By all measures, the Hellcat was a great plane.  Why wasn't it used extensively in Europe?  The P38, the P51, the P40 and I think even the P47 were used in both.

I know that it was also used as a ship-based aircraft in the Atlantic for sub hunting....or was that just the GM Wildcat?

I know nothing about this. I just like saying "Hellcat".

I'd have to see what Eric Brown says.

ETA:  The underpowered Wildcat was more the P40's contemporary with respects to time.  The Hellcat was a superior fighter to the P40 and Wildcat and would have given the Germans a run for the money.  I know there was an incident where Hellcats tangled with the Germans and got the better of them.

It was a carrierborne aircraft and we weren't huge into carrier operations in Europe.

Probably had a lot to do with the ETO being an Army show and the Pacific being a Navy show.

No Marines in the ETO either. We all know they would have kicked ass.

Eli Cash discussing the Wildcat.

British navy successfully used the F4F and F6F in the European theater

Yep, same as the Corsair. Both were Navy/Marine planes and I don't think we had a carrier in the European theatre. The British had lend/lease Corsairs for their carriers so I wonder if they used the Hellcat or prior varients?

The RN used Hellcats in the  ETO and the US did in the MTO during the invasion of Southern france.  Uss Ranger toopk part in attacks on  Norway with F4Fs.

For the F6F the only action over Europe transpired during the invasion of southern France in August 1944. USS Tulagi with VOF-1 (Lieut. Comdr. WF Bringle, USN) and USS Kasaan Bay embarking VF-74 (Lieut. Comdr. HB Bass, USN), both squadrons, operating F6F-5s, provided coverage for the landings. VF-74 also operated a 7-plane F6F-3N night fighter detachment from Ajaccio on the island of Corsica. On the day of the invasion, 15 August, VF-74 flew 60 sorties, VOF-1, 40 sorties, all ground support missions.

On the morning of 19 August, the first German aircraft, three He-111's, were spotted by a four-plane division of VOF-1 pilots. The Americans were too short on fuel and could not attack. Two of the Americans were forced to land on HMS Emperor due to their fuel state. Later that day, two He-111's were spotted by another VOF-1 division and were promptly shot down, this occurring near the village of Vienne. Lieut. Poucel and Ens. Wood teamed up to bring down one and Ens. Robinson brought down the second. Soon thereafter, in the same vicinity, a third He-111 was shot down by Ens. Wood. That same morning, a division of VF-74 pilots led by Lieut. Comdr. Bass brought down an Ju-88 and in the afternoon another division attacked a Do-217 with split credits to going to Lieut. (j.g.) Castanedo and Ens. Hullard.

On 21 August, pilots from VOF-1 shot down three Ju-52 transports north of Marseille. Two were credited to Lieut. (j.g.) Olszewski; one went to Ens. Yenter. Operating for two weeks in support of the invasion, these two squadrons were credited with destroying 825 trucks and vehicles, damaging 334 more and destroying or otherwise immobilizing 84 locomotives. German aircraft shot down: VOF-1: 6, VF-74: 2.

Although the two navy squadrons lost some 17 aircraft, combined, all were to ground fire or operational accidents. None were shot down by German aircraft. Among the 7 pilots lost (2 from VOF-1 and 5 from VF-74) was the CO of VF-74, Lieut. Comdr. H. Brinkley Bass, USNA 1938, awarded 2 Navy Crosses from early actions, killed by antiaircraft fire while strafing near Chamelet on 20 August.

The first Hellcats didnt make a combat kill until Sept. 1943. At that time the Germans had the FW190 so the Hellcats were lucky they didnt face them. The 190s were 400 mph+ fighters, the Hellcats werent even close. Also the first 190 missions were in 1941, the Hellcats 1943. The Hellcats were designed for the Pacific and they were Zero-san killers.

They were perfect for the mission they were designed for which was against the Jap Zero. The Hellcats could do everything better except low speed turns against the Zero. They were tough, better armed, had better armor, faster, and could dive like a stone. Remember the biggest Loss for the Japs at Midway were their best naval aviation pilots and they just didnt have the training pipeline to replace them like we did. By then we were pumping out super carriers and Hellcats and Corsairs like sausages.

I'm aware of only one encounter between Hellcats and German fights and that was with British Hellcats. It was a pretty even battle from what I remember but a small one. The truth is they just didnt come into contact much with each other. The Hellcats did have serious problems vs late war Jap Army fighters like the KI-84 and Niki-2's but by then it was all over. The Japs were lucky to get 20 hours flying time in for their trainees and anyway by then we had P-51s and P-47s in the Pacific as well as Late version Corsairs.

But yes the P-40 was a surprisingly good aircraft at lower altitudes. Its didnt have a super charger so it wasnt very fast up high but it was tough, was well armed, was surprisingly agile, and using team tactics could give the japs a very hard time as it did with the Flying Tigers.

never seen a P-40 up close, but I've seen a Hellcat.   They went with the "lets stuff the biggest engine we can find in this airframe" approach.

