F-8F BearcatL Why Not in Korea?

T

Texas Star

US Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
20,360
Reaction score
16,170
Location
Texas
The F-8F Bearcat naval fighter arrived a bit too late for WW II, but remained in production until 1949, and was widely used by Navy Reserve pilots.

It seems like it would have made considerable sense in the Korean War, as the enemy used a lot of Soviet prop-driven fighters. The USN fielded the F-4U Corsair, but it probably wouldn't have fared well against the nimble Yaks. Japanese aces tended to regard the Corsair as easy meat, compared to the more agile Hellcat. Jets of the day probably also would be at a disadvantage, and were slower than the MiG jets.

Does anyone really know why the Bearcat wasn't employed?
The French used some in Indo-China and the Royal Thai Air Force got some, but the US seems never to have used the plane in combat. Its high climb rate and probable manuveribility (sp?)should have made it a good weapon, and it was available.

I'm guessing that the Navy simply didn't want another fighter in the combat inventory, and thought the Panther jets would suffice. The Corsair was by then used mainly for ground attack.

T-Star
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
In my reading it seems that the F 84 was used for air superiority which we gained relatively early. The F-51 was withdrawn from air superiority duties as soon as the MIG 15 appeared. There were still plenty of 51s around when I was there in 54.
Navy and Marine Air was used for ground support, I knew a Navy guy who flew ground support (recalled combat reservist from WW II) but don’t remember what plane, he is gone now.
 
I recall reading somewhere that a Skyraider actually shot down a Yak during the early days of the Korean war. As far as the Japanese pilots considering the F4U Corsair "easymeat". I doubt that. All one has to do is look at the Corsair's kill ratio against Japanese fighters. Maybe you are confusing the Corsair with the Wildcat.

Comparing N. Korean and Chicom fighters against U.S. doesn't take into consideration of the skill level of the pilots. A large percentage of U.S. fighter pilots were WWII vets and had a whole bunch more skill and experience that the average Chicom/Nork pilot.
 
The Skyraider must have been very good at ground attack...they were still using them in Vietnam, along with the Douglass A26.
 
Actually, Skyraiders delivered the last torpedo warshots fired in anger by the US Navy. Aerial dropped torpedos were used to destroy a dam in N Korea by Navy Skyraiders. Story makes interesting reading

VA-195 Dambusters
During the USS Princeton's third cruise to the Korean Peninsula in 1951, Navy Squadron VA-195 was making their place in history, and also earning the name &nDambusters." The Chinese Communist Forces were using the sluice gates in the Hwachon Dam to flood the lower Pukhan River, thus preventing the United Nation Forces from crossing the river and proceeding northward. Air Force B-29's were sent to demolish the dam by dropping six-ton bombs on it. The Hwachon's gigantic concrete structure was barely cracked in the attack. Captain William Gallery, of the aircraft carrier USS Princeton, made the suggestion that the Skyraiders attempt to drop Mk-13 torpedoes on the sluice gates, thus preventing the Chinese Communist Forces from controlling the flow of the Hwachon River.

On May 1, 1951, the crew of the VA-195 squadron departed from the USS Princeton in their eight AD-4 Skyraiders with World War II era Mk-13 torpedoes hanging below their planes and escorted by eight Corsairs. Most of the VA-195 pilots were never trained to drop torpedoes, or fly in the narrow 40-foot wide canyon low enough to drop the torpedoes effectively. Six of the eight torpedoes hit the target, completely destroying one sluice gate and severely damaging another. The water behind the Hwachon Dam was released and the Chinese Communist Forces could no longer control the flooding of the river.

The attack on the dam by the AD-4 Squadron VA-195 earned them the nickname "Dambusters." The Skyraiders attack on May 1, 1951, was the last time the United States Navy used torpedoes in an actual act of war.
 
