How does the FRU-4 Corsair and the P-47D Thunderbolt compare in both the game and "real world"?
The two planes are often compared and contrasted: both have the Pratt & Whitney R2800 Double Wasp, 18 cylinder engine. Both had roughly the same radius of action, were rugged, heavy and had high survivability, although the Corsair had the longevity to serve in Korea.
So does AE reflect any of this, or am I asking too much from this sim?
Corsair vs, Jug
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Corsair vs, Jug
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]
[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
[/center][center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
I'm using Symon's revised aircraft ratings. In game terms, the P-47D is a bit faster and has a bit more range. The F4U-4 has a better climb rate and is more maneuverable except in the two highest altitude bands. They're pretty close in durability. The P-47D with 8 x .5" guns has a firepower advantage over the F4U-4 with 6 x .5" guns.
It's a bit hard to judge without knowing how the air combat routines work in detail, but I'd guess that the F4U-4 has a slight advantage at low altitude while the P-47D has an advantage above 20,000 feet. That seems pretty realistic given what I know about the planes in real live (I'm not an expert).
It might be better to compare the F4U-4 to the P-47N though. They are closer contemporaries.
It's a bit hard to judge without knowing how the air combat routines work in detail, but I'd guess that the F4U-4 has a slight advantage at low altitude while the P-47D has an advantage above 20,000 feet. That seems pretty realistic given what I know about the planes in real live (I'm not an expert).
It might be better to compare the F4U-4 to the P-47N though. They are closer contemporaries.
-- Mark Sieving
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
The aircraft models were reworked in AE with the help of an active duty USN F/A-18 pilot. There is still a lot of simplification, but there was an attempt to accurately model the aircraft.
The Corsair and P-47 were roughly contemporaries. The Corsair came out of a 1938 requirement issued by the Navy (the same requirement also produced the TBF and the SB2C). It was an all new plane. The P-47 was an evolution of the P-35 -> P-43 -> P-47. It started out as roughly equal to the ancestor of the P-40 (the P-36). The P-47 went through a lot more evolution than the P-40 did. The roots of the P-47 were a generation older than the Corsair though.
The P-47 was pushed out of service after the war because the USAAF/USAF had the Mustang which had the rep as the war winner. The P-47s had spent most of the last year of the war as ground attack planes. The P-47 was originally designed for a different role though. When it became apparent that the war in the air in Europe was going to be fought at high altitudes, the US looked around and saw their inventory of high altitude fighters was very small. The only one that fit the bill was the P-38 which was supposed to be a bomber interceptor and was very expensive to build. The P-47 was launched as a project to rebuild the P-43 into a high altitude fighter.
The P-47 fared well against German fighters. The top scoring fighter group of the war flew them exclusively, though the 56th FG's score would have been higher if they had been converted to Mustangs. The Mustang had some trade-offs with the P-47. It was a more fragile airplane being liquid cooled and lighter construction. It had less firepower too. However, it was more maneuverable and the war winning function was its range. It could out range the P-47 by a wide margin and thus take the fight to the Germans when the P-47s had to turn for home.
On the Navy's side, the Hellcat was a better fighter than the Corsair for operating off carrier decks. It had much better low speed characteristics and was much, much easier to repair. Grumman was looking at a super Hellcat that would have been on par with the F4U-4, but they canceled the project in favor of the F8F which was in development. They didn't want to offer two fighters that would be in competition with one another.
The Corsair didn't have the high altitude capabilities of the P-47, but in the environment where they operated, that wasn't needed. The Corsair became available to the Marines before the Navy got Hellcats and the Marines had some very good PR people. The exploits of the Corsairs in the Solomons were pushed in the press. To their credit, the Corsair did deserve a good rep at the time. It was the first new generation America fighter to appear in the Pacific and it was clearly superior to all Japanese aircraft at the time.
Additionally the Americans were really beginning to win the pilot quality war by that point. Japanese pilot quality was falling off a cliff while the Americans were just beginning to instill lessons learned into the heads of the green pilots coming out of training. The US (and its allies) was able to adapt to the realities of the air war quicker than the Japanese which gave them an edge no matter what they were flying.
When the Kamikazes became a threat, the slight performance edge of the Corsair gave it even more of a reputation. As your sig says, it was considered the angel of Okinawa. The Marines were able to operate a stable of Corsair units onshore during the campaign and the Navy had some on their carriers at that point, though the predominant carrier fighter was still the Hellcat. The Corsairs on Okinawa were on constant alert to protect the picket destroyers, so when kamikazes showed up, it was often Corsairs that answered their calls for help.
The carriers were moving around constantly and were not always in position to vector CAP to the pickets. The carriers also had a much more difficult task than the land based Marines. The Marines had little personally to worry about from kamikazes whereas the Navy always had to worry that their carriers could (and did) get hit. So the Naval CAP was concentrated over the carriers and the ships unloading at Okinawa. The Marines were the first line of defense and got the lion's share of the glory.
In practice the Corsairs and Hellcats were used the same on the carriers. The Corsair units were often labeled VFB, but that was just an administrative thing. The Hellcat were a little lower performance, but they were easier to keep in the air, so more could be deployed day after day. The more temperamental Corsairs were about 5% better performance, but on any given day, fewer were available.
