How would the top-line US Navy fighters, the Hellcat and the Corsair, hold up in the ETO and MTO against the top German fighters? Would they have been able to take on the ME109 and FW190, serve as ground support fighter-bombers with ease, or have the range to escort bombers? How come they didn't make use them in the ETO, especially when they were still using P-39s and P-40s in the MTO through most of the war, and the Navy fighters would have been better options. Could they have made Army versions?
As well as the Wildcat(Martlet), and a limited number of FAA Brewster Buffaloes. Not really...By the time the F4U and F6F were appearing in appreciable numbers the Army had the P-38 & P-47, with the P-51 following shortly. So, there was not much to be gained by suddenly changing production. Not to mention that different manufacturers were producing said aircraft, so quantity production would not need to be sacrificed. Both the F4U and F6F flew with USN land-based fighter squadrons, all you did was to remove the tailhook.
Where do you keep getting P-39's in the ETO? The RAF had them VERY briefly and gave them back to the US. The Sovs used them on the eastern front as ground attack, though a couple of their aces had luck using them against Luftwaffe bombers and ground attach aircraft. They were meat on the table for German fighters.
I said MTO as well. They were used more in the MTO, though they still had ground attack groups in the ETO, up through 1944. All the air groups were laid out in a National Geographic WWII air special issue and P-39s had groups in France, though not many.
You have asked variations on this before . . . see the responses then, for example: http://www.ww2f.com/topic/57864-us-carriers-in-the-eto/
I remember I did ask a similar question. This one was more of a "what if?" When I wrote that thread, I asked if there were any specific examples of those fighters under the US fighting the Germans in the ETO and MTO. This asks a hypothetical, based on quality of the aircraft, how would they hold up against each other, and why weren't they used over there. I didn't see what's wrong with making a new thread, it is an open forum.
There were no P-39 aircraft in the ETO after March 1942, and were only flown by the RAF. They were then given to the Soviets. A couple of groups flew them in the MTO, briefly. Some for just a few weeks. One group used them as a maritime patrol, being taken off front line use. Another group flew briefly in 1943, and transferred to Jugs and Mustangs.
I'll have to cite the article. It was from a National Geographic magazine dedicated to the air portion of WWII. It stated the names of all squadrons, the type, and the aircraft used. P-39s were listed in the ETO section.
Carrier planes could and did operate from land bases, and it would be easy enough to build Army versions without naval features like tailhooks and folding wings (several air forces today use a land-based variant of the F-18). But as we've mentioned before, you never get something for nothing. I assume we're not talking about taking F4Us or F6Fs away from the Pacific, so in order for them to replace P-39s or -40s in Europe, production would have to be increased, at the expense of something else. And if we're able to expand production, why not just expand production of standard Army models like the P-47 or -51? Or the P-38, although ironically there was a strong demand for those in the Pacific theater. The question really comes down to whether land-based F6Fs or F4Us would be better than P-47s or -51s - not just comparable or a little better, but enough so as to justify the logistical complications of supporting additional aircraft types. It's been noted that the British operated American carrier planes, but that was from their own carriers, with a few exceptions like the Buffalos in Malaya. I doubt the RAF ever considered using Hellcats or Corsairs in lieu of their Typhoons or Spitfires.
For what it's worth, there's no requirement to remove the tailhook. Land-based F/A-18s used by air forces around the world are no different than the ship-based one. In a twist of irony, many modern AF jets have tailhooks. This thread is interesting because it begs the design philosophy differences between USAAF and USN fighters during the war.
While this is true, it should not be taken as meaning they could handle a carrier landing. Well, not more than one.
Aircraft need to be strengthened to make carrier landings...they need to be able to hit the deck hard and hammer reverse jets or be decelerated quickly...they need to take off and accelerate in a short distance...this puts MASSIVE stress on an airframe...any land based aircraft would have to be given the once over if forced to land on a carrier.
