curprev21:5721:57, 13 June 2022 Jparshalltalkcontribs m50,249 bytes−490 Removed mention of Arthur van Haren from the "U.S. Navy and Marines" section. With all due respect to Mr. van Haren's contributions to the war, this section of the article deals mostly with performance characteristics and tactics, and mention of Mr. van Haren doesn't belong here.undo
curprev17:3017:30, 30 November 2016 KnightMovetalkcontribs 44,813 bytes−5 Some corrections and improvements; combat debut was, according to below section, not prior to September 1943; what is "the second part of World War II" supposed to be?undo
curprev19:2319:23, 20 May 2016 NiD.29talkcontribs 44,434 bytes−126 rem nonsense statement (lots of fighters built only had a few versions - such as the Whirlwind or XP-56), leaving production figure in.undo
curprev07:0607:06, 20 May 2016 BilCattalkcontribs 44,546 bytes+6 →top: Added verify source tag -with such statements, we need to know what the original source actually says before we start changing things to say what we think they should sayundo
curprev01:2001:20, 15 September 2015 Champ 7FCtalkcontribs 44,233 bytes+231 Added citation confirming unsupported statement that the F6F was the most successful naval aircraft of the war, in terms of enemy aircraft downed.undo
curprev20:5220:52, 26 April 2014 64.131.206.22talk 42,885 bytes+13 Added "in some ways" because I don't think the Hellcat resembled the Wildcat ALL that much. I mean, geez, just look at photos.undo
curprev19:4619:46, 12 November 2013 Marigold100talkcontribs 42,598 bytes+2 Para 2, "well-designed" added "Zero" for clarification, para 3, "frontline" XF6F para 1, "landing gear" in American, "backwards" US Navy, last sentence "shipboard"undo
curprev20:2120:21, 30 June 2013 BilCattalkcontribs 42,431 bytes−467 Removed lengthy uncited digression on another aircraft, as lead should focus on topic; with cites, this could be placed somewher in main textundo
