Why Corsairs?

[Luther Moore]

Why did the RNZAF use Corsairs.They were a carrier based plane and the RNZAF had a role of bombing and staffing.Why not use Dauntless dive bombers or others? Were they cheaper or was it because of their speed and flexibilty?

Just wondering

[lumpy]

Very quick look shows we operated 68 Douglas Dauntless , between 1943-44 .Then 424 Corsairs between 1944-48 .

[alanw]

Aug 17, 2012 5:24:46 GMT 12 Luther Moore said:

Why did the RNZAF use Corsairs.They were a carrier based plane and the RNZAF had a role of bombing and staffing.Why not use Dauntless dive bombers or others? Were they cheaper or was it because of their speed and flexibilty?

Just wondering

SBD Dauntless was also a Carrier based aircraft, though by
mid war the USN started giving them to the Marine Air groups
for ground bombing. The SBD was supposed to be replaced
by SB2C Helldiver, but due to a varity of issues , the SBD
was to soldier on.

Though the F4U Corsair was developed as a carrier based
aircraft, the USN did not accept it at first, due to issues
with landing on the carriers (long nose made it difficult
to see). So intially, the F4U had an inauspicious start to
its career, being relegated to US Marine units for island
hopping, until the teething issues were sorted.
The F4U as we know, did surprising well in the ground
attack business.

The RNZAF F4U -1's were lend lease so cheaper option, but I
would think that the fact the RNZAF was attached to the USN
Pacific Comand, probably had a lot to do with with the choices
as well (Marines/USN used the Corsair -compatibility for spares/ammo/ bombs etc).

For Fire power the F4U (especially F4U-1D's) and FG-1's
could carry x2 500lib bombs, D versions could also carry
HVARs (High Velocity Aerial Rocket) though I believe the
RNZAF did not carry them.

In their books, Bryan Cox (Too Young to Die) and Alex Horn
(Wings Over the Pacific) make mention of how the fast moving
Corsair was an effective Air to Ground aircraft, pilots often
delivering bombs (500- 1000 pounders) almost directly
in front of the troops they were supporting. The Aussies
were very grateful for that, cleared the Japanese off a ridge
one time, that the Aussies were having a hard time taking.

The six 50 Calibre guns could pack a punch as well.

Hope that helps?

Regards

Alan

[davidd]

The fact that Corsairs were provided for RNZAF should not be too surprising, given the US Navy's original disillusionment (did I spell that one right?) with this type due to its very bad deck landing characteristics. The immediate beneficiaries of this increasing flow of new, high performance fighter (unwanted by the origininal sponsor and customer) were of course the US Marines Corps (who normally received Navy "hand-me downs", so they were delighted!) and the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm.
The New Zealand government (and even less so the RNZAF itself) had no part in selecting the specific types of Lend-Lease aircraft required for re-equipping the RNZAF - all types, quantities and delivery schedules were decided by the Aircraft Assignment Sub-committee (who else!) in Washington (where else?), they having weighed up the merits of all competing agencies for the flow of new aircraft coming from United States (and some Canadian) factories that had been paid for by the US taxpayer. After the supply of new aircraft from RAF sources became too uncertain by mid-1942, the NZ government attempted to secure supplies of new combat aircraft (for local defence at that time) from the American government in latter part of that year. This culminated in the signing of a "Mutual Aid Agreement" (read "Lend-Lease") in early September, with the first allocations being advised shortly afterwards. However by this time (with ferocious naval and land battles taking place at Guadalcanal, and in PNG), these aircraft were supplied because the United States insisted that these aircraft be used in offensive operations against the Japanese forces in the operational arrea, and NOT for the defence of New Zealand as such, and the NZ government sensibly agreed to participate in this new endeavour. In effect the RNZAF units re-equipped with Lend-Lease aircraft were to be regarded as American aircraft under total American control (including all operational control and command), but flown and maintained by the RNZAF, using standard American tactics, proecedures, etc. It is also important to understand that the initial recommendations for types and numbers came for the senior United States air commander of the operational theatre in which the RNZAF was to be deployed. This was initially COMAIRSOPAC (the Air Commander of the South Pacific forces, incidentally a Navy command), although in mid-1944 we tended to operate more under the general command of the South-West Pacific forces (an Army command) for operations. However from the 1st September 1943 the RNZAF units operating in the British Solomon Islands were part of a new sub-command known as the NORSOLS forces, which comprised South Pacific forces which had "crossed the line" dividing the South and South-West Pacific forces commands, in their efforts to push Japanese forces NW up the Solomons chain and towards their main HQ at Rabaul. This sub-command was organised to more closely co-ordinate the two separate American forces converging on Rabaul from different directions so as to maximise the effects and to (hopefully) eliminate confusion between forces operating over the same target but with different briefings and commanders.
The RNZAF received both US Army and Navy planes under lend-lease (in addition to American planes diverted from RAF allocations in 1941/42, Hudsons and P-40E Kittyhawks) and this had repercussions when you were relying on the United States supply systems to spit out the spare parts required to maintain your aircraft in the forward area, although fortunately both American services generally had combat units in each others main theatres. However in 1945 it was feared that the RNZAF Corsiars might become a problem when operating in the South-West Pacific theatre, which was mainly USAAF and contained few Navy units in the locations where RNZAF aircraft were to be located in the near future. This was one reason why they were forced to re-equip the fighter squadrons with P-51s (Mustangs) for deployment to Borneo, etc, although the fact that the US Navy claimed ALL new Corsair production from April 1945 (the Okinawa campaign) onwards tended to force the issue.
David D

