# Questions About Japanese Air Power - 1943



## DarrenW (Apr 22, 2018)

Ok, I have read time and time again on this forum that the Japanese were technically defeated by the time the Hellcat arrived to do battle in August 1943. And I do understand how the big naval battles of 1942 set the IJN back to a point of no return, and that the earlier pilots flying F4Fs, P-39s, and P-40s engaged a very different group of Japanese pilots in those days than what was encountered only a short year later.

What I'm having a hard time swallowing is the common notion that the P-38 and F4U pilots somehow fought a much more skilled and deadly opponent than the F6F, which showed up on the scene only months later (eight months after the P-38, seven months after the F4U). Were the Japanese really so soundly beaten during this time frame that by comparison it was basically a cake walk for pilots flying the Hellcat? I think not but not knowing all the facts I thought I'd reach out to other forum members who are much more schooled in the various combats that occurred, and those who know the battle record of the Lightning and Corsair better than I. I'm sure that there are people here who have studied this extensively and know a lot about the IJN and IJA so I want to hear from them as well. My library unfortunately isn't as extensive as I would like it to be and I don't want to resort to Wikipedia in order to get all my information concerning this. 

I want to add that this is not meant to diminish the hard fighting that the crews of the Lightning and Corsair endured during the early part of 1943, nothing would be farther from the truth. I was just wondering if anyone had hard facts that include real numbers, rather than assumptions and white-washed figures. I'm particularly interested in actual Japanese losses that include names of pilots who were aces or were considered excellent pilots and leaders within the Japanese air services that were lost during the fighting in early to mid 1943.

As always, all facts and opinions are welcomed with opened arms...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2018)

In terms of the relative air power in this conflict the number of aircraft carriers available is as significant as the planes they carried. If you look at the order date of the Essex and independence class carriers and when they became available it shows that Pearl Harbor was an action that formalised a conflict that everyone knew was coming. Of the Essex class carriers 10 were ordered before Pearl Harbour and only a further 2 in Dec 1941.in total 24 were built. Discussions about the Independence class started in August 1941 and work started converting cruisers to carriers almost immediately. 

The ordering of these carriers in 1940-41 plus 127 CVE escort carriers meant that starting in 1943 the USA was commissioning more than 2 carriers per month of one sort or another.

The Hellcat prototype was ordered in the same month that Barbarossa started, it would be interesting to know which was first.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Hellcat prototype was ordered in the same month that Barbarossa started, it would be interesting to know which was first.



Operation Barbarrosa was launched June 22nd 1941, eight days before the Grumman Corporation signed the contract for the XF6F-1 with the US Navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 22, 2018)

I attached 9 pages of an interrogation document that explains the Japanese side of things during the Solomon campaign. I don't have the entire document unfortunately as I happened upon it by chance while surfing the web. Granted, it's difficult to say if these Japanese leaders were being forthright with the facts but hopefully accurate conclusions may still be drawn from their testimony.

This link might be useful as well:

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Interrogations of Japanese Officials

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Operation Barbarrosa was launched June 22nd 1941, eight days before the Grumman Corporation signed the contract for the XF6F-1 with the US Navy.


Hard to believe they are not related, there was a huge amount of "stuff" ordered and put in train between Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Ok, I have read time and time again on this forum that the Japanese were technically defeated by the time the Hellcat arrived to do battle in August 1943. And I do understand how the big naval battles of 1942 set the IJN back to a point of no return, and that the earlier pilots flying F4Fs, P-39s, and P-40s engaged a very different group of Japanese pilots in those days than what was encountered only a short year later.
> 
> What I'm having a hard time swallowing is the common notion that the P-38 and F4U pilots somehow fought a much more skilled and deadly opponent than the F6F, which showed up on the scene only months later (eight months after the P-38, seven months after the F4U). Were the Japanese really so soundly beaten during this time frame that by comparison it was basically a cake walk for pilots flying the Hellcat? I think not but not knowing all the facts I thought I'd reach out to other forum members who are much more schooled in the various combats that occurred, and those who know the battle record of the Lightning and Corsair better than I. I'm sure that there are people here who have studied this extensively and know a lot about the IJN and IJA so I want to hear from them as well. My library unfortunately isn't as extensive as I would like it to be and I don't want to resort to Wikipedia in order to get all my information concerning this.
> 
> ...


I'm going to go with opinions because I don't have the facts you're looking for. Certainly there was a point when the Japanese were facing attrition. The same goes for the Axis powers, generally. The Germans were facing attrition when the Army Air Force released the P-51. Did the P-51 have an easy time for it?

The F6F turned the tide of that Pacific war, I don't care what anyone says, it was too much for anything in the air. There, I said it. BTW, I like your avatar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I attached 9 pages of an interrogation document that explains the Japanese side of things during the Solomon campaign. I don't have the entire document unfortunately as I happened upon it by chance while surfing the web. Granted, it's difficult to say if these Japanese leaders were being forthright with the facts but hopefully accurate conclusions may still be drawn from their testimony.
> 
> This link might be useful as well:
> 
> United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Interrogations of Japanese Officials


BTW, this is a very interesting perspective. Thank you.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 23, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> The F6F turned the tide of that Pacific war, I don't care what anyone says, it was too much for anything in the air. There, I said it. BTW, I like your avatar.



We are like kindred spirits my friend. I knew when I saw your moniker that you would be amongst the most intelligent and learned of them all......

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


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Hard to believe they are not related, there was a huge amount of "stuff" ordered and put in train between Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.



Somebody high up in the food chain knew something about something.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2018)

The F6f did NOT "turn the tide" for the battle in the pacific. by the time it had arrived, the back of Japanese airpower had already been well and truly broken.

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 (allegedly, based solely on claims made at the time, there is serious doubt any losses at all were suffered by the Japanese at the time), 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. at least that's the first claim made by a Hellcat driver. it was the first of many false claims made against the IJN..... 

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) 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. in fact post war it was fairly well established to be another false claim.

Hellcats had virtually no impact on the air campaigns in the PTO until November .

meanwhile, the daily slog in a war of attrition against the Japanese continued. By mid 1943, the Japanese had lost a staggering 6500 aircraft in operational combat and operational losses. It is reasonable to claim, though not possible to prove, that the majority of losses weren't even at the hands of the US forces. 60% of allied a/c committed to the SWPA and SoPac commands were even American, so it follows that the majority of losses inflicted on the Japanese weren't coming from American sources


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 24, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> Did the P-51 have an easy time for it?



This thread is about the PTO but it could easily be about the situation in the ETO as well. The defamatory rhetoric I've been hearing as of late, in regards to the importance of both the Hellcat and Mustang as war winning aircraft, is bewildering to me at best. Yes, I do understand that there were many factors besides their innate qualities that enabled these two aircraft to perform admirably during the war. And yes, sometimes there were bigger factors at play where the contributions of fighters had little to no effect on the the actual outcome of any particular battle. I get all that. But why does it seem though, at least to me anyway, that the records of other fighter aircraft are seldom if ever scrutinized (or for that matter, minimized) in the same fashion?
My conclusions are that it can only be one of two reasons: pure jealously, or a deep dark desire to tear down those that are on top (maybe both). And as far as American victory credits go the Mustang and Hellcat are WAY the heck on top!

