Mr. Widewing, why do you think the F6F never saw service in the ETO? Why do you think the P-38 had such limited success in the ETO? The same reason why these planes were so successful against their slower Japanese opponents in the PTO; speed and climb.I suspect that you have not done very much reading on the topic of the air war in WWII, beyond devouring the volumes published by the Luftwaffe apologists.
Why wasn't the F6F deployed to the ETO? Silly question when one considers that the F6F was a Navy fighter, deployed almost exclusively aboard carriers. When carriers did deploy, the Hellcat deployed. Brits flew the the F6F-3 and FAA Hellcats covered the RN aerial attack in the Tirpitz (in a Norwegian fjord, by the way LOLOLOL). This early model and less capable Hellcat Mk.I more than held its own against the Luftwaffe in this instance.
During Operation Anvil/Dragoon (the amphibious invasion of south France), it was U.S. Hellcats that provided air cover over the invasion beaches and butchered everything that tried to break through their cover. They also conducted close support for the ground forces and neutralized Luftwaffe opposition in the area.
As to the P-38, the Lightning's history in the ETO is very much misunderstood. Dr. Carlo Kopp and I co-authored an indepth study on P-38 operations in the ETO. It was published in Air Power International. A less extensive, edited version of the story can be viewed on my website at:
Der Gabelschwanz Teufel I suggest you read it before you try to make any argument about the P-38.
Why do you think I would even engage your F6F in an equal E state? I would just keep my distance gaining more E climbing above you before engaging. If at any time I considered you to be a threat I would extend and build up more E again. Against me in a 109G10 you would never get to fight on your terms, I would use my plane's strengths and force you to play my game, and I could disengage anytime I want. That's what makes the F6F inferior to the "top five", against a pilot who knows his plane and knows ACM the F6F is a death-trap. You can of course furball the F6F very successfully because of the abilities you mentioned, but against a "hunter" you're toast ... or ignored.By "Hunter", I assume from your description of tactics that this means a cherry picker, alt monkey, Luft-runner, right?
Read you own words. What you are saying is; "I'm afraid of the F6F-6, so I'll simply haul butt away until I can catch him unawares or at a serious disadvantage."
What do you do if you discover a Hellcat 5k above you? Let's see you disengage from that one. It'll chase down your G-10 and ruin your evening.
I usually find myself below the enemy... So what? If they wish to engage me, they will have to slow down their lawn dart to do so. Unless, you limit your "engaging" to zooming down, taking a half-assed shot at something that's no longer there, then zoom away... How dull.
If the F6F-5 is a death trap, someone should have told me before and I wouldn't have bothered maintaining a 20+/1 K/D in it for the past year....
The F6F can carry the same ord as the P-51, but which plane has the best chance of reaching the target without being intercepted, the 380 mph F6F or the 435 mph P-51? Which plane has the best chance of getting away on the deck after dropping ord, the 320 mph F6F or the 360 mph P-51? The P-51 is clearly the better Jabo of the two.I can see that you have little understanding how combat aircraft are flown in the real world. Unlike AH, pilots rarely fly around with the throttle against the stops. Really, they didn't.
Any aircraft hauling nearly 3,000 pound of under-wing ordnance, plus internal fuel and ammunition will be transiting to the target at cruise settings, typically something between 250 and 275 mph.
Usually, the aircraft making the attack will have fighter cover, usually a high cover. Clearly your understanding of an attack profile is based solely upon what you know from this game, and this game is not a remotely accurate simulation of the real world in this regard.
Moreover, you are once again placing emphasis on running, right? Better to be flying a fast plane to escape in... What about fighting your way out if need be?
EDIT: The 1941 model 109F4 is a very good match for the F6F in the fighter role ... except that the 109 is faster, climbs better and turns better at all altitudes of course. In performance the F6F is almost 4 years behind the 109G10. Somewhere in my library I have a test performed by the RAF where they compared a Hellcat Mk.I against a captured Bf 109F. I recall that the 109 had the advantage in sustained climb up to about 20k, where it evened out. The 109 wasn't faster at all. This test also gave the edge to the Hellcat in turning ability. Are you aware that the pitot tube static port on the F6F was incorrectly positioned? At 15k, the F6F-3 was only a few MPH slower than the F4U-1, and this was proven by both the Navy and Grumman who flew the two alongside during comparison tests. The error was a much as 20 mph and was not corrected on the F6F-5. There is also an FAA Naval Air Tactical Note Number 106, which quotes a maximum speed of 409 mph at 21,600 feet for the F6F-5/Hellcat Mk.II. All of this is well documented.
My experience flying the 109F leads me to conclude that it cannot hang in a stall fight with the Hellcat and its sub 100 mph stall and benign handling.
My regards,
Widewing