I guess I didn't really answer your question very well. Both the P-47 and Corsair were designed for specific roles and both went beyond their original roles and served in other niches quite effectively. Both were "go to" fighters in their respective services when times were grim and both stood up and did a lot of damage to the enemy.
Beyond that, they are a bit tough to compare.
Bill
The Corsair and P-47 were roughly contemporaries. The Corsair came out of a 1938 requirement issued by the Navy (the same requirement also produced the TBF and the SB2C). It was an all new plane. The P-47 was an evolution of the P-35 -> P-43 -> P-47. It started out as roughly equal to the ancestor of the P-40 (the P-36). The P-47 went through a lot more evolution than the P-40 did. The roots of the P-47 were a generation older than the Corsair though.
The P-47 was pushed out of service after the war because the USAAF/USAF had the Mustang which had the rep as the war winner. The P-47s had spent most of the last year of the war as ground attack planes. The P-47 was originally designed for a different role though. When it became apparent that the war in the air in Europe was going to be fought at high altitudes, the US looked around and saw their inventory of high altitude fighters was very small. The only one that fit the bill was the P-38 which was supposed to be a bomber interceptor and was very expensive to build. The P-47 was launched as a project to rebuild the P-43 into a high altitude fighter.
The P-47 fared well against German fighters. The top scoring fighter group of the war flew them exclusively, though the 56th FG's score would have been higher if they had been converted to Mustangs. The Mustang had some trade-offs with the P-47. It was a more fragile airplane being liquid cooled and lighter construction. It had less firepower too. However, it was more maneuverable and the war winning function was its range. It could out range the P-47 by a wide margin and thus take the fight to the Germans when the P-47s had to turn for home.
On the Navy's side, the Hellcat was a better fighter than the Corsair for operating off carrier decks. It had much better low speed characteristics and was much, much easier to repair. Grumman was looking at a super Hellcat that would have been on par with the F4U-4, but they canceled the project in favor of the F8F which was in development. They didn't want to offer two fighters that would be in competition with one another.
The Corsair didn't have the high altitude capabilities of the P-47, but in the environment where they operated, that wasn't needed. The Corsair became available to the Marines before the Navy got Hellcats and the Marines had some very good PR people. The exploits of the Corsairs in the Solomons were pushed in the press. To their credit, the Corsair did deserve a good rep at the time. It was the first new generation America fighter to appear in the Pacific and it was clearly superior to all Japanese aircraft at the time.
Additionally the Americans were really beginning to win the pilot quality war by that point. Japanese pilot quality was falling off a cliff while the Americans were just beginning to instill lessons learned into the heads of the green pilots coming out of training. The US (and its allies) was able to adapt to the realities of the air war quicker than the Japanese which gave them an edge no matter what they were flying.
When the Kamikazes became a threat, the slight performance edge of the Corsair gave it even more of a reputation. As your sig says, it was considered the angel of Okinawa. The Marines were able to operate a stable of Corsair units onshore during the campaign and the Navy had some on their carriers at that point, though the predominant carrier fighter was still the Hellcat. The Corsairs on Okinawa were on constant alert to protect the picket destroyers, so when kamikazes showed up, it was often Corsairs that answered their calls for help.
The carriers were moving around constantly and were not always in position to vector CAP to the pickets. The carriers also had a much more difficult task than the land based Marines. The Marines had little personally to worry about from kamikazes whereas the Navy always had to worry that their carriers could (and did) get hit. So the Naval CAP was concentrated over the carriers and the ships unloading at Okinawa. The Marines were the first line of defense and got the lion's share of the glory.
In practice the Corsairs and Hellcats were used the same on the carriers. The Corsair units were often labeled VFB, but that was just an administrative thing. The Hellcat were a little lower performance, but they were easier to keep in the air, so more could be deployed day after day. The more temperamental Corsairs were about 5% better performance, but on any given day, fewer were available.
I guess I didn't really answer your question very well. Both the P-47 and Corsair were designed for specific roles and both went beyond their original roles and served in other niches quite effectively. Both were "go to" fighters in their respective services when times were grim and both stood up and did a lot of damage to the enemy.
Beyond that, they are a bit tough to compare.
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: wdolson
The P-47 went through a lot more evolution than the P-40 did. The roots of the P-47 were a generation older than the Corsair though. The P-47 was pushed out of service after the war because the USAAF/USAF had the Mustang which had the rep as the war winner ...
I wonder if PR had more to do with these planes than I first considered. For instance, the Thunderbolt looked like a flying tank and its "Razorback" version just wasn't very "sexy". Spielberg used Mustangs in at least two films: "Empire of the Sun" and "Saving Private Ryan" where the P-51s were depicted as low altitude fighters and tank busters even though their engines couldn't take the punishment an air-cooled Thunderbolt motor could.
As for the Corsairs, although they looked somewhat awkward on land they were photogenic enough for Robert Conrad's "Black Sheep" squadron, which I saw earlier this evening on the retro ME TV.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center][/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
[/center][center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
-
geofflambert
- Posts: 14887
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
- Location: St. Louis
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: wdolson
The P-47 went through a lot more evolution than the P-40 did. The roots of the P-47 were a generation older than the Corsair though. The P-47 was pushed out of service after the war because the USAAF/USAF had the Mustang which had the rep as the war winner ...