Harrison said:
I recall reading somewhere that a Skyraider actually shot down a Yak during the early days of the Korean war. As far as the Japanese pilots considering the F4U Corsair "easymeat". I doubt that. All one has to do is look at the Corsair's kill ratio against Japanese fighters. Maybe you are confusing the Corsair with the Wildcat.

Comparing N. Korean and Chicom fighters against U.S. doesn't take into consideration of the skill level of the pilots. A large percentage of U.S. fighter pilots were WWII vets and had a whole bunch more skill and experience that the average Chicom/Nork pilot.
Click to expand...

Nope, the Jap pilot who was quoted definitely referred to the F-4U, having been asked to compare it and the Hellcat. Keep in mind that his comments were relative only to the two US planes. I may have exaggerated his "easy meat" aspect, but he certainly felt that the Hellcat was more dangerous. He probably never faced a Seafire. If the enemy was in range of it, the Seafire might have been the most dangerous Allied carrier-based fighter. But it had short legs, like the land-based version, the Spitfire. I suspect that's one big reason why the RAF acquired a number of Mustangs.

I'm sure that you're correct about the skill levels of the Commie pilots. I read an article in which a Russian was quoted as saying that there were too many language problems to teach them as well as he'd wanted. Some Russians definitely flew, and may have also been WW II vets.

A Royal Navy Sea Fury also shot down a MiG-15. I guess he had the speed for the occasion and was a better pilot, with a tighter-turning plane.

T-Star
 
Last edited:
F8s had been pulled of carriers, that was a time for rapid change, the Navy going through quite a few theories, prototypes and what not at the dawn of the jet age. At one point the Navy wanted a big flat deck series of carriers to launch long range nuke armed bombers. That was around '47 when the AF was formed and there was the "Admiral's mutiny". The Navy eventually retained carriers and got shiny new ones, thanks in part to Sen. Stennis, which is why he got a carrier named after him.

Anyway, the Corsairs were still on board for ground attack. They did fine against the Japanese and the Russian prop fighters, I think they, and P/F51s got a couple Migs too. Other than the Russian "advisor" pilots, the NK and PLA forces weren't exactly first rate.

The Corsair was called the Ensign Eliminator at one point, but was never considered easy for the Japanese.

The F8 was a fighter, designed to catch and destroy kamikazes. Would have, along with the F7, been useful invading Japan in '46. Not so useful against jets, hence they were no longer used as a fighter by the USN, and weren't really suited to be first rate ground attack platforms.

The French... well they took what they could get. They were still flying Ju52s in Indochina after all.
 
sheriffoconee said:
The French used "our" Corsairs in Indochina as well....I wonder if they ever paid for them???
Click to expand...

I don't know. The Brits just finally got done paying off their WW2 "Lend Lease" debt a relatively short time ago. We made them pay back every penny and charged them interest. During the Cold War era, some things changed to be essentially "give aways" of equipment under various military (and to a lesser extent State Dept) aid programs.

The French also had American M3 half tracks, jeeps, trucks, some small arms, and M24 tanks in Indochina. (The latter didn't even arrive with US units until the Battle of the Bulge so were a post war "gimme" item".) The first French planes flying combat missions in Indochina were actually old Japanese fighters patched together from what was found laying around a couple of airfields. That was way back in late 45.

Some strange things happened right after WW2 in terms of who was using what. The Izzies ended up flying Czech made Me109s that had Jumo engines meant for Stukas originally in them. (And the IDF meanwhile assembled its first tank, a Sherman, out of scrapyard parts they dug up.)
 
sheriffoconee said:
The Navy didn't fly Bearcats there cause they couldn't fulfill the ground attack mission, or the fighter mission.
[/url]
Click to expand...

That cracks me up given that the Bearcat had a higher rate of climb than any jet in the Navy inventory at the time. It probably had more range, too. You have to wonder how much of the Navy's rush to jets was driven by a desire to appear to be keeping pace with the Air Force.
 