[Luther Moore]

Aug 17, 2012 8:24:12 GMT 12 alanw said:

Aug 17, 2012 5:24:46 GMT 12 Luther Moore said:

Why did the RNZAF use Corsairs.They were a carrier based plane and the RNZAF had a role of bombing and staffing.Why not use Dauntless dive bombers or others? Were they cheaper or was it because of their speed and flexibilty?

Just wondering

The RNZAF F4U -1's were lend lease so cheaper option, but I
would think that the fact the RNZAF was attached to the USN
Pacific Comand, probably had a lot to do with with the choices
as well (Marines/USN used the Corsair -compatibility for spares/ammo/ bombs etc).



Alan

Good point,never thought about that.

[Luther Moore]

David,I wonder what New Zealand would of used in defence? Were the training P-40's on lease aswell or owned by New Zealand?

[davidd]

Luther,
Well, originally the Kittyhawks and all the Hudsons supplied by diversion from RAF Lend-Lease contracts (or from direct purchase for the earlier Hudsons) would have been available for local defence, as that was why they were supplied in the first place, but after the Japanese withdrawal from Guadalcanal (February 1943) there was not really any great emphasis given to local defence, although the Americans did allow a certain proportion of Corsairs and Venturas to be based in NZ for training and conversion work as well as acting as a reserve against attrition overseas. Also it was felt that New Zealand was still under some danger of submarine attack up till early 1944 at least, although this was not considered to be very likely. Older model aircraft (P-40s, PBYs) tended to be held back in NZ or Fiji for use at OTUs, etc., and it would have been easy enough to move additional Catalinas or Hudsons down from Fiji to New Zealand should a real emergency occur, as happened in January 1945 when a genuine U-Boat came across from south of Australia after creating a certain amount of havoc with that nation's shipping off Victoria and NSW (from memory). However it never showed its fangs off NZ, and managed to sneak away back hone undetected, probably because it could find no targets worthy of its torpedoes.
David D

[Luther Moore]

Interesting, David. That's a hell of a long way to steam a U-boat and for it to be able to return home aswell is remarkable.

Do you know why the RNZAF used Depth chargers on the Corsairs?

