# Hellcat vs Zero



## Garyt (May 12, 2014)

You know, I've very often heard how superior the US second generation fighters, notably the Hellcat, was against the Zero. Now if you look over the test performances of the planes, the come out pretty equal.

Here are some interesting numbers on climb and speed taken from true flight testing:

F6F5 (common version of Hellcat, improved over the F6F3 Hellcat)
Feet---------------------------
Feet/max velocity/climb in FPM/minutes to altitude
5,000/326/2405/ 1.95
10,000/346/2360/ 4.0
15,000/366/2325/ 6.25
20,000/377/2000/ 8.6
25,000/389/1520/11.4
30,000/370/ 835/15.6
35,000/NG/ 335/26.0

A6M3 Zero (Most common Zero at time of Phillipine sea battle)
5,000/317/3275/-1.7
10,000/334/3050/3.4-3.6
15,000/332/2620/-5.6
20,000/352/2620/7.4-7.8
25,000/350/1850/10.4
30,000/325/1000/14.2
35,000/270/-100/----

If you notice, at 20k and less feet the difference in top end speed is not much, and the zero is a better climber (and should be a better accelerator). And of course it is a better turner. The Hellcat would be a better diver, but the Zeke could handle 450+ velocity dives due to the thicker skinning which was one of it's problems in earlier versions.

The Hellcat has 6x.50 - The A6M3 has 2 x 20mm and could have anywhere from 2 x 7.7mm to 2-3 x 12.7mm. And these 20mm's were not the same as the earlier Zeke 20mm that only carried 75-100 rounds, drum fed - they were 125 rounds of belt fed, and of a higher velocity than the A6M2 versions, these cannon would actually have similar ballistics to the machine guns, better for harmonization and range finding.

The A6M3 also had armor as well - pilot armor, though not as heavily armored as the Hellcat, it had an armored wind screen tested against .50 caliber projectiles, 
and while not having self sealing fuel tanks they had fuel tank extinguishers.

From overall performance as an individual plane, I'd say they were pretty close. Speed was similar, acceleration and climb go to the Zeke, Dive to the Hellcat. And a little top velocity to the Hellcat, but of a marginal difference in the altitudes many of the encounters would occur.

I think there was a lot of things that gave the Hellcat advantages, such as outnumbering it's opponents, better vectoring due to better quality/more use of radar and radios, better trained pilots, and better state of readiness to meet opposing airstrikes (radar again), to name a few. I think we could even throw in that the Hellcat was maintained far better due to better US logistics, and a worsening Japanese maintenance system as the war went on due to parts being not readily available, planes not being given overhauls or replacing the planes soon enough, and inferior parts stemming anywhere from not having proper tolerances to lower octane fuel being available (and increasingly worse fuel as the war went on). Some of the problems the Japanese had in the air stemmed from the great successes the US sub program had.

But when truly comparing planes performances, armor, weaponry, the Hellcat and the Zero were not that far apart.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2014)

Have you considered stick forces at high speeds?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (May 13, 2014)

There are certain ar3as where the hellcat has a very clear advantage. Strength and protection being the most important.

Range remained in favour of the Zeke till the end. At most combat speeds the Zeke could slightly out turn the Hellcat.

Hellcat had a higher top speed in the level and a higher dive speed. it high speed, and dive capabilities were its major advantages as well its protection and strength. 

Hellcats did not achieve a 19:1 exchange rate in air combat. Over 2000 Hellcats were lost for all sorts of reasons, compared to about 6000 Zekes, not including those expended as suicide craft. Still impressive, but 19:1 it aint.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 13, 2014)

The F6F-5 have had water injection fitted as standard. Against the speed at military power, it was capable for up to 30 mph speed gain under ~23000 ft when using water injection (war emergency power). That means 370-380 mph at 15000 ft, 360-370 mph at 10000 ft, and circa 350 mph at 5000 ft. The gains in rater of climb under 20000 ft were also notable, between 3500-3000 fpm from SL to 10000 ft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (May 13, 2014)

All the meatballs had trouble with the Hellcats, Gary, not just the Zekes. When you could get up high on your opponents, it's like shooting clay pigeons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 13, 2014)

> All the meatballs had trouble with the Hellcats, Gary, not just the Zekes. When you could get up high on your opponents, it's like shooting clay pigeons.



I agree. The KI-84, perhaps the best fighter plane in the pacific theatre (arguably, the Corsair was very good as well) struggled with the Hellcat in the grand scheme of things. I guess that is part of my point - most of the all of these planes on paper are either similar or better in performance than the Hellcat, but did not have much success. It strikes me that there were many other factors more important than the quality of the plane as tested.



> Have you considered stick forces at high speeds?



Good point, a notorious weakness of the Zeke, even the later models though they were better. The KI-84 did not have these same issues though and also struggled.

The US tactics against Japanese planes in general was to fight vertical, strike and run. The areas that help a plane here are climb, dive, top speed, acceleration, and high speed stick forces. The Zeke has the Hellcat beat in climb by a good margin, top speed is close at most altitudes, the Zeke has it in acceleration. The Hellcat is a better diver but the A6M3 is no slouch, and the Hellcat is better at high speed stick forces. Pretty similar I'd think.



> The F6F-5 have had water injection fitted as standard.



Gotcha. Found a report with water injection below. Looks to be somewhat better, but the Zero still has the climb advantages. I'm only using the numbers where there was an actual test - there are some differing numbers by "credible" sources but who do not reference a specific test - unless a test is referenced I look at these as heresay. Even with true tests there seems to be slight differences - my guess is a few gallons of gas here or there make a difference, or one plane may be a bit better or worse for the wear. I've found some that use unarmed "recon" plane test specs to indicate performance



5,000..337/2890
10,000.356/2800
15,000.366/2430
20,000.376/1940/ 7.7
25,000.377/1450
30,000.360/ 905
35,000.NG./ 360

Maximums: 380 [email protected] 23,400 ft. and 2,980 [email protected] S.L.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 13, 2014)

Tests galore:
WWII Aircraft Performance


----------



## Garyt (May 13, 2014)

> Hellcats did not achieve a 19:1 exchange rate in air combat. Over 2000 Hellcats were lost for all sorts of reasons, compared to about 6000 Zekes, not including those expended as suicide craft. Still impressive, but 19:1 it aint



Interesting. Still a 3:1 ratio, but not terrible when you account for the other issues, i.e. pilot quality, outnumbering, etc.


----------



## davebender (May 13, 2014)

> When you could get up high on your opponents, it's like shooting clay pigeons



That holds true for almost any WWII era fighter aircraft. Altitude can be exchanged for speed which allows the higher altitude aircraft to engage and disengage at will.

Flip side of the coin.
Aircraft with superior rate of climb have best chance to gain an altitude advantage. Hence P-40 is great in a dive but rarely has opportunity to gain the necessary altitude advantage. Me-109 was a different story as climb and instantaneous dive rate were both excellent.


----------



## Garyt (May 13, 2014)

> That holds true for almost any WWII era fighter aircraft. Altitude can be exchanged for speed which allows the higher altitude aircraft to engage and disengage at will.



That's why the superior radar, radio and vectoring of the US made a big difference. I know US radar was always ahead of Japanese rader - and that for some period during the war, the US early warning radar could give altitudes of incoming planes, I know at least for a portion of the war the Japanese radar could not determine altitude, and I'm not really sure how reliable the Japanese radar ever became at this.

Of course, the Wildcat with it's pedestrian rate of climb might have struggled to get ot the right altitude LOL


----------



## davebender (May 13, 2014)

Those factors matter only when defending an airfield or CV. Since Japan was on the defensive most of the time after fall 1942 they would normally have advantage of ship or ground based control.

AWACs provides attacker with somewhat similar capability but that wasn't available during WWII.


----------



## Greyman (May 13, 2014)

davebender said:


> AWACs provides attacker with somewhat similar capability but that wasn't available during WWII.



Sure it was.


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2014)

The Hellcat out-turned the Zeke at higher speeds, not lower speeds.

It most emphatically DID achieve a 19 : 1 kill ratio if one looks only at losses due to enemy aircraft, which is how kill ratios versus enemy fighters are almost universally calculated. There are three basic components of losses. These are airborne losses to enemy aircraft, losses to A/A, and all other operational losses to include losses while on the ground. When you talk Navy planes (like the Hellcat), there is a fourth loss component; losses on a ship ... that is a plane lost when the ship sank. It is not the fault of the plane or the pilot, it is a Naval loss, but it IS some kind of non-combat loss (non-combat for the plane and pilot anyway).

The proper term for combined kills or losses is overall kill or loss ratio. Almost nobody uses it for anything except when they are "defending" their favorite fighter's reputation.

Personally, I feel the best ratio for comparison purposes would be victories to combined losses due to airborne enemy aircraft as well as operational losses excluding losses on the ground. That way, the reliability of the combination of the plane and pilot is taken into account. The plane might be wonderful, but if the idiot flying it ran out of fuel because he wasn't paying attention, the combination of plane and pilot suffered a loss. It could even be worse if the empty plane is forced landed and subsequently captured and returned to flying status by the enemy!

However, these data are generally available for US aircraft only, so the most commonly accepted loss (or kill, depending on how you look at it) ratio is victories to losses to airborne enemy aircraft. Since that is the accepted "kill ratio," the Hellcat DID, indeed, have a 19 : 1 kill ratio.

I have been searching for such loss data from the UK, Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, etc. for 20+ years with little success. So it seems the "kill ratio" we are stuck with is victories to loss to enemy A/C ... and we take a guess for Axis (as well as Soviet, British, etc.) planes. 

We can't even agree on THAT since a definitive victory list for the Axcis as well as the UK, etc. are nearly impossible to find. The Japanese victories weren't kept by the military except by squadron or unit. Individual victory totals are mostly from personal memoirs collected after the war.

Nobody seems to question the guesses at all, but there is a raging debate over the US numbers since data are available. In point of fact, the USAAF and US Navy didn't even save the same type data. so you can't really compare their numbers either!

I have a very good file of worldwide claims and nothing as far as a "vetted" list of confirmed victories that match losses on the same day for the Axis or even some of the Allies. I have good data on "official totals" for the USA only. We have people over here who are adamant about taking victories away from Greg Boyington, but have almost nothing to say about the top Axis aces kills ... because the data seemingly cannot be found. So ... if we accept the Axis *claims*, then the only fair comparison to the Allies is against allied claims as well.

Claims to claims seem fair to me. Exhaustively researched data versus claims and guesses does NOT seem fair. It seems to be a touchy subject for some, but why dig into the details of the US victories for utter and complete verification unless you are also ready, willing, and able to dig into ALL the victories, both Allied and Axis?

I have no axe to grind at all and am just looking for the data. So far, most of it remains well concealed to the general public, even to the interested general public like me. It would be very nice to find it sometime, if only to settle some long-standing debates.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2014)

As far as the comparison between Zeke and Hellcat goes, the Hellcat handily out-accelerated the Zero at all airspeeds, had a very benign stall, could be reefed around with no bad habits, and did almost everything well. It was faster than the Zero at all altitudes, even if by a small amount, and was rugged enough to seem almost indestructible to the Zeke pilots.

I think reliability was about a wash, possibly with the Zeke being slightly more reliable.

The Zeke also had many good characteristics, but ruggedness wasn't one of them and neither was diving away from an attack. The Zeke had a very low dive limit speed and the ailerons in particular heavied up rapidly with speed after 280 mph or so.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (May 13, 2014)

Garyt said:


> You know, I've very often heard how superior the US second generation fighters, notably the Hellcat, was against the Zero. Now if you look over the test performances of the planes, the come out pretty equal.
> 
> Here are some interesting numbers on climb and speed taken from true flight testing:
> 
> ...



Where did you source the A6M3 data? I wonder if that's actually data for an A6M5?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke-32-TAIC-102C.pdf (A6M3)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke-52-TAIC-102D.pdf (A6M5)


----------



## Garyt (May 13, 2014)

A little info on the A6M5 #52 -



> ARMY AIR FORCES AIR TECHNICAL SERVICE COMMAND MEMORANDUM REPORT ON Zeke 52 Airplane No. EB-2 dated March 13 1946:
> 
> "....All controls are excellent at speed up to 300 MPH indicated. Rudder and elevator forces are normal at all speeds but increasing aileron stiffness is apparent until at 300 MPH aileron forces are excessive."



This shows better top end control stiffness that it's predecessors.

I think one issue that seems to crop up a lot when comparing the Zeke and the Hellcat - the performance numbers of the A6M2 or the A6M3 Hamp are often used - and these were not the standard Zero of the day when the Hellcat came on the scene. 



> The Zeke had a very low dive limit speed and the ailerons in particular heavied up rapidly with speed after 280 mph or so.



Again, problems for the A6M2 and A6M3, somewhat rectified in the A6M5.

Here's a little info on some of the difference of the A6M5 compared to earlier versions:

A6M5a



> In response to a need for heavier firepower and even better diving performance, the A6M5a version of the Zero Fighter was produced. The A6M5a Model 52A appeared in late 1943 and began rolling off the production lines at Mitsubishi and Nakajima in March of 1944. It had still heavier gauge wing skin which enable a further increase in diving speed to 460 mph, bringing it almost up to Western standards. This was to be the highest diving speed attained by any Reisen variant. Armament was improved by replacing the drum fed Type 99 Model 2 Mk3 cannon with 100 rpg with belt-fed 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 Mk4 cannon with 125 rpg. Delivery of the Model 52A began in March of 1944.



I've read elsewhere that the terminal dive velocity for an A6M2 was 390 mph, for a A6M3 it was 410.


----------



## Garyt (May 13, 2014)

> Where did you source the A6M3 data? I wonder if that's actually data for an A6M5?