Dad flew both Banshees and Panthers, but not in Korea. Dad never flew a Bearcat, even during flight training. He flew Hellcats in carrier training.
I suspect that the Navy figured if the bad guys flew jets, then they should fly jets too.....
I still doubt the Bearcat had much of a Korean War mission as far as the Navy was concerned...
My Dad recalls, and has in his log book, two combat missions in which he and other pilots were directed to Mig's flying in from the North. The Migs didn't stick around and fight, which suited him just fine, considering that the Skyraider's gunsight wasn't an air to air sight, but designed for ground attack....not to mention the other deficiencies...
 
Last edited:
My Dad flew F-84G's in Korea. Tangled with one mig, a squadronmate slid in front of his guns and got the the bad guy. Dad wasn't dissapointed, said he was leaving to fast to care much!
Sometimes politics play a part in equipment choices. Republic Aircracts P-47 would have been an ideal attack aircraft in Korea, aircooled, 8 guns and very rugged. Apparantly the factory was located in a Republican disrict. North American got the job.
The Bearcat was a lightweight interceptor,4 guns I think. A great hot rod, but as someone else said, not much for it to do over Korea, especially after the big stalemate started.
 
The Navy had settled on the AD Skyraider as the carrier attack aircraft. It carried a bigger load, more powerful engines, greater overall versatility. Most of the F4U Corsairs in Korea were Marine fighters used for close air support. Marines did not get the Skyraider until late in the Korean War (1953), but they made up for it by scoring the only Skyraider air-to-air kill of the war against a Po-2 biplane. There was really no reason to add another airframe (F8F) and all of the logistics required. Even the Air Force dumped the F-51 and F-82 as soon as there were enough F-84 and F-86 aircraft to equip the combat squadrons.
 
Texas Star said:
... Japanese aces tended to regard the Corsair as easy meat, compared to the more agile Hellcat...

T-Star
Click to expand...

The F4U Corsair was referred to as "Whistling Death" by the Japanese. It was one of the fastest fighter planes of WWII. It's 2000hp Double Wasp engine could move the aircraft at over 400mph in level flight, and over 500mph in a power dive.

The Japanese Zero only outperformed the Corsair in low speed maneuvering, and slow speed climb. Pilots were instructed to use the Corsair's superior speed and altitude, something the Zero could not counter.

The Corsair's poor early reptutation as a carrier-based fighter was owed to the fact that the design of the plane made it difficult to properly stall for carrier landings.
 
Dennis The B said:
The Japanese Zero only outperformed the Corsair in low speed maneuvering, and slow speed climb. Pilots were instructed to use the Corsair's superior speed and altitude, something the Zero could not counter.
Click to expand...
And only fools engaged in low speed turning dogfights with the Zero (and Hayabusa) if they could help it.

The P-38 could outturn the Zero through the use of differential throttle.

Dennis The B said:
The Corsair's poor early reptutation as a carrier-based fighter was owed to the fact that the design of the plane made it difficult to properly stall for carrier landings.
Click to expand...
1. The Corsair had a tendency to drop one wing (I forget which) when it came in to land. This was supposedly fixed with a minor aerodynamic modification.

2. The initial landing gear installed on the Corsair was stiffer than it needed to be, causing the plane to bounce on initial touchdown on a carrier deck. This too was remedied later. Supposedly, this never bothered the British Fleet Air Arm much, if at all.

3. Japanese pilots were obsessed with low speed turning maneuverability to the point where they ended up with highly maneuverable, slow aircraft that had nobody against to maneuver. Aircraft like the Corsair, Mustang and P-38 could just leave the Zeros and Hayabusas standing at will. It was like the US against Iraq in the first Gulf War. We refused to get into close range slugging matches. In both cases, we refused to fight playing to the enemy's strengths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Pilot's Handguns Again
Replies
17
Views
3K
GatorFarmer
G
T
FW-190 vs. F-6F Hellcat
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
18K
flop-shank
F
Iggy
Letter from the "stan"
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
clipper1
C

Latest posts

Back
Top