[davidd]

Luther,
Forgot to mention that the Venturas of the OTU were also avaiiable for operations if required, although they were the early model PV-1s with the unpopular early fuel system and the unsatisfactory instrument flying panel. Also the really quite unsuitable Ansons were called into action in March 1944 when there was a suspicion that a Japanese submarine was trailing the inter-island steamer express (lookouts reported seeing torpedo tracks, but this was not widely accepted); anyway the Ansons were sent out on patrol, without any radar of course, but saw nothing.
David D

[alanw]

Aug 18, 2012 20:34:50 GMT 12 davidd said:

Luther,
Well, originally the Kittyhawks and all the Hudsons supplied by diversion from RAF Lend-Lease contracts (or from direct purchase for the earlier Hudsons)
David D

Original shipment of Curtiss P 40E's to RNZAF were
supplied from British Stock ex USA which were British
MAP (Min. Aircraft Production) purchased aircraft, built
to incorporate British Air Ministry requirements, and not
lend lease.

Luthor

450lb depth Charges were used by the RNZAF because
they were effective anti-personell weapons.

When your general iron bombs hit the earth, they tend
to dig big holes, whilst the blast concussion will kill anyone
near by- sometimes not a lot of damage. Also depending
on the soil type the blast can be degraded (sand/peat etc).
Depth Charges can be set to explode on contact, with out
digging into the earth, thus using the blast to take out
your enemy and also shredding areas of vegetation providing
cover.

500 lb bombs were at times wrapped with .308 cal
round belts to provide a "Dasiy Cutter" type bomb
for anti personel. Depth charges could do this just
as well.

Hope that helps

Alan

[davidd]

Alan,
The original Kittyhawks supplied to NZ in 1942 were actually P-40E-1 Kittyhawk IAs, and as such had both USAAF and RAF serials; they were purchased with United States Army funds (fiscal year 1941) for supply to the RAF under Lend-Lease, but were diverted to New Zealand (others from same order went to RCAF in Canada and to RAAF, some others were retained by USAAF for own use; of these some 24 or so were shipped to Tonga for 68th Pursuit Sqdn. Survivors of these later passed to RNZAF. No doubt the MAP in UK specified the equipment fit to suit RAF requirements - however it was the original sponsor for these aircraft (and who paid the bills) which dictated whether they were lend-lease or not. However I agree that they were NOT supplied under the USA/NZ Mutual Aid Agreement.
David D

[alanw]

Aug 19, 2012 13:00:04 GMT 12 davidd said:

Alan,
The original Kittyhawks supplied to NZ in 1942 were actually P-40E-1 Kittyhawk IAs, and as such had both USAAF and RAF serials; they were purchased with United States Army funds (fiscal year 1941) for supply to the RAF under Lend-Lease, but were diverted to New Zealand (others from same order went to RCAF in Canada and to RAAF, some others were retained by USAAF for own use; of these some 24 or so were shipped to Tonga for 68th Pursuit Sqdn. Survivors of these later passed to RNZAF. No doubt the MAP in UK specified the equipment fit to suit RAF requirements - however it was the original sponsor for these aircraft (and who paid the bills) which dictated whether they were lend-lease or not. However I agree that they were NOT supplied under the USA/NZ Mutual Aid Agreement.
David D

David

Do you have some references to quote for your comments
that I can look up?

It's been my understanding that the P40E's were purchased
by the British MAP via the British Purchasing Commission, much
like the Brewster Buffalo (339E), earlier production P40B's
(some of which were passed on to the AVG), Curtiss Mohawk,
Bell Aircobra etc.

All paid for in British funds, and modified by the
US manufacturers to British Air Ministry specifications
to have fitted British equipment (Sutton harness, Radio
eqipment, flare dispensers etc), and painted in British
Air Ministry colours of the day (quote: Britains Wonderful
Air Force Chp 13 - published 1943).

For example the P 40E's which arrived in New Zealand for the RNZAF in 1942, were painted in RAF colours using US equivalence paints, of Dark Earth/Dark Green/Sky (duPont paints).