You are correct. I've been discussing the A6M5 all along as it was the contemporary of the Hellcat, the above was a typo.


----------



## CORSNING (May 13, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Have you considered stick forces at high speeds?



That pretty much sums up the whole comparison. 

I am in the middle of putting some information together for the P-51 Mustang vs F6F Hellcat thread so I may not do this thread justice tonight. Well, anyway, here goes. The hardest part of this reply was trying to figure out WHEN the A6M5 entered service. I knew the A6M3 was being test flown somewhere in 1941 and entered service long before the A6M5. So that comparison did not seem right. I dug through my William Greens, Gordon Swanboroughs, Bill Gunstons, David Andertons, Francis Mazons and even a David Monday. I did not realize this was going to be so hard.

I have been cleaning out the garage (for the 15th time in 18 years) and thinking about getting the AIRPOWERS, WINGS and Air Enthusiast/Internationals out of my office to make room for more books....and that's when it hit me to check the indexes. And there it was, Vol.42, No.1 Air International. "The first Model 52s began reaching operational units in the autumn of 1943....." The F6F-5 entered combat operationally on July 3, 1944. The information I have puts the water injected F6F-3 in January 1944 and the initial F6F-3 without water injection in August 28, 1943.

Gary,
The figures in your post #1 are actually from the TAIC report on the A6M5, not A6M3. 

I did a workup on the F6F-5 (Mk.II) a while ago using information off a DATA SHEET ( http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-II-ads-a.jpg ) and matching it up to performance lines on other F6F-5 graphs. I will post a matchup tomorrow when I have more time.

One last thing, the maximum velocity of the F6F-5 using war emergency power has been recorded as 409 [email protected] 21,600 ft.

Good night guys, Jeff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2014)

Garyt said:


> That's why the superior radar, radio and vectoring of the US made a big difference.





davebender said:


> Those factors matter only when defending an airfield or CV.



2 out of 3 - In hindsight, it was crazy not to have radio communication in fighter aircraft during all operations!!!


----------



## Garyt (May 13, 2014)

> Gary,
> The figures in your post #1 are actually from the TAIC report on the A6M5, not A6M3.



Yep, I'm aware. Had all intentions of listing it as the A6M5 (even refer to the results as coming from the A6M5), but apparently my fingers were moving faster than my brain.


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2014)

Never happens to ME!

Haha ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 13, 2014)

Jeff - Your comparison would be appreciated and helpful.

By the way - do you have info on the A6M5a?



> 2 out of 3 - In hindsight, it was crazy not to have radio communication in fighter aircraft during all operations!!!



You know, Flyboy, I kinda look at the US/Japanese radio issues in their aircraft similar to the German AFV's vs early French and Russian AFV's. Germans had and used radio extensively - the French and early war russians did not. The french tanks one on one were superior to the 1940 German tanks - and the Russian KV's and T34's were superior to the German tanks one on one. But the Germans carried the day rather easily, much having to do with their better communication.

Only difference is the US Hellcat was superior to an arguable extent, AND they had better communications. The Japanese were able to hold their own earlier with a superior fighter (Zeke vs. the Wildcat), even though the US had better communications, vectoring, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2014)

The Germans didn't "carry the day" very often against T-34's!

If I'm not mistaken, the Germans did well against very early T-345s that had weak tracks and some initial teething problems. After the few very early T-34 faults were fixed, the Germans didn't have much luck against them.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2014)

I've always found it difficult to swallow raw data as a direct comparison of aircraft types, particularly when there is marked difference in powerplant etc in aircraft like the Zero and F6F; all you do is find out what you already know. Yes raw data has its place, but today they are of academic interest only and don't really tell us anything different to what we already know about combat in WW2. Real world situations have a tendency to make figures produced in a test scenario look a little hollow at times. To put my discussion into perspective, for example, Saburo Sakai flying an A6M2 against some tyro fresh out of navy flight school in an F6F is going to beat the tyro hands down. I bet the US Navy pilot would also not be sitting in his burning fighter stating that the figures show that his aeroplane was superior to the Japanese one, so he shouldn't have lost! Even if the US Navy was equipped with the Zero and the IJN with the F6F, the overall outcome of the war would have been no different to what it was.

Also, in terms of timeline, the A6M was equivalent to the F4F - even despite improvements, the Zero had had its day by the time the later models of the F6F came along. The lack of an effective and suitable replacement to the Zero was a big hindrance to the Japanese.


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

When I read about the flying qualities of the Hellcat, it stands out. Many of the pilots said that if it had slightly better speed and climb performance it would have easily been the best fighter of the war bar none. Their opinions might have been slightly biased ... I can't say. All the Hellcat pilots I personally know love it without reservation.

One thing said was that when it was tested against the P-47 (P-47 variant not mentioned), though the P-47 was faster and could fly higher, the F6F pilot almost always got the "win" by dint of much superior maneuvering in mock combat. This is from Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand in the Hellcat section. No matter what opponent it faced, it came out pretty well, especially when the bullets flew and kills were counted up.

So ... it seems to be well-loved by its pilots and absolutely DID have a great kill-to-loss ratio wherever it fought. That says to me that it had the ruggedness and staying power to hang in a fight and give a good account of itself.

The Zeke was a wonderful-handling plane that had good firepower and had a lot a very good characteristics to it, but it was stuck with a 1,130 HP engine (or thereabouts, depending on variant) ... reliable but not powerful. To have performance similar to 2,000 HP fighters it had to give up something, and that something was weight. As a result, there was no armor or self-sealing fuel tanks and the skin was of thinner gage metal. I think the heavying-up of the controls at speed could have been corrected and it COULD have been given a much more powerful engine to enhance it's development.

But it never happened.

As a result, it suffered greatly when it encountered Hellcats, particularly when the Hellcats closed at 290 mph and above, which they did as they discovered their superiority at speed. After that, the end was well realized by both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2014)

> When I read about the flying qualities of the Hellcat, it stands out. Many of the pilots said that if it had slightly better speed and climb performance it would have easily been the best fighter of the war bar none. Their opinions might have been slightly biased ... I can't say. All the Hellcat pilots I personally know love it without reservation.



Zeke Pilots had the same opinion of their mount. As did pilots of the 109s, spitfire, Mustang. They all say pretty much the same thing.....their aircraft was the best in the world. 




> The Zeke was a wonderful-handling plane that had good firepower and had a lot a very good characteristics to it, but it was stuck with a 1,130 HP engine (or thereabouts, depending on variant) ... reliable but not powerful. To have performance similar to 2,000 HP fighters it had to give up something, and that something was weight. As a result, there was no armor or self-sealing fuel tanks and the skin was of thinner gage metal. I think the heavying-up of the controls at speed could have been corrected and it COULD have been given a much more powerful engine to enhance it's development.



Youve forgotten certain types that together accounted for possibly more than half of Zeke production. A6M5a was fitted with a bullet proof windshield . A6M5b was similar but with an automatic fire extinguisher. A6M5c was fitted with armour and self sealing tanks. It suffered from being underpowered. A6M6 7 were fighter bomber verions, again fitted with windshiled armour and self sealing tanks. 

It would be valid to say of these types that they had armour, but that it was inadequate. Armour accounts for some of the losses to the Zeke, but numbers were THE issue. Numbers drove up the loss rate, an increased loss rate decreased pilot skills, and decreased pilot skills again multiplied the losses. It didnt have that much to do with the qualities of the Hellcat, great as they were. The Hellcat held a singe really big advantage over the zeke, it could out dive it standard combat procedures for the Hellcat....get the altitude, diving pass through the Zekes, shoot em out of the sky like clay pidgeons. A one trick pony in other words. it was the numbers of hellcats, and the effort put into the pilot training programs that really made the difference, along with a standard tactic that virtually never changed. Thats not a great aircraft. its a good one, and one that marginally helpoed the Americans to win the war. 

And there was the A6M8. Fully armoured, self sealing tanks. A lot lighter than the Hellcat, and a bit slower, could outturn, outclimb and outgun the Hellcat. Pity for the Japanese, it arrived too late and even if it had, the numbers, the pilot quality would have meant it would make virtually no difference 



> But it never happened.



Yes it did. The A6M8 was powered by the 1560 HP Kinsei. Hellcat was powered by a 2200 HP radial, but weighed in at 13228 lbs to the Zeke 8s 6164lbs , whilst the A6m6 and 7 were intended to be powered by sakae 31 with boost, rated to 1210hp 



> As a result, it suffered greatly when it encountered Hellcats, particularly when the Hellcats closed at 290 mph and above, which they did as they discovered their superiority at speed. After that, the end was well realized by both sides.




certainly when in the hands of a rookie pilot, with less than 50 hours, against a combat veteran with an average of over 700, flying on average at odds of 10-30:1. If thats the odds needed to give it legendary status, then i would agree. Clearly also in situations where the Hellcat could get the altitude, make a diving pass, it would generally win against the earlier marks of Zeke. Even so, its combat victories over the Zeke are somewhere between 3 and 4:1, even with all these advantages. That doesnt include losses on the ground, or burnt or bmbed or deliberately crashed into enemy assets 

Against experienced pilots the hellcat struggle, as Sakaes encounter (and others of the few surviving veterans), showed. here the alleged turning ability of the Hellcat was exposed as the fraud that it is. Despite outnumbering by who knows what to one, and despite the airspeeds pushing very nearly 350mp, Sakae was always able to turn inside the hellcat, and use his flick rolls to stay out of harms way. oh, i forgot, he was an ace, so that doesnt count. Somehow, he could spirit extra turn capability because the zeke liked him better....i suppose.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2014)

This is the sort of blurb that really annoys me. Its an account of the Hellcats first significant combat experience, over Wake...


"Fighting Squadron Nine (VF-9) took delivery of the first Hellcats in January, 1943. As they were flying from the Long Island factory to their Norfolk base, one crashed near Cape May, New Jersey. VF-6, commanded by Butch O'Hare, also received early deliveries of the F6F.

The Hellcat's first combat mission occurred on August 31, 1943, in a strike against Marcus Island, including Cdr. Charles Crommelin's VF-5, Lt. Cdr. Phil Torrey's VF-9, and a detachment of O'Hare's VF-6. The early-morning raiders destroyed eight twin-engine bombers on the ground; while losing two Hellcats to anti-aircraft fire and one to engine trouble. The next day, over Howland and Bakers Islands, Lt.(jg) Dick Loesch and Ens. A.W. Nyquist scored the Hellcat's first aerial victory when they teamed up to shoot down a Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

Large-scale carrier operations began in October, with a attack on Wake. When four carriers struck Wake Island on October 5-6, the Hellcats saw their first significant aerial combat. Half an hour before dawn on the 5th, each of the four carriers launched three fighter divisions, 47 Hellcats in all. When they were still 50 miles out from Wake, the Japanese radar detected them, and 27 Zeros intercepted. In the ensuing dogfight, Fighting Nine's skipper, Phil Torrey, shot down one Zero, then evaded two more by dodging in and out of clouds. Lt. Hadden, while watching a shared kill fall into the ocean, was jumped by two Zeros, and was lucky enough to make it back to Essex with most of his engine oil emptied out through several 20mm holes. Lt. (jg) Hamilton McWhorter dove into a gaggle of Zeros, when one serendipitously appeared in his gunsight. He fired a short burst and exploded the Zero - his first aerial victory.

The raid showed that the new Hellcats could more than hold its own against the Zeros. They destroyed 22 of 34 aircraft at Wake, and 12 American planes were lost - 6 to the Zeros and 6 to AA gunfire".

In fact, the Japanese didnt lose 22, they didnt lose 12, they lost 4 Zekes according to Japanese records. nobody lets the truth get in the way of a good myth when it comes to the hellcat.


----------



## CORSNING (May 14, 2014)

I have found that pertinent raw data from test trials is very enlightening. It gives a better understanding of what the machinery is capable of over the entire realm of the sky and not just at a(the) selective altitude(s) that are published everywhere.

Saburo Sakai in a Zero vs a tyro in a Hellcat? You could put Saburo in a Gloster Gladiator, and if he had the height advantage and spotted the Hellcat first he would probably still win the duel. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE AND SLILL! An excellent pilot with just a little luck is a very, very strong force to be reckoned with in the air.

Well, I do believe the Hellcat victories overall included a greater ratio of bomber and scout aircraft than the Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Lightnings.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

Hi Parsifal,

I didn't forget. 

They made 5,706 A6M5's but there is no breakout for A6M5a "Kou", b "Otsu", or c "Hai" numbers built. Mitsubishi built 2,130 A6M5s and Nakajima built 3,573 A6M5s. The A6M5c "Hai"didn't have self-sealing tanks ... it had more armor plate on the windscreen and pilot's seat, and the armament was three 13.2 mm MG + two 20 mm cannons and thicker wing skin to increase the dive speed a bit.

The A6M6c DID have self-sealing tanks ... all one of them that was built. The A6M7 was never built and they built all of two A6M8s with Kinsei 62 engines (1,560 HP!) in place of the Sakae 31. So we are talking a whopping three aircraft of the Zero family that had self-sealing tanks, none of which ever saw combat.

Reference post #27, maybe you could share your source for Japanese war records? It would make interesting reading. I've never managed to find any Japanese war records myself and would love to look at some.

Hi Jeff! 

Long time, no talk. I've seen the Hellcat's victories broken out by basic type (1,445 bombers and 3,718 fighters for a total of 5,163) but have never seen the USAAF fighter victories so broken out. I've seen the P-51 total broken out as 4,950 air kills and 4,131 ground kills (not considered an official victory since the victims were unmanned and not airborne). But I have NOT seen the air kills broken out by victim type.