I knew the plane was pretty fast, but when the demo pilot made a few passes at our airshow I was really surprised how fast it was......and i highly doubt he was pushing it that hard (to keep the wear and tear down on the engine).

Impressive plane is an understatement.

Brown gave the Hellcat the edge over the 109 and called it even with the 190 with pilot skill deciding the outcome according to my copy of Duels in the Sky,

I met a P-40 pilot that fought over China. He was laughing retelling stories about fighting Japanese planes. His basic summary was "If you got one on your tail you just dove for the deck then climbed up. They (Japs) couldn't keep up." Really neat to talk with him.

Lol yes. In every way.

The Hellcat will always be a favorite of mine simply because my Nana helped build them during "The Big One."

(She installed wiring.)

this, the USAAF had no need for them, the USN needed them on their CV's and CVL's

the overwhelming majority of carriers that could use them was out in the Pacific. The CVEs didn't use them, instead the CVE's had Avengers and the FM-2 variant of the Wildcat. The CVE's were used in the Atlantic and Pacific. In the Atlantic they were used primarily to kill subs and to ferry aircraft.

the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm did use some of them, Avengers, Corsairs, and Martletts' (Wildcats) in the ETO

I have a Facebook friend who flies P40s he says that they are a very underrated aircraft.

As for the lack of Hellcats in Europe as others have said, it's probably down to the lack of anyone using more than a smidgeon of naval aviation in the European theatre. A dust up between a squadron of FW190s and Hellcats would have been a thing to see.

interesting stuff, I never knew that US Navy carriers supported Operation Anvil-Dragoon

Actually, USS Ranger (CV-4) was deemed too slow and with insufficient range for operations in the Pacific. So, she spent most of the war in the Atlantic and European waters.

Hitler even decorated the U-Boat commander who claimed to have sunk her in 1943.  I guess there was a bit of surprise when her air group hit German shipping in Norway in 1944.

It was the British navy that ironed out the bugs in the Corsair for carrier operations just for the record.

The New Zealanders used them to great effect in the pacific, even though there weren't that many of us. There is a somewhat infamous story of NZ Corsair pilots listening in to an American Corsair pilot in a shot up plane limping back to base, scared shitless, escorted by his squadron leader. After hearing this exchange for awhile one of the Kiwis said.

"I say, why don't you be a man and just die already."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

These threads always fascinate me.  Of course, I have nothing to add...;)

The F-6 Hellcat was basically a carrier based aircraft and the only carriers we had (setting aside the Malta aircraft runs by the Wasp and Ranger) were CVEs.  They weren't involved in CAP as the USAAC and RAF did that over Europe.  The Hellcat didn't have the glamour of the P51, but certainly would hold its own in an air-to-air match against the Germans.

OST

@buckstruck

Thank you for taking the time to post that, wow.
Once again, the depth of GD knowledge never ceases to amaze me

...and this one too.
Thanks fellas

I'm just here to post awesome pics.

WW2 Carrier Aviation. Fascinated me as a kid. Not as smart as others here, but would like to add that my grandfather flew the SBD Dauntless off the Yorktown at Coral Sea and Midway. I am in possession of the Navy Cross he was awarded for his efforts.

I am here to learn more and look at pics

The only fighter-to-fighter FAA (British Fleet Air Arm) F6F action took place in May 1944. On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut Comdr SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was attacked by a mixed group of Me 109's and FW 190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the Germans lost 2 Me 109's and one FW 190.

Not completely correct.

https://www.gruntworks11b.com/war-room/the-marine-who-owned-europe-in-ww-ii/

Their were others.

No need. ETO had these flying around instead.

This.  There were even training reels because the profile matched the FW 190 so much

Great birds, Corsairs outperformed them in every flight envelope except high altitude.

Which is kind of important when you are escorting high altitude bombers.

Regardless of anything here is an image of some fantasy art I stumbled upon awhile ago.

Attached File

The Brits also operated Corsairs along with Hellcats  over Norway during a series of carrier based attacks on Tirpitz in 1944. No fighter to fighter combat by the Corsairs though.

The Hellcat was designed, based on experience fighting the Zero, to beat the Zero in a dogfight.  It did.

Like others said, it was built to fly/fight from carriers and the biggest use of carriers was in the Pacific.  

The Corsair didn't get used much in Europe either.  It was another plane designed for carrier use but some issues resulted in it flying from land bases more often.

Love these threads.  As to Ranger, she stayed in the ETO because she wasn't survivable in the Pacific.  She was too slow and her underwater protection was poor.  The Navy felt it was too risky to transfer her to the Pacific even when we badly needed carriers following the loss of Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp and Hornet.  There were enough Essex's on the ways to make up for the losses within a years time.  Plus we had the escort carriers entering service that could handle carrier needs in the Atlantic.  Also, the majority of the British carriers were in the ETO.

This.

F4U Corsairs would have slaughtered the Me109s.

Probably the biggest benefit of USS Ranger was all the lessons learned in the design and building of aircraft carriers that were incorporated into the design of the Yorktown and Essex classes.  Everything from putting the pilot ready rooms close to where their particular type of aircraft would be parked in the hanger to the location of the elevators that took the aircraft to the flight deck.