Thanks

Alan

[Luther Moore]

Aug 18, 2012 22:19:41 GMT 12 alanw said:

Aug 18, 2012 20:34:50 GMT 12 davidd said:

Luther,
Well, originally the Kittyhawks and all the Hudsons supplied by diversion from RAF Lend-Lease contracts (or from direct purchase for the earlier Hudsons)
David D

500 lb bombs were at times wrapped with .308 cal
round belts to provide a "Dasiy Cutter" type bomb
for anti personel. Depth charges could do this just
as well.

Hope that helps

Alan

Now thats smart.

[davidd]

Alan,
I reccomend an excellent British (Air Britain?) publication on subject of the British Air Commission in the USA from 1938 to 1946 concerned with the selection, modification, acceptance and shipping of American-built aircraft for the RAF and FAA which contains much information on the complexities of these vast enterprises, including the passing of the original Lend-Lease Act (hereafter reduced to "LL") in March 1941. This Act did not effect existing orders for aircraft in the USA, including those for the Buffalo, Airacobra, Hudsons, Harvards, Marylands, early P-40s, B-17s, Catalinas, etc, many of which were taken over from French and Belgian orders. The latter (French) order included a large order for Harvards, 105 of which ultimately ended up in New Zealand as our very own Mark IIs. Thankfully these were NOT delivered with reverse action throttles as originally specified by the French in 1939! (Subject of another thread on this Board recently.)
Bear in mind that all LL aircraft for the RAF or FAA were modified to British requirements to a certain extent in the USA, although in the case of earlier LL deliveries (as for Hudsons to NZ), aircraft were frequently shipped minus some or all armament, signals (radio) and safety equipment, as this (British equivalents) was to be fitted on arrival in UK or Middle/Far East destinations. Conversely our P-40E-1 Kitthawks were delivered with USAAC radios (SCR-274N) and gunsights, and we had the original A/N pitot heads as fitted at factory (you will find that most RAF P-40s in the Mediterranean and western desert theatre had RAF- type "cranked" pitot tubes mounted UNDER the wing.) All Corsairs, Catalinas, etc, built for the RAF, FAA as LL aircraft were brought up to full British specs either in USA by civilian contractors at "Modification Centres" (which handled all such work to fit out and modifiy aircraft intended for specific theatres or "customers" with special requirments, or incorporated new and/or improved equipment specified by the USAAF or US Navy) or this was fitted on arrival in case of earlier pre-LL aircraft. The latter (both direct purchase as well as early LL) tended to be shipped without radio and armament equipment because it was fully understood that this was to be fitted in the UK or in the British depots in Egypt, etc., as the RAF preferred its home-grown equipment with which they were familiar, or was considered superior in some way. Later LL deliveries to UK and ME theatres tended to be fullly fitted out with standard American operational equipment as the British equivalents were in such demand that home production (particularly of radio and radar) could never hope to keep up with it. Later Liberators for Coastal Command for instance were fully equipped in the USA with standard American radar, radio, etc, although not certain if they had American bomb racks, guns, etc., but likely they did.
The original 36 Hudsons shipped to NZ were all British government "direct purchase" aircraft (only RAF serial Nos.), but all those from NZ2037 onwards were from British LL allocations, and all had USAAF serial numbers, etc., and were delivered with standard American radio equipment (and a version of RAF camouflage as you state) but no radar The Kittyhawks (P-40E-1s) were in the same class as this, from British LL allocations, and shipped directly from USA to NZ. All later deliveries of American aircraft to RNZAF in WW2 (including the Canadian-built PB2B-1 Catalinas) were under the NZ/USA LL arrangements, plus all the later Harvards (AT-6s) up to NZ1099. The three Canadian-built examples which became NZ1100 - 1102 were delivered under a different arrangement with the Canadian government, believed to have been an attempt to reduce the drain of British gold to the United States government when came the time to settle the Lend Lease accounts! However these aircraft still had LL P&W Wasp engines installed, which would have to be paid for by the Canadian government from American funds held. The Harvard IIB was slated to be the standard type in the RNZAF from late 1944 onwards, but this more-or-less coincided with the drastic scaling back of the Empire Air Training Scheme (or the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan as it was better known at this stage) so these three became "orphans" in the postwar period.
David D

[steveh]

Those are fascinating posts David, many thanks for that information. It sure gave me an insight into stuff I hadn't fully understood before.
Steve.

