of WWII?

[Bleipriester]

Then how come the Germans killed thousands of them? Soviet production was optimized to please Stalin, tanks made him happy, spare parts didn't. This is all commonly available information, all you have to do is look it up. The T-34 was no super tank. It had some good features and a lot of horrible ones. It had a good engine in the V-2 Diesel and a decent gun with the 76mm.

I already said it is the way the Soviets used them. The war in the east was different from the west. The Soviets stormed the Germans over and over again, often without fighting until they were very close. Mountains of human bodies were created over which the next Red Army soldiers climbed to keep the assault alive. Same with tanks, the Soviets didn´t care for losses at all and we can´t blame them as that was their only chance to win. In the east tanks were also destroyed by the thousands by ground attack planes as such made up an own category of aircraft in the German and the Russian airforce. Beside airforce and tanks, also the German specialized infantry, field guns and artillery took their toll on the Russian tankforce.

 

[whitehall]

The gull wing Corsair was a powerful Carrier aircraft but proved to be a problem when the long engine length cut down the pilot's ability to judge his landing on the Carriers. The Corsairs were used effectevly by Marines on Guadalcanal

 

[Vrenn]

The gull wing Corsair was a powerful Carrier aircraft but proved to be a problem when the long engine length cut down the pilot's ability to judge his landing on the Carriers. The Corsairs were used effectevly by Marines on Guadalcanal

In the Pacific, the rugged Corsair needed the changes that the RAF did to theirs before it became a good carrier fighter. The biggest things that the RAF did was shorten the wings by 8 inches, raise the pilots seat 7 inches and added a hood similiar to the Malcolm Hood for the Spits.

The Corsair had the potential to be a better carrier fighter than the Hellcat but it didn't start enjoying that role until 1944 which, at that time, the Marines didn't have their Corsairs directly assigned to any Carriers. Plus, the Hellcats ended up outnumbering the Corsairs so the numbers are a bit jumbled when combat rates are figured in.

 

[AZrailwhale]

In the Pacific, the rugged Corsair needed the changes that the RAF did to theirs before it became a good carrier fighter. The biggest things that the RAF did was shorten the wings by 8 inches, raise the pilots seat 7 inches and added a hood similiar to the Malcolm Hood for the Spits.

The Corsair had the potential to be a better carrier fighter than the Hellcat but it didn't start enjoying that role until 1944 which, at that time, the Marines didn't have their Corsairs directly assigned to any Carriers. Plus, the Hellcats ended up outnumbering the Corsairs so the numbers are a bit jumbled when combat rates are figured in.

The biggest problem the Corsair had as a carrier fighter was that it had “bouncy” shock absorbers and tended to hop over the arresting wires. The FAA had nothing to do with raising the pilot’s seat or bulging the canopy. If you look at photos, you won’t see a FAA Corsair with those features until the BPF in 1945. The British bobbed the wings so the Corsairs would fit in the low hangers on British carriers. It had nothing to do with performance.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I already said it is the way the Soviets used them. The war in the east was different from the west. The Soviets stormed the Germans over and over again, often without fighting until they were very close. Mountains of human bodies were created over which the next Red Army soldiers climbed to keep the assault alive. Same with tanks, the Soviets didn´t care for losses at all and we can´t blame them as that was their only chance to win. In the east tanks were also destroyed by the thousands by ground attack planes as such made up an own category of aircraft in the German and the Russian airforce. Beside airforce and tanks, also the German specialized infantry, field guns and artillery took their toll on the Russian tankforce.

Aircraft killed very few tanks during the war.

 

[Bleipriester]

Aircraft killed very few tanks during the war.

The German aviator Rudel alone destroyed in 2530 ground attack missions 800 vehicles, thereof 519 tanks, additionally three ships, over 150 flak and field guns, 4 armored trains and numerous bunkers, bridges and supply routes.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The German aviator Rudel alone destroyed in 2530 ground attack missions 800 vehicles, thereof 519 tanks, additionally three ships, over 150 flak and field guns, 4 armored trains and numerous bunkers, bridges and supply routes.

All unconfirmed. As I recall he flew a G model Stuka with twin 37mn guns and FIVE rounds per gun. Even assuming he never missed, and got a tank kill with one shot per gun, he’d have needed to fly one hundred sorties just to kill the tanks. No one is that accurate. He’d be lucky to kill one tank per sortie And most sorties he’d never even see a tank. You are far too trusting of records that have been proven over and over again to be inflated. Look at it this way, if German ground attack aircraft were that much of a threat, the Soviets would have had fighters covering their tank units like carrion flys on a dead horse.