One pilot from Ranger recounted how the ship had a head (bathroom) forward of their ready room.  When the carrier steamed into the wind, the head was upwind of the pilots' ready room.  It was quite odorous some days.

Little known fact-oid

The F6F had the largest wing area of any US WWII fighter...

The F6F was designed to kill Zeros & Hayabusa which it did in record numbers...

It could hold it's own against the nazi BF-109 & FW190 at low to medium altitude (the FW190 wasn't much at high altitude compared to the BF-109 - according to the many German aces who flew them)

FW190 was more multirole (heavily armed bomber interceptor, fighter bomber, even torpedo bomber) where the BF109 was primarily air to air fighter with a small side of fighter bomber

In general you didn't send carrier aircraft of that time period against land fighters if you could avoid it.  The reinforced undercarriage was extra weight that limited maneuverability.  The one exception was the Corsair, who got around that by just making the bird heavy, but offsetting that with a huge engine.  You didn't try to out turn anything in a Corsair.  Instead you used the speed to engage and disengage.   

What I would like to hear about more is the P-39 Aircobra. I mean we gave about 4700  of the 9500 to russia to use for lendlease but never hear anything about them.



2400 p63 king kobras



and 2000 P-40s

oh and like 1500 A20s

The Americans who flew it hated the P-39 (according to Mr. Right Stuff - Chuck Yeager)

The Russians LOVED the P-39

Several of their high ranking aces flew it.


From WikiPedia

[color=#1C4587]The Soviets used the Airacobra primarily for air-to-air combat against a variety of German aircraft, including Bf 109s, Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, Ju 87s, and Ju 88s. During the battle of Kuban River, VVS relied on P-39s much more than Spitfires and P-40s. Aleksandr Pokryshkin, from 16.Gv.IAP (16th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment), claimed 20 victories in that campaign in a P-39.[58]

The last Soviet air victory was in a P-39 on May 9 when Kapitan Vasily Pshenichikov scored against a Focke-Wulf Fw 189, in the sky over Prague. Five of the 10 highest scoring Soviets aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. Grigoriy Rechkalov scored 44 victories in Airacobras. Pokryshkin scored 47 of his 59 victories in P-39s, making him the highest scoring P-39 fighter pilot of any nation, and the highest scoring Allied fighter pilot using an American fighter. This does not include his 6 shared victories, at least some of which were achieved with the P-39.[/color]

since combat in the "Ost Front" was all about fast & low level, the lack of supercharger or turbo charger (which was originally designed into the P-39) didn't affect it and it was light and nimble.

The P-63 King Cobra wasn't allowed to fly in the E.T.O. according to the terms of the lend lease deal ...

Again - WikiPedia

[color=#1C4587]By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan.[citation needed] However, there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that P-63s did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to P-63s in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Königsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show nothing but[citation needed] P-39s used against Germany.[/color]

I assumed it was based on resource allocation.  If only a few aircraft are carrier capable, throw them with the carrier ops.  Ground based, high altitude and long range seemed to rule the roost for the ETO.

Great thread with some very interesting info.

Absolutely.

P-40 did not have a good supercharger.  Might not have had any, I forget.

Basically that was a compressor that would compress the air, so  gven volume of air had more oxygen.  At high altitude, you are beaten up by those who do, if you dont.  You cant fight at their altitude and they can dive down from above and hit you.

It had an air cooled radial, vice an inline water cooled, which makes it more like a P-47 with two less guns.

P-47 according to wiki had 400 more horses and 30 mph more speed.  At high altitude performance is a function of thrust, more  then anything else. So I cant see what a hellcat would have done that the aircraft on the way wouldnt have done better.

It was tailor made for the zero. A pilot crashlanded his plane in Alaska in teh Midway operation, breaking his neck. The zero was recovered and heavily influenced the Hellcat.  Then again, P-40s wer emostly used in North Africa when the F6F wasnt ready, anyway.

Looking at the stats, it seems alot like a P-47.  Not worth the bother to ship to the ETO.

hellcat
Empty weight: 9,238 lb (4,190 kg)
1 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10W "Double Wasp" two-row radial engine with a two-speed two-stage supercharger, 2,200 hp (1,491 kW[91])
Maximum speed: 391 mph

Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
1× Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59B twin-row radial engine, 2,600 hp (1,938 kW)
Maximum speed: 433 mph

I have seen both up close and was surprised at how primitive the structural and sheet metal work looked on the P-40 looked compared to many later WWII aircraft. 

Also remember that during WWII we were basically building everything as fast as we could.  The Navy had 20+ fleet carriers to equip, and well over 100 light and escort carriers, plus the Royal Navy (who had adopted the Hellcat).  Plus with Kamikaze attacks, all carrier flight groups were adding fighters to their wings.  Some of our escort carriers had to rely on the F4F Wildcat up until the end of the war.  So even if we wanted to use the Hellcat in the ETO, there might not have been enough to go around.  

It's truly incredible how fast things went technologically during the war.

The Italians were still using biplanes for crying out loud.