[davidd]

A slightly more available publication re the P-40E-1 Kittyhawk IA would be Curtiss Aircraft 1907 - 1947, by Peter M Bowers (Putnam, 1979), the latter a generally well respected aviation historian type of chap, and an American to boot, although the publisher naturally changed all the disloyal colony spelling to standard (British) English in this book in the interest of Empire solidarity!

From page 485:
P-40E-1 (Model 87-A4) - This designation was adopted slightly in advance of the Block Designation system to identify the 1,500 Kittyhawks IAs (although he states 1As, just me being picky) supplied to Britain early in the Lend-Lease programme. Because they were procured with US funds, the aeroplanes had to have standard US Army designations. Since the British equipment installed made them different to the (US) Army P-40Es, the -1 suffix was added to formalize the difference. Many of these were retained for US service but flew with British camouflage; six went to Brazil and received Brazilian serial numbers 01/06.
US Army serial numbers: 41-24776/25195 (420, c/ns 18795/19214). 41-35874/36953 (1,080, c/ns 18395/19474).

From page 500 (on RAF use of Kittyahwks):
Kittyhawk IA (Model H87-A3, -A4, note difference here with previous description) - The 1,500 Kittyhawk IAs were equivalents of the P-40E and were delivered under the US Army designation P-40E-1 to distinguish their British equipment and details from those of the US service. Many of these were diverted to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Of course any Googling using "P-40E-1" in conjunction (or not) with Kittyhawk should be able to trawl up miles of similar stuff, by authors of varying skill and repute, some to an extraordinary degree. The minor discrepancies noted above show that even Putnam can sometimes make editing errors.
David D

[pjw4118]

Good interesting stuff. It always amazes me the depth of knowledge held within the Forum. Its a bit like an aeronautical Google .Well done

[alanw]

Aug 20, 2012 10:54:29 GMT 12 davidd said:

Alan,
I reccomend an excellent British (Air Britain?) publication on subject of the British Air Commission in the USA from 1938 to 1946 concerned with the selection, modification, acceptance and shipping of American-built aircraft for the RAF and FAA which contains much information on the complexities of these vast enterprises, including the passing of the original Lend-Lease Act (hereafter reduced to "LL") in March 1941.

Bear in mind that all LL aircraft for the RAF or FAA were modified to British requirements to a certain extent in the USA, although in the case of earlier LL deliveries (as for Hudsons to NZ), aircraft were frequently shipped minus some or all armament, signals (radio) and safety equipment, as this (British equivalents) was to be fitted on arrival in UK or Middle/Far East destinations.
David D

David

Thanks for the references.

With regard to the reference "British Air Commission in the USA",
is that the book written by Ken Meekoms?
www.air-britain.co.uk/actbooks/acatalog/bac&ll.jpg

If so, I have not as yet read the book, though I have seen
mixed comments on it (depending on whether you're from
the British or US side of the pond).

I am certainly aware of the lengths the US manufacturers
initally went to to please the British Purchasing Commision
requests for compliance, to Air Ministry requirements.
For example Grumman actually mixed the correct shades of
paint for the TBF-1 Avengers (Mk I Tarpon) for the FAA, whilst
later orders were "Equivalence" paints of US origin to lastly
aircraft being delivered in standard US Navy colour schemes.

The same can be said for the colour schemes for the P 40E
delivered to the RNZAF, being Dark Earth/Dark Green/Sky.
whilst later P40 marks (with the exception of the intial batch
of P 40k's) were delivered in standard USAAF colour schemes

It's these inital colour shemes that can lead to some rather
heated debates on modelling forums, again depending on
which side of the "Pond" you're on.

Regards

Alan