WI: F4F instead of F2A?

I hadn't noticed that.:eek::eek: A lower-powered *Bear in '40-1?:cool: (Then again, how much performance gain arises from smaller dimensions?:confused:)

I guess you haven't checked. The Swedes like to call the J-22 the fastest in class, since it used a weaker engine than the weak ones used on the F4F3A, with single stage supercharger. So, 357 mph vs 316 mph. And Rare Bear is the fastest in its class as well, piston-powered airplane.
 
Grumman was a vastly better company than Brewster, in honesty and production capability, but the Wildcat didn't offer an imposing performance gain over the Brewster, or the Zeke. Jimmy Thach devised his little earth-shattering tactic due to the inferior performance of the Wildcat,

Inferior to the Zero in turn, anyway. But then, no monoplane other than the IJA Oscar ever could out dogfight it. JT just figured that out on his own since the War Department ignored what Chennault was reporting from China

But with a two stage supercharger and four .50s, F4F was useful the rest of the war, FAA didn't have problems attacking 109Gs in 1945 Norway with them
 
P-36s seem the likely candidate. (I was trying to think what was in the pipeline at the same time as the F2A & OTL F4F-1.)

Curtiss was doing the P-40C, which was the company Model 81

They wanted to sell the XP-46(Model 86) in development, but this was a turkey, so made the Model 87, that looked a lot like the old 81(that pretty much was a 75 with a new front), but shared few parts with the earlier Hawk 75 or 81.
 
Last edited:
Just Leo said:
I guess you haven't checked.
You wouldn't be wrong.:eek: Til now, I never heard of the J-22.:(
Just Leo said:
357 mph vs 316 mph.
That's enough to make fighting the A6Ms much more even.:cool:
Curtiss was doing the P-40C, which was the company Model 81
That sounds the likely winner. Somewhat less likely to be shot to pieces by A6Ms, & (judging by Finnish experience OTL) likely to give Luftwaffe 109s fits.:eek::cool:

What this is looking like is bad news for Japan & Germany both.:eek::cool::cool: I'm thinking it's also bad news for the Red Air Force, against Finn AF P-40s.:eek:
 
One part sheer luck, two parts desperate courage by Finnish air force pilots, and a dash of incompetence on the part of the pre-1941 Soviet air force.

Considering the Finnish Fighter Squadron 24 claimed over 470 wins against Soviet military aircraft for the loss of just 19 Brewster Model 239s, according to your estimate over 150 of those wins were sheer luck?

118854_r500.jpg


Lieutenant Hans Wind to his mechanics: "Look, guys, we're having such good luck these days we really should think of buying some lottery tickets..."
 
I'm confused. How will the Red Air Force P-40s suffer at the hands of Finn AF P-40s?

P-40B/C Model 81 were lighter, more maneuverable, better climb and faster than the later P-40 onwards Model 87, but less rugged and fewer guns.

Much in the same way as the Finns with the Brewster 239 than the Marine F2A-3

So early P-40s would be a better 'Pilot's airplane' than the later marks.

But even in the same model, Finns tended to be more motivated.
 
it seemed the dutch did reasonably with them in the indies after some modification (remove excess weight, halve ammo & fuel). the were the type B-339C & D, the D's with R-1820 1200hp engines
 
P-40B/C Model 81 were lighter, more maneuverable, better climb and faster than the later P-40 onwards Model 87, but less rugged and fewer guns.

Much in the same way as the Finns with the Brewster 239 than the Marine F2A-3

So early P-40s would be a better 'Pilot's airplane' than the later marks.

But even in the same model, Finns tended to be more motivated.

The P-40C Tomahawk was always slower than any subsequent marks of Kittyhawks, but that's not the point. The Soviets were supplied with 247 Tomahawks as the first lend-lease fighters. That is the same aircraft, the very same. Some Soviet pilots were motivated too, but we aren't talking motivation here, just hardware.
 
Just Leo said:
I'm confused. How will the Red Air Force P-40s suffer at the hands of Finn AF P-40s?
I had in mind Winter War combat. Am I giving the Finns P-40s too early for it?:confused:
 
One point I might wonder about is that whether the F4F starting its evolution as an operational aircraft a few years earlier also might move up the development of a couple key improvements--mostly thinking about folding wings. If that's part of the F4Fs that are in the fleet in 1941, might you see some of the same larger fighter wings that developed rapidly with the F4F-4's introduction IOTL? Admittedly, some of that was also due to combat experience (trading off the less-useful torpedo planes for more fighters after Midway, for instance), but simply being able to put more fighters on the carriers seems to have obvious utility even with pre-war doctrine. Presuming that Grumman (being a far better company at actually manufacturing planes in large numbers to reasonable quality than Brewster proved to be) can provide the planes necessary for larger fighter wings by December, that could see less of the need to trade task force CAP against escorted strikes, which gives benefits for both dive bombers and (particularly) torpedo planes.

There's two levels of "if" there, one in the introduction of folding wings for the F4F and then one about then using those capabilities to actually put more planes on deck, but I wonder about those effects.

Two very relevant improvements needed in the first half of 1942 would have been a fix for the jamming guns (O'Hare would go after the Bettys with a wingman with operational guns -> no ace in a day for him and no MOH) and usable drop tanks.

Drop tanks would be a major factor in Midway allowing US carriers to send more intact and better escorted strike groups agains KB. Also the planes sent after Yorktown would face stronger CAP as there would be less need to refuel the wildcats during the day.
 
Last edited:
seyak said:
Two very relevant improvements needed in the first half of 1942 would have been a fix for the jamming guns (O'Hare would go after the Bettys with a wingman with operational guns -> no ace in a day for him and no MOH) and usable drop tanks.

Drop tanks would be a major factor in Midway allowing US carriers to send more intact and better escorted strike groups agains KB. Also the planes sent after Yorktown would face stronger CAP as there would be less need to refuel the wildcats during the day.
With the extra lead time of no F2A, these problems would be solved, IMO. In addition, I'm thinking this could have beneficial knock-ons for FEAF fighters. They suffered problems with jamming when gun lube froze.:eek: Is there a chance to avoid that? Or is there no common lube? (Obvious question is, why didn't AAF notice this in the '30s?:confused:)
marathag said:
Too Early.

P-40 deliveries didn't start till April 1940
So, P-36s against I-16s over Finland?:cool:
 

Driftless

Donor
With the extra lead time of no F2A, these problems would be solved, IMO. In addition, I'm thinking this could have beneficial knock-ons for FEAF fighters. They suffered problems with jamming when gun lube froze.:eek: Is there a chance to avoid that? Or is there no common lube? (Obvious question is, why didn't AAF notice this in the '30s?:confused:)

So, P-36s against I-16s over Finland?:cool:

Some WW2 USAAC gunners and photographers apparently used graphite powder as a non-freezing lubricant, till they acquired something better. No liquid component to freeze in the sub-zero high altitude, but very slick.

Some of the P-36/Hawk 75a-6's that the Norwegians bought and were in process of assembling at the start of Op. Weserubung wound up in Finland eventually. Find a way to get them there directly and a couple of months earlier.
 
With the extra lead time of no F2A, these problems would be solved, IMO. In addition, I'm thinking this could have beneficial knock-ons for FEAF fighters. They suffered problems with jamming when gun lube froze.:eek: Is there a chance to avoid that? Or is there no common lube? (Obvious question is, why didn't AAF notice this in the '30s?

Electric gun heaters spring to mind, but freezing guns in FEAF doesn't really, except for Spits over Darwin. Cowl guns have built-in heaters under them.

Sunflower and Jojoba oil have suitable resistance to freezing but probably don't have a mil-spec. Incidentally, it was about this time that Kendall Oil formulated the first multi-viscosity gear oil, called 3 Star 80/90/140, and a mil/spec was issued for this.
 
Driftless said:
Some WW2 USAAC gunners and photographers apparently used graphite powder as a non-freezing lubricant, till they acquired something better. No liquid component to freeze in the sub-zero high altitude, but very slick.
:cool: It took decades for hot rodders to get to that.:(
Driftless said:
Some of the P-36/Hawk 75a-6's that the Norwegians bought and were in process of assembling at the start of Op. Weserubung wound up in Finland eventually. Find a way to get them there directly and a couple of months earlier.
That's just the thing: if the Finns don't buy F2As but P-36s, they'd be ready to go around the time the F2As were operational OTL...provided they haven't run afoul the Neutrality Act.
Just Leo said:
Electric gun heaters spring to mind, but freezing guns in FEAF doesn't really, except for Spits over Darwin. Cowl guns have built-in heaters under them.
My recall may be faulty.:eek: I recall jamming, & it being blamed on guns freezing up; I no longer recall where I read it.:(
Just Leo said:
Sunflower and Jojoba oil have suitable resistance to freezing but probably don't have a mil-spec. Incidentally, it was about this time that Kendall Oil formulated the first multi-viscosity gear oil, called 3 Star 80/90/140, and a mil/spec was issued for this.
I did not know that. Thx.:):)
 
Some of the P-36/Hawk 75a-6's that the Norwegians bought and were in process of assembling at the start of Op. Weserubung wound up in Finland eventually. Find a way to get them there directly and a couple of months earlier.

Indeed - P-36s against I-16s is pretty much OTL, during the Continuation War. The first war booty Hawks bought from the Germans arrived in Finland in the summer of 1941. They served through the war, mostly with No. 32 Squadron. They were moderately successful against such Soviet planes as MiG-1, MiG-3 and Pe-2 - mostly because of Finnish tactics, despite their comparatively dwindling performance.

Finnish P-36s over East Karelia in October 1943:

166153_r500.jpg
 
Top