Getting off my soap box and back to the topic at hand (sorry guys), I want to mention the actual dates in which the three mentioned fighters experienced their "baptism of fire" in the Southwest Pacific:

_*Dec 27, '42* P-38s of the 39th FS, 35th FG fly their first combat mission in the SW Pacific. In the Papua, New Guinea campaign nine Japanese fighters and two dive bombers are claimed for the loss of one Lightning._

_*Feb 14 '43* The VMF-124 Corsairs join other fighters escorting Liberators on a raid to Kahili, Bougainville. They met 50 fighters and only three Zeros are shot down while ten US aircraft are lost: four P-38s, two P-40s, two Liberators, and two of the Corsairs. This engagement becomes known as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, an inauspicious debut for the Corsair._

_*Aug 28 '43* Land-based Guadalcanal Hellcats of Sqn. VF-33 enter combat and fly escort for bombers in raids on Kahili and Ballale. The Hellcats are later based at Munda and in three weeks claim 21 Zeros shot down with four F6F-3s lost. _

Source:_ America's Hundred Thousand_

My question is that in those eight months prior to it's arrival, did the Lightning and Corsair (and others) so thoroughly clean-up Japanese air resistance that the Hellcat was, as one P-38 fanboy put it, only left to deal with the "dregs" of the IJNAF and IJAF? It's possible I guess but I still need to see a lot more proof in order to be thoroughly convinced of it. At the moment though I'm finding it highly improbable indeed....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 24, 2018)

parsifal said:


> He fired a short burst and exploded the Zero - his first aerial victory. in fact post war it was fairly well established to be another false claim.





parsifal said:


> 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. at least that's the first claim made by a Hellcat driver. it was the first of many false claims made against the IJN.....



Source for these supposed "false claims"?

And this is exactly the point that I've been trying to make here. This thread was about Japanese airpower and whether or not it was decimated before the Hellcat's arrival. But look what it has evolved into. For some reason the records of the P-38 and F4U are conveniently ignored, while the main focus of negative comments are about the F6F. Couldn't have come at a better time IMHO.

And just to clear up any confusion from what was stated in my previous post, the first _carrier-based_ combat mission for the Hellcat occurred on 31 Aug '43......


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 24, 2018)

parsifal said:


> meanwhile, the daily slog in a war of attrition against the Japanese continued. By mid 1943, the Japanese had lost a staggering 6500 aircraft in operational combat and operational losses. It is reasonable to claim, though not possible to prove, that the majority of losses weren't even at the hands of the US forces. 60% of allied a/c committed to the SWPA and SoPac commands were even American, so it follows that the majority of losses inflicted on the Japanese weren't coming from American sources



Hi Parsifal,
6500 Japanese aircraft lost huh? Could you break down the figures you have regarding aircraft percentages of ALL the combatants that were present in the southwest Pacific theater during the months leading up to mid June 1943, and your source for the Japanese losses?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Source for these supposed "false claims"?



one source is the book To Hell and Back: Wake During and After World War II ; Dirk spennermann.

Essentially after the fall of the marshalls and the gilberts, it became virtually impossible to re-supply the island. more often than not the aircraft were grounded or not there at all. If you want to argue that shooting up grounded aircraft is the crowning achievement of the hellcats, be my guest. 




DarrenW said:


> Source for these supposed "false claims"?
> 
> And this is exactly the point that I've been trying to make here. This thread was about Japanese airpower and whether or not it was decimated before the Hellcat's arrival. But look what it has evolved into. For some reason the records of the P-38 and F4U are conveniently ignored, while the main focus of negative comments are about the F6F. Couldn't have come at a better time IMHO.
> 
> And just to clear up any confusion from what was stated in my previous post, the first _carrier-based_ combat mission for the Hellcat occurred on 31 Aug '43......



What are you saying. I'm hardly singing the praises of the Corsair or the p-38. They too are grossly overrated aircraft, and not responsible to any great extent for the defeat of the Japanese.

If you ask me, the biggest killer of Japanese airpower wasn't any fighter, it was the venerable b-24, backed up by the beaufort and B-25 formations. They had the range to hit the Japanese lines of communication very effectively in a way the US fighter forces could not. once the f6F were embarked in sufficient numbers and the fast carriers became a significant factor in the destruction of Japanese forces, then you have an argument. That wasn't the case until the very end of 1943. in 1944 it was a different kettle of fish.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hi Parsifal,
> 6500 Japanese aircraft lost huh? Could you break down the figures you have regarding aircraft percentages of ALL the combatants that were present in the southwest Pacific theater during the months leading up to mid June 1943, and your source for the Japanese losses?




I rely on the final report submitted by Commander Fukamizu to the USSBS at the end of the war. His report remains the single most accurate report on Japanese losses for the war. It was passed over in the final report by the authors of the USSBS though they did have enough respect to annex it to the final report. instead the survey relied on claims based data supplied by the USN which we now know to be grossly overclaiming. Hellcat overclaiming is one of the top inaccuracies of that report. 19:1 my ar *se

USSBS: Interrogations of Japanese Officials -- 50/202

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> This thread is about the PTO but it could easily be about the situation in the ETO as well. The defamatory rhetoric I've been hearing as of late, in regards to the importance of both the Hellcat and Mustang as war winning aircraft, is bewildering to me at best.


You also need to keep in mind that the numbers of P-51B/C/D and F6F aircraft that the U.S. fielded (in any theater) was simply over-whelming to the Axis.
You didn't need a couple of aces to whittle down the enemy's numbers when you had hundreds getting one or two (or more) over a period of time.

It was literally death by a thousand papercuts...

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


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> We are like kindred spirits my friend. I knew when I saw your moniker that you would be amongst the most intelligent and learned of them all......


Lol!


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 24, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I rely on the final report submitted by Commander Fukamizu to the USSBS at the end of the war. His report remains the single most accurate report on Japanese losses for the war. It was passed over in the final report by the authors of the USSBS though they did have enough respect to annex it to the final report. instead the survey relied on claims based data supplied by the USN which we now know to be grossly overclaiming. Hellcat overclaiming is one of the top inaccuracies of that report. 19:1 my ar *se
> 
> USSBS: Interrogations of Japanese Officials -- 50/202
> 
> View attachment 490865


I don't see what relevance that chart has to the discussion, quite honestly. The F6, hands-down, was the best carrier-fighter ever. Nothing could touch it. I'm talking in its element. In Europe, the German fighters, from what I think I know, gave it a much better run than the A6. It couldn't turn, that was the only thing wrong with it. Even the F4 could turn inside it. It's how it fought the A6 that made it superior. And I don't care what pilots were in the cockpits. As long as Grumman delivered what Butch O'Hare had asked for, a fighter that could "get on top," that was it. In fact, I'll go as far as to say, had we had it at the start, the war would have ended in 1943, early 1944. Then we could have sailed more over to Europe to help out there.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> As long as Grumman delivered what Butch O'Hare had asked for, a fighter that could "get on top," that was it. In fact, I'll go as far as to say, had we had it at the start, the war would have ended in 1943, early 1944. Then we could have sailed more over to Europe to help out there.


Europe wouldn't need any help because Spitfire Mk IXs would have destroyed the LW in 1940 meaning Adolf had nothing to invade Russia with. The F4F made its first kill on Christmas day 1940 and were operational as a carrier aircraft with the FAA in September 1941. The F4F was just there at the start, to think the F6F could be there is a generation leap in many fields, especially engines, the prototype didn't fly until June 1942..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 24, 2018)

...


parsifal said:


> Essentially after the fall of the marshalls and the gilberts, it became virtually impossible to re-supply the island. more often than not the aircraft were grounded or not there at all. If you want to argue that shooting up grounded aircraft is the crowning achievement of the hellcats, be my guest.



So if you somehow had the power to change the official record, how many aerial victories would parsifal personally award the Hellcat? I suspect you must know this, seeing how you know it's combat record so intimately (something tells me it's going to be an extremely low figure  ). And while we are at it, how did the records of the other fighter aircraft serving in the pacific stack up to the figures you've arrived at for the F6F? I ask this because I feel it's both unfair and disingenuous to perform a critical analysis of one aircraft but remain silent about the other allied machines that served along side it. That's not how solid research should be performed in my opinion.

And for the record I'd be fine if the "crowning achievement" of the Hellcat was the destruction of the enemy on the ground. The goal of this and other aircraft was to annihilate the enemy in order to keep it from waging further war. How ever this can be accomplished is fine by me. But we both know in our heart of hearts that the F6F destroyed a huge number of Japanese aircraft in the air as well, probably way more than you will ever admit to in open forum...



parsifal said:


> It was passed over in the final report by the authors of the USSBS though they did have enough respect to annex it to the final report. instead the survey relied on claims based data supplied by the USN which we now know to be grossly overclaiming.