It WOULD make sense for the P-51 to have a high percent of fighter kills since they largely were assigned to escort duties and the bomber streams were attacked by fighters, fighter-bombers (I'm thinking Me-410) and flak ... no bombers ever attacked B-17's unless it was an isolated incident, probably due to a damaged B-17 limping home alone. 

The Hellcats had to encounter the Japanese wherever they could find them, and most Japanese attacks on ground installations or ships included bombers ... or else why attack in the first place? A fighter isn't usually going to sink an armored ship and it won't destroy a ground installation either. So the bombers were the real reason for the mission.

Do you agree? And do you have a breakout of the P-51's victims by type?


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> The Germans didn't "carry the day" very often against T-34's!
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the Germans did well against very early T-345s that had weak tracks and some initial teething problems. After the few very early T-34 faults were fixed, the Germans didn't have much luck against them.



One on one vs T34's, the Germans struggled. But field battles are rarely one on one duels, and while the Germans appreciated the qualities of the T34, they had success in the big scheme of things. To give to an idea - At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Russia had 8,590 tanks, 1,590 of the T-34 and KV designs. The Germans had 3,266 tanks. Of these, only 1,146 had guns of 50mm or larger. So German tanks with guns having any type of a chance vs the KV's or T-34's were outnumbered almost 1.5 to 1 by these advanced russian tanks. Given the initial successes of Barbarossa, the Germans did pretty well even when outnumbered by these russian tanks. 

One surprising thing though - The German 50mm Long barrel which equipped few tanks at the start of Barbarossa, but was being produced at the time out penetrated the T34's 76mm gun. The German 75mm in use among tanks at the time was a low velocity with for penetration - it was designed more as an infantry support tank, it's only chance of penetrating the T34 would be with HEAT rounds. 



> I have found that pertinent raw data from test trials is very enlightening. It gives a better understanding of what the machinery is capable of over the entire realm of the sky and not just at a(the) selective altitude(s) that are published everywhere.



Absolutely. While pilot skill is a huge factor, it is nice to know what the planes were capable of. While Saburo Sakai was easily a match for Hellcats in a Zeke, he loved the Reppu he test flew, and I'm sure he would have felt a lot more confident flying that than the Zeke. Heck, if he had one available earlier in the war he would have likely avoided the head wound that put him out of comission for a long time, merely because the armored windscreen.

You know I was thinking about something else that I am sure inflated Hellcat numbers - The most common kamikaze of the war was a Zeke. If a flight of Hellcats intercept a flight of loaded Kamikaze Zekes, it should be an easy kill as the Zekes are not looking for air to air combat, not to mention they would be flown by novice pilots, and have their flight characteristics severely degraded by carrying a 550 pound bomb. But it would be air-to-air kills for Hellcats vs Zekes none the less.



> The raid showed that the new Hellcats could more than hold its own against the Zeros. They destroyed 22 of 34 aircraft at Wake, and 12 American planes were lost - 6 to the Zeros and 6 to AA gunfire".
> 
> In fact, the Japanese didnt lose 22, they didnt lose 12, they lost 4 Zekes according to Japanese records. nobody lets the truth get in the way of a good myth when it comes to the hellcat.



Interesting, Parsifal. They are comparing Hellcat claimed kills of Zekes vs Hellcat ACTUAL losses. That's an easy way to get some inflated kill ratios!


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

When US Navy claims were vetted after the war, they were found to be mostly a LOT more reliable than claims over Europe. The reasons were obvious. Most Naval aircraft fighters were of the 4 - 8 vs. 4 - 8 variety and not the 1,000 plane raids that could be seen over Europe. Thus it was MUCH easier to keep track of what happened because there were many fewer planes involved. Some of the largest Pacific encounters involved only some 25 - 30 planes for each side. The accuracy of claims for ALL sides was MUCH better when the numbers of combatants were small.

Some of the very early Naval encounters were inflated, but they settled down rapidly and, by the time the Hellcats got there, the type of claims versus actuals inaccuracy in Parsifal's post above should have been largely a thing of the past.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> Also, in terms of timeline, the A6M was equivalent to the F4F - even despite improvements, the Zero had had its day by the time the later models of the F6F came along. The lack of an effective and suitable replacement to the Zero was a big hindrance to the Japanese.



Again, I think too many look at the A6M2 when thinking of the Zero. That's as bad as looking at the ME109F and comparing it vs. P47's and later Merlin powered P51's. The ME109K was the contemporary of these planes, and is a fair amount different than the ME109F.

While I'll agree it was inferior to the Hellcat, IMO it was not by a wide margin inferior.



> It would be valid to say of these types that they had armour, but that it was inadequate. Armour accounts for some of the losses to the Zeke, but numbers were THE issue. Numbers drove up the loss rate, an increased loss rate decreased pilot skills, and decreased pilot skills again multiplied the losses. It didnt have that much to do with the qualities of the Hellcat, great as they were. The Hellcat held a singe really big advantage over the zeke, it could out dive it standard combat procedures for the Hellcat....get the altitude, diving pass through the Zekes, shoot em out of the sky like clay pidgeons. A one trick pony in other words. it was the numbers of hellcats, and the effort put into the pilot training programs that really made the difference, along with a standard tactic that virtually never changed. Thats not a great aircraft. its a good one, and one that marginally helpoed the Americans to win the war.



The one thing I'd say about this tactic, Parsifal - by the time the A6M5 rolls around, this should be a lot less successful as the A6M5 had a top dive speed of 460 as opposed to the earlier A6M2 that topped out around 390. But I think the big issue at this later time is WHY do the Hellcats have this altitude advantage? Not due to their inferior climb ability. Again I think this is a command and control issue, where the US flights were far more often in the right place at the right time, and this includes being at the best altitude.

And while the later Zekes had a decent dive speed, it's a fair amount harder to catch and hit a diving plane, and a very difficult prospect for a rookie to do so.

One thing as well about the Zeke - it is so often referred to as "underpowered" based on it horsepower. IMO it was not that "underpowered" - It's horsepower to rate ratio was not that bad. More accurately I'd say it was a lightweight going up against middle weights and maybe even heavyweights if it ran into a P47.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (May 14, 2014)

The comparison of the Zero-sen to the Hellcat in WW2 is completely and totally one sided in favor of the A6M2/3 up until August 28, 1943. The Hellcat in combat did not exist until then. 

The following information for the F6F-3 comes from the test trials of aircraft numbers 02982 and 25892 using up to 53.5"Hg engine boosting. Information for the A6M3 model 32 are taken from T.A.I.C. 152 chart sheet. Performance figures from that sheet are plotted on a graph and then calculated using performance lines from T.A.I.C. 102 AND A.T.A.D. # T-1 sheet 103A.

MATCHUP NO. 1: F6F-3 and (A6M3 model 32)

Altitude/Seed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm
S.L......322/3120 (297/3580)
1,000..320/2790 (306/3660)
2,000..331/2550 (316/3740)
3,000..343/2465 (326/3710)
4,000..354/2400 (325/2935)
5,000..365/2090 (330/2905)
6,000..367/1910 (343/2730)
7,000..376/1615 (345/2225)
8,000..370/1305 (337/1685)
9,000..N.G./ 995 (328/1145)
10,000.N.G./ 675 (317/ 610)

Maximums: 377.5 [email protected] 22,300 ft. and 3,120 [email protected] S.L. (348 [email protected] 20,500 ft. and 3,810 [email protected] 9,400 ft.)

Ceilings
Combat: 29,470 ft. (30,420 ft.)
Operational: 34,390 ft. (33,465 ft.)
Service: 38,900 ft. (35,900 ft.)

Range Clean: 955 mls./160 mph./1,500 ft./250 gallons of fuel. (995 mls./188 mph./19,600 ft./141 gallons of fuel.)
Range Maximum: 1,540 mls./149 mph./1,500 ft./400 gallons. (1,585 mls./184 mph./16,600 ft./228 gallons.)

Engine: Pratt Whitney R-2800-10: 1,995 [email protected] S.L. 1,800 [email protected] 3,200-16,200 ft. ( Nakajima Sakae 21: 1,115 [email protected] take-off. 1,180 [email protected] 7,500 ft.)

Combat Weight: 11,364 (5,650) lbs.

Wing Area: 334 ( 231.746) sq.ft.

Wing Loading: 34.02+(24.38+)lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.696+(4.788+) lbs./hp.


----------



## CORSNING (May 14, 2014)

Hi Jeff! 

Long time, no talk. I've seen the Hellcat's victories broken out by basic type (1,445 bombers and 3,718 fighters for a total of 5,163) but have never seen the USAAF fighter victories so broken out. I've seen the P-51 total broken out as 4,950 air kills and 4,131 ground kills (not considered an official victory since the victims were unmanned and not airborne). But I have NOT seen the air kills broken out by victim type.

It WOULD make sense for the P-51 to have a high percent of fighter kills since they largely were assigned to escort duties and the bomber streams were attacked by fighters, fighter-bombers (I'm thinking Me-410) and flak ... no bombers ever attacked B-17's unless it was an isolated incident, probably due to a damaged B-17 limping home alone. 

The Hellcats had to encounter the Japanese wherever they could find them, and most Japanese attacks on ground installations or ships included bombers ... or else why attack in the first place? A fighter isn't usually going to sink an armored ship and it won't destroy a ground installation either. So the bombers were the real reason for the mission.

Do you agree? And do you have a breakout of the P-51's victims by type?[/QUOTE]


Hi Greg,

No sir, I do not have any breakdown of types of victims. At this time I just have beliefs based on the ideas you have just posted. And yes, I agree with you. (Until someone posts proof of differing information).

Jeff8)


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> Power Loading: 5.696+(4.788+) lbs./hp.



Interesting. The Zero has a better ratio of lbs per horsepower than the Hellcat. Explains the climb advantages (though of course lift plays a role), and should also make it a faster accelerator than the Hellcat. Also goes along with what I said about the Zeke not being underpowered - just smaller than most American planes.



> The one thing I'd say about this tactic, Parsifal - by the time the A6M5 rolls around, this should be a lot less successful as the A6M5 had a top dive speed of 460 as opposed to the earlier A6M2 that topped out around 390.



Thought I just might better explain what I was trying to say Parsifal. It's not that the dive, strike, dive away is a bad tactic for a Hellcat vs the Zero - It's a heck of a lot better idea than trying to turn with one. It's just that while the Hellcat is still a bit better of a diver, it's not that much better than the Zero. And of course with initiative, i.e. beg the one diving at the Zero as opposed to the Zero diving on you, you have an advantage and even with two planes of equal diving ability you would still have an advantage.

But the Zero has the ability to pursue at similar speeds, and the lower the Hellcat gets the better the Zero perform in comparison, and at some point you will want to climb again to gain altitude back, and the Zero was a better climber by a decent margin.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2014)

What was the number - 3/4 of downed pilots never saw the attacker? In that light, piloting the Zero looks to me as a far greater risk than piloting the Hellcat. We can also recall that fighters were also to kill bombers, not just other fighters, and the bombers have a nasty habit to shoot back. How good is the Zero when trying to catch a sturdy 300 mph bomber that fires it's guns; how good is the Hellcat trying to do the same?

Both Greg and parsifal make very good points - 1st that up-engined and up-armored Zeros were as rare as hen teeth, 2nd that we need to be vary of claims vs. real kills.


----------



## CORSNING (May 14, 2014)

But the Zero has the ability to pursue at similar speeds, and the lower the Hellcat gets the better the Zero perform in comparison, and at some point you will want to climb again to gain altitude back, and the Zero was a better climber by a decent margin.[/QUOTE]


Speeds of aircraft being similar, the Hellcat driver could gain altitude over the A6M3 by using a high speed shallow climb.

From TAIC REPORT NO. 17, November 1944 comparing F6F-5 to A6M5:

"Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior."

"The F6F-5 was slightly superior in Zooms after dives."

"The maneuverability of the the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 175 knots, being far superior to that of the F6F-5. Its superiority, however, diminishes with increased speed, due to its high control forces, and the F6F-5 has the advantage at speeds above 200 knots."

The Zeke weighed in at 6,094 lbs. and the Hellcat, 12285 lbs.


----------



## davebender (May 14, 2014)

> Germans didn't "carry the day" very often against T-34's!



Operation Barbarossa: T-34 Myth Buster
That statement is not supported by historical data. Even during 1941 when Germany had only light tanks and AT guns the Red Army still managed to lose about 2,300 out of about 3,100 total T-34s available. During 1942 the Red Army lost about 6,600 T-34s to a German Army that was still largely equipped with nothing more powerful then 5cm/60 cannon. 

*T-34 losses by cause*. June 1941 to September 1942. 
54.3% 5cm/60 cannon.
10.1% 7.5cm. No break down by cannon type but most must have been 7.5cm/24.
10% 37mm.
7.5% 5cm/42.
7.1% Unknown. Presumable mines and infantry attack.
4.7% 20mm.
3.4% 8.8cm. These would have been heavy flak weapons.
2.9% 10.5cm howitzer.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> Both Greg and parsifal make very good points - 1st that up-engined and up-armored Zeros were as rare as hen teeth



Not true, I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

The A6M5 was the most produced variant - over half of Zeroes produced were this version -and was "up engined", as well as armored, though not quite as heavily as the Hellcat. Up engining was done by modifying the exhaust of the A6M3.



> Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Had wing folding mechanism removed and a rounded tip was installed. Exhaust was modified and provided some extra thrust. 747 built
> Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52a Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Ammunition feed was improved. Skin gauge was increased to allow faster diving. Diving speed was 460 mph. 391 built
> Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52b Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Added armor for pilot and fuel tanks. A fire extinguisher system was added. The armament was improved. Added a 5 mm bullet resistant windscreen. Could carry two 150 liter drop tanks under the wings. 470 built.
> Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52c Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Armament was revised. A self sealing fuel tank added behind the pilot which caused center of gravity problems. 8 mm plate installed behind the pilot. 55 mm of armored glass installed behind pilot's head. A 37 gallon self sealing fuel tank was placed behind the pilot. 93 built





> How good is the Zero when trying to catch a sturdy 300 mph bomber that fires it's guns; how good is the Hellcat trying to do the same?