I wonder if PR had more to do with these planes than I first considered. For instance, the Thunderbolt looked like a flying tank and its "Razorback" version just wasn't very "sexy". Spielberg used Mustangs in at least two films: "Empire of the Sun" and "Saving Private Ryan" where the P-51s were depicted as low altitude fighters and tank busters even though their engines couldn't take the punishment an air-cooled Thunderbolt motor could.
As for the Corsairs, although they looked somewhat awkward on land they were photogenic enough for Robert Conrad's "Black Sheep" squadron, which I saw earlier this evening on the retro ME TV.
I think the Corsairs were very formidible. I would have used them strictly for CAP (I'm talking the carrier capable sqds.) and not for escort. I bet there are other opinions on that.
The FB stuff I would go along with once the air superiority situation was sorted out.
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
After spending lots of money on aviation history book and magazines, static and flying models, aviation war games (miniatures, board games and computer games), and flight simulations, it’s a challenge to sit down and compose a succinct response to, “How does the F4U-4 compare to the P-47D?”
Let me disclose some personal biases here. My dad was a Marine Corps aviation mechanic servicing F4U’s in VMF321 between WWII and Korea. He absolutely loved that airplane. My favorite college professor flew P-47D’s in a ground support role in France in 1944-45. He got shot down and lived to tell about it. My fascination with Thunderbolts started on Christmas day 1960 when I received a copy of Martin Caidin’s “Black Thursday,” if only the Jugs could have stayed with the Forts a bit longer…
First, please humor me while I wonder off topic a bit regarding P-47’s in the European theatre of operations:
The common opinion about the supremacy of the Mustang over the Thunderbolt (Jug) seems to be to be settled. This stems from a lot of veteran aviators comparing the two airplanes first hand. The Mustang was more maneuverable, had longer range, and was faster in climbing and level flight.
There were nonetheless, some areas where the Jug outperformed the Mustang:
1) Dive speed (the Jug was the biggest and heaviest of any fighter in WWII, I’ve never read about any other plane exceeding its dive rate. For that reason, it was selected to conduct compressibility/speed of sound tests by the Army, much to the detriment of some of the test pilots who weren’t able to regain control of their airplanes and pull out before crashing);
2) Roll rate (the Jug could surprise an opponent who misjudged its ability to roll and then pull back on the stick to turn – the greatest limiting factor was the pilot’s ability to withstand the G’s);
3) Survivability (with a much more rugged airframe and an air-cooled engine the Jug could take far more punishment than the Mustang. The Mustang’s radiator is exposed on the bottom of the airframe. Robert Johnson’s P-47 surviving an attack by an FW-190 that finally broke off after running out of ammo is the penultimate story for Jug’s toughness);
4) Armament and load capacity (8 fifties versus 6; and the Jug’s ability to lift a huge amount of weight compared to its size).
One last point regarding range – by the end of the war, P-47D’s (and P-38’s) were able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin, so the tactical range issue was greatly minimized.
Now back to the topic at hand…
Corsairs, like all naval fighters, were designed to withstand the rigors of rough carrier landings. The airframe could withstand copious amounts of battle damage. (If I remember correctly, the Japanese used 20mm’s to arm most of their fighters.)
The “bubble top” Jugs had better all-around visibility.
The Razorback Jugs had similar rear view blockage compared to the Corsair.
Both fighters were tail draggers and had long noses and needed ground personnel sitting on a wing to help the pilot when taxiing in tight traffic on narrow tarmacs where they were not able to weave back and forth to see where they were going.
Both fighters were classified as “boom and zoom” fighters, compared to “turn and burn” planes like the much lighter Spitfires, Messerschmitt’s, and Zeros.
I’m guessing that in the Pacific theatre, Corsairs were more likely than Jugs to enter into dogfights with Japanese fighters, but from recollection I think “boom and zoom” tactics were preferred, and recommended.
Regarding the ground support role, my bias is with the Juggernaut.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that Wehrmacht antiaircraft capabilities were far superior to what the Japanese fielded in WWII. The German multi-20mm and -40mm gun platforms were deadly, and USAAF losses would have been significantly higher, if the Jug hadn’t been so tough.
The only comparison we can make to Jugs in WWII were the US Navy’s use of Corsairs for ground support in Korea.
In that role, I believe using F4U’s for ground support was more of a function of the call-up of naval reserve units and the lack of any other carrier-based first-line ground support fighters after the US post-WWII military draw down. And that there were no P-47D’s in regular or reserve USAF units (might have been a few hold-out state National Guard units at that time, but I doubt it); most (if not all) of the reserve USAF units called up by 1950 were flying Mustangs.
With regard to enemy ground fire survivability, I don’t think the North Koreans or the Chi-coms had mobile ground-based AA comparable to the strength and amount deployed by the Wehrmacht. So, I don’t think the F4U’s were generally subjected to the amount of mobile AA that the US Army Air Force had to deal with in Europe; I’m not saying that there weren’t local situations where the sh_t really hit the fan for the Navy fliers. I could be educated here…
Another reason for using the F4U’s for ground support in Korea was that the carrier-based and land based jets in the US Navy and Air Force arsenals were not able to carry a lot of extra weapons, and could not slow down enough to be effective against ground targets without becoming vulnerable to ground fire. You could shot off a couple of cylinders from the Corsair’s engine, and as long as the oil held out, it would still fly; same for the Jug; let one bullet bounce around in the turbine of a jet engine, and things start to self-destruct quickly.
