Originally posted by moot
Widewing if I may go off topic for one post, how would the F7F and F8F have compared to the F4U4? IIRC one or both of them were otw to the front lines when the war ended.
Well, the F7F was a better attack platform. In terms of performance, it was probably superior as a fighter too. However, it was designed for the next generation of carrier (Midway and Coral Sea), which were not ready before the war ended. It was thought to be a bit "too hot" for carrier duty on the Essex class. However, it did qualify aboard the Antietam and Shangri-la in April of 1945. Only one squadron deployed to the combat zone, VMF(N)-533 arrived on Okinawa a few days before Japan surrendered. Only one local sortie was flown and that was on the day Japan announced that they had quit. These were two-seat night fighters (F7F-2N), probably the best of their ilk to see service up till that time.
F8Fs were in route to Japan aboard a carrier (USS Boxer, IIRC) when the surrender occurred. They were about 5 days from combat. In terms of air to air capability, the F8F was without peer in the US Navy. However, it was not as good an attack platform as the F4U-4. I'd rate the F4U-4 as the better fighter-bomber of the two, with the Bearcat being the better pure fighter. With greater emphasis being placed on multi-role capability and new jet designs under development, the Bearcat would have a relatively short career in the fleet.
F7Fs served very effectively in Korea in the night fighter role. The F8F did not see combat in that war, having been replaced by the Grumman F9F-2 Panther by 1950.
My regards,
Widewing