Depends on altitude. At about 4000 meters and under, the Zero and Hellcat are about 15-25 mph different. But the Zero was not designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor - That was left to the various army fighters. And there's not a WW2 bomber that cruises at 300+ - One of the fastest, the B29, cruised at 220 mph.



> What was the number - 3/4 of downed pilots never saw the attacker? In that light, piloting the Zero looks to me as a far greater risk than piloting the Hellcat.



Once again, command and control played a huge roll here. ANY plane that does not see it's attacker is at a disadvantage. And thru better use of radio and radar, the US command and control was better. Even if the US would have flown Brewster Buffalo's through the war, their command and control would be better.

The Hellcat is indeed more durable - But as far as being attacked from behind and above, too my knowledge no fighters in WW2 had bullet proof canopies, so all pilots would be in Jeapordy.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> T-34 losses by cause. June 1941 to September 1942.
> 54.3% 5cm/60 cannon.



Off topic as well Dave, but that 5cm/60 was actually a pretty nice weapon for it's time, Reminds me of a scaled down version of the Panthers 75mm.



> Speeds of aircraft being similar, the Hellcat driver could gain altitude over the *A6M3* by using a high speed shallow climb.



But I was talking about the A6M5 

But I would think a zoom climb by the Hellcat would still gain some space. But if the Zero doggedly pursues it will close the altitude difference after the momentum gained from the zoom is lost.


----------



## CORSNING (May 14, 2014)

The following roll rates are for the early F6F-3 without spring tab ailerons and using 30 lbs. of force. Figures are from an NACA graph. Figures for the A6M3 model 32 are from an R.A.A.F. graph using 50 lbs. of stick force. Figures given are for left/right rolls at degrees per second.

Speed:...100.....125.......150.........175......,200....225.....250.....275.....300....325.....350.....375
F6F-3:..26/34...40/43....50/52......59/61....66/69..70/76..72/77..69/73..63/61..53/47..42/36..36/29
A6M3:...80/80...99/94...111/104..120/111..81/95..60/77..51/65..44/53..39/45..36/39..33/35..30/31
F6F-3:..26/34...39/42....46/49......53/55....59/59..64/63..68/66..69/68..68/67..64/64..61/61..57/57*

*F6F-3 with spring tab ailerons.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Not true, I'm not sure where you are getting this from.
> 
> The A6M5 was the most produced variant - over half of Zeroes produced were this version -and was "up engined", as well as armored, though not quite as heavily as the Hellcat. Up engining was done by modifying the exhaust of the A6M3.



Up-engined, as with Kinsei on board. Modifying exhausts is not up-engining, not by a long shot. No service Zero was flying with self-sealing tanks.




> Depends on altitude. At about 4000 meters and under, the Zero and Hellcat are about 15-25 mph different. But the Zero was not designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor - That was left to the various army fighters. And there's not a WW2 bomber that cruises at 300+ - One of the fastest, the B29, cruised at 220 mph.



I did not suggest that a bomber will be cruising at 300 mph, but will be flying at that speed. You can bet the bomber will be trying to pepper the fighter with MG fire - the fighter should have some protection to shrug off handful of bullets that struck home. Having the speed advantage of 50 mph is a better asset than 25 mph advantage. The Hellcat comes as 1st in those two comparisons. We can recall how the Zeros were unable to catch the B-26s at Midway, and how the DB-7 was a tough game for Bf-109E in 1940.
BTW, the Mosquito was well able to cruise above 300 mph. 



> The Hellcat is indeed more durable - But as far as being attacked from behind and above, too my knowledge no fighters in WW2 had bullet proof canopies, so all pilots would be in Jeapordy.



Pilots get downed also in case their fuel tanks are set on fire, or explode. Again, Hellcat is in advantage here, this time a major advantage.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

Those roll rates are not as bad as I anticipated, Jeff. Zero is a 2:1 or better at 175 and under, Maybe 1.25 or 1.5 to 1 in favor of the Hellcat at 200 and 250-350.

What I find most surprising is they are about equal at 225 and 375, and real close at 350. Does not fit the progressions.

Looks like the best speeds for the Hellcat to be at is in the 275-300 range. Slow sppeds favor the Zero by a wide margin, and by the time you get to 350 mph or better they are getting real similar again.


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

According to the pilots, the F5F-5 significantly out-rolled the Zero at higher speeds, with the Hellcat being at about 60° per second (with the spring tab ailerons of the F6F-5) while the Zero was down to under 40° per second above 300 mph. Most Hellcat pilots who mentioned it praised the acceleration of the F6F in both variants (-3 and -5), saying it made closing on the Zero easy.

Saburo Sakai praised the acceleration of the Hellcat when I heard him talk in the mid-1980's and also in his personal writings of the time when he was wounded.

Maybe it depends on where you get your data.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2014)

CORSNING said:


> The following roll rates are for the early* F6F-3 without spring tab ailerons and using 30 lbs. of force*. Figures are from an NACA graph. Figures for the *A6M3 model 32 are from an R.A.A.F. graph using 50 lbs. of stick force*. Figures given are for left/right rolls at degrees per second.





Garyt said:


> Looks like the best speeds for the Hellcat to be at is in the 275-300 range. Slow sppeds favor the Zero by a wide margin, and by the time you get to 350 mph or better they are getting real similar again.



But look at the stick forces - some more food for thought. Think about the size and strength of the men flying these machines during this time period.

I'm a bit of a gym rat and consider my self in great shape for my age - add 20 pounds of weight to anything duirng physical exertion and eventually fatigue will take its toll...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (May 14, 2014)

I added the NACA findings of the F6F-3 with spring tab ailerons in my post #41. Hi tomo, thanks for the Like.

Keep in mind that the A6M3 model 32 was the best roller of the breed with its clipped wings. The Armor and heavier armament took its toll on climb rate in the A6M5. 

While power to weight of an aircraft has much to do with acceleration so does propeller size and design. Now take that 13.1 foot prop and swing it around with 2,000 or more horses.

I am really enjoying reading all that you guys have been posting but I am running out of time now. If I get time later tonight I will post the F6F-5's and A6M5's potential performances.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> I did not suggest that a bomber will be cruising at 300 mph, but will be flying at that speed. You can bet the bomber will be trying to pepper the fighter with MG fire - the fighter should have some protection to shrug off handful of bullets that struck home. Having the speed advantage of 50 mph is a better asset than 25 mph advantage. The Hellcat comes as 1st in those two comparisons. We can recall how the Zeros were unable to catch the B-26s at Midway, and how the DB-7 was a tough game for Bf-109E in 1940.



Again, the most important point was that the Zero was not designed to be a Bomber interceptor, CAP above it's task force is about as close as you get. And IIRC 4 B-26's attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway, 2 were shot down, 2 were so badly damaged that they were written off after the mission. One Zeke was downed in return, and 0 torpedo hits. Does not sound like an overwhelming success for the B-26's vs. the CAP to me.

Before we go one again about the Zeroes capabilities as a bomber interceptor, why don't we discuss the Spitfire's role as a long range escort, or perhaps the Me109's ability as a ground attack plane. These are not missions that the planes were designed for, as the Zero was not designed as a bomber interceptor.



> No service Zero was flying with self-sealing tanks.




Very true. Of course I never stated they did have self sealing fuel tanks. I stated they had fire extinguishers, and this was not a hand extinguisher on the cockpit, but one designed to stop fuel tank fores. Apparently it was not as effective than self sealing tanks, but certainly better than not having an extinguisher.




> Pilots get downed also in case their fuel tanks are set on fire, or explode. Again, Hellcat is in advantage here, this time a major advantage.



No question the Hellcat is more durable. To counter this, the Zero had definitely better visibility. The US command and control was better, which would have the US plane in the right place at the right time more often, but that was hardly a strength or weakness of the individual aircraft.



> 1. The following is the summary of a report on comparative performance trials between an F6F-5 and a captured Zeke 52 undertaken by Technical Air Intelligence Centre at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.
> 
> The Zeke 52 is considered to permit better vision in all respects, the rear vision being good due to the use of a bubble canopy and the complete absence of armor behind the pilot's head. There was no rear vision mirror installed in the Zeke 52 tested. The small gun sight did not interfere with forward vision.



The one thing I will agree with wholeheartedly though Tomo - is the survivability of pilots in the two planes. The Zero is going to be downed more often by bomber fire, yes. 

I think given the same level of command and control for CAP for instance, the Zeke (A6M3) will well out perform the Wildcat. The Hellcat will perform similar to the Zeke in this role IMO, given similar levels of command and control as well as similar levels of pilot skill.

However, the Zero will take less punishment, and even though it may accomplish it's mission well, at will result in the loss of more pilots. I think this shows with the Zeke vs the Wildcat. Air losses were often very similar in early war carrier battles such as Coral Sea and Santa Cruz, despite the Zero being a better vehicle to establish air superiority. And this was the wrong thing for the Japanese. Combine high pilot loses with a poor pilot replacement program, and you have the Marianas Turkey shoot. The Marianas battle was lost in the air over Guadacanal just as much as it was lost in the actual Marianas battle.


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

Hi GaryT,

I can't discuss too much about tanks, I have enough keeping up with planes.

But I have attended several discussions at the Museum at which the T-34 was touted as the single most influential tank ever produced, and it was touted as being largely responsible for many Soviet victories.

Perhaps you are correct and it wasn't so revolutionary after all. If I get some time to look at it, I'll get back to you on the subject. Meanwhile, you seem to have read more on it than I have.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Again, the most important point was that the Zero was not designed to be a Bomber interceptor, CAP above it's task force is about as close as you get. And IIRC 4 B-26's attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway, 2 were shot down, 2 were so badly damaged that they were written off after the mission. One Zeke was downed in return, and 0 torpedo hits. Does not sound like an overwhelming success for the B-26's vs. the CAP to me.



CAP should be able kill enemy bombers. Hence the 2 cannons aboard from the get go. Out of 6 Avengers and 4 B-26s making the joint attack early in the battle, only one of the B-26s (along with perhaps all 6 Avengers?) was downed by the CAP that consisted of 'over 30 Zeros', per SS, pg. 151. The B-26 killed one Zero, BTW; second B-26 was hit by Akagi's AAA and barely missed that CV, crashing in the sea instead. 
Think we can conclude that Zero was ill capable to prevent a decent attack by reasonably fast bombers, even when piloted by _creme de la creme_. 



> Before we go one again about the Zeroes capabilities as a bomber interceptor, why don't we discuss the Spitfire's role as a long range escort, or perhaps the Me109's ability as a ground attack plane. These are not missions that the planes were designed for, as the Zero was not designed as a bomber interceptor.



Covered above re. what a fleet fighter is to be doing. Unlike the Zero, the Spitfire was very good in it's initial task.



> Very true. Of course I never stated they did have self sealing fuel tanks. I stated they had fire extinguishers, and this was not a hand extinguisher on the cockpit, but one designed to stop fuel tank fores. Apparently it was not as effective than self sealing tanks, but certainly better than not having an extinguisher.



Agreed that having something is far better than having nothing. The fire extinguisher cannot prevent the ignition of the fuel that is spilled from a ruptured tank.



> No question the Hellcat is more durable. To counter this, the Zero had definitely better visibility. The US command and control was better, which would have the US plane in the right place at the right time more often, but that was hardly a strength or weakness of the individual aircraft.



No quarrels that Zero have had better visibility; other airforces played catch-up with the Japanese in that regard. Zero's good visibility in upper hemisphere will not help it against the attacks from below, however. The C&C is crucially important when close to friendly C&C installations, but it is beyond reach under radio horizon, ie. well away from those installations.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> But I have attended several discussions at the Museum at which the T-34 was touted as the single most influential tank ever produced, and it was touted as being largely responsible for many Soviet victories.



Well, that is indeed true. But in the early war, with bad tactics, no radios, and 2 man turrets the T-34 was by no means indestructible. It's gun was OK for the times, a fairly low velocity 75mm. Armor was very good again for the times. 

And even later in the war, the T-34/85, even with a 3 man turret, radio, and 85mm gun was no match for the panther in head to head, it was not as accurate at range and really had to close pretty close to the panther to have a chance, the whole time while the panther could take it out with a hit. Sad to say however, the T-34/85 was definitely superior to the US Sherman in having a chance vs the Panther.

But it was easy to produce and fairly competent with it's gun and armor. Was rather fast as well, and while the Panther was about as fast, it did not have the teething problems the early panther's engines had.

I'd definitely take a Panther over a T34/85 - But I'd take 100 T34/85's vs 25 Panthers.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> The C&C is crucially important when close to friendly C&C installations, but it is beyond reach under radio horizon, ie. well away from those installations.



Which is why escort missions were more react than anything else. I would say though as a carrier fighter is going to be close to it's installations when defending the fleet.



> Think we can conclude that Zero was ill capable to prevent a decent attack by reasonably fast bombers, even when piloted by creme de la creme.



I'd definitely not draw this conclusion. 

Let's take the Bomber force that attacked the Japanese carriers at Midway, minus the Dive Bombers that struck last. In other words, the attack force from Midway, minus the B-17's, and the carrier based torpedo planes. Of these planes, 52 out of 72 attacking planes were shot down for a loss of a couple CAP planes. It was not 30 Japanese fighter vs. 4 B-26's - lets put it into proper context. 72 attacking planes, not 4. 

Four attacking planes is far too small a sample base of draw any conclusions from, I think you would concur. Let me know if you think otherwise. And these were thee earlier version Zero's, not the later A6M5's.