Also, jets don’t glide very well. F4U’s and Jug’s don’t glide real well either. But I’m thinking the latter two would go a lot farther with no power than would a Saber Jet. Of course, if you’re shot to bits at several hundred feet above the ground, gliding isn’t really much of an issue…
I could spend a lot more time writing on this subject, but I’ve already exceed a “ten” on the boredom meter so, I’ll close with two additional issues/questions:
1) It’s a mystery to me that Corsairs were not used in the Atlantic or in Europe. Granted that the USS Ranger was small for a fleet carrier, and that “jeep carriers” of converted merchantmen were used to carry old Wildcats/Martins, Hurricanes, or Swordfish, for convoy duty, and those runways were not long enough for F4Us of any variant. Nevertheless, in all of my readings I’ve yet to come across a good explanation for why that was so. Any thoughts or information on that would be very much appreciated.
2) I have no online flight simulators experience with fighters. I’d like to hear from those of you who flew Corsairs against other Axis or Allied fighters in online forums.
3) I have no experience with WitP/AE and how it models Corsairs and Jugs. Your thoughts…?
Best regards,
Chris
Let me disclose some personal biases here. My dad was a Marine Corps aviation mechanic servicing F4U’s in VMF321 between WWII and Korea. He absolutely loved that airplane. My favorite college professor flew P-47D’s in a ground support role in France in 1944-45. He got shot down and lived to tell about it. My fascination with Thunderbolts started on Christmas day 1960 when I received a copy of Martin Caidin’s “Black Thursday,” if only the Jugs could have stayed with the Forts a bit longer…
First, please humor me while I wonder off topic a bit regarding P-47’s in the European theatre of operations:
The common opinion about the supremacy of the Mustang over the Thunderbolt (Jug) seems to be to be settled. This stems from a lot of veteran aviators comparing the two airplanes first hand. The Mustang was more maneuverable, had longer range, and was faster in climbing and level flight.
There were nonetheless, some areas where the Jug outperformed the Mustang:
1) Dive speed (the Jug was the biggest and heaviest of any fighter in WWII, I’ve never read about any other plane exceeding its dive rate. For that reason, it was selected to conduct compressibility/speed of sound tests by the Army, much to the detriment of some of the test pilots who weren’t able to regain control of their airplanes and pull out before crashing);
2) Roll rate (the Jug could surprise an opponent who misjudged its ability to roll and then pull back on the stick to turn – the greatest limiting factor was the pilot’s ability to withstand the G’s);
3) Survivability (with a much more rugged airframe and an air-cooled engine the Jug could take far more punishment than the Mustang. The Mustang’s radiator is exposed on the bottom of the airframe. Robert Johnson’s P-47 surviving an attack by an FW-190 that finally broke off after running out of ammo is the penultimate story for Jug’s toughness);
4) Armament and load capacity (8 fifties versus 6; and the Jug’s ability to lift a huge amount of weight compared to its size).
One last point regarding range – by the end of the war, P-47D’s (and P-38’s) were able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin, so the tactical range issue was greatly minimized.
Now back to the topic at hand…
Corsairs, like all naval fighters, were designed to withstand the rigors of rough carrier landings. The airframe could withstand copious amounts of battle damage. (If I remember correctly, the Japanese used 20mm’s to arm most of their fighters.)
The “bubble top” Jugs had better all-around visibility.
The Razorback Jugs had similar rear view blockage compared to the Corsair.
Both fighters were tail draggers and had long noses and needed ground personnel sitting on a wing to help the pilot when taxiing in tight traffic on narrow tarmacs where they were not able to weave back and forth to see where they were going.
Both fighters were classified as “boom and zoom” fighters, compared to “turn and burn” planes like the much lighter Spitfires, Messerschmitt’s, and Zeros.
I’m guessing that in the Pacific theatre, Corsairs were more likely than Jugs to enter into dogfights with Japanese fighters, but from recollection I think “boom and zoom” tactics were preferred, and recommended.
Regarding the ground support role, my bias is with the Juggernaut.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that Wehrmacht antiaircraft capabilities were far superior to what the Japanese fielded in WWII. The German multi-20mm and -40mm gun platforms were deadly, and USAAF losses would have been significantly higher, if the Jug hadn’t been so tough.
The only comparison we can make to Jugs in WWII were the US Navy’s use of Corsairs for ground support in Korea.
In that role, I believe using F4U’s for ground support was more of a function of the call-up of naval reserve units and the lack of any other carrier-based first-line ground support fighters after the US post-WWII military draw down. And that there were no P-47D’s in regular or reserve USAF units (might have been a few hold-out state National Guard units at that time, but I doubt it); most (if not all) of the reserve USAF units called up by 1950 were flying Mustangs.