I guess it depends on which data you find more trustworthy - that of a freedom loving country which fought a ruthless, diabolical, scheming, and murderous dictatorship, or the figures supplied by that very dictatorship itself? Given the choice I'd choose the former, hands down.



parsifal said:


> If you ask me, the biggest killer of Japanese airpower wasn't any fighter, it was the venerable b-24, backed up by the beaufort and B-25 formations. They had the range to hit the Japanese lines of communication very effectively in a way the US fighter forces could not.



This we are in full agreement on. I hope you didn't think that I would discount the bomber as the main aerial weapon which brought both the Nazis and Imperial Japan to their very knees. Fighters were only the enablers here, because bombers cannot operate as effectively in contested airspace. That's why the defending axis fighters concentrated the main brunt of their forces on the aircraft carrying the most destructive power. It just wouldn't make good sense to do otherwise.



parsifal said:


> one source is the book To Hell and Back: Wake During and After World War II ; Dirk spennermann.



I haven't heard of this author before. I'll have to give his book a read and find out what his sources were. Thank you!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 24, 2018)

I'll go back to the start of this one. According to the pilots we see every month at the Planes of Fame, the Hellcat DID break the back of the Japanese because, for the first time, we had a plane that could out-climb the Zero and almost turn with it even when the Zero was at it's best turn rate. If the Zero was NOT at its best turn rate, the Hellcat could turn with or out-turn the Zero.

This does NOTHING to diminish the accomplishments of the F4F and P-38 pilots who went before the Hellcat, but they did NOT wipe out all the Japanese Navy's best pilots. Many were still there even through the end of the war. Just not as many as they started with. You could not convince Boyington or others I spoke with they were shot down by rookies.

When the Hellcat arrived, it was faster than the Zero, could out-accelerate it, out-climb it, was adequately armed, had pilots that were well-trained even if not quite hard-bitten veterans, and could linger to the point that fuel was not an issue in combat for either side. That last means both sides could stand and fight or run away if possible. It wasn't like the Germans over the UK where they had only a few minutes before they had to leave or run out of fuel on the way home. Also, the US Navy tended for fly in groups of 4 or 8 (one or two flights), much as the Japanese did, and most of the engagements were of the 4 vs. 4, 4 vs. 8, or 8 vs. 8 variety where neither side was really outnumbered so badly that many had a great chance of escape if only by virtue of the sheer number of targets in the sky. Instead, the targets were few enough that a good, solid dogfight was the order of the day a LOT of the time versus the ETO.

This put the Japanese at a distinct disadvantage for the first time since the Hellcat was a MUCH better dogfighter than either the P-38 or the F4F. The Hellcat was a VERY good fighter and would have acquitted itself well anywhere. In a dogfight, top speed is not important. What IS important is maneuverability, acceleration, behavior around stall, and armament. Top speed is great for getting into or out of a fight, and for catching up to a target fleeing without regard to anyone following, but is NOT an important dogfight variable otherwise. That from veterans, not from me. I have heard that from maybe 30 WWII pilots who fought in the PTO. The guys who loved top speed were ETO guys who could dive on someone from 25,000 feet or who were chasing Bf 109s and Fw 190s that dived through the bomber formations from above. Not from guys flying Hellcats at 3,500 feet on combat air patrol around a carrier task force. The PTO was a much lower-altitude war than the ETO because the ocean has very few mountains sticking up out of it. And ... if your engine got quiet, altitude wasn't usually going to allow you land on a carrier. It was usually ditch or nylon letdown time regardless of altitude.

Many in here will disagree, but I go with the guys who were there and flew the planes. ALL the pilots who fly them LOVE the Hellcat for it's handling and forgiving characteristics at all speeds. As the old saying goes, "Ask the guy who flies one!"

At warbird gatherings where veterans show up, the Hellcat gets a LOT of respect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Europe wouldn't need any help because Spitfire Mk IXs would have destroyed the LW in 1940 meaning Adolf had nothing to invade Russia with. The F4F made its first kill on Christmas day 1940 and were operational as a carrier aircraft with the FAA in September 1941. The F4F was just there at the start, to think the F6F could be there is a generation leap in many fields, especially engines, the prototype didn't fly until June 1942..


I said that to say the F6 could have beaten their best A6 pilots. There are those who throw up the F6 didn't face the best A6 pilots to marginalize the F6 record. So what? It wasn't the A6 pilots that created that record, but the F6 aircraft, was my point.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 24, 2018)

GregP said:


> I'll go back to the start of this one. According to the pilots we see every month at the Planes of Fame, the Hellcat DID break the back of the Japanese because, for the first time, we had a plane that could out-climb the Zero and almost turn with it even when the Zero was at it's best turn rate. If the Zero was NOT at its best turn rate, the Hellcat could turn with or out-turn the Zero.
> 
> This does NOTHING to diminish the accomplishments of the F4F and P-38 pilots who went before the Hellcat, but they did NOT wipe out all the Japanese Navy's best pilots. Many were still there even through the end of the war. Just not as many as they started with. You could not convince Boyington or others I spoke with they were shot down by rookies.
> 
> ...


Yes. My Dad was in a club of 20 to 30 guys, all retired pilots. I know for a fact, even the guys in the Army Air Force highly respected it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> I said that to say the F6 could have beaten their best A6 pilots. There are those who throw up the F6 didn't face the best A6 pilots to marginalize the F6 record. So what? It wasn't the A6 pilots that created that record, but the F6 aircraft, was my point.


History is what it is. The Wildcat and Hellcat actually look more similar that a Spitfire Mk 1 and Mk 22 and have about as much in common so if you just name them Grumman "cats" the whole issue is solved. There is always a lot of "fanboyism" dragging down the reputation of other aircraft, ignoring the contributions of other aircraft and services completely. Did any F4f or F6F ever sink a carrier? They facilitated winning a war but they were cogs in a watch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> History is what it is. The Wildcat and Hellcat actually look more similar that a Spitfire Mk 1 and Mk 22 and have about as much in common so if you just name them Grumman "cats" the whole issue is solved. There is always a lot of "fanboyism" dragging down the reputation of other aircraft, ignoring the contributions of other aircraft and services completely. Did any F4f or F6F ever sink a carrier? They facilitated winning a war but they were cogs in a watch.


Did any A6M sink a carrier, except when they were suicides? I'm not saying anything on your issue, anyway. I certainly don't know enough to say, that's for sure. I'm just saying the pilots in those aircraft didn't matter. The aircraft mattered, not the pilots. The A6Ms could have had the veterans they had at Pearl, the F6Fs would have still beaten them flat. That's all I'm saying.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 24, 2018)

Sorry but saying the skill of the pilot does not mater, only the aircraft does is not very realistic. If that was truly the case than based on the argument several here are making no Hellcat would have ever been lost in combat. You also cannot judge strictly on kill ratios or the FM would be the top Navy Fighter of WW2 with 30.0+

Lets get to some facts and data. Below is summary information from the NASC:






This shows the claimed kills by aircraft by year by the Navy/Marines.

From what I have been able to find (nothing concrete) Japanese aircraft production was 75k and total losses were 40k+

In preparation of the Invasion of Japan the Japanese Army and Navy had amassed over 12,000 aircraft with plenty of fuel and pilots.

The Hellcat (an awesome aircraft) did not break Japans airpower back and the Kawanishi N1 could hold it's own against it.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 24, 2018)

parsifal said:


> 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) 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. in fact post war it was fairly well established to be another false claim.
> 
> Hellcats had virtually no impact on the air campaigns in the PTO until November .