And what did these 72 attacking planes achieve vs the CAP - nothing. Nada. No hits. I think the Zero did it's job extremely well, if we think shooting down 72% of the attacking planes and preventing any hits on your carriers is a definition of success. I certainly think it is. Would Hellcats, even if available this early, done any better? I doubt it, other than they would probably cut down on their own fighter losses.

The defeat at Midway was not caused by the Zero as a plane's ability or inability to defend it's fleet. It had Everything to do with poor command and control, caused largely due to a lack of radar. Had the Japanese vectored a substantial amount of CAP to the attacking carrier based Dauntlesses, the result would be different. As shown by the attacks by Zeros on the Midway Dauntlesses, the Zeros were able to shoot these down very effectively.

I've heard some comment that Dive Bombers were almost always going to get through at that the Japanese had no chance of stopping them. I'd say this is inaccurate, as again shown by the attacks upon the Midway Dauntlesses. Torpedo bombers must expose themselves with a low-level straight run at an opposing task force - and because of this are more vulnerable to CAP and AA. But if Dive Bombers are intercepted prior to attempting their attacks, they go down as any other bomber. But of course that puts proper command and control, radios and radar at a premium.


----------



## CORSNING (May 14, 2014)

Information for the F6F-5 is taken from the Hellcat II Data Sheet dated April 19, 1945. Performance figures from this sheet were put on a graph and the performance line of the F6F-5 from the NAVAER 1333A sheet of the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Dept. used to complete.
Information for the A6M5 comes from T.A.I.C. report 102D.

MATCHUP NO.2: F6F-5 and (A6M5).

Altitude/Speed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm
S.L......335/3500 (295/3140)
1,000..339/3440 (309/3140)
2,000..348/3380 (323/3225)
 3,000..360/3180 (335/3090)
4,000..373/2955 (332/2620)
5,000..379/2605 (337/2620)
6,000..392/2225 (350/2620)
7,000..391/1835 (355/2225)
8,000..383/1435 (340/1625)
9,000..374/1070 (328/1075)
10,000.N.G./ 685 (302/ 500)

Maximums: 392 [email protected] 19,500 ft. and 3,500 [email protected] S.L. (358 [email protected] 22,000 ft. and 3,340 [email protected] 8,000 ft.)

Out of time. Good night guys, Jeff


----------



## davebender (May 14, 2014)

Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU
Not sure how anyone could reach this conclusion after reading historical 1942 Aberdeen Proving Grounds evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

> Not sure how anyone could reach this conclusion after reading historical 1942 Aberdeen Proving Grounds evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks.



Well, the majority of the early Panthers did not make it to the battlefield, breaking down en route. Many of these that broke down caught fire due to engine issues. Operational losses far exceded battlefield losses.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 14, 2014)

Hellcat, Zero....Panther? Nope, still not seeing the connection.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

It's simple.

When they retrofitted the Hellcat with treads for off-airport landings, they also fitted a 75 mm cannon, making the Hellcat the ONLY fighter in the world capable of both taking out an armored vehicle AND performing formation aerobatics at the same time. If one guy got too fast in formation, he could just fire the gun and would slow down and stay in formation ... unless he was the slot pilot. 

Then the leader would chew his butt out for suffering friendly fire damage. The rear-mounted diesel engine helped protect the pilot in that case.


----------



## Garyt (May 14, 2014)

Sigh....merely wanted to point out through an analogy that command/control, communication, tactics can have more to do with the combat effectiveness of a particular piece of machinery than the quality of the machine itself.....



> If one guy got too fast in formation, he could just fire the gun and would slow down and stay in formation ... unless he was the slot pilot.



Can we do an exercise in quantum physics to determine the exact amount it would slow him down by???


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2014)

> Saburo Sakai in a Zero vs a tyro in a Hellcat? You could put Saburo in a Gloster Gladiator, and if he had the height advantage and spotted the Hellcat first he would probably still win the duel.



Read my post again.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2014)

> I didn't forget.




Then why didnt you mention it





> They made 5,706 A6M5's but there is no breakout for A6M5a "Kou", b "Otsu", or c "Hai" numbers built. Mitsubishi built 2,130 A6M5s and Nakajima built 3,573 A6M5s. The A6M5c "Hai"didn't have self-sealing tanks ... it had more armor plate on the windscreen and pilot's seat, and the armament was three 13.2 mm MG + two 20 mm cannons and thicker wing skin to increase the dive speed a bit.





> The A6M6c DID have self-sealing tanks ... all one of them that was built. The A6M7 was never built and they built all of two A6M8s with Kinsei 62 engines (1,560 HP!) in place of the Sakae 31. So we are talking a whopping three aircraft of the Zero family that had self-sealing tanks, none of which ever saw combat.




If we are talking getting the numbers out early , the Grumman is one hell of a success story. if we are talking cutting edge technology and performance to boot. then the hellcat is just another garden variety late war aircraft.....a bit slow, very tough, good at what it was designed for. This was a thread about Hellcat and A6M performance last time I looked. 

If we are talking or comparing competitiveness on the basis of which one was ready in time, the Zeke wins hands down. hellcat first went into Combat in August 1943, and was not really heavily engaged until November. Work had begun on a replacement for the f4f in 1940 and the f6F began design studies from early '41. It was a bit late for its party, but it got there eventually I guess. better late than never. It had largely been retired by 1946, an effective combat career of just over two years.

The Mitsubishi began design is interesting to recount. The 12 shi program began October 1937. Horikoshi from the start set down a three year development; 1 complete year to design concepts, 6 months for prototype construction. and a full year for trials and evaluation. 

This program was attenuated by the war demands, but the first combat rials were from October 1940. So we are clear, we are therefor comparing a design dating from 1937-39, to a design of 1941-2, and service deliveries from 1940-41, to an aircraft 1943 (oh yes, i know, it was first flown in June 1942, but we didnt see a wimper out of the Grumman until January 1943 and no growls or bites until October, in other words after all the hard lifting against the Japanese had been pretty much completed. . Until then, it really wasnt deserving the name "Hellcat", more "pussycat" or "tabbycat" . the Zeke entered combat 3 years before the hellcat, and flew its last combat mission in September 1945, a career spanning 5 years. if we start talking minor air forces, I couldnt tell you how long the hellcat was flying, but the last combat mission by a Zeke was in 1950, under the Viet minh. Not bad for an aircraft made out of tinfoil and held together by sticky tape. 

Never claimed the 5b subvariiant had SS tanks, but they did have CO2 fire extinguishers in the wings


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

Been a long day, just wanted to inject a little humor. Didn't want to step on anyone's toes ... 

Time for a beer. Cheers. Maybe a Spitfire Ale ...


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2014)

GregP said:


> When US Navy claims were vetted after the war, they were found to be mostly a LOT more reliable than claims over Europe. The reasons were obvious. Most Naval aircraft fighters were of the 4 - 8 vs. 4 - 8 variety and not the 1,000 plane raids that could be seen over Europe. Thus it was MUCH easier to keep track of what happened because there were many fewer planes involved. Some of the largest Pacific encounters involved only some 25 - 30 planes for each side. The accuracy of claims for ALL sides was MUCH better when the numbers of combatants were small.
> 
> Some of the very early Naval encounters were inflated, but they settled down rapidly and, by the time the Hellcats got there, the type of claims versus actuals inaccuracy in Parsifal's post above should have been largely a thing of the past.




Half right, but also the "vetting process had the enormous advantage that a lot of japanese records were lost or destroyed before the end of the war. This meant that the USN Claims had to be accepted as "confirmed", even though they werent. on those occasions that they can be vetted properly against known Japanese records, they generally come up considerably worse. One author believes that this arose because there were so few targets. two or three or ten pilots all shooting at the same target, all get awaqrded a kill, even though there was only one kill. 

The overall USN claims appear to be over-claiming out by somewhere between 25 and 40% which is pretty consistent with the ETO.


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2014)

Not from what I have read, Parsifal. Perhaps we've simply read different accounts of it. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.

The USA probably has the best data I have found for any air arms of WWII. If we can't agree on THAT data, there is no hope at all for Axis data and we might as well compare claims and be done with it. I've also never seen a vetted list of British victories matched against reported German (rather, Axis) losses. If I can't find those in years of looking, I've no chance at all of finding anything remotely like a vetted list of Axis victories ... only claims.

Again, we might as well compare claims and move on.

I have a fairly complete spreadsheet of claims except for 4 smaller air forces, but only have what is purported to be "official victories" for the USAAF and USN.

So ... and again ... if anyone wants to help to try to settle some WWII aerial scores and knows where we can get the information to DO it, I'd be interested in helping out as part of the team. I can supply most claims, with sources. We can start anywhere and, when we finish, it would be preferable to what we now have, which is endless guessing and argument.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 15, 2014)

You didn't look hard enough Greg.

2nd Tactical Air Force: Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol 3

It is more than 30 years since the original and highly-acclaimed history of 2nd Tactical Air Force was first published, and this book has long been out of print. Now at last a completely rewritten and greatly expanded account of this important command's vital contribution to the invasion of Normandy and the defeat of the forces of the Third Reich in Western Europe has been prepared. The 2nd TAF which, equipped with rocket- and bomb-carrying Typhoons and Tempests, Spitfires, Mosquitos, Mustangs and medium bombers, flew ground attack and tank-busting missions in support of Montgomery's 21st Army Group as it advanced through Normandy and north-west Europe in 1944-45. The medium bomber units struck at enemy transport, ammunition dumps and communication targets. The 2nd TAF comprised British, Canadian, Polish, Czech, Norwegian, French, South African, Australian and New Zealand crews. Produced in three volumes, the first deals with the formation and expansion of 2nd TAF from its inception in June 1943 for the next 12 months, and with the initial critical month of the invasion. Volume Two - From Breakout to Bodenplatte - covers the breakout from Normandy, the advance across the Low Countries and the German ripostes in the Ardennes and with Operation 'Bodenplatte' in the winter which followed. In Volume Three - From the Rhine to Victory - are details of the final months of conflict, including the crossings of the Rhine and Elbe rivers. This volume also includes comprehensive appendices and a personnel index relating to the whole series. Each volume is not only profusely illustrated with many little known photographs, and with Chris Thomas' masterly artwork, but also contains daily listings of all claims made against enemy aircraft, and all losses, damage and casualties suffered by 2nd TAF aircraft and aircrews in carrying out their arduous duties.

Chris Thomas and Christopher Shores are recognised as the UK's leading authorities on British and Commonwealth air power during World War 2 and are authors of several leading works on the subject including landmark studies of the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest and works on the air war over North Africa and the Mediterranean. Christopher Shores' 1970 study of 2nd TAF is now a highly collectable and sought after volume and is the only work of its kind.


----------



## Garyt (May 15, 2014)

> The USA probably has the best data I have found for any air arms of WWII.



I'd agree. Though I still think comparing "claimed" kills for the axis vs true losses for our own planes is hardly fair or accurate.

I'd think coming up with a factor of "over claims" and applying it to any claimed kills makes sense.

And In the cases where we have claimed kills and also knowledge of true Japanese losses, looking at the ratio on these would put us on the right track from an accuracy standpoint.


----------



## paladin24 (May 15, 2014)

parsifal said:


> If we are talking getting the numbers out early , the Grumman is one hell of a success story. if we are talking cutting edge technology and performance to boot. then the hellcat is just another garden variety late war aircraft.....a bit slow, very tough, good at what it was designed for. This was a thread about Hellcat and A6M performance last time I looked.




Global-scale industrial wars are won by making a whole hell of a lot of "pretty good" airplanes, handing them over to scared, green kids, and throwing them at the enemy in huge numbers. They are not won by comparing performance data line by line and declaring a winner. 

If the F6F is truly such a mediocre design, it is well to remember that its kill ratio is still higher than its contemporaries, so Grumman must have done _something_ right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 15, 2014)

paladin24 said:


> If the F6F is truly such a mediocre design, it is well to remember that its kill ratio is still higher than its contemporaries, so Grumman must have done _something_ right.



Did they? The F-86 dominated the MiG-15 in Korea but was it purely on design alone? Soviet pilots did much better vs the F-86 than did Chinese and N Korean pilots.


----------



## Glider (May 15, 2014)

paladin24 said:


> Global-scale industrial wars are won by making a whole hell of a lot of "pretty good" airplanes, handing them over to scared, green kids, and throwing them at the enemy in huge numbers. They are not won by comparing performance data line by line and declaring a winner.
> 
> If the F6F is truly such a mediocre design, it is well to remember that its kill ratio is still higher than its contemporaries, so Grumman must have done _something_ right.



I have to agree with this. I heard it summed up once as _If my average pilot plane combination, is better than your average pilot plane combination, I win._


----------



## Garyt (May 15, 2014)

Found some interesting information of flight training time in WW2 by the various countries. It's interesting to see the required hours of training actually spelled out. I also think this is very pertinent when we discuss the performance of aircraft - as they are only as good as the pilots flying them.



> "The importance of flight hours should be a no-brainer. During World War II, when some nations simply didn't have the fuel available for pilot training, they saw combat (and non-combat) losses increase as training-hours-in-the-air went down. Nazi Germany's warplanes began losing, big time, when they could no longer produce enough fuel to allow their trainee pilots sufficient time in the air. This was a trend that had been ongoing since 1942. Up until that time, new pilots got 240 hours of flying time before entering combat. By comparison, British pilots only received 200 hours and Soviet pilots even less. Germany ruled the skies. But in late 1942, Germany reduced training time to 205 hours. The British now had the fuel, and increased theirs to 340 hours, while the US was providing 270 hours. In the Summer of 1943, the British increased flying time to 335 hours and the US went to 320 hours. At the same time, the Germans reduced it to 170 hours. A year later, the Germans were down to 110 hours, while the British were at 340 hours and the Americans at 360.
> 
> 
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 15, 2014)

Hi Milosh,

From earlier, I'm looking for overall war victories and losses, not Normandy plus 1 year, but I'm sure it helps ... thanks for the tip on the book. I'll look into it.