With regard to enemy ground fire survivability, I don’t think the North Koreans or the Chi-coms had mobile ground-based AA comparable to the strength and amount deployed by the Wehrmacht. So, I don’t think the F4U’s were generally subjected to the amount of mobile AA that the US Army Air Force had to deal with in Europe; I’m not saying that there weren’t local situations where the sh_t really hit the fan for the Navy fliers. I could be educated here…
Another reason for using the F4U’s for ground support in Korea was that the carrier-based and land based jets in the US Navy and Air Force arsenals were not able to carry a lot of extra weapons, and could not slow down enough to be effective against ground targets without becoming vulnerable to ground fire. You could shot off a couple of cylinders from the Corsair’s engine, and as long as the oil held out, it would still fly; same for the Jug; let one bullet bounce around in the turbine of a jet engine, and things start to self-destruct quickly.
Also, jets don’t glide very well. F4U’s and Jug’s don’t glide real well either. But I’m thinking the latter two would go a lot farther with no power than would a Saber Jet. Of course, if you’re shot to bits at several hundred feet above the ground, gliding isn’t really much of an issue…
I could spend a lot more time writing on this subject, but I’ve already exceed a “ten” on the boredom meter so, I’ll close with two additional issues/questions:
1) It’s a mystery to me that Corsairs were not used in the Atlantic or in Europe. Granted that the USS Ranger was small for a fleet carrier, and that “jeep carriers” of converted merchantmen were used to carry old Wildcats/Martins, Hurricanes, or Swordfish, for convoy duty, and those runways were not long enough for F4Us of any variant. Nevertheless, in all of my readings I’ve yet to come across a good explanation for why that was so. Any thoughts or information on that would be very much appreciated.
2) I have no online flight simulators experience with fighters. I’d like to hear from those of you who flew Corsairs against other Axis or Allied fighters in online forums.
3) I have no experience with WitP/AE and how it models Corsairs and Jugs. Your thoughts…?
Best regards,
Chris
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: Jugjock
I could spend a lot more time writing on this subject, but I’ve already exceed a “ten” on the boredom meter so, I’ll close with two additional issues/questions:
I found it interesting. I've probably prattled on much more than this.
1) It’s a mystery to me that Corsairs were not used in the Atlantic or in Europe. Granted that the USS Ranger was small for a fleet carrier, and that “jeep carriers” of converted merchantmen were used to carry old Wildcats/Martins, Hurricanes, or Swordfish, for convoy duty, and those runways were not long enough for F4Us of any variant. Nevertheless, in all of my readings I’ve yet to come across a good explanation for why that was so. Any thoughts or information on that would be very much appreciated.
For one thing the US Army banned the Marines from Europe. They remembered the stories of the Marines from WW I and didn't want to see that again. The Marines went and did the same in the Pacific anyway, but other than some guard units, there were no Marines in Europe.
Up until the very end of the war, almost all Corsairs went to the Marines. Among the few exceptions was VF-17 which was originally intended to be the first carrier F4U unit. In any case, the fighters on CVEs in the Atlantic didn't need to be first rate fighters. When they did engage German aircraft, it was almost always long range patrol aircraft and not other fighters. The Marines were absorbing virtually all Corsair production for fighter units in the Pacific. Added to the shortage was the abject failure of Brewster to successfully build Corsairs under license. The Brewster built Corsairs were unreliable and none ended up going to combat units.
The FAA operated some Corsairs and a few got into combat with the Germans off Norway, but that was the extent of Corsair operations in Europe.
2) I have no online flight simulators experience with fighters. I’d like to hear from those of you who flew Corsairs against other Axis or Allied fighters in online forums.
I don't have the reflexes for real time games. When I have tried playing them, I end up twitchy which is the opposite reason I might be playing a game in the first place.
3) I have no experience with WitP/AE and how it models Corsairs and Jugs. Your thoughts…?
The P-47 is an outstanding fighter in AE. It's fast, has heavy fire power and better high altitude performance than most fighters. The Corsair is among the top Allied fighters too.
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
I could spend a lot more time writing on this subject, but I’ve already exceed a “ten” on the boredom meter so...
Welcome to the forum, Chris. But I must recommend that you take in your boredom meter for servicing. In fact, the dial might be mounted backwards. [:D] Nice post!
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
In game terms, I think most find the P47 to be the better fighter, primarily because they are faster, have higher firepower and a service rating of one. (which the corsair does not get til late war) However, I don't find the corsair to be too far behind and find that both of them pretty much own any Japanese plane.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
I like both ingame, Allied fighter numbers are always being stretched. The game also emphasises the extra firepower of the P47 against early P51
You also have to bring into account the opposition they faced, often totally different enemies.
PS. Best War Movie for A-A combat sequences, FIGHTER SQUADRON, about a P47 squadron in the ETO!
You also have to bring into account the opposition they faced, often totally different enemies.
PS. Best War Movie for A-A combat sequences, FIGHTER SQUADRON, about a P47 squadron in the ETO!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
Bill and Chris, Very good info. My sixth grade english teacher fought in the pacific and had friends who flew the F4u. he said his friends loved the plane....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330
AKA General Patton
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
AKA General Patton
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
-
Jorge_Stanbury
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
- Location: Montreal
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: Jugjock
3) I have no experience with WitP/AE
You should try it; by reading your post; I am sure you will enjoy it
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
I have never seen or read a direct comparison of the P-47 vs the F4U. Both were as you described. The P-47 had the best altitude performance of any American fighter in 1944-45, better than a P-51 according to former P-51 pilots I talked to at air shows.