Soooo._ Japanese Naval Fighter Aces_ got it wrong when it reported that of 23 A6Ms sent to intercept the incoming raid, 16 failed to return, three returning pilots wounded? Must have fallen to the rear gunners in the SBDs and Avengers. USN fighters claimed 22, lost 6. Japanese claimed 10. Then a flight of IJN fighters and bombers enroute to reinforce were intercepted and three more Zeros were lost. But clearly the Hellcats had nothing to do with it.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> History is what it is. The Wildcat and Hellcat actually look more similar that a Spitfire Mk 1 and Mk 22 and have about as much in common so if you just name them Grumman "cats" the whole issue is solved. There is always a lot of "fanboyism" dragging down the reputation of other aircraft, ignoring the contributions of other aircraft and services completely. Did any F4f or F6F ever sink a carrier? They facilitated winning a war but they were cogs in a watch.



Hi pbehn,

While I like your analogy of the watch, I'm not quite sure about the one concerning the Spitfire. The F6F had very little if anything in common with the F4F, as it was a completely different design from the ground up. But if you are just talking about a "family resemblance", then yes, that certainly does exist between the two airplanes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2018)

GregP said:


> *Many in here will disagree*, but I go with the guys who were there and flew the planes.



Who?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 24, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> You also cannot judge strictly on kill ratios or the FM would be the top Navy Fighter of WW2 with 30.0+



I've heard this said before and everyone seems to have an opinion on this. I personally tend to lump the F4F and FM models into the same category, as they both were officially known as the "Wildcat" but had different model numbers (because they were built by different companies). It's like breaking down the kill ratio of the Hellcat into the -3 and -5 variants, or the P-51B/C/D. All the Wildcats were the same basic airframe and that's why they all were referenced by the same model name. I don't recall the actual numbers off hand but I do remember that when you put the kill/losses of the two together it's quite a bit lower than the kill ratio of the Hellcat. I will have to look that up and get back to you.

*Edit: After reviewing the information found in Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II, I found that by adding all Wildcat variants together they achieved a 5.16 to 1 kill/loss ratio.*



vikingBerserker said:


> and the Kawanishi N1 could hold it's own against it.



The _George_ was definitely one of Japan's most advanced fighters, but then again it must be emphasized that according to _Naval Aviation Combat Statistics_ _- WWII_ it did rather poorly against the Hellcat, having a 0-28 win/loss record during the period of 1 Sep '44 - 15 Aug '45. Hardly holding it's own don't you think?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> The _George_ was definitely one of Japan's most advanced fighters, but then again it must be emphasized that according to _Naval Aviation Combat Statistics_ _- WWII_ it did rather poorly against the Hellcat, having a 0-28 win/loss record during the period of 1 Sep '44 - 15 Aug '45. Hardly holding it's own don't you think?


Honestly, which N1K are you referring to?
There were three models of the Shiden: N1K1, N1K1-J and N1K2-J.
While the first two types were formidable, the N1K2-J was the type that accounted for a great deal of USN losses. I suggest you research the IJN's 343 Kokutai Naval Fighter Group (commanded by Admiral Genda). The 343rd, equipped with the N1K2-J, was able to maintain a high kill ratio against the F6F and F4U - especially in the Taiwan, Philippine and Okinawa campaigns. 

There was also the IJA's KI-84, which took the USAAF and USN by surprise when it made it's debut in 1944 during the battle of Leyte. Add to that, the modified KI-61: the KI-100, which was able to establish parity with USN and USAAF fighters from it's debut in early 1945.

Then the IJN's J2M Raiden, which was initially developed to counter the B-29s, was found to be an equal with USN fighters and made it's combat debut during the battle of Leyte.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 25, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Sorry but saying the skill of the pilot does not mater, only the aircraft does is not very realistic.




 vikingBerserker
, respectfully, I invite you to pay better attention. If you want to hold me, understand what I said. I didn't say pilot skill doesn't matter. I said these A6 pilots were in outclassed fighters against the F6. They may as well have been flying training aircraft for all the good their skills did. They could have been the cream of the crop. Against this F6, the war was still over in two years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

My source doesn't differentiated between the different versions of the _George_ lost to the guns of the Hellcat but at this point it probably doesn't really matter. This aircraft, along with other late-war Japanese designs, accomplished very little and in no way seriously challenged the US Navy FitRons (or the USAAF fighter units for that matter). And although the Japanese Navy had high hopes for the 343rd _Kōkūtai_, it never lived up to all the hype. Again, they were too little and too late. The Hellcat and Corsair units ate them up with a spoon.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I've heard this said before and everyone seems to have an opinion on this. I personally tend to lump the F4F and FM models into the same category, as they both were officially known as the "Wildcat" but had different model numbers (because they were built by different companies). It's like breaking down the kill ratio of the Hellcat into the -3 and -5 variants, or the P-51B/C/D. All the Wildcats were the same basic airframe and that's why they all were referenced by the same model name. I don't recall the actual numbers off hand but I do remember that when you put the kill/losses of the two together it's quite a bit lower than the kill ratio of the Hellcat. I will have to look that up and get back to you.



I actually agree with you on this as I thought it was odd the report tracked them separately yet combined the F4U and FG. I'm not sure of their reasoning.





DarrenW said:


> The _George_ was definitely one of Japan's most advanced fighters, but then again it must be emphasized that according to _Naval Aviation Combat Statistics_ _- WWII_ it did rather poorly against the Hellcat, having a 0-28 win/loss record during the period of 1 Sep '44 - 15 Aug '45. Hardly holding it's own don't you think?



This is an issue with the report and explains perhaps why other reports clash about the George vs Hellcat kills. If you look at the Note to Table 28 (page 77, 2nd paragraph) it states that 1/4 of the F6F & F4U losses were to unidentified aircraft that number ended up the prorated. That means 40 Hellcats were lost to unknown aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 25, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> vikingBerserker
> , respectfully, I invite you to pay better attention. If you want to hold me, understand what I said. I didn't say pilot skill doesn't matter. I said these A6 pilots were in outclassed fighters against the F6. They may as well have been flying training aircraft for all the good their skills did. They could have been the cream of the crop. Against this F6, the war was still over in two years.



I fully understood what you were saying and on a lighter note I appreciate the offer to hold you, but I'm good!

Before I respond, do you have anything to support your claim?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

Thank you vikingBerserker for your comments. I did notice that foot note about the unidentified types but didn't comment on it for one reason. I felt that being such one couldn't logically qualify them as a _George_ any more than say a _Zero, Frank, or Tony _(and basically any other Japanese aircraft for that matter). But I do appreciate that you brought it up anyway as it's definitely an important piece of information.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

This thread has kind of evolved into something I never intended. We are discussing the pacific air war _post_ Hellcat arrival while I am only concerned with the period _before_ the Hellcat arrived on the scene (pre-August '43). I hope everyone understands the difference because both topics are rather engrossing and would probably require the same amount of time and attention from armchair historians such as ourselves....


----------



## eagledad (Apr 25, 2018)

Gentlemen,
FYI only

I am not knocking the Hellcat, but are you aware of the following?

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/f6f-5-vs-j2m3-b_opt-pdf.28834

Eagledad


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

Sorry eagledad, not knocking you here but I just posted a request that I would really appreciate if the comments going forward could be in regards to the original topic of this thread (I was the creator after all lol). The J2M had zero to do with the air war before the arrival of the Hellcat and talking about it now is a distraction at best. I realize that I have no right to tell anyone here what they can and can't do so I am just hoping that people will respect my wishes and stick to the year 1943. Thanks in advance everyone! 

p.s. there are already threads in existence that discuss the Hellcat verses the J2M so that would be a more appropriate place to comment on the subject.


----------



## eagledad (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW

No problem. I wasn't intending to hijack the thread.

Pleased continue on. I find the data from USSBS fascinating

Eagledad.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

Thanks eagledad I knew you'd understand! And I'm in full agreement concerning the USSB data....