Reference post #60 Milosh, 

The Soviets claim they're a LOT better than the Chinese, but their claims add up to more Sabres than we deployed to Korea. We know the tail numbers that went over and the tail numbers that came back, and their claims add up to WAY more than the actual losses. Most of the tail numbers that DID come back wound up in National Guard or Reserve units for some period, so their histories after Korea are pretty well known.

About using claims in general, Naval claims are head and shoulders more accurate than claims in big air battles over land, especially when gunners in bombers are thrown into the fray, so one "adjustment factor" for all claims would be inaccurate and unjust, particularly to the Navy.

The real issue is getting actual victories and losses and deciding what to do with them.

There are people in here who are adamant that if a plane got shot out of a battle and went down, the very REASON for escorts, but was salvaged or partially salvaged at some later time ... then the pilot didn't get a victory. In my book that is just incorrect. If a pilot shoots down an enemy, he removed that enemy from endangering his mission, and that is his task, so it very certainly IS a victory for the pilot. If not, then you put the morale of the pilots at the mercy of the enemy's recovery crews, which makes less sense than the US Congress these days.

We'd almost have to agree that forcing an enemy plane to land or crash in almost any manner would be called a victory. You very certainly would not want to tie your definition of a "victory" to the survival of the enemy pilot or you'd have both sides machine gunning guys in parachutes as the normal procedure.

It has to make sense and still give credit where credit is due.

Now the crux of the matter ... where do we propose to get the real victories and losses for the Germans, Soviets, Italians, and Japanese, etc. air forces of WWII? Who is to say the data would be accurate?

We could also calculate an "air combat kill-to-loss ratio" as well as an "overall kill-to-loss ratio," but we'd have to agree on whether or not ground kills have any place in the scoring. I say emphatically "No." It has to be manned, armed, and airborne to be called a victory. If not, it could be a "kill," but not a victory. Same for V-1's. Shooting them down was necessary, but it isn't a victory because it was unmanned.

Naturally there will be those who have their own beliefs other than what is written above.

Another point, We have people who are fanatical about the General Motors FM-2 but, to me, it was and IS just a Wildcat. These is way greater disparity in horsepower from an early Corsair to a late model Corsair, but you don't see anybody trying to find out the kill-to-loss ratio for the F4U-4 alone, separate from all the other Corsairs. Sorry, a Wildcat is a Wildcat. That one seems to strike a note with the FM-2 fans and would have to be dealt with as well.

This is a complex subject ... especially if one wants a consensus agreement.

Where will be find Soviet victories and losses that are anywhere CLOSE to the truth. Stalin didn't even have a passing knowledge of what "the truth" meant. To him, the truth was whatever he said is was. If he needed to raise morale of some unit and called the leader a "Hero of the Soviet Union" and said he had ... maybe ... 40 victories, then that is what the Soviet reports will say ... or else the authors would disappear into Siberia, never to be heard from again.

Maybe that is why the subject is so hard to research ... national pride is at stake and the truth is nothing compared with national pride.

So, does anyone have any confirmed losses from some country for the entire war other than the USA? I have those already. Anybody have confirmed victories for the war for other than the USA? If so, maybe we could swap some information and at least make a start at it.


----------



## parsifal (May 15, 2014)

> Global-scale industrial wars are won by making a whole hell of a lot of "pretty good" airplanes, handing them over to scared, green kids, and throwing them at the enemy in huge numbers. They are not won by comparing performance data line by line and declaring a winner.




The US won, not only because of its far superior production. It applied TQM principals across the board, including its pilot training and logistics systems. In the final boiling down of the reasons for victory, the US won because of

1) superior numbers of aircraft
2) superior numbers and quality of pilots
3) superior logistics and support, allowing such things as unit and pilot rotation
4) Good tactics worked out for a particulalr purpose
5) Good solid designs, not outstanding, but better than their main opponents, that could exploit and utilise all of the above

Hellcat was not a revolutionary design, more evolutionary in which everything was safe, predicatable, pedestrian. But it was a design approach that worked. 

By compoarison, the Zeke WAS revolutionary, pioneering and bold. It was without a doubt outclassed by the hellcat, but this was not its reason, or more correctly its main reason, for its nemesis. A point i often make, is, all other things being equal, if the USN was the one with the Zeke, and the Japanese were equipped with the Hellcat, in the same time frames, the US would still win, with virtually no changes to the loss ratios. We would now be singing the praises of how the American Zeke, despite its light construction, was able to fly rings around the Japanese hellcat, and achieve kill loss ratios of 10 or 20 or 30:1. as the winning side, in which our opponents records are systematically and comprehensively destroyed or lost, we could make upo whatever figures we wanted and claim them as gospel truth. More than a little cockeyed in my opinion. 




> If the F6F is truly such a mediocre design, it is well to remember that its kill ratio is still higher than its contemporaries, so
> Grumman must have done something right.



It did a lot right. The Grumman was a very successful design. it reaped the benefits of a lot of hard work done earlier, and happened to be a design suited to the purpose for which it was created. In my book, that makes it a good design, even a very good design, but not a great design. The Zeke, despite being outclassed by a full generationally different design, was a great design, because it did things that the hellcat never did, and did things never before achieved.


----------



## GregP (May 15, 2014)

According to real-life history, the F6F was not anywhere CLOSE to a mediocre design, judging from the results it achieved. It did VERY well wherever it went, regardless of who was flying it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2014)

_"Naturally, once the war began, the Imperial Navy started losing pilots faster than they could be replaced. For example, the 29 pilots lost at Pearl Harbor represented more than a quarter of the annual crop. The battles of the next year led to the loss of hundreds of superb pilots."_

Based on that I think no matter how good a fighter aircraft the IJN were able to operate, they doomed themselves from the start.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 15, 2014)

> Based on that I think no matter how good a fighter aircraft the IJN were able to operate, they doomed themselves from the start.



Yeah, I found that to be rather shocking/enlightening regarding the 29 pilots lost at Pearl were 1/4 of a years crop of new pilots. I see they changed their training program and shortened it, but if in a very successful surprise attack upon you enemy where you take minimal losses, losing 1/4 of a year of pilots shows how ill prepared you are for the upcoming war. You are not even remotely in the right league with your training program.



> A point i often make, is, all other things being equal, if the USN was the one with the Zeke, and the Japanese were equipped with the Hellcat, in the same time frames, the US would still win, with virtually no changes to the loss ratios. We would now be singing the praises of how the American Zeke, despite its light construction, was able to fly rings around the Japanese hellcat, and achieve kill loss ratios of 10 or 20 or 30:1.



I pretty much agree here. The only issue - a more rugged plane like the Hellcat could have helped slow down the initial bleeding from pilot losses, helping the Japanese hold on a bit longer in regards to pilot equality.



> According to real-life history, the F6F was not anywhere CLOSE to a mediocre design, judging from the results it achieved. It did VERY well wherever it went, regardless of who was flying it.



Let's look at real life history indeed. Two of the Hellcats contemporaries, the Corsair and the P-51 saw a fair amount of use in Korea. The Hellcat did not. Look at the British - the Hellcats were quickly replaced by British aircraft at the end of World War II. Apparently others found the Hellcat somewhat pedestrian as well.

I look at the Hellcat as somewhat equivalent to the US Sherman - Reliable, easy to mass produce, but not a truly striking vehicle as far as performance is concerned. But the A6M5 was indeed a lesser plane, just not by a huge margin. Now, if you compare the Hellcat to Japanese planes that saw combat beginning in about 1944, I think it is outclassed. Look to the KI-84 or the A7 Reppu's performance stats. The KI-84 just kills it numbers wise, and the A7 is a bit similar, by 200 more hp with 2000 pounds less weight, better wing loading, armed as well or better, with the armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I know the Reppu did not really see much activity, but that had much to do with earthquakes and B-29 bombings.

Let's compare the Hellcat against what was really it's "contemporary", we can use the KI-84.

F6F5 vs (KI-84)

Altitude/Speed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm
S.L......335/3500 (362/4275)
1,000..339/3440 (379/4350)
2,000..348/3380 (389/3890)
3,000..360/3180 (389/3570)
4,000..373/2955 (388/3590)
5,000..379/2605 (414/3610)
6,000..392/2225 (426/3350)
7,000..391/1835 (426/2870)
8,000..383/1435 (416/2280)
9,000..374/1070 (403/1720)
10,000.N.G./ 685 (387/1175)

Maximums: 392 [email protected] 19,500 ft. and 3,500 fpm.(427 mph. @ 20,000 ft. and 4,400 fpm). 

It also was armed better IMO, 2 x20mm + 2 x12.7mm, had self sealing fuel tanks, pilot armor. It also as with Japanese fighters in general, would turn better than the F6F5. It did not suffer from the same diving problems the earlier Zekes did, and apparently did not have the high speed rolling problems either. It's only issue I know of was that it has some compressibility issues, not being as stable in a dive as one would want it to be, though I think that was not uncommon among many planes.

What I did really like about the Hellcat was it's versatility. It could carry a 1000 lb bomb, it could carry a torpedo. I'm not sure how well it functioned as a strike aircraft as it was a single seater, but if it performed at least as well as strike aircraft, one could easily make the argument a carrier should carry almost all multi-purpose Hellcats with few strike craft. And it was rather durable as we all know which made it good for strike purposes.


----------



## Njaco (May 15, 2014)

GregP said:


> ......
> So ... and again ... if anyone wants to help to try to settle some WWII aerial scores and knows where we can get the information to DO it, I'd be interested in helping out as part of the team. I can supply most claims, with sources. We can start anywhere and, when we finish, it would be preferable to what we now have, which is endless guessing and argument.



http://lesliesawyer.com/claims/tonywood.htm


----------



## GregP (May 15, 2014)

Thanks, Njaco!

And I seriously doubt that if the Hellcats and Zeros were reversed, we'd have an easy time of it. Let's say we have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2014)

GregP said:


> According to real-life history, the F6F was not anywhere CLOSE to a mediocre design, judging from the results it achieved. It did VERY well wherever it went, regardless of who was flying it.




ive no idea what "real life history" might mean, but i do know that its no argument to support the case one way of the other. The key assumption here, of course is that the Tubbycat was solely responsible for its success. no other factors are considered in the successes lain at its feet. to what extent pilot quality, or numbers, or logistics, or tactics contributed to the overall victory is never discussed or acknowledged. This sort of uncritical analysis merely confirms the one eyed nature of its supported. No amount of logical argument will cause its entrepid supporters to critically assess whether it, the tubbycat, was solely responsible for its runaway success, or whether there may have been other factors at work.

My comments about being a mediocre design have nothing to with its level of success. The aircraft enjoyed huge success during its service. But i dont attribute that success solely to the technology, and when i look at the design and the technology I see an aircraft evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Hence, it is a mediocre design, rather than an exceptional one

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _"Naturally, once the war began, the Imperial Navy started losing pilots faster than they could be replaced. For example, the 29 pilots lost at Pearl Harbor represented more than a quarter of the annual crop. The battles of the next year led to the loss of hundreds of superb pilots."_
> 
> Based on that I think no matter how good a fighter aircraft the IJN were able to operate, they doomed themselves from the start.



Absolutely correct. The IJN banked all their eggs on the war being a short war. Before the war they stripped out their Training Schools to provide crews for all their land based air units, and their carriers. Just before the war a decision was made to actually cut back on training programs. the japanese were banking on a short, sharp war followed by a favourable peace. They miscalculated the US response and the inevitable drive to a long war. 

After midway, the Japanese began to ramp up their training programs. Carrier Quals remained fairly low however, gradually increasing from around 16 per month in the midle of 1942, to about 35 per month mid '43. You can add a 0 to the back end of that number to compare to US carrier quals, and the numbers of hours per pilot was vastly greater for the USN. an average of about 400 hours in 1943, compared to about 150 hours dropping to about 100 hours in early 1944. moreover, the USN went extraordinary lengths to keep and maintain their pilots, the Japanese were rather frivolous with their aircrew....Ive read average combat hours for V fleet aviators was about 5-600 hours by 1944, compared to about 50 (which is also part of their training times) for the IJN. 

One of the reasons I am so down on the claims about the hellcat. They were shooting rookies down, like rats in a barrel


----------



## Milosh (May 16, 2014)

GregP said:


> The Soviets claim they're a LOT better than the Chinese, but their claims add up to more Sabres than we deployed to Korea. We know the tail numbers that went over and the tail numbers that came back, and their claims add up to WAY more than the actual losses. Most of the tail numbers that DID come back wound up in National Guard or Reserve units for some period, so their histories after Korea are pretty well known.



If you go here Greg, Korean War Database you will find that it was the Chinese who over claimed.

For WW2, try here, http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/ww2.htm Please notice the reference sources with C. Shores as the co-author of 'Aces High'.


----------



## gjs238 (May 16, 2014)

GregP said:


> Maybe that is why the subject is so hard to research ... national pride is at stake and the *truth *is nothing compared with national pride.




_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (May 16, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Found some interesting information of flight training time in WW2 by the various countries. It's interesting to see the required hours of training actually spelled out. I also think this is very pertinent when we discuss the performance of aircraft - as they are only as good as the pilots flying them.
> 
> 
> > On the down side, the Japanese pilot training program was so rigorous that only about 100 men a year were being graduated, in a program that required 4-5 years. In 1940, it was proposed that the pilot training program be made shorter, less rigorous, and more productive, in order to build up the pool of available pilots to about 15,000. This was rejected. Japan believed it could not win a long war, and needed the best pilots possible in order to win a short one.



