It's just another logistical requirement inside the limited hull of an aircraft carrier. It also requires new training and work for the already overworked deck crews.
Far easier to find the place for something that is a non-consumable liquid, than to find the place for tens of thousands of gallons of fuel extra as needed for the greatly upped fuel requirement that happened between 1942 and 1943, as well as finding the place to store the ADI liquid - water-alcohol - that was also a consumable (a thing that Allied V12 engines were working just fine without, while R-2800s and R-1820s on the USN fighters were using it by winter of 1943/44 ).
Deck crews of the USN were at least as good as the deck crews of the RN, that was using British radials, Merlins, and US radials on their carriers by mid war.
I would guess the biggest loses of F4F's during the Battle of Midway was from running out of gas. Navy tactics such as the Thach Weave were based on a wingman turning into an A6M Zero to force a head on pass. If pilots saw, they were about to be attacked from above and behind a common tactic was to turn into the attack and make a head on pass. If you were forced to make a head on pass, would you rather be flying a fighter with an inline or radial engine?
I'd rather have an engine that gives ~15% more BHP, plus 10-15% extra of the propulsive power due to the better layout of exhaust stacks, so the Thach weave is not a necessity - my fighter is at least as fast as the Zero 32 (and faster than the Zero 21). I also have the chance to catch enemy torpedo- and dive-bombers even if the C&C operator makes a mistake, so eg. CV Lexington survives the Battle of Coral Sea.
Came the need to trade blows head-on, I still have the bullet-proof glass in front of me, as well as self-sealing tanks; Zero is still without those.
I was trying to point out that the ability for a fighter that survives a blown off cylinder and RTB is very much exaggerated.
True enough, but fighters have many jobs. Attacking ships and ground targets are common tasks. It was a fact recognized by all combatants in WWII that inline engine aircraft were move vulnerable to light AA fire and high-altitude flak than radial engine aircraft. The P-47 was much preferred over the P-51 in the ground attack role. There was some logic to the USAAF choosing radial engines for all of their heavy, medium, and light bombers.
I'd say that a main job of a fighter is to down enemy aircraft. If it is bad, or even
meh in that role, it is a lesser fighter than the one that excels in that role. See eg. Merlin Mustang vs. Fw 190A - former was a far better fighter, while the later was a very good ground attacker and that still didn't save it from being trashed by the P-51B or D. That is despite the 190 being powered by a radial engine, with an armored oil system ( a thing that was not present on the US ww2 fighters), and while featuring double, if not triple the firepower.
Or, see Hurricanes and Spitfires back in the BoB - nobody ever complained that their bomb load was zero.
There was certainly a logic of the USAAF choosing the radial engines - US liquid cooled 'scene' was weak, there was no V12 engine of power between 1700-2800 HP in mass production until very late (with 2000 HP US-made V12 engines not serving in ww2), and there was perhaps 5 factories making radial engines for each factory making V12s.
How many US fighters were shot down by AA when doing the fighter jobs, like defending the ground site, or ships, or while escorting the bombers, when compared with how many were shot down by enemy fighters?
All aircraft are rated by their overall qualities. Versatility is a great virtue. The F-15 may be the most successful fighter in history, but that's it's big thing. Not 1 lbs. for ground. The F15E is just as capable in the air-to-air role, but it can do so much more to affect the battlefield. The F4F did a lot of good service in bombing and strafing runs to save marines on Guadalcanal. The F4F's on Wake Island actually sunk an IJN destroyer and helped drive off a landing force creating the legend of Wake Island. Being a pure fighter is great, but having other capabilities to fit the circumstances can be even better.
USN brass was looking at the Wildcat in the negative way after the Battle of Midway, due to the type under-performing in it's primary mission.
See the quote from the 'Black shoe Admiral' book:
...Another aspect of the attack that proved inadequate was fighter escort. To Fletcher the folding wing F4F-4s represented no improvement over the fixed-wing F4F-3s, except more F4F-4s could be carried. He echoed the call of Halsey and others of the urgent necessity'' for detachable fuel tanks to increase their effective attack radius beyond 175 miles. Spruance and Browning rated the Grumman Wildcat "greatly inferior'' in comparison with the nimble Japanese Zero. On 20 June Nimitz relayed their fears to King, noting the "extreme and apparently increased superiority performance of 0 fighters'' was mitigated only by the vulnerability of Japanese planes and the superior tactics of the U.S. Navy fighter pilots. "Overall results have been bad and will be serious and potentially decisive with improvement that must be expected in enemy tactics.'' Remarkably he called for army Curtiss P-4OF Warhawk fighters to replace navy F4F Wildcats and Brewster F2A Buffaloes in all marine fighting squadrons defending forward bases and even asked that the P-4OF "or comparable type" be tested for carrier suitability; In the meantime the F4F-4s must be lightened, and their ammunition supply increased even should that require reverting to four guns in place of six.The swift introduction of the Vought F4U-1 Corsair fighter was an"absolute priority.'' Thus after Midway the top fleet commanders experienced a serious crisis of confidence over the effectiveness of the basic U.S. carrier fighter, a worry that would soon influence Fletcher's most controversial command decision...
Lundstrom, Black Shoe carrier Admiral, p.200
The call to the P-40F or a similar type to be tested is quite revealing.
The F4F-3's bomb load was 200 lbs (the SAC sheet does not mention the bombs for the -4 at all), it will not be as good a bomber as the SBD that topped at 1600 lbs, or the TBF that topped at 2000 lbs. Comparing the light F4F with one of the heaviest fighters that was conceived after several decades of advancements in technology is missing the point.