I would guess the F4U may have had a tad better performance at medium and low altitudes over the P-47, but overall I think its fair to say the best 'combat' plane we fielded was the P-47. The reason the P-51 replaced the P-47 in the 8th Air Force was primarily range in early 1944, the P-47C's and D's range was insufficient to take them over Germany from England - that's where the P-51 was unequaled. Late war P-47M's and N's had the range, but there was no need for them when the 8th already had their P-51's.
As stated above, the main competitor for the F4U was the F6F. The F6F satisfied the Navy's needs so there was no rush to convert to F4U's. (if I am not mistaken, I believe the F6F also racked up the best kill ratio and on-line availability ratio for any fighter in the PTO...pretty sure).
The main reason that the F4U saw action in Korea was that the Marine Air Wing had not been re-equipped with F9F panthers before the war, and therefore had to soldier on with the old F4U for a good part of that war. The USAF, for similar reasons, started the Korean Air war with some units still in the old P-51. But the USAF had the resources to quickly replace the few P-51's in theater with F80's and F84's in very short order (for the ground attack role of course...the air superiority role going at once to the famous F86 Sabre).
So I'm not sure how one can really compare the F4U to the P47, perhaps look up mission statistics between the Marine air squadrons and 5th Air Force units that flew the P47?
My 2C
B
I would guess the F4U may have had a tad better performance at medium and low altitudes over the P-47, but overall I think its fair to say the best 'combat' plane we fielded was the P-47. The reason the P-51 replaced the P-47 in the 8th Air Force was primarily range in early 1944, the P-47C's and D's range was insufficient to take them over Germany from England - that's where the P-51 was unequaled. Late war P-47M's and N's had the range, but there was no need for them when the 8th already had their P-51's.
As stated above, the main competitor for the F4U was the F6F. The F6F satisfied the Navy's needs so there was no rush to convert to F4U's. (if I am not mistaken, I believe the F6F also racked up the best kill ratio and on-line availability ratio for any fighter in the PTO...pretty sure).
The main reason that the F4U saw action in Korea was that the Marine Air Wing had not been re-equipped with F9F panthers before the war, and therefore had to soldier on with the old F4U for a good part of that war. The USAF, for similar reasons, started the Korean Air war with some units still in the old P-51. But the USAF had the resources to quickly replace the few P-51's in theater with F80's and F84's in very short order (for the ground attack role of course...the air superiority role going at once to the famous F86 Sabre).
So I'm not sure how one can really compare the F4U to the P47, perhaps look up mission statistics between the Marine air squadrons and 5th Air Force units that flew the P47?
My 2C
B
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: Big B
I have never seen or read a direct comparison of the P-47 vs the F4U. Both were as you described. The P-47 had the best altitude performance of any American fighter in 1944-45, better than a P-51 according to former P-51 pilots I talked to at air shows.
I would guess the F4U may have had a tad better performance at medium and low altitudes over the P-47, but overall I think its fair to say the best 'combat' plane we fielded was the P-47. The reason the P-51 replaced the P-47 in the 8th Air Force was primarily range in early 1944, the P-47C's and D's range was insufficient to take them over Germany from England - that's where the P-51 was unequaled. Late war P-47M's and N's had the range, but there was no need for them when the 8th already had their P-51's.
As stated above, the main competitor for the F4U was the F6F. The F6F satisfied the Navy's needs so there was no rush to convert to F4U's. (if I am not mistaken, I believe the F6F also racked up the best kill ratio and on-line availability ratio for any fighter in the PTO...pretty sure).
The main reason that the F4U saw action in Korea was that the Marine Air Wing had not been re-equipped with F9F panthers before the war, and therefore had to soldier on with the old F4U for a good part of that war. The USAF, for similar reasons, started the Korean Air war with some units still in the old P-51. But the USAF had the resources to quickly replace the few P-51's in theater with F80's and F84's in very short order (for the ground attack role of course...the air superiority role going at once to the famous F86 Sabre).
So I'm not sure how one can really compare the F4U to the P47, perhaps look up mission statistics between the Marine air squadrons and 5th Air Force units that flew the P47?
My 2C
B
Don't forget the venerable skyraider which was the backbone of the marine and navy ground strike force in Korea. I am guessing that the corsair lasted a longer than the P47 because it was very versatile and carrier capable and could fill a role that the jug could not.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
In game terms I think the P47 is superior.
The P47D2 is more than 20 mhp faster than the F4U-1, arriving only 6 months later. More durable, better ceiling and SR and better armed even than the F4U-1A. The
F4U-1D, that arrives nearly one year later than the P47D2 is even slower than the predecessors, even if it has a good SR=1.
Only the F4U-4 is comparable to the P-47D2 in terms of speed, but when it arrives (45/6) the P-47 line has already jumped to the "N" version, with its 460 mhp of max speed.
No race between them in game terms, imho.
For what concerns flight sims, I have flown many years on full-switch realistic servers with the IL2 Sturmovick game and its successors.
Hard to compare those two, because the Corsairs was limited to the PTO servers (I flew many months on Zeke Vs Wildcat server), while the P-47 could be found mainly in ETO ones (warbirds of prey ones).