Good points but, for IJN only, total pilots were 241,463 from 1930 to 1945.
Roughly 16,000 a year. Combined with the army's, it would have been almost double.

For details


----------



## gjs238 (May 16, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _"Naturally, once the war began, the Imperial Navy started losing pilots faster than they could be replaced. For example, the 29 pilots lost at Pearl Harbor represented more than a quarter of the annual crop. The battles of the next year led to the loss of hundreds of superb pilots."_
> 
> Based on that I think no matter how good a fighter aircraft the IJN were able to operate, they doomed themselves from the start.



I was considering starting a thread, "Could the F4F have won the war without the F6F and F4U," but perhaps that question has just been answered.


----------



## Garyt (May 16, 2014)

An indicator of why the Shokaku and Zuikaku were considered inferior in pilots to the other carriers of Kido Butai:



> There was no reserve of skilled pilots to speak of. Indeed, Peattie (2001) has pointed out that, when war broke out, 11 Air Fleet had been drawn on so heavily for cadre for the new Shokakus that its rosters already included significant numbers of incompletely trained pilots.



Shinpachi wrote:



> Good points but, for IJN only, total pilots were 241,463 from 1930 to 1945.
> Roughly 16,000 a year. Combined with the army's, it would have been almost double



Where do these numbers come from? It seems high to be, even counting the swarms of 40 hours training pilots there were at the end of the war.

Do you have these numbers as pilots trained by year?


----------



## Milosh (May 16, 2014)

For comparison

Between Oct 1940 and Mar 1945, the BCATP in Canada trained 49,808 pilots and 131,553 total air crew (includes pilots).


----------



## Shinpachi (May 16, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Where do these numbers come from? It seems high to be, even counting the swarms of 40 hours training pilots there were at the end of the war.
> 
> Do you have these numbers as pilots trained by year?




So, here is the link to the statistics for the fifteen years by the year and the training course.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> I was considering starting a thread, "Could the F4F have won the war without the F6F and F4U," but perhaps that question has just been answered.



Only in hindsight. Depending on your enemy to stuff up the pilot training and development of both new versions of existing fighters and the development of new fighters as badly as the Japanese did is really poor planning.


----------



## Totalize (May 16, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> So, here is the link to the statistics for the fifteen years by the year and the training course.



Shinpachi,

I cannot read Japanese but is the link you posted a reference to the different Yokaren cycles?


----------



## GregP (May 16, 2014)

Hi Milosh,

If you read several pieces written by Vladimir Babych about the use of MiG fighter aircraft around the world, you will see he claims the Soviet MiG pilots in Korea shot down 1,106 US-made aircraft, of which he says 650 were F-86 Sabres, all for the loss of 335 MiGs. Soviet MiG serial numbers have never been released for public consumption. And we never sent 650 Sabres to Korea ...

The USA says we lost 78 Sabres with a further 13 being listed as "missing in action." The thing is, the tail numbers of the F-86s missing and brought back are known and accounted for. Many went to National Guard or Reserve units and flew until retired and scrapped or stored at Davis Monthan AFB. Some are still there today.

F-86 claims amounted to 792 MiGs with a further 118 probables. We had gun cameras in Korea, and the proof is largely on film. There were more claims that were not MiGs.

As for the Hellcat, real-world numbers are obvious ... it is the war record of the F6F Hellcat that is available to the public. It was devastating to the IJN and IJA alike wherever it showed up. If that's mediocre, I'll take it any day of the week over planes that LOOK great, but did nothing in the war, like the much-vaunted Ta-152 that had from 7 to 10 victories against 2 - 4 losses ... when flown by experts. The Hellcats kicked butt with average pilots, not hand-picked experts.

Give me a Hellcat every time.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2014)

I think he meant mediocre design and not mediocre performance. I agree with him. Its like the Brewster Buffalo. It did very well in Finland but I wouldn't call it a revolutionary design. It was a poor to fair design that did extremely well in a certain environment.


----------



## GregP (May 16, 2014)

I'd say it was an evolutionary design, too, not revolutionary. In that sense, the very excellent Grumman F8F Bearcat is also an evolutionary design, but I'd probably pick it first or second as the all-time best piston Naval fighter, and maybe first of second as the best all-time piston fighter, period, Naval or otherwise.

So I see where the "mediocre" came from and have to disagree since it produced a first-rate fighter. But that's OK, agreement is nice when you can get it, but it isn't necessary. 

And it isn't a source of much argument from me either way. For me it's an opinion, not an argument. We all have our favorites and they got to be that way for a reason. For instance, the Ta 152 did almost nothing in the war to make itself stand out, but it remains a favorite of mine nevertheless. There's no accounting for taste, huh?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (May 16, 2014)

Duplicate post for some reason ... why does it DO that every once in awhile?

That;s why I don't want to fly around in the same sky with drones or fly as a passenger on an unpiloted airliner ... to err is human. To REALLY screw up takes a computer, and the computer can't tell when it has decided something that is unreasonable.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> I was considering starting a thread, "Could the F4F have won the war without the F6F and F4U," but perhaps that question has just been answered.


Don't forget that the US losses would have been higher and the IJN losses lower, so the balance of power re training and the USA would have been reduced.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (May 17, 2014)

Totalize said:


> Shinpachi,
> 
> I cannot read Japanese but is the link you posted a reference to the different Yokaren cycles?



Hello, David!
All IJN pilots were requested to graduate from Yokaren.
I'm going to summarize the list.


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2014)

Greg

ive probably givenb you enough stick for obe thread topic. i hope its all good. you must have known you would get a rise out of me with your hellcat spiel. 

Anyway, for the record, I think the hellcat did a fantastic job. But I at least hope you can understand the argument i present. 

We may disagree on this issue, but I do hope thats okay. I respect your knowledge on this issue.


----------



## gjs238 (May 17, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Greg
> 
> ive probably givenb you enough stick for obe thread topic. i hope its all good. you must have known you would get a rise out of me with your hellcat spiel.
> 
> ...



Too late, he's already en-route to Australia in his Hellcat...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 17, 2014)

You know, if we want to look at "revolutionary" designs as opposed to evolutionary, we have the Kyushu J7W. A piston planes that hits 469 mph, and has 4 x30mm cannon, and the HO-5 cannon had a far better muzzle velocity than the Mk108 of the Me262. An operational ceiling of about 40,000 feet as well.

It was only a prototype with 2 models produces, but certainly revolutionary as it was a "pusher" design.


----------



## Garyt (May 17, 2014)

Can't read Japanese either Shinpachi. I'd be interested in a summary by year if possible.

I'd guess these would be transport/recon pilots as well? I wonder what the percentages of pilots allocated to each type of aircraft would be, and by "type" I mean fighter, strike aircraft, bobber, etc.

I'm guessing the 100 per year were for IJN carrier qualified graduates


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2014)

aircraft of WWII that I consider to be revolutionary, and why

1) De Havvilland Mosquito = Unarmed High speed bomber, fighter bomber, naval strike and night fighter
2) JU87 - Highly accurate and successful divebomber
3) IL2 - Heavily armoured, cheap to build, effective attack plane
4) Fairey Swordfish slow, but deadly accurate, able to work in very poor conditions, and off small decks
5) Mitsubishi A6M - First aircraft of Asiann design to outclass European opponents. Forst carrier based aircraft to outperform opponents. First fighter to exceed 800 miles effective combat radius
6) Me 262 and meteor - first operational jet aircrtaft in history
7) P-51. First allied single engined aircraft able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin
8) B-29. First bomber to deliver atomic Bomb 

These aircraft in each peculiar way were revoloutionary in what they could do

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 17, 2014)

> aircraft of WWII that I consider to be revolutionary, and why



I look at "revolutionary" as a plane that is ahead of it's times, and possibly incorporating new technology. I don't really consider the P-51 to be "Revolutionary", as drop tanks were hardly revolutionary. And it's range was about the same as the early war Zero. An excellent design, yes - while P-47's, P-38's, Hellcats and the like were pretty well done after WW2, The P-51 was selected for continued service in the jet age, as was the corsair.

The B-29 - Somewhat revolutionary, as far as being ahead of it's time with pressurized cabin, remote controlled defense systems. I don't consider it revolutionary for the A-bomb though - any sufficiently heavy bomber could have done that.

But in all fairness, their is little that is truly "revolutionary". Even the Kyushu "pusher" design was re-dated by WW1 designs using the pusher design, same as the B-2 was pre-dated by the German Horton flying wing. Every design I think draws from prior successes and failures.


----------



## gjs238 (May 17, 2014)

Garyt said:


> I look at "revolutionary" as a plane that is ahead of it's times, and possibly incorporating new technology. I don't really consider the P-51 to be "Revolutionary", as drop tanks were hardly revolutionary. And it's range was about the same as the early war Zero. An excellent design, yes - while P-47's, P-38's, Hellcats and the like were pretty well done after WW2, The P-51 was selected for continued service in the jet age, as was the corsair.
> 
> The B-29 - Somewhat revolutionary, as far as being ahead of it's time with pressurized cabin, remote controlled defense systems. I don't consider it revolutionary for the A-bomb though - any sufficiently heavy bomber could have done that.
> 
> But in all fairness, their is little that is truly "revolutionary". Even the Kyushu "pusher" design was re-dated by WW1 designs using the pusher design, same as the B-2 was pre-dated by the German Horton flying wing. Every design I think draws from prior successes and failures.



Like "the best," there are so many ways to define "revolutionary."
One way may be to equate revolutionary with "game changer."

A6M and P-51 were certainly game changers.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 17, 2014)

I'd have to agree with some of your list Parsifal, although the term revolutionary is a difficult one to quantify as most designs that came out of the war were evolutionary by nature, including the first jets and the B-29, since the technology in both was a natural step forward from the status quo, although they were certainly game changers (there's a thread about that here somewhere). Once piston power and unpressurised aircraft reached the zenith of their development cycles, the next step was pressurisation, which was being worked on in the 30s and jet engines, again, which were being worked on in the 30s. The majority of the technology embodied in those aircraft was being trialled more or less before WW2 broke out. 

Having said that, however, if there was anything that could be considered a revolution in aviation, it is the application of the gas turbine in aircraft proulsion; everything changed once this happened, although both the Meteor and Me 262 airframes were relatively contemporary and offered little that was new. The big change in aircraft design and technology came about once gas turbines had matured slightly and designers could take advantage of all the merits the new powerplant offered once the technology evolved a little more - its still doing so today.

The B-29 was the combination of the old and new, it was extraordinarily advanced for its time and was the epitome of piston engined bomber design; the next step was fitting it was gas turbines and taking advantage of what they offered. The true revolution in the B-29 was its weapon, however; the atom bomb literally changed the face of the world. Nothing would ever be the same again and don't we know it to this very day. 

Nevertheless, a few of the aircraft listed certainly were game changers, although I'd argue against the Ju 87; although devastatingly effective, it offered nothing that any other dive bomber of the era couldn't produce; its just the way it was used caught everyone by surprise - the Germans were masters of manipulating a crowd. They did it with flair (perhaps thats why some of us admire them so much, they were badass, and looked good doing it!). 

The Zero was the extreme of an existing philosophy and a natural progression from the Mitubishi A5M, therefore was not really revolutionary, as effective as it was. The reality was that before WW2 almost all air forces, naval and land based concentrated on manoeuvrability in a dogfight as the best way to win a fight and the Zero was the ultimate expression of this; a bridge between the old philosophy and new technologies, like its predecessor.

Swordfish, not at all; the secret to its success was its simplicity; it was Olde Worlde technology at its best; the quitessential expression of the term "Keep It Simple, Stoopid". It worked very well in the environment it served in, exactly the attributes you want for a carrier based aircraft, but its lack of advance did let it down at times. Nevertheless, it was and remains a legend. The same could be said of the Il-2, its biggest advantage was that it was built in large numbers and was relatively simple, but offered nothing new in design or technology.

The Mustang was certainly a step ahead because of its advanced aerodynamics and its performance and capability on roughly the same engine as the P-40, and then the Spitfire IX; it was bigger and heavier than both, yet faster and with a far greater range, even without drop tanks on the same engine power output. It proved what modern concepts on aerodynamics and structural design could do for a contemporary fighter. I'd also throw the Fw 190 as an outstanding design; it employed modern technology in its use of electrical systems and engine management, but was also designed with simplicity of maintenance and operation in mind, possibly the ultimate expression of the employment of ergonomics and advance in a single aircraft of the period, bearing in mind it was a pre-war design.

The Mosquito, more of a tangential concept to the accepted norm and one that had been examined and put in place in the past, in actual fact. Its success as a concept meant that it carried forward into the jet age and to a degree still applies today. Its construction method enabled it to possess superb streamlining and clenliness of exterior structure; like the Mustang, it took aerodynamics to a new level, but it was basically the use of past technology, if not the epitome of that technology, unlike the Mustang, which relied on the latest in aerodynamic concepts from the RAE and NACA. There was nothing really new about the Mosquito, just that it was very goooooood.

As for the Hellcat, well, I agree with Parsifal, an evolutionary design borne out of real world experience and a little fore knowledge, it was a nautral progression from the F4F. Typical of its creator's ethos in terms of ruggedness and strength, it satisfied the navy's needs and was exactly the right aircraft for the job, but no more. It was destined to be overtaken by more modern technology and advance, but it fulfilled a vitally important role admirably and with kudos. What more could the US Navy ask for in a fighter against what the Japanese were fielding? You could answer that with the F4U, but it too, was existing technology and a different answer to the same question posed to the builders of the F6F, but it was inherently more versatile a design and lived to fulfil a need in a technologically evolving world where its qualities could be exploited, a bit like the Swordfish - and the AD-1, too.

