old hoodoo wrote:

IMO, aggressive US pilots would have preferred performance to
protection?

There was some of that, but it certainly wasn't a clear-cut
preference. The Wildcat could definitely have benefited from more
power -- IIRC, the trend was for later models to weigh more with no
corresponding power increase. Of course, it could also have benefited
from guns that jammed far less frequently.

On the other hand, pilots came around pretty quickly to the
understanding that if one played the Wildcat's strengths, it was a
formidable fighter. It was tough, its guns (when they weren't jammed
or flat out of ammo) packed a wallop, and it dove well. So long as
pilots avoid dogfighting and fighting alone, they managed fairly well.

did we severely limited the opportunity of our early WWII
pilots to inflict heavy fighter loses on the enemy?

A quick look at various references* indicates the F4F was responsible
for 900 kills in the Pacific, with a 5.9:1 kill ratio. This is against
the best of Japan's aviators. Sure, maybe things could have been
better, but "severely limited" seems a bit of overstatement.

* - "Victory at Sea" - Dunnigan & Nofi, "Combat Aircraft of World War
II" - Weale

--
Joel.





--
Joel Shepherd

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."