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW,
For a good understanding you have to grasp how the Japanese pilot training was conducted. Pre-war is was very intensive and the pilots in first line units at the beginning of the war had 1000s of flying hours, many with combat experience in China, and for the IJA, Nomanhan. As these pilots were lost, their replacements lacked the experience. This was lamented as early as the second half of 1942, when commanders at Rabaul complained that the replacement pilots arriving lacked experience in the A6M, having trained only on the A5M. Also, the military culture extolled aggressive, offensive action and disdained self preservation, as seen in decisions to fly without parachutes, and the ideal of a virtuous self-sacrificing death in the face of bad odds. Hata and company, in _Japanese Naval Fighter Aces, _reports on the quality levels of the various fighter units during the war. By the time the Hellcat arrives on scene the experience levels have fallen to a point where most pilots in a unit are considered category C, that is barely trained.

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


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2018)

According to the san diego air and space museum's website, F6Fs Hellcats claimed more than 5,000 "confirmed air victories" over enemy aircraft during the war, resulting in a 19:1 kill ratio. Some sources have gone even higher. ive seen one or two running at 6500, just for hellcats.

If that were correct, the F6F would have brought down of caused the destruction of (something like) over 30000 enemy aircraft. P-51s over Germany in 1944 were credited with 2500 victories to give some perspective to this........ You would need to factor into that equation both operational losses and non-operational losses, aircraft scrapped due to damage and aircraft lost on the ground.

In other words its a statistical impossibility shot down over 5000 enemy aircraft in air combat. They have destroyed 5000 enemy aircraft overall, including about 2000 aircraft expended as kamikazes after 1944.

Furthermore the Hellcat losses are bases on their own confirmed losses in the air, (ie losses to enemy air action, not including losses such as to enemy ground fire) whilst the enemy losses are on the basis of total aircraft losses and are based on claims data alone. this claims data does not accord to the best available Japanese records. . its a comparison of apples to oranges in other words. In actual fact, to all causes, I have read from various sources that Hellcat losses to all sources (within a combat theatre, losses at home spiralled even higher) during the war ran to about 2400 airframes. I would have to work a bit harder to get a better figure, but that is at least within the ballpark.

There are a couple of different ways you can make sense of this. The first is to analyse the claims data. From other more carefully investigated campaigns like the BoB we know that overclaiming ran to about 3:1 up to about 4:1 and as low as 2:1. The degree of overclaining usually was a function of the level of confusion in the air, and battles in the pacific in 1944-45 were about as confused as they could get. Conversely the USN had the most experienced cadre of pilots in the world by 1944, so one could assume that their error rate in claims might be better than expected. I would accept overclaiming adjustments of 3:1 as a valid estimate.

On that basis, if the 5000 claims are correct, and the overclaiming was running at 3:1, one can expect actual air victories for the hellcat equipped squadrons to be in the order of 1600 a/c. If Hellcat losses to achieve those victories were 263 a/c, then the exchange ratio is in fact is about 6:1.

If the 5000 mentioned by the museum is in fact an expression of Japanese losses to Hellcat actions, to get some semblance of sanity in the data, we should really try as best we can to compare apples to apples. That would seem to me to compare total Hellcat losses to the total Japanese losses overall.

On that basis, there were about 2500 Hellcats lost in order to destroy 5000 Japanese losses. A loss rate of 1;2. however, if the hellcat victories include about 2000 Kamikazes, either in the air or on the ground, the US to Japanese losses for conventionally used a/c run at about 2500:3000 or 5/6. 

Certianly a long way from 19:1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

parsifal said:


> According to the san diego air and space museum's website, F6Fs Hellcats claimed more than 5,000 "confirmed air victories" over enemy aircraft during the war, resulting in a 19:1 kill ratio. Some sources have gone even higher. ive seen one or two running at 6500, just for hellcats.
> 
> If that were correct, the F6F would have brought down of caused the destruction of (something like) over 30000 enemy aircraft. P-51s over Germany in 1944 were credited with 2500 victories to give some perspective to this........ You would need to factor into that equation both operational losses and non-operational losses, aircraft scrapped due to damage and aircraft lost on the ground.
> 
> ...



Somebody has a h-rd on for the Hellcat.....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Somebody has a h-rd on for the Hellcat.....


Somebody is just bemused by the excessive enthusiasm shown for the Hellcat, when any objective look at it takes off a lot of gloss.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2018)

Just so my position is clear, I consider the hellcat to be the best carrier fighter of the war. A 6:1 kill loss ratio is still rermarkable. a 19:1 kill/loss ratio is just fantasy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Somebody is just bemused by the excessive enthusiasm shown for the Hellcat, when any objective look at it takes off a lot of gloss.



Ok parsifal you win, I submit to you and your minions. For the sake of the adults that visit this forum daily, let's just stop the insults and end the combative nature of this thread right here and now. Can we just shake hands and start discussing real honest to goodness facts from this point forward, please?



parsifal said:


> If that were correct, the F6F would have brought down of caused the destruction of (something like) over 30000 enemy aircraft.



Not sure where you came up with that number. That's six times what was actually awarded to F6F pilots during the war.....



parsifal said:


> In other words its a statistical impossibility shot down over 5000 enemy aircraft in air combat.



Why is that? The USSBS believes that 20,000 Japanese aircraft were most likely destroyed in combat operations. And while I agree that there was over-claiming there still were enough losses to justify the original 5000+ figure at face value.



parsifal said:


> I have read from various sources that Hellcat losses to all sources (within a combat theatre, losses at home spiralled even higher) during the war ran to about 2400 airframes.





parsifal said:


> On that basis, there were about 2500 Hellcats lost in order to destroy 5000 Japanese losses.



There were 2,462 US Navy Hellcats lost due to all causes (not including training and ferrying operations). The breakdown is: 270 - aerial combat / 553 - anti-aircraft fire / 341 - operational causes (non-combat related). Many fighters of the same period lost far more by comparison so I don't see why you are lumping them into the equation. How about all the enemy aircraft and facilities destroyed on the ground? Japanese shipping sunk? locomotives destroyed and bridges taken out of action? The list goes on, but you get the point. If you want to examine the Hellcat's overall losses then you must also look at it's other contributions to the war besides aerial combat in order to make sound judgments concerning it's effectiveness as a combat aircraft.



parsifal said:


> and the overclaiming was running at 3:1,



Again, that is YOUR estimate, which hasn't been substantiated by any reputable study. I agree that the 5000+ figure is inflated, but so are ALL of the claims from ALL of the nations involved during the war. Hellcat pilots weren't alone in this practice and if anything their claims are more accurate than most, especially when comparing them to the air forces of the Axis nations.



parsifal said:


> A loss rate of 1;2. however, if the hellcat victories include about 2000 Kamikazes, either in the air or on the ground, the US to Japanese losses for conventionally used a/c run at about 2500:3000 or 5/6.



Kamikaze aircraft were just that, enemy aircraft which were being used as weapons against the US fleet. Their destruction should count as as much as any other aircraft brought down during aerial combat. In a larger sense I don't see a point in separating them into their own unique category, other than for statistical clarity. If you did that then you should also subtract all the claims made against unarmed cargo, training, and transport aircraft by every pilot that flew during the war. As you can tell that would be utter nonsense.

FWIW, after some analysis on my part it would seem that of the 2500+ Kamikaze aircraft sorties made during the war around 1,118 were destroyed by US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. This would include those shot down by Hellcats, Corsairs, and Wildcats. The rest were brought down by ship AA guns and near misses experienced by the enemy during their final attack on Allied shipping.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Ok parsifal you win, I submit to you and your minions. For the sake of the adults that visit this forum daily, let's just stop the insults and end the combative nature of this thread right here and now. Can we just shake hands and start discussing real honest to goodness facts from this point forward, please?



Good to know Darren. I'm a tad overzealous at times.

I have two issues that frequently get me into hot water over the hellcat. First is the claim that it destroyed Japanese air parity, second is that it shot down 5000 Japanese aircraft for the loss of 263 of its own. both claims are gross distortions of the truth.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Just so my position is clear, I consider the hellcat to be the best carrier fighter of the war. A 6:1 kill loss ratio is still rermarkable. a 19:1 kill/loss ratio is just fantasy.



