This is an argument that’s resurfaced for years. I’ll add a few thoughts but don’t want to get dragged down a rabbit hole.
F8F-1s predated the M3s introduction so having M2s certainly isn’t wrong per se.
Navy planes would be at the end of a long supply line and introducing new guns to in service airframes would bring its own issues.
But what about new production airframes? You wouldn’t want these dispatched to squadrons in a mix n match with M2 equipped planes as both pilot experiences and spare parts would be affected. For squadrons reequipping en masse at home base that wouldn’t be a problem.
I still see no definitive reference to M3 MGs in F8Fs despite trawling numerous threads from the past decade. Many times references use the designation it’s vague and could equally be referring to M3 20mm.
Post war upgrade? At a time of massive cutbacks why spend the money? For new designs where supply lines were being built from scratch it makes sense, but the F8f was already in service and there was no longer an urgent war need that wasn’t addressed with a planned change to cannons.
As to why the F8F = F4F…the M2s had proven their effectiveness. If the Japanese had brought in more effective armour earlier the commanders may have been seen a different light and the M3 20mm prioritised instead, with the M3 MGs if mounts and ammo runs were not to be significantly modified. Additionally the Bearcat was a change in philosophy from its predecessors to be more focused on performance rather than firepower and guns + ammo = weight.
I understand your entire argument, but I disagree with the investment part.
The F8F was a plane with a higher price tag than the Hellcat and Corsair.
And this information is in the books mentioned.
If I’m buying a more expensive fighter to defend American aircraft carriers. I certainly wouldn’t skimp on weaponry.
The US slashed aircraft stocks, cancelled entire programs, rationalised resources, and scrapped fleets en masses. Just as it is today getting upgrades past the purse holders could be difficult with the war ended and the Navy already had their new fighter and now its expected to fight for cash to make the guns shoot a little faster at an enemy that no longer exist.
Politicians would say They got their shiny new toy, why do they want even more $$$? …,things never change.
F82 was used in korea and was an air force plane like the f86 sabre.
F8F did not see a single war use as an USA plane, only france used the F8F-1B in indochina.
But F8F was also a navy plane where M3 was not used, for example the F4U-4 and F7F were used in korea and did not get M3 .50, the navy just upgraded to the M3 20mm cannon.
The likehood of some random F8F-1 getting M3 while not being used in combat is non existant imo, we have to also consider that it was replaced by the F8F-2 quickly.
Its just a bad book, in that same page that you can see in the first post it also names M3 20mm as ‘‘Hispano’’ not giving any details…
I was just putting forward that the time scale makes it possible, and the logic could be there. It seemed possible that if other planes like P-80 and P-51 had recieved the M3, It would make sense that the (probably) best naval fighter could as well. Really, I just want the .50 cal Bearcat moved back up where it belongs, and the M3 may have helped that case… I think I would prefer having the M2 machine guns anyways lol.
Why install 12.7mm M3s in Sabres instead of 20mm cannons?
Obviously the M3 first had to be put into production and then there’s was a huge demand for all types of fighter and fighter-bomber for this armament.
Since the F8F-1 was a Naval aircraft that was used long after WW2, it makes perfect sense to have the guns upgraded to 12.7mm M3s at one point, especially since it only featured 4 guns.
This is more of a USAAF vs USN thing though. The USAAF adopted cannons just much later, since the sabre was USAAF, it retained the .50s due to being more reliable and whatnot, whilst USN aircraft made the switch to 20mm (hispano derived, 20x110) cannons much earlier. And even when USAAF adopted cannons, it just had to be their own (20x102). At least in the modern era everything is vulcan though.
If anything, this makes only more sense that perhaps the .50 M3s are just a mixup from the 20mm M3 naming. I’m not sure if he F8F was still in major use in US service after WW2, but considering they already had cannon versions, there was probably little incentive to keep using the .50 cal ones. USAAF P-51 (then F-51s) were used in Korea however and apparently received .50 M3s. Seems to be more of a USAAF thing to mount the .50 M3s due to sticking to .50s over switching to cannons like the USN. Not that field modifications are impossible though, but I would like to see a report of being done, perhaps museum archives?