Anyway, phew, that's enough for now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (May 18, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Can't read Japanese either Shinpachi. I'd be interested in a summary by year if possible.
> 
> I'd guess these would be transport/recon pilots as well? I wonder what the percentages of pilots allocated to each type of aircraft would be, and by "type" I mean fighter, strike aircraft, bobber, etc.
> 
> I'm guessing the 100 per year were for IJN carrier qualified graduates



Here is my summary of the flight school students called Yokaren by the year.
Each number for fighter, bomber or reconnaissance unknown with the list.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 18, 2014)

WOW, that is really impressive!


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2014)

Its very impressive and once again I find myself thinking about the what if's. Had Japan been on a full war footing and the 44,000+ students been trained in 1942, and the 117,000 in 1943 life would easily have been very different. The end the same but the time and cost very different.


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2014)

Glider said:


> Its very impressive and once again I find myself thinking about the what if's. Had Japan been on a full war footing and the 44,000+ students been trained in 1942, and the 117,000 in 1943 life would easily have been very different. The end the same but the time and cost very different.




Not really. The japanese needed every warm bodied pilot they could get their hands on in 1942, and to do that, made deliberate decisions to curtail their training programs. they striped out their training schools of most skilled instructors, and also most of the trainees nearing completion. All in the hope that war would be a short one, and they could "shock and awe" the allies to the peace table after a few months of continuous defeat.

after this disnt work, and they got their noses bloodied, they realized they needed pilots in a hurry. The training schools were exhorted to turn out large numbers of poor quality pilots, which they did, but these were just sheer chaff. there were insufficient instructors, training aircraft, and failities to teach the new pilots any survivavl skills. worse, most of the conversion training was done, from cold, with trainees assigned to a combat nit, where they were expected to learn on the job. results were predictable, and catastrophic.

it also needs to be understood from those figures, a couple of things. Firstly, and most importantly, the Japanese had a very high washout rate. Japan in the 1930s was not a particulalry technical society,and failure rates in the pilot training schools reflected this. It took about 5 years for a japanese pilot to get his navy carrier wings in 1941. Washout rates in that year were about 90%. There were an average of 16 carrier qualified pilots entering service each month in 1942....these were mostly the survivors of the 1941 classes. later, qualifying trainee rates improved,m but only because the Japanese started to accepot any standard as a passing grade.


----------



## Garyt (May 18, 2014)

For clarification, are these how many entered the training program, or completed it by year?

I would think the kamikaze trainees would be included here as well, though you would think because of this 44 and 45 would have higher pilot mortality rates.

IIRC, late war graduates (45?) only required 40 hours of flight time, so these graduates certainly do not mean as much earlier ones.


----------



## Hiromachi (May 19, 2014)

Parsifal, I spotted something in your older post, http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hellcat-vs-zero-40782-2.html#post1125319 and got a question now, do you remember by any chance what was then number of Japanese unit on the Wake ? Or rather which Kokutai was responsible for air defense ?

Edit: Found it - 252 Kokutai.
From the report (item reference code: C08051663000 - http://www.jacar.go.jp/) it looks like there was a couple of sorties this day, on page 21 I see that overall 26 Zeros participated in first combat, 23 scrambled 03:05 and than patrol of 3 at 08:30.
From this first page (if I'm reading correctly - here Shinpachi could help) it seems to me that in first action Japanese lost 1 machine and 15 are missing.
I'm not sure as quality is bad, but seems that majority of them returned:
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/782/d9u4.jpg
Than we have page 23, where 7 Zeros went into combat, from this 2 planes are missing (and 2 pilots) and one made a "soft landing".
Page 26 - again 7 Zeros participated in some action, 2 are missing and one made a safe landing in damaged plane.
Page 28 - 5 missing, 1 injured.
Page 29 - 6 missing
Page 30 - 3 missing, 2 injured
Page 31 - 2 missing, 1 softlanded

I'm curious how many of those Zeros came back than, and what was final outcome - how many planes were usable in combat for 7th October (and next days). I guess only one here, who can help is Shinpachi.

Hiro


----------



## Shinpachi (May 19, 2014)

Garyt said:


> For clarification, are these how many entered the training program, or completed it by year?
> 
> I would think the kamikaze trainees would be included here as well, though you would think because of this 44 and 45 would have higher pilot mortality rates.
> 
> IIRC, late war graduates (45?) only required 40 hours of flight time, so these graduates certainly do not mean as much earlier ones.




Kamikaze Casualties
===============

Navy 2,535 
(Yokarens approx. 1,800)
(Veterans approx. 700)
Army 1,844

Total 4,379

Half of the Yokaren casualties were from the 1943 entry.

Data source: "War History of Japan Vol. 8 Yokaren" published by Mainichi Press, 1981.

And for references, 
Imperial Japanese Navy Pilots Ratio by the Airframe (1941-1945)
================================================
Fighter 39%	
Light bomber 19%	
Midium bomber 25%	
Heavy bomber 2%
Others 15%


Calculation:
Fighter	13,587 x 1 pilot = 13,587 pilots 39%	
Light bomber 6,728 x 1 pilot = 6,728 pilots 19%	
Midium bomber 4,466 x 2 pilots = 8,932 pilots 25%	
Heavy bomber 384 x 2 pilots = 768 pilots 2%
Others 5,130 x 1 pilot = 5,150 pilots 15%	

Total 30,295 airframes approx. 35,165 pilots

Note: "Others" could have included approx. 2,000 trainers.
No information but a 1945 entry student testifies there were few trainers for them except flight simulators.

Data source: 
ƒRƒ‰ƒ€02Fq‹ó‹@¶ŽY—Ê‚ÉŒ©‚é“ú•Ä·
The 88th Imperial Parliament Minutes dated September 4, 1945


----------



## Garyt (May 19, 2014)

Thanks you for the info, Shinpachi. So it looks as thought these are the amount of student entering training per year?


----------



## Shinpachi (May 19, 2014)

You are welcome, Garyt.

No accurate or satisfactory information on this matter at the moment but, according to my calculation, total number of students from 1930 to 1942 were 20,630 whereas total pilots number 35,165 by 1945. 14,535 were in shortage for the 1943-1945. So, it would have been around 5,000 on average per year for the last stage of war and all the rest students would have remained as spare pilots or on-board crew.


----------



## Conslaw (May 19, 2014)

As for the most revolutionary aircraft of WWII:

I think the slam dunks for the list are the ME262 and the B-29. The A6M Zero deserves a place as the first successful naval air superiority fighter also as the first long-range single-engined fighter. As to new aircraft, I nominate the ME-323 heavy transport. It redefined what was possible with transport planes, even though it was too underpowered to be successful. I also nominate the TBF/TBM Avenger - a big capacious aircraft that could be used for whatever the navy could fit in the box.


----------



## Totalize (May 20, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Here is my summary of the flight school students called Yokaren by the year.
> Each number for fighter, bomber or reconnaissance unknown with the list.
> 
> View attachment 262946




great Data Shinpachi. Excellent!


----------



## Shinpachi (May 20, 2014)

Totalize said:


> great Data Shinpachi. Excellent!



Thanks, David.
This has been a good chance for me to understand Yokaren better


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Here is my summary of the flight school students called Yokaren by the year.
> Each number for fighter, bomber or reconnaissance unknown with the list.



Great information! Is there any information about JAAF pilots?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 21, 2014)

Both aircraft suffered from nearly the same history in my opinion: When they were first produced, they dominated air combat. Later in the war, both became outclassed as newer aircraft caught up to them in performance. Neither aircraft had much development potential. A Kinsei engine in a Zero would have made it LESS inferior in performance, but it was never going to be a 400 mph fighter. The XF6F-6 Hellcat also wasn't able to show the same improvement in performance with a P&W R-2800-18W as the F4U-4 Corsair did, thus its intended replacement would have been the F8F. 

Neither aircraft had much improvement during its service life. Other than roll rate with the improved ailerons from the F6F-3 to the F6F-5, nothing much changed. The high speed roll rate also came with a significantly reduced low speed roll rate though.
The "improvements" from A6M2 to A6M5 were also not great. The Japanese even stated that "the fighting performance of the Mark II (A6M3 and A6M5) was inferior to the Mark I (A6M2) at medium altitudes and below but becomes progressively better above 8000 meters". (from the translated manual captured at Kwajalein)

Although 1130 HP versus 940 HP from the Sakae 12 to Sakae 21 seems like a great increase, the actual increase is a bit less significant when the outputs at various altitudes are compared. The increased weight pretty much offset what little power increase there was.

Regarding climb rates between the A6M and F6F: Although in absolute maximum climb rate, the A6M is better, it is accomplished at a very low airspeed (around 140 mph IIRC). A shallow high speed climb gives all the advantages back to the Hellcat.

Now to change the subject....
I believe one very good place to find actual exchange rates in a few air battles is in the book "Genda's Blade". The authors list actual losses from both sides in a few encounters between the 343 Kokutai and US forces. These were the best remaining Japanese Navy pilots toward the end of the war and were still losing (by my count) at a rate of around 3 to 1 against USN and AAF.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 21, 2014)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Both aircraft suffered from nearly the same history in my opinion: When they were first produced, they dominated air combat.



Perhaps we could add a disclaimer: within confines of Asia/Pacific, 1st the Zero, then the Hellcat dominated? 



> Later in the war, both became outclassed as newer aircraft caught up to them in performance. Neither aircraft had much development potential. A Kinsei engine in a Zero would have made it LESS inferior in performance, but it was never going to be a 400 mph fighter. The XF6F-6 Hellcat also wasn't able to show the same improvement in performance with a P&W R-2800-18W as the F4U-4 Corsair did, thus its intended replacement would have been the F8F.



The XF6F-6 gained 45 mph at 25000 vs. the F6F-5, or about the same speed gain the F4U-4 gained over F4U-1 at same altitude. The F8F was primarily a replacement for the F4F, F8F's development started in 1943? 
The Hellcat was inferior in raw performance against premier land-based fighters both in time it was introduced and by late war. It was Hellcat's docile handling, ability to give and take damage, useful radius/range that made it such a great CV fighter, not just the performance against most of Japanese A/C.



> Neither aircraft had much improvement during its service life. Other than roll rate with the improved ailerons from the F6F-3 to the F6F-5, nothing much changed. The high speed roll rate also came with a significantly reduced low speed roll rate though.
> The "improvements" from A6M2 to A6M5 were also not great. The Japanese even stated that "the fighting performance of the Mark II (A6M3 and A6M5) was inferior to the Mark I (A6M2) at medium altitudes and below but becomes progressively better above 8000 meters". (from the translated manual captured at Kwajalein)



The F6F took part in the war less than 20 months, vs. Zero's 58 months? The addition of the R-2800-18 was a no-brainer.



> Although 1130 HP versus 940 HP from the Sakae 12 to Sakae 21 seems like a great increase, the actual increase is a bit less significant when the outputs at various altitudes are compared. The increased weight pretty much offset what little power increase there was.



If I'm not mistaking it badly, the speed went up from 330+ mph to 350+ mph when Sakae 21 was installed? The better altitude power of the '21' helped a lot, and the power at lower altitudes was also better. Granted, the installation of self-sealing tanks would've eaten much of the fuel load of the Zero, that was probably the reason why it was not pursued.


----------



## Shinpachi (May 21, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great information! Is there any information about JAAF pilots?









Imperial Japanese Army Pilots Ratio by the Airframe (1941-1945)
================================================
Fighter 41%	
Light bomber 9%	
Midium bomber 18%	
Others 32%


Calculation:
Fighter	16,124 x 1 pilot = 16,124 pilots 41%	
Light bomber 3,449 x 1 pilot = 3,449 pilots 9%	
Midium bomber 3,456 x 2 pilots = 6,912 pilots 18%	
Others approx. 12,471 x 1 pilot = approx. 12,471 pilots 32%	
Total approx. 35,500 airframes approx. 38,956 pilots

Data source: 
ƒRƒ‰ƒ€02Fq‹ó‹@¶ŽY—Ê‚ÉŒ©‚é“ú•Ä·
The 88th Imperial Parliament Minutes dated September 4, 1945

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 21, 2014)

So it looks like about a 50% wash out rate.

I heard prior to the war the wash out rate was almost 90% - apparently it got a lot easier as the war went on!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 21, 2014)

The Special Volunteer Officer Course must have been a real cake walk - almost everybody passed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2014)

as the war progressed, the japanese were not lacking for pilots, but what they did lacked was experienced pilots and carrier traine pilots. In the case of carrier trained pilots, the only carrier more or less permanently engaged in training was the hosho, and this placed an upper limit on carrier qualifying pilots, to a maximum of about 35 per month and even then, with reduced training times that made the japanese jockeys uncompetitive. For all the jockeys, the flight hours were cut and cut again, to the point that Japanese pilots became just so much cannon fodder. Its really didnt matter how many they put in the sky, they were just a bunch of rookies flying around in outmoded aircraft, waiting to hacked down by the swarms of hellcats engulfing them.


----------



## Garyt (May 21, 2014)

> to a maximum of about 35 per month and even then, with reduced training times that made the japanese jockeys uncompetitive. For all the jockeys, the flight hours were cut and cut again, to the point that Japanese pilots became just so much cannon fodder. Its really didnt matter how many they put in the sky, they were just a bunch of rookies flying around in outmoded aircraft, waiting to hacked down by the swarms of hellcats engulfing them.



I think it was on here earlier, by the late stages of the war 40 hours was deemed sufficient flight time. I'm not sure if the kamikaze's even received that.

I think the usage of kamikazes was a good indication of the poor pilotry. The pilots were so bad that in order to hit something they had to pilot it all the way to the target, unlike a skilled dive bomber or torpedo pilot.


----------