I think what is being missed here is that the US government has awarded this aerial victories to an actual person, and not to a hunk of metal that they so happened to use while achieving their successes in combat. And that's where I stand. It's the legacy of these pilots that I'm trying to preserve. The Hellcat would mean the same to me if it had zero victories accorded to it. The fact of the matter is that, without the human element, all of this would matter very little of anything to me....


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I have two issues that frequently get me into hot water over the hellcat. First is the claim that it destroyed Japanese air parity, second is that it shot down 5000 Japanese aircraft for the loss of 263 of its own. both claims are gross distortions of the truth.



I think everyone who has studied aerial warfare on some level realize that victory totals are never 100 percent accurate. I have analyzed claims most of my life and am well aware of this fact. But because this has been true since the dawn of aerial warfare (in every nation, and every war) I find it somewhat dubious to only challenge a certain amount of them and remain neutral concerning the others. I'm not pointing the figure at you per say, just historians in general. So let's try not to get hung up on this contentious topic any further, as I think we both made our points abundantly clear tonight.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 25, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> DarrenW,
> For a good understanding you have to grasp how the Japanese pilot training was conducted. Pre-war is was very intensive and the pilots in first line units at the beginning of the war had 1000s of flying hours, many with combat experience in China, and for the IJA, Nomanhan. As these pilots were lost, their replacements lacked the experience. This was lamented as early as the second half of 1942, when commanders at Rabaul complained that the replacement pilots arriving lacked experience in the A6M, having trained only on the A5M. Also, the military culture extolled aggressive, offensive action and disdained self preservation, as seen in decisions to fly without parachutes, and the ideal of a virtuous self-sacrificing death in the face of bad odds. Hata and company, in _Japanese Naval Fighter Aces, _reports on the quality levels of the various fighter units during the war. By the time the Hellcat arrives on scene the experience levels have fallen to a point where most pilots in a unit are considered category C, that is barely trained.



So Japanese pilot quality was in the decline roughly six months after Pearl Harbor huh? Very interesting. I didn't know that training suffered so early on. Good to know....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Somebody has a h-rd on for the Hellcat.....



Yeah, you...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> So Japanese pilot quality was in the decline roughly six months after Pearl Harbor huh? Very interesting. I didn't know that training suffered so early on. Good to know....


Training didn't suffer at first. But the Japanese flying schools could not make up for the loss of veteran pilots. New pilots did not get the years of seasoning that the pre-war pilots had enjoyed. One of the problems that the Japanese were dealing with was a shortage of trained aircrew to replace losses suffered in the Battle of the Coral Sea. This kept _Shokaku_ and _Zuikaku _out of the Midway fight while their air complements were reconstituted. Midway intensified the problem, and the New Guinea/Guadalcanal fighting resulted in a constant drain on trained manpower. Meanwhile, the air establishment had to expand to meet the needs of defending the newly acquired territories, further diluting the trained cadres.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 25, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> I fully understood what you were saying and on a lighter note I appreciate the offer to hold you, but I'm good!
> 
> Before I respond, do you have anything to support your claim?


OK, I'll let you off. But this time, only, lol...

My basis is, the F6F's weakness was, it couldn't turn. Not like an A6M. In a dogfight against an A6M, there's a fairer fight. But then, who's worried about fighting fair when you've got oxygen and the horses to get on top? Pilot skills aren't going to neutralize that advantage, which was a mechanical advantage. There's basically the whole support, right there. Plus, the F6Fs could take more punishment. Just wing an A6M, it's a cripple.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

According to the monograph _Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II, _since the F4U debuted in Feb '43 and up to the end of August that same year, there were 390 Japanese aircraft of all types destroyed by Marine air units flying either the F4U or F4F (the report unfortunately doesn't differentiate between the two). Does anyone happen to know the total claims awarded to P-38 units in the Pacific from it's introduction in Dec '42 to the end of Aug '43 as well? I would like to compare these amounts to the figures provide by captured Japanese officers, found in the various pages of a report which I posted earlier.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 26, 2018)

Total kills by the P-38 in the PTO comes to 1,700 - this figure is a total from it's first combat sortie to it's withdrawel from combat service.
I don't have a year by year breakdown.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah, you...



At least I can still get a h-rd on...just kidding so don't take it personal!


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Total kills by the P-38 in the PTO comes to 1,700 - this figure is a total from it's first combat sortie to it's withdrawel from combat service.
> I don't have a year by year breakdown.



Thanks, if you happen to run across these figures please let me know. I'd greatly appreciate it.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> My basis is, the F6F's weakness was, it couldn't turn



Hi VBF, I like a lot of what you are saying here but I think you meant to say that it couldn't r_oll_ very well. The Hellcat was one of the better turning aircraft of the war.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 26, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> DarrenW,
> For a good understanding you have to grasp how the Japanese pilot training was conducted. Pre-war is was very intensive and the pilots in first line units at the beginning of the war had 1000s of flying hours, many with combat experience in China, and for the IJA, Nomanhan. As these pilots were lost, their replacements lacked the experience. This was lamented as early as the second half of 1942, when commanders at Rabaul complained that the replacement pilots arriving lacked experience in the A6M, having trained only on the A5M. Also, the military culture extolled aggressive, offensive action and disdained self preservation, as seen in decisions to fly without parachutes, and the ideal of a virtuous self-sacrificing death in the face of bad odds. Hata and company, in _Japanese Naval Fighter Aces, _reports on the quality levels of the various fighter units during the war. By the time the Hellcat arrives on scene the experience levels have fallen to a point where most pilots in a unit are considered category C, that is barely trained.


There's no doubt about that, Greg. And it figured into the war, and prominently. By contrast, has anyone ever seen any film on the American "home front?" Those were mostly women in those factories. And in engineering and design, too. Grumman even had a woman test pilot on the XF6F. As Japan was going down, we were going in the other direction, gearing up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> At least I can still get a h-rd on...just kidding so don't take it personal!



Well considering I only in my late 30’s, and my wife is pregnant, I am sure I can too. So yeah, no offense taken...


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 26, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hi VBF, I like a lot of what you are saying here but I think you meant to say that it couldn't r_oll_ very well. The Hellcat was one of the better turning aircraft of the war.


Hey Darren, I meant they turned too wide. The lighter A6Ms had a better radius, they could turn inside the heavier F6Fs.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 26, 2018)

I give you Elsie MacGill - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well considering I only in my late 30’s, and my wife is pregnant, I am sure I can too. So yeah, no offense taken...



Wow, a youngster! And congratulations on the baby!


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> Hey Darren, I meant they turned too wide. The lighter A6Ms had a better radius, they could turn inside the heavier F6Fs.



Fair enough!!!


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 26, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> Plus, the F6Fs could take more punishment. Just wing an A6M, it's a cripple.


Working from this, what was the normal behaviour when a fighter was hit? My feeling is that any pilot, no matter how robust his machine, when hit is going to remove himself from the fight as soon as possible. I really can't see an F6F pilot getting a couple of hits from a A6M and thinking "Hey, it's just a Zeke, I'll carry on because I'm in a tougher machine". The crippling hit on an A6M's wing is going to be no more terminal in the immediate case than the same hit on an F6F's wing.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Working from this, what was the normal behaviour when a fighter was hit? My feeling is that any pilot, no matter how robust his machine, when hit is going to remove himself from the fight as soon as possible. I really can't see an F6F pilot getting a couple of hits from a A6M and thinking "Hey, it's just a Zeke, I'll carry on because I'm in a tougher machine". The crippling hit on an A6M's wing is going to be no more terminal in the immediate case than the same hit on an F6F's wing.


True but things work a little differently. If an aircraft is hit and on fire the pilot will normally bale out. However with the difference in fire power and construction statistically the Zeke was much more likely to be hit and catch fire for many reasons.

In the BoB the Hurricane was slightly more likely to be hit than a Spitfire, if hit, it was slightly more likely to burst into flames, if it burst into flames it was more likely to burn the pilot. Put all this together and although there were more Hurricanes than Spitfires in the conflict the number of Hurricane pilots lost or burned so badly they never flew again or didn't for months/years was a huge order of magnitude higher.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Working from this, what was the normal behaviour when a fighter was hit? My feeling is that* any pilot, no matter how robust his machine, when hit is going to remove himself from the fight as soon as possible.* I really can't see an F6F pilot getting a couple of hits from a A6M and thinking "Hey, it's just a Zeke, I'll carry on because I'm in a tougher machine". The crippling hit on an A6M's wing is going to be no more terminal in the immediate case than the same hit on an F6F's wing.



This may depend on the pilot and how _into _the fight he is. Once he stops getting hit does he have time to "evaluate" the plane, ie, is it on fire?, is the engine still working? are the flight controls still working/responding? Is the plane yawing or pulling to one side to large degree?_ If not _then carry on with the fight. Or extend evaluation. Gauges all normal? any visible leaks (fuel, oil or coolant) no major holes in wings or parts of aircraft visible? 

Many pilots did carry on the fight after hits from machineguns. Some pilots may have carried on after hits from 20mm cannon but I can't think of any offhand. 

It may also depend on the location of the fight. F6F 200 miles from home? or over his own fleet defending the carrier he may have to land on in 20-30 minutes?


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 26, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Working from this, what was the normal behaviour when a fighter was hit? My feeling is that any pilot, no matter how robust his machine, when hit is going to remove himself from the fight as soon as possible. I really can't see an F6F pilot getting a couple of hits from a A6M and thinking "Hey, it's just a Zeke, I'll carry on because I'm in a tougher machine". The crippling hit on an A6M's wing is going to be no more terminal in the immediate case than the same hit on an F6F's wing.


These Meatballs were built for one thing, offense. At their altitude, they dominated. It took the element of surprise and some slick tactics and skills for the F4Fs to just stay with them. But therein was their vulnerability, too...


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 26, 2018)

While the Zero did have amazing turning ability, at least in the early fighting, the Japanese preferred zoom and boom tactics. Dive down on the target, shoot it up, extend away, then climb and do it again. Thanks to its excellent acceleration and climb rate this was a good tactic, until Allied pilots figured out how to counter it. Once the higher powered allied aircraft arrived on scene, the Japanese had to adapt.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 26, 2018)

In the hands of a good pilot, a zeke remained a dangerous opponent. Put two good pilots up against each other, one in a Zeke and one in a hellcat, its going to be close, but my prejudices influence me to think that the Zeke was more the experts mount, whereas the hellcat was just more survivable and overall could be well flown by both novice and expert alike. The clincher was the ability of the hellcat to take punishment.

ive never flown, so I would very much like to hear to any pilots that have been in harms way at any time. I don't agree that a pilot with a damaged bird would cut and run if he can. He is part of a team, with a set mission, and will continue with that mission until no longer able, or ordered to pull out of the gunline. this is certainly the case on the ground for grunts. it would show a lack of training and discipline for a jockey to act any other way


----------



## eagledad (Apr 26, 2018)

Gentlemen,

I put together a spreadsheet of P-38 victories by the 5th and 13th Air Forces by month and Squadrons. To determine what Squadrons were operational, I used the books Lockheed P-38 Lightning by Jerry Scutts and P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI by John Stanaway. For victory credits, I used USAF Study 85. I know that Study 85 has its problems, but that is the best I have.

I come up with about 350 credits by the 5th and 13th Air Forces in the time frame December 1942 thru the end of August 1943.

Any corrections or additions are welcomed.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 26, 2018)

Lt. Nishizawa, one of Japan's leading aces, accrued all of his victories in the A6M - right through 1944 with an A6M5 attached to the 201st Kōkūtai.

Two days before his death, he downed two F6Fs and in a twist of irony, Hellcats from VF-14 downed the KI-49 transport he was aboard, ober Mindoro Island, as they were being transported to Luzon for replacement A6Ms.

So this will add gravity to the argument that the Zero may have been dated, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, was still to be respected.

In regards to damage to an aircraft, breaches in the skin will disrupt the airflow, causing drag. Bullet holes may not cause much drag, but cannon rounds were known to rip large holes in an aircraft's surface. The more damage, the higher the drag. Add to that, damage to aerleron surfaces will diminish the aircraft's handling. Damage to an oil-cooled aircraft can often obscure the pilot's view by covering the windscreen and canopy surfaces, making flight extremely difficult, not to mention the potential for the engine to overheat and seize within a certain amount of time.

So it all depends on the aircraft type, the extent of damage, where the battle is commencing and who's flying it...

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


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

eagledad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I put together a spreadsheet of P-38 victories by the 5th and 13th Air Forces by month and Squadrons. To determine what Squadrons were operational, I used the books Lockheed P-38 Lightning by Jerry Scutts and P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI by John Stanaway. For victory credits, I used USAF Study 85. I know that Study 85 has its problems, but that is the best I have.
> 
> ...



You really came through for me Eagledad! This is truly the kind of research that I admire and respect!


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Lt. Nishizawa, one of Japan's leading aces, accrued all of his victories in the A6M - right through 1944 with an A6M5 attached to the 201st Kōkūtai.
> 
> Two days before his death, he downed two F6Fs and in a twist of irony, Hellcats from VF-14 downed the KI-49 transport he was aboard, ober Mindoro Island, as they were being transported to Luzon for replacement A6Ms.
> 
> ...



The F6F was tough....and so were its pilots. A friend of mine who flew the Hellcat handed me this photo of his aircraft's port wing which was heavily damaged during attacks on enemy forces in Leyte Gulf. Flying back to his carrier, he struggled greatly to keep the airplane from spinning into the sea but was fortunately able to make a good trap. He told me the wing was replaced due to the extensive damage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 26, 2018)

eagledad said:


> I come up with about 350 credits by the 5th and 13th Air Forces in the time frame December 1942 thru the end of August 1943.



I find it unusually coincidental that Army Lightnings and Marine Wildcats/Corsairs achieved very similar results during the same basic time period.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 26, 2018)

I don't dispute that the F6F, along with most other Allied and German fighters, was able to return to base with carrying an astonishing amount of damage, and that most Japanese fighters did not have the same robustness. However, I see this robustness as primary a strategic advantage; you don't end up losing so many pilots, so your experience level improves. Tactically, I think it adds little.

With minor damage, like a few 303 rounds through the rear fuselage or outer wing panels, I'm sure the pilot would give the stick a wiggle, and if all seemed OK then he would carry on. But the damage shown in Post 75 above would remove the F6F from the combat just as surely as it would an A6M or any other fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 27, 2018)

The high survival rates has a bit to do with the toughness of the aircraft, but this was not the major reason for the higher survival rates amongst USN flyers.

The USN viewed their pilots as a valuable resource, to be conserved at all costs. To this end the USN went to extraordinary lengths to rescue downed aircrews. But it went further than that. Because the USN was inherently larger than the IJN, including its air services and more relevantly because of its massive reserves that had been built up pre-war and in the opening months of the war, they were able set up proper crew rotations, in which whole units could be relieved and the units rebuilt on the basis of meaningful surviving cadres. The result was that with the passage of time, the USN built up not only a massive numerical advantage, but also a qualitative one as well.

This process was well under way by the end of guadacanal. The arrival of the hellcat facilitated that process, but in no way was it a necessary requirement. By November 1943, when the hellcat began to have a meaningful impact, air superiority had well and truly passed to the allies.

In comparison, everything the USN thought was valuable the IJN tended to discount. They gave scant regard to the SAR role for downed pilots. The shortages of shipping and scarcity of numbers from the outset meant that elite units were left at the front to “wither on the vine” providing no cadre of experience to the units that followed. Certainly the Zeke was of ultra lightweight construction and fairly flammable as well, but this card has tended to be overplayed in the post war apologies for its failure. There are simply too many documented instances of Zekes taking heavy punishment and getting home alive for this one thing to be blamed for the entire failure of the whole system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hoosier Hot Shot (Apr 27, 2018)

GregP said:


> I'll go back to the start of this one. According to the pilots we see every month at the Planes of Fame, the Hellcat DID break the back of the Japanese because, for the first time, we had a plane that could out-climb the Zero and almost turn with it even when the Zero was at it's best turn rate. If the Zero was NOT at its best turn rate, the Hellcat could turn with or out-turn the Zero.
> 
> This does NOTHING to diminish the accomplishments of the F4F and P-38 pilots who went before the Hellcat, but they did NOT wipe out all the Japanese Navy's best pilots. Many were still there even through the end of the war. Just not as many as they started with. You could not convince Boyington or others I spoke with they were shot down by rookies.
> 
> ...


I speak from experience when I say that the Japanese fighters that we encountered over Saipan on 29 May, 1944 were much more aggressive than any we met thereafter. I was a belly turret gunner on a Navy PB4Y1.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 27, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Lt. Nishizawa, one of Japan's leading aces, accrued all of his victories in the A6M - right through 1944 with an A6M5 attached to the 201st Kōkūtai.
> 
> Two days before his death, he downed two F6Fs and in a twist of irony, Hellcats from VF-14 downed the KI-49 transport he was aboard, ober Mindoro Island, as they were being transported to Luzon for replacement A6Ms.
> 
> ...


Luca Ruffato in_ Eagles of the Southern Skies_ remarks that damaged Zeros of the Tainan Kokutai usually returned with one or two bullet holes, or they didn't return at all. He also quotes Sakai Saburo about the damage inflicted on a G4M that made an emergency landing at Lea after an attack on Port Moresby. Pretty gruesome.


----------



## taly01 (Apr 27, 2018)

About Japanese Air Power in 1943, My main interest lately has been the New Guinea campaign in 1943-44. Basically the JAAF built up a decent size force during 1943 but were soon very outnumbered by USAF and RAAF build ups. The largest problem for the JAAF in New Guinea was long range bomber raids on their distant "safe" bases by B-24's followed within an hour later by low level B-25 gunships dropping parachute-fragmentation bombs, all escorted by P-38's.

Without radar the interception of the raids was unreliable, and even if the Japanese fighters managed to scramble they were outnumbered around 5:1. However the JAAF continued replacing losses and these in turn were quickly destroyed, close to 70% of all JAAF aircraft losses in New Guinea were on the ground to these raids!

Maybe with radar or a more advanced ground observer system they may have had a chance (although camping in the deep jungle was not easy), also aircraft dispersal was poor as they thought the distant bases were safe (again building a base in the jungle not easy).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 27, 2018)

taly01 said:


> About Japanese Air Power in 1943, My main interest lately has been the New Guinea campaign in 1943-44. Basically the JAAF built up a decent size force during 1943 but were soon very outnumbered by USAF and RAAF build ups. The largest problem for the JAAF in New Guinea was long range bomber raids on their distant "safe" bases by B-24's followed within an hour later by low level B-25 gunships dropping parachute-fragmentation bombs, all escorted by P-38's.
> 
> Without radar the interception of the raids was unreliable, and even if the Japanese fighters managed to scramble they were outnumbered around 5:1. However the JAAF continued replacing losses and these in turn were quickly destroyed, close to 70% of all JAAF aircraft losses in New Guinea were on the ground to these raids!
> 
> ...



Thanks taly01, your detailed information focuses like a laser beam on the topic at hand.

And that's one cool shot of those low-flying B-25s!!!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 1, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> The crippling hit on an A6M's wing is going to be no more terminal in the immediate case than the same hit on an F6F's wing.


I beg to differ. Did you read Horikoshi's book about designing the Zero? In order to save weight he shaved the structural safety margins rather thin. When you lighten a stressed skin structure by thinning the skin, you're eating into its damage tolerance. I very much doubt that a Zero hit the way that Hellcat in the picture was would trap back on the boat, and if it did I doubt it would be considered repairable. I think it would join Davy Jones airforce right quick.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (May 1, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I beg to differ. Did you read Horikoshi's book about designing the Zero? In order to save weight he shaved the structural safety margins rather thin. When you lighten a stressed skin structure by thinning the skin, you're eating into its damage tolerance. I very much doubt that a Zero hit the way that Hellcat in the picture was would trap back on the boat, and if it did I doubt it would be considered repairable. I think it would join Davy Jones airforce right quick.
> Cheers,
> Wes


My point was that that level of damage would have the same effect _on the immediate combat_. That is, irrespective of whether the machine was able to return to base, that level of damage would remove the machine from combat _immediately_. The tactical effect of the damage is the same; the strategic effect varies, due to the differing pilot survival.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 26, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> That is, irrespective of whether the machine was able to return to base, that level of damage would remove the machine from combat _immediately_.


After enlarging and inspecting that photo closely, I revise my judgement. That damage would remove a Zero from combat instantly and permanently, in other words, a shoot down. It would become uncontrollable and the resulting gyrations would cause a stress failure of the already weakened wing. The pilot would be unable to escape even if he wanted to. He would be pinned against the side of the cockpit by crushing G forces.
Now the likelihood of that exact configuration of damage being delivered by a cannon-less F6F is another question entirely.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shinpachi (Sep 27, 2018)

These were ended as experimental models.
The longer rocket is for the OHKA 11 to compare.








Source: 
4式補助噴進器 テスト " 海軍航空技術廠 " 艦上爆撃機 彗星43型試作機 " さっきあげた実験機の緑色塗装したやつで、これは胴体後部下に3本装着した機体です。 後部にある偵察席の窓を塞いだり、尾翼が角ばったりとちょっと変わってます。 このあと量産された彗星43型はロケット装着のため胴体後部下に切り裂きがあります。 " 下に4式補助推進装置(ロケット)をアップにしました。 上は桜花11型についてる噴進器で、下は彗星などについてる補助推進器です。 " " #飛行機 #イラスト #海軍 #彗星 #爆撃機 #航空機 #航空技術廠 #ロケット #軍用機 #japanese #japanesebomber #bomber #battle #warplane #WW2 #aircraft #japaneseaircraft #日本 #空技廠 #海軍航空技術廠 - tamamichi8749
4式補助噴進器 テスト " 海軍航空技術廠 " 艦上爆撃機 彗星43型試作機 " 詳しくはわかりませんが加速用につけたロケットの実験機で、これは機首2本、胴体後部下に3本の計5本装着した機体です。 (この機体は後に緑色に塗装しロケット3本つけたので、このあと上げます。) 彗星43型はロケット装着のため胴体後部下に切り裂きがあります。 " 下に4式補助推進装置(ロケット)をアップにしました。 上は桜花11型についてる噴進器で、下は彗星などについてる補助推進器です。 " " #飛行機 #イラスト #海軍 #彗星 #爆撃機 #航空機 #航空技術廠 #ロケット #軍用機 #japanese #japanesebomber #bomber #battle #warplane #WW2 #aircraft #japaneseaircraft #日本 #空技廠 #海軍航空技術廠 - tamamichi8749

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 25, 2019)

For all the discussion that the Japanese were beaten in the air.
To me is a bit of an exaggeration. It was a war of attrition !
Their biggest weakness was logistics and supply and maintenance of a long war.
The European's learned this lesson a longtime ago, especially after WW1.
On top of that the men had to forage or steal their own food.
Historical data discuss major illnesses of pilots and ground crew which made getting into the cockpit and fighting and issue.

The Japanese planes when they were well maintained were equal to the US and Allies.
Been reading about how their field conditions were horrible. 
Japanese were typically a lot shorted and composition of the soil/surface caused a lot of unnecessary accidents compared to US air fields.

During training in Japan they did not have this issue.
Add to the fact the Japanese fighters were 1 to 2 ton or more lighter made landing a lot easier.
Japanese planes did not have the narrow landing gear of the Wildcat, P36, or P40.

When the Allies took over Indonesia and Philippines they