FW's vs F6F and F4U….

This Fw-190 of JG.5 was indeed the only Fw-190 ever shot down with a Hellcat during WW2, and Ritchie was flying Hellcat 1 JV132 at the time.

Sounds like a good diorama for some of the modellers around this forum.

Man….that Hellcat vs Luftwaffe story really intrigues me…you learn something new every day, don’t you?

You certainley do on this forum, that’s for sure.

I certainley have 🙂

G.

Sub Lt. B. Richie claimed the Focke-Wulf and went on to claim a total of 6 kills, becoming one of only a few Royal Navy Hellcat aces.[/I]

Now I’m home, I’ve had a root around in my bookshelf and the above is slightly misleading as his total score of 5 and 2 shared destroyed, included 3.5 whilst flying Sea Hurricanes.

This Fw-190 of JG.5 was indeed the only Fw-190 ever shot down with a Hellcat during WW2, and Ritchie was flying Hellcat 1 JV132 at the time.

On 14th May 1944, whilst flying JV132 also, Ritchie claimed a He115, plus a half share of another He115.

Man….that Hellcat vs Luftwaffe story really intrigues me…you learn something new every day, don’t you? I knew that one Corsair was shot down by German flak on the Tirpitz raids (Vas is los? Zee vings iss bent?) but never heard the stories of Hellcats vs the Luftwaffe….

M

Wow…never heard about that one at all….closest I could’ve come was Wildcats fighting the Germans, which they did…never knew a Hellcat or two saw combat against the Nazis….VERY interesting.

Yes, the Corsair was given to the Marines to use while the Hellcat went aboard carriers until the Corsair was straightened out for carrier work…even VF-17, which had conducted carrier trials with their F4U’s and were ready to embark aboard the Bunker Hill for combat were told that they were to leave their F4U’s behind and instead went to war in Hellcats, and they were NOT happy about it…but finally, and in great amount thanks to the Brits who used the Corsair on carriers despite loads of accidents until a way was found to land the Corsair out of a stalling turn….the Corsair FINALLY was cleared to land on US carriers again and did finish the war in Japan’s back yard, it’s full potential finally realized.

Mark

I knew my memory wasn’t fading….the following from the FAA archive website……. 😀

Royal Navy Hellcat I’s (F6F-3) from 800 squadron were involved in escorting Barracuda attacks on the german battleship Tirpitz from April to August 1944 in Alta Fjord, Norway. One of these operations, on 8 May 1944, the Luftwaffe fighters flew up to protect the battleship. Some of the 800 squadron Hellcats from HMS Emperor went to attack the German aircraft and shot down 1 Fw-190 and two Bf-109G fighters. The Hellcats suffered one loss to the Luftwaffe and another to anti-aircraft fire. Sub Lt. B. Richie claimed the Focke-Wulf and went on to claim a total of 6 kills, becoming one of only a few Royal Navy Hellcat aces.

800NAS history

Thanks for that Firebird.
Looks like the Hellcat could hold it’s own.
I like the 800Sqn. website too.
Cheers
Andy

I thought there was a documented successful combat between RN Hellcats or was it Corsairs? and Luftwaffe fighters off the Norweigan coast……. :confused:

I knew my memory wasn’t fading….the following from the FAA archive website……. 😀

Royal Navy Hellcat I’s (F6F-3) from 800 squadron were involved in escorting Barracuda attacks on the german battleship Tirpitz from April to August 1944 in Alta Fjord, Norway. One of these operations, on 8 May 1944, the Luftwaffe fighters flew up to protect the battleship. Some of the 800 squadron Hellcats from HMS Emperor went to attack the German aircraft and shot down 1 Fw-190 and two Bf-109G fighters. The Hellcats suffered one loss to the Luftwaffe and another to anti-aircraft fire. Sub Lt. B. Richie claimed the Focke-Wulf and went on to claim a total of 6 kills, becoming one of only a few Royal Navy Hellcat aces.

800NAS history

I thought there was a documented successful combat between RN Hellcats or was it Corsairs? and Luftwaffe fighters off the Norweigan coast……. :confused:

I’ve looked but I can’t find any record of this action. As I said the raid in April 1944 was’nt intercepted. If anyone can shed any light on this I’d appreciate it.
Cheers
Andy

since the Corsair and Hellcat never fought German aircraft

I thought there was a documented successful combat between RN Hellcats or was it Corsairs? and Luftwaffe fighters off the Norweigan coast……. :confused:

It almost Happened…

Hi
history could have easily have given us our answer.
On April 3rd 1944 Corsairs of no’s 1834 and 1836 Sqn’s. FAA operating from carriers of the RN’s Home Fleet flew top cover for a combined Barracuda, Wildcat and Hellcat strike on the battleship Tirpitz which at that time was moored in Kaa Fjord, Norway. The attack was a complete suprise to the Germans and no Luftwaffe aircraft arrived at the scene in time to intercept.
The Corsairs were briefed to operate at 10,000 ft. So, was this the optimum height for the Corsair?
Cheers
Andy

Don’t forget the Brits

The USN didn’t like it & stuck with the F6F…. but the RN ironed out the bugs … after which the USN changed their minds 😀

Mark

On the assumption that you know more than a little about the F4U – can I ask you this …

I read somewhere that the USN didn’t use the F4U as a carrier aircraft as they had too many landing accidents with them during initial testing. Something about the relatively high landing speed and sudden stall I think. So instead they chose the F6F, and the F4U went to the Marines and became a land-based aircraft.

Is that right?

cheers Don

FIRMLY entrenched…since my grandfather built the F4U…and the facts support it as being better than the P-51 ;-)…Granted, the P-51 DID have the range, can’t deny it.

Mark

Spot the entrenched position! 😉 😉

That aside, I understand that the key point that made the P51 superior in the European Theatre was its range. The relative performance differentials between the competing fighters meant that (as Galdri says) if you got your tactics sorted out to maximise your advantages and cope with your deficiencies (like whether to dive away from an opponent depends on what they’re in, etc.) it was neither here nor there in the thick of battle.

Other factors came into it, and everything I’ve read on this suggests that it was the P51’s long range escort capabilities that made such a big difference in terms of air superiority.

cheers, Gnome

Actually, that’s a good point….and one I always went by, since the Corsair and Hellcat never fought German aircraft and the P-51 did…and we now know (though some will argue) that the Corsair was a better performer and basically superior to the P-51 at and below 25,000 ft (after which the Mustang took over), would it not make sense that since the P-51 was better than the FW and the 109 and the Corsair was better than the P-51, that the F4U would be better than the FW and the 109? BELOW 25,000 , I mean? Simplistic, as I say, but seeming to have it’s foot in the door of merit as apparently, listening to these pilots who flew these planes, that’s the way they seem to feel..
Tactical situation considered, yes, maybe a lot of it had to do with keeping one’s head on a swivel and not getting caught with one’s pants down and a decided altitude disadvantage….I seem to recall something about the USS Enterprise being void of fighters once so the Dauntlesses had to do the fighting against an incoming attack…and the Dauntlesses shot down 10 attacking enemy planes with no losses because they worked together and used the Dauntless’ ability to dive away from attacking Zekes to stay alive…so even the lesser capable planes in combat COULD be useful given the right conditions..

Mark

Not at all dissing you Corsair, but these discussions about which was better than the other are sh!ts of things and and often enough retreat into entrenched positions.

I think your observation that none of these aircraft were the ultimate models is pertinent. Wartime leads to significant funding and enthusiasm for technological advancement and no sooner than one party improves something (speed, armament, climb, manouverabilty, etc., etc.) than the other would respond and exceed whatever it was. So there’s a constant lead/lag development going on and no real stable state at which a comparison is useful. As a case in point, the FW190 when it first appeared operationally immediately outclassed the Spitfire (was it the MkV?) but then the Spit was improved … and so it goes. And the last FW190’s, the D series, were generally accepted to be the best German piston engined fighters in front-line service (the Dornier 335 not really being operational to any degree) easily able to mix it with P51s and late model Spitfires – but Germany had bugger all gasoline available, with what there was being low octane!

Given the US Marine and Navy fighters didn’t feature in the European theatre (I believe), one way of assessing this might be to see how F4U’s and F6F’s compared with the P51 – then extend that to the competition.

cheers, Gnome

edit Galdri, we posted at the same time more or less – same point re. the MkV I see

This is always an interesting subject. Which aircraft could better another. Sadly, though, I’m afraid there is no clear answear. Different aircraft have different maximum performance altitudes for one thing. Take the Spitfire V versus FW190. The normal Mk. V didn’t have a chance against the FW, but the LF MkV could out run it and out turn it below ca.5000 feet. Same with the Typhoon, it was generally considered superior to the FW below 10000 feet but didn’t stand a chance (ok, a bit of a strong word) above 12000. Another example would be the P51 and the Tempest. Below about 20000 the Tempest was far superior, but less able to hold it’s own above that altitude. So, when comparing aircraft, you can not (I think) reach a deffinate answer, as if you take two aircraft with identical pilots and have them do a battle at say 10000 feet, and another battle at 20000, the resaults could be very different.

The biggest factor influencing the outcome of any aerial battle would be the handling of the tactical situation. By far the greatest number of pilots shot down, probably never saw what hit them (I think I’ve seen the number 90% somewhere). That says, that the realative performance of the aircraft they were flying is not the winning factor, even if it will play some role in a dog fight. If you think for a moment, if performance was the only thing, HOW did the Poles even manage to shoot down SOME Germans flying their ancient PZL fighters?