However I remember flying the Corsair extensively in ground support missions on the Iwo jiima map. The plane was fast like hell and those A6M5s and N1K2s could never catch me...but I was forced to fly straight: whenever I tried to turn, even for few seconds, those pesky Georges were already on my 6 with their 4x20mm cannons... Not a funny plane to fly in PTO, I can tell you.
Way better was flying P47s over Europe. If you kept it high and fast, you could easily outmanouver the Anton or the Dora..
The P47D2 is more than 20 mhp faster than the F4U-1, arriving only 6 months later. More durable, better ceiling and SR and better armed even than the F4U-1A. The
F4U-1D, that arrives nearly one year later than the P47D2 is even slower than the predecessors, even if it has a good SR=1.
Only the F4U-4 is comparable to the P-47D2 in terms of speed, but when it arrives (45/6) the P-47 line has already jumped to the "N" version, with its 460 mhp of max speed.
No race between them in game terms, imho.
For what concerns flight sims, I have flown many years on full-switch realistic servers with the IL2 Sturmovick game and its successors.
Hard to compare those two, because the Corsairs was limited to the PTO servers (I flew many months on Zeke Vs Wildcat server), while the P-47 could be found mainly in ETO ones (warbirds of prey ones).
However I remember flying the Corsair extensively in ground support missions on the Iwo jiima map. The plane was fast like hell and those A6M5s and N1K2s could never catch me...but I was forced to fly straight: whenever I tried to turn, even for few seconds, those pesky Georges were already on my 6 with their 4x20mm cannons... Not a funny plane to fly in PTO, I can tell you.
Way better was flying P47s over Europe. If you kept it high and fast, you could easily outmanouver the Anton or the Dora..
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: wdolson
For one thing the US Army banned the Marines from Europe. They remembered the stories of the Marines from WW I and didn't want to see that again. The Marines went and did the same in the Pacific anyway, but other than some guard units, there were no Marines in Europe.
At the risk of running way off topic... this is new to me. What stories? Did the Marines do too well, or...something else? This is one of those things where I have all this info in my head, and it's obvious that there were no Marines in the battles in Europe, but I never actually noticed that. Can you elaborate?
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
He was referring to the large press attention generated by the Marine Brigade of the US Army's 2nd division in France in the first World War.
The marines did good work, but there were also press restrictions on unit identification in press releases - just as in WW2.
But the press was free to talk about 'The Marines'...and did so frequently (as the press would say - it made good copy) - at the chagrin of the other brigade in that division (US Army) and the AEF in general. This prompted president Truman to remark years later (paraphrasing here) "they are the Navy's police force with Stalin's propaganda machine".
The marines did good work, but there were also press restrictions on unit identification in press releases - just as in WW2.
But the press was free to talk about 'The Marines'...and did so frequently (as the press would say - it made good copy) - at the chagrin of the other brigade in that division (US Army) and the AEF in general. This prompted president Truman to remark years later (paraphrasing here) "they are the Navy's police force with Stalin's propaganda machine".
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: wdolson
For one thing the US Army banned the Marines from Europe. They remembered the stories of the Marines from WW I and didn't want to see that again. The Marines went and did the same in the Pacific anyway, but other than some guard units, there were no Marines in Europe.
At the risk of running way off topic... this is new to me. What stories? Did the Marines do too well, or...something else? This is one of those things where I have all this info in my head, and it's obvious that there were no Marines in the battles in Europe, but I never actually noticed that. Can you elaborate?
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
Gosh, at the risk of going OT from OT. Brian, Bill and JogJock pretty much have it right.
The P-47 had a turbo supercharger and got its best Vmax at around 30k; the F4U had a 2-stage mechanical supercharger and got its best Vmax at around 20k: same engine, different aspiration. Then one gets all the different roll rates, at speed and altitude. Then one gets the different dive rates, and those are totally different if the plane condition is 'clean' or "nominal', such as in actual combat configuration. Woof !!
Asking this question is a bit like asking which is better; a Ford 250 pickup. or a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Wtf? One works here, one works there, so which is better? It's a user thing. That's all that weapons systems truly are; a user thing.
Corsair was a better plane than the F6F, but it sucked on carrier quals, so it got schlepped to the Marines. Brits made it happen, but they had a different landing protocol that worked for the plane. We learned and eventually the plane got to fly from navy decks.
My father was one of the few; he was Navy, and only got into the war in the last few weeks, but still managed a few sorties. He flew Navy, but he flew Corsairs. Strange isn't it? Reality has a habit of biting us in the butt just as soon as we make pronunciamento, yeah?
JWE
The P-47 had a turbo supercharger and got its best Vmax at around 30k; the F4U had a 2-stage mechanical supercharger and got its best Vmax at around 20k: same engine, different aspiration. Then one gets all the different roll rates, at speed and altitude. Then one gets the different dive rates, and those are totally different if the plane condition is 'clean' or "nominal', such as in actual combat configuration. Woof !!
Asking this question is a bit like asking which is better; a Ford 250 pickup. or a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Wtf? One works here, one works there, so which is better? It's a user thing. That's all that weapons systems truly are; a user thing.
Corsair was a better plane than the F6F, but it sucked on carrier quals, so it got schlepped to the Marines. Brits made it happen, but they had a different landing protocol that worked for the plane. We learned and eventually the plane got to fly from navy decks.
