The Last airplane shot down ww2 ?? - Help needed

[kriegsmarine221]

list some then.

[Takao]

USS Ranger (CV-4) would be the most prominent carrier: http://www.acepilots.com/ships/ranger.html
USS Wasp(CV-7) made two runs to resupply Malta with aircraft. I'm not as knowledgeable with CVEs as I am the CV & CVLs, but several CVEs were active in the ETO and MTO.

But there really was no need for American carriers in the ETO and MTO, at least, after the initial landings were made in North Africa and Italy. England was, by far, the largest unsinkable aircraft carrier in the ETO, and once airbases had been completed in North Africa and Italy. they could provide for aircraft much better than a carrier. Not only that, but any ship would be vulnerable in the restricted waters of the Med. Especially, if they are operating within range of enemy airbases.

[R Leonard]

19 April 1942 - Operation Calendar
USS Wasp
Delivers RAF Spitfires to Malta

9 May 1942 - Operation Bowery
USS Wasp
Delivers RAF Spitfires to Malta

8-10 November 1942 - Operation Torch
Invasion of North Africa
USS Ranger
USS Suwannee
USS Sangamon
USS Santee

4 October 1943 - Operation Leader
Strikes on German shipping in Bodø Norway area
USS Ranger

15-22 August 1944 - Operation Dragoon
Invasion of Southern France
USS Tulagi
USS Kasaan Bay

Not to mention various hunter-killer groups wandering around likely looking stretches of water in the Atlantic or USS Wasp delivering USAAF P-40s to Iceland on 6 August 1941.

As has been pointed out, the frequent closer proximity of land bases to points of action often precluded the need for aircraft carriers. USN VCS squadrons for naval gunfire spotting operated from land in both Operation Dragoon (VCS-8 in P-51C's) and Operation Overlord (VCS-7 in Spifire Vb's).

Rich

[kriegsmarine221]

p-40s could be used on carriers? if so the p-40 would have been a very welcome replacement for the grumman wildcat and the brewster buffalo

[R Leonard]

p-40s could be used on carriers? if so the p-40 would have been a very welcome replacement for the grumman wildcat and the brewster buffalo

Key word you missed was "delivering" not "operating". Carriers were a convenient way of getting airplanes from point A to point B and have them reasonably capable of operation from said point B. For example USS Chenango carried P-40s in the North African invasion, launching them off to operate from airfields ashore. Also done quite often to get aircraft to various islands in the Pacific, P-40's, P-47's etc.

Really, you were joking were you not? Or one might presume your real knowledge on the subject of WWII aviation might be . . . ummm . . . well . . . hmmm?

[kriegsmarine221]

are you saying that the buffalo is better than the p-40?

[kriegsmarine221]

and i would pick the p-40 over the buffalo any day. carrier or not. hmmmmm lets see. the p-40s top speed is around 580kmh. the buffalos top speed is around 450kmh. the p-40 has a heavier armament. can carry a much heavier bombload. more manuevreble at high speeds unlike the buffalo which has poor manuevrability at all speeds. they were both sturdy and stable aircraft but the p-40 was more heavy armored. the p-40 has a longer range. and the pilots actually liked the p-40. many pilots called the buffalo a flying coffin.

[R Leonard]

I don’t recall writing above that the F2A was a better aircraft than the P-40; can you point to where I wrote such? I think, as with “delivering” vs “operating” you need to read a little more carefully. My point to you is that carrier operations, both USN and RN, in the waters around Europe and North Africa are of fairly common knowledge and, even if one were not aware, information on such is easy to acquire, even on the internet. Further, the use of aircraft carriers to move land-operation-restricted aircraft about the world in World War II was also fairly common and information on such, again, is easy to find. How you managed to twist that into an F2A is better than the P-40 statement is beyond me.

Further, and I must say I think it a little silly comparing land-operations-restricted aircraft to carrier-based aircraft, if you really want me to comment on F2As vs P-40s, I can. Comparing F2A performance with its contemporary, the P-40B, the P-40B was, indeed, faster than the F2A (360 mph vs 344 mph), but had less range (650 miles vs 965 miles), a slower rate of climb (2,100 ft/min vs 3,070 ft/min), a lower max ceiling (29,000 ft vs 33,200), the P-40B’s armament was, in my opinion, wasn’t much better than that of the F2A, and, of course, the P-40, in any of its incarnations, was unable to operate (that is, take off, land, take off, land, repeat as necessary) from an aircraft carrier, something both the F2A and the F4F could do with some regularity. Was the F2A better than the P-40? Beats me, depends on the mission, but the F2A, and the F4F for that matter, for sure could operate from an aircraft carrier, something the P-40 could not do and could not rationally be converted to do.

So, there you are, out in the middle of the ocean, and and your scouts spot the enemy fleet a couple of hundred miles away boiling over the horizon, so you launch you fighters. You may get some of your F2As, and probably proportionally more of your F4Fs, back by the end of the day, but you'll never see your P-40s again except as splashes in the water. Mission and doctrine drive functionality. That's why it is a silly comparison.

And, in case you were not aware, it was not particularly unusual to find naval aviators who, as you used the word, “liked” the F2A. It was steady and handled well, as some would say, a “fun airplane to fly.” Were you read-up on naval aviation, you would know that, too. No one was real thrilled about it as a combat aircraft, especially in its -3 final version, so what? Anecdotally, I can think of one USN pilot who, though not an F2A pilot, but an F4F pilot, and an ace with two Zeros to his credit, who told me that having once acquired some P-40E time, he would not have wanted to face a Zero in that plane. Maybe he had a lemon, eh?

R

[Takao]

Well, the F4F pilot, was a naval aviator. And every naval aviator knows that once a liquid cooled engine loses its coolant, it is time to "hit the silk" as they say. Whereas, the US naval aircraft were exclusivley radial engined because radials were rugged, reliable and tended to continue running even when severely damaged.

But, then again I could be totally of the mark.

[kriegsmarine221]

could the p-39 operate continuously from carriers? that would have been a superb plane is the battle of midway.

[Ironmachine]

Actually, they tried to develop a navalized version of the P-39 for carrier operations, the XFL-1 Airabonita, but after a difficult development the aircraft was finally declared "to be unsatisfactory for use as a carrier aircraft or for arrested landings". So the answer to you question is no, the P-39 could not operate from carriers.

To learn the complete story of the Airabonita, take a look here:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviat ... bonita.htm

[kriegsmarine221]

,

a “fun airplane to fly.”

i know you wouldnt mean this but FUN dosent necessarily indicate a good plane. FUN usaully meant, good handling and stability and easy use. example. the bf-110 was also considered FUN to fly. but it got slaughtered didnt it? just like the wildcat was slaughtered by zeros

[kriegsmarine221]

Actually, they tried to develop a navalized version of the P-39 for carrier operations, the XFL-1 Airabonita, but after a difficult development the aircraft was finally declared "to be unsatisfactory for use as a carrier aircraft or for arrested landings". So the answer to you question is no, the P-39 could not operate from carriers.

To learn the complete story of the Airabonita, take a look here:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviat ... bonita.htm

could any US fighters operate on carriers apart from the corsair, buffalo and wildcat during world war 2?

[Ironmachine]

Yes, the F6F Hellcat.

[Ome_Joop]

What more could operate.
F3F (out of service 1943?)
F7F Tigercat (in service 1945?)
F8F Bearcat (in service may 1945?)
and a P-51D (Built Number 57987/ex 44-14017 modified for succesful carrier trials on 15 Nov 44).