 

[Bleipriester]

All unconfirmed. As I recall he flew a G model Stuka with twin 37mn guns and FIVE rounds per gun. Even assuming he never missed, and got a tank kill with one shot per gun, he’d have needed to fly one hundred sorties just to kill the tanks. No one is that accurate. He’d be lucky to kill one tank per sortie And most sorties he’d never even see a tank. You are far too trusting of records that have been proven over and over again to be inflated. Look at it this way, if German ground attack aircraft were that much of a threat, the Soviets would have had fighters covering their tank units like carrion flys on a dead horse.

He also flew the FW-190, a Jagdbomber. The Russians of course were also in the air, but the Germans protected their ground attackers also.
However, the plane that competes with the Me 109 to be the most built aircraft ever is the Russian ground attack plane Il-2, over 36.000 were made and they proved to be successful.
That means there was more than one Il-2 for every German tank made during WWII.

 

[there4eyeM]

P38.

 

[Vrenn]

The biggest problem the Corsair had as a carrier fighter was that it had “bouncy” shock absorbers and tended to hop over the arresting wires. The FAA had nothing to do with raising the pilot’s seat or bulging the canopy. If you look at photos, you won’t see a FAA Corsair with those features until the BPF in 1945. The British bobbed the wings so the Corsairs would fit in the low hangers on British carriers. It had nothing to do with performance.

Your info is a bit lacking. One of the problems the Corsair had was to float before touchdown. The clipping of the wings took care of that problem.

In late 1942 and early 1943, sailors fashioned the first versions of the stall strip from simple blocks of wood for Corsairs already in service, while assembly lines at Vought, Goodyear, and Brewster soon added factory-built metal stall strips to each new aircraft.Despite more hair-raising attempts to make the Corsair carrier-ready, conducted by Navy squadrons VF-12 and VF-17, most of the original aircraft found a home in Marine Corps combat squadrons flying from—and more importantly, landing on—island bases.Over time, Vought engineers and men in the field implemented upgrades to the promising but troubled fighter. Greater air pressure in the airplane’s landing gear oleo easily eliminated much of the pronounced bounce. For a better view from the cockpit, designers replaced the “birdcage” canopy with a frameless clear “bubble.” The additional head space allowed the pilot’s seat to be raised by eight inches. An improved F4U-1A was in the Pacific with the Marines in the summer of 1943.But it was the British Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier’s deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown.The Corsair did not operate from U.S. Navy carriers until 1944. Even with improvements, the fighter was never a pussycat during landing. Green pilots still found ways to slide, bounce, or flip their Corsairs in those vulnerable seconds of final approach. Vought designers had sacrificed docile handling qualities for the sake of maximum speed, ceiling, and range.When the bugs were ironed out, the F4U hit its stride. Vought’s venerable “U-Bird” went on to become one of the best naval fighters of World War II, racking up 2,140 victories in aerial combat. Only 189 Corsairs were lost to enemy aircraft. Medal of Honor recipients “Pappy” Boyington, Robert Hanson, and Kenneth Walsh each claimed more than 20 victories, making the Corsair nearly as famous as the much-revered P-51 Mustang and flashy P-38 Lightning.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Your info is a bit lacking. One of the problems the Corsair had was to float before touchdown. The clipping of the wings took care of that problem.

In late 1942 and early 1943, sailors fashioned the first versions of the stall strip from simple blocks of wood for Corsairs already in service, while assembly lines at Vought, Goodyear, and Brewster soon added factory-built metal stall strips to each new aircraft.Despite more hair-raising attempts to make the Corsair carrier-ready, conducted by Navy squadrons VF-12 and VF-17, most of the original aircraft found a home in Marine Corps combat squadrons flying from—and more importantly, landing on—island bases.Over time, Vought engineers and men in the field implemented upgrades to the promising but troubled fighter. Greater air pressure in the airplane’s landing gear oleo easily eliminated much of the pronounced bounce. For a better view from the cockpit, designers replaced the “birdcage” canopy with a frameless clear “bubble.” The additional head space allowed the pilot’s seat to be raised by eight inches. An improved F4U-1A was in the Pacific with the Marines in the summer of 1943.But it was the British Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier’s deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown.The Corsair did not operate from U.S. Navy carriers until 1944. Even with improvements, the fighter was never a pussycat during landing. Green pilots still found ways to slide, bounce, or flip their Corsairs in those vulnerable seconds of final approach. Vought designers had sacrificed docile handling qualities for the sake of maximum speed, ceiling, and range.When the bugs were ironed out, the F4U hit its stride. Vought’s venerable “U-Bird” went on to become one of the best naval fighters of World War II, racking up 2,140 victories in aerial combat. Only 189 Corsairs were lost to enemy aircraft. Medal of Honor recipients “Pappy” Boyington, Robert Hanson, and Kenneth Walsh each claimed more than 20 victories, making the Corsair nearly as famous as the much-revered P-51 Mustang and flashy P-38 Lightning.

FAA pilots did invent the curved approach. The Corsair was far better than the Hellcat in the hands of an experienced pilot, but the docile Hellcat was a better fit for the inexperienced pilots filling the navy’s squadrons in 1943. Both were very good aircraft and could hold their own against any axis fighter in their designed combat envelope.

 

[Vrenn]

FAA pilots did invent the curved approach. The Corsair was far better than the Hellcat in the hands of an experienced pilot, but the docile Hellcat was a better fit for the inexperienced pilots filling the navy’s squadrons in 1943. Both were very good aircraft and could hold their own against any axis fighter in their designed combat envelope.

There is a difference between the Curved approach and the a curved semi-circular approach.

The curved approach was the gullwing approach to get the landing gear down low enough to allow the Prop the clearance. This was done It was engineered by the lead engineer done in 1938 without the FAA. BTW, NACA had some to do with it, not FAA.

a curved semi-circular approach for done by the RAF in 1943 by learning how to successfully catch the wires on a carrier.

 

[AZrailwhale]

There is a difference between the Curved approach and the a curved semi-circular approach.

The curved approach was the gullwing approach to get the landing gear down low enough to allow the Prop the clearance. This was done It was engineered by the lead engineer done in 1938 without the FAA. BTW, NACA had some to do with it, not FAA.

a curved semi-circular approach for done by the RAF in 1943 by learning how to successfully catch the wires on a carrier.

There was no FAA back then. It was NACA. What the curved approach was, was keeping the LSO in the V of the inverted gull wing until the last second. NACA had nothing to do with either the wing or landing gear design. It was a decision to keep the landing gear as short and strong as possible with a fifteen foot propellor. The Japanese took the opposite track with the Shiden Kai and used telescoping landing gear which caused them endless problems and a lot of aircraft lost to landing failures.

 

[Vrenn]

There was no FAA back then. It was NACA. What the curved approach was, was keeping the LSO in the V of the inverted gull wing until the last second. NACA had nothing to do with either the wing or landing gear design. It was a decision to keep the landing gear as short and strong as possible with a fifteen foot propellor. The Japanese took the opposite track with the Shiden Kai and used telescoping landing gear which caused them endless problems and a lot of aircraft lost to landing failures.

You are either showing you are learning or you are just trolling.

 

[whitehall]

The ungainly looking P-38 is often overlooked. In 1943 a group took off from Guadalcanal on a 1200 mile round trip with a borrowed Navy compass on an impossible mission to find and shoot down a tiny dot over enemy territory. Japanese Adml Yamamoto's plane was shot down in one of the most remarkable episodes of WW 2

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are either showing you are learning or you are just trolling.

What did I say that was wrong? I’ve known the history of the Corsair since grade school. It’s odd, awkward design Always intrigued me.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The ungainly looking P-38 is often overlooked. In 1943 a group took off from Guadalcanal on a 1200 mile round trip with a borrowed Navy compass on an impossible mission to find and shoot down a tiny dot over enemy territory. Japanese Adml Yamamoto's plane was shot down in one of the most remarkable episodes of WW 2

I’ve always thought the Lightning was an elegant design. To me there isn’t an angle from which it isn’t beautiful. That’s especially true of the early models without the beard intercoolers.

 

[Vrenn]

The ungainly looking P-38 is often overlooked. In 1943 a group took off from Guadalcanal on a 1200 mile round trip with a borrowed Navy compass on an impossible mission to find and shoot down a tiny dot over enemy territory. Japanese Adml Yamamoto's plane was shot down in one of the most remarkable episodes of WW 2

While there were fighters that did something better than the Lightning but the #2 in that category would go the the 38. And the 38 was flying before the 51 or even the 47 were in service in mass numbers. And that was the time when the FW-190 and ME-109 outnumbered the 38 by 11 to one. The first Allied Fighter or Bomber to fly over Berlin during the war as a flight of P-38s. No matter what you asked of the P-38, it was either #1 or #2 in all categories.

 

[Vrenn]

What did I say that was wrong? I’ve known the history of the Corsair since grade school. It’s odd, awkward design Always intrigued me.

You are taking the information I presented and trying to use it to win the argument trying to make yourself look better than anyone else. You can't win this one so stop fighting the fight. No one wins.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are taking the information I presented and trying to use it to win the argument trying to make yourself look better than anyone else. You can't win this one so stop fighting the fight. No one wins.

I’m amplifying some things you post and correcting your other mistakes. There are no losses when people)s knowledge is increases and falsehoods are refuted.