My father was one of the few; he was Navy, and only got into the war in the last few weeks, but still managed a few sorties. He flew Navy, but he flew Corsairs. Strange isn't it? Reality has a habit of biting us in the butt just as soon as we make pronunciamento, yeah?
JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Yippy Ki Yay.
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: wdolson
For one thing the US Army banned the Marines from Europe. They remembered the stories of the Marines from WW I and didn't want to see that again. The Marines went and did the same in the Pacific anyway, but other than some guard units, there were no Marines in Europe.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
At the risk of running way off topic... this is new to me. What stories? Did the Marines do too well, or...something else? This is one of those things where I have all this info in my head, and it's obvious that there were no Marines in the battles in Europe, but I never actually noticed that. Can you elaborate?
I've only read about it in passing, but from what I've read, the Marines were the first service to allow embedded reporters and the Marines encouraged these reporters to write stories about the exploits of their men. Proportionally to troops deployed, the WW I Marines got a lot more coverage than the Army did and that did not sit well with the Army brass. With the Germany First policy the Army brass figured the bulk of fighting would be in Europe, so they banned the Marines from that theater.
The Pacific was a lot more active than they thought it would be. More Army troops fought in the Pacific than Marines, but who do most people think about when it comes to land troops in the Pacific War?
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
RE: Corsair vs, Jug
ORIGINAL: Big B
I have never seen or read a direct comparison of the P-47 vs the F4U. Both were as you described. The P-47 had the best altitude performance of any American fighter in 1944-45, better than a P-51 according to former P-51 pilots I talked to at air shows.
I would guess the F4U may have had a tad better performance at medium and low altitudes over the P-47, but overall I think its fair to say the best 'combat' plane we fielded was the P-47. The reason the P-51 replaced the P-47 in the 8th Air Force was primarily range in early 1944, the P-47C's and D's range was insufficient to take them over Germany from England - that's where the P-51 was unequaled. Late war P-47M's and N's had the range, but there was no need for them when the 8th already had their P-51's.
The P-47M still didn't have the great range the N had, but it was a better plane. The M was built in very small numbers and only equipped the 56th FG. The Ns range was approaching the P-51s.
As stated above, the main competitor for the F4U was the F6F. The F6F satisfied the Navy's needs so there was no rush to convert to F4U's. (if I am not mistaken, I believe the F6F also racked up the best kill ratio and on-line availability ratio for any fighter in the PTO...pretty sure).
When the F4U program looked like it was running into problems, the Navy approached Grumman about building an updated Wildcat for a stopgap. They initially used the same engine as the B-25 for the XF6F-1, but the Navy changed the requirement to the P&W 2800 before production began and that became the -3.
VF-17 was to be the first Navy F4U unit and the plan was that they would ship out on the Bunker Hill. The Corsair had a nasty wing stall at low speeds that VF-17 fixed with a small piece of angle iron on the leading edge of one wing. The F4U was a harder lander than any other Navy plane and it suffered from blown tires throughout its career. When you're trying to keep the tempo of op up, having a plane blow a tire on landing screws up the schedule.
Ultimately the Navy decided to pass on the Corsair because of logistics. VF-17 proved they could operate them from carriers, but the spare parts chain was already full of parts for the F6F and they wanted as few planes to support as possible. They already had a headache supporting the SBD and SB2C until mid-1944. Grumman was building enough F6Fs to meet the Navy's needs and it was a better fighter than anything the Japanese were putting up, especially with their declining pilot quality, so they standardized with them.
In 1943 the Navy had Grumman and Vought's chief test pilots fly the other company's plane with the idea of cross pollinating ideas. The Grumman test pilot was surprised the Corsair didn't even have a cockpit floor and found many things to be primitive. He did find performance to be a little better in many areas, but landing the F4U was very difficult compared to the Hellcat. The Hellcat had low speed characteristics like the Spitfire. You could get extremely slow in it and still remain airborne and when it did stall, it gave you plenty of warning. Ideal if you're flying a damaged airplane and trying to land on a carrier.
Kill totals for American aircraft:
http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm
The main reason that the F4U saw action in Korea was that the Marine Air Wing had not been re-equipped with F9F panthers before the war, and therefore had to soldier on with the old F4U for a good part of that war. The USAF, for similar reasons, started the Korean Air war with some units still in the old P-51. But the USAF had the resources to quickly replace the few P-51's in theater with F80's and F84's in very short order (for the ground attack role of course...the air superiority role going at once to the famous F86 Sabre).
So I'm not sure how one can really compare the F4U to the P47, perhaps look up mission statistics between the Marine air squadrons and 5th Air Force units that flew the P47?
My 2C
B
In Korea the Navy was still operating F4Us in the land attack role. I think they eventually got replaced with Skyraiders, but early on there were only a few Skyraider squadrons in service. The early jets were very temperamental and unreliable. Something proven like the Corsair filled out the air group with something that could keep flying day in and day out.
My mother had a cousin who was a Panther pilot on the Oriskany. He said his berth was near the stern and he never got any sleep after about 5 AM. That's when they started operating the Corsairs. Instead of putting them on the catapult like the jets, they had the Corsairs do a rolling take off from the rear deck. The jet guys didn't have to report to work until the sun was well above the horizon.
Found this, carrier air units of Korea:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/koreaob.htm
Looks like F4Us were there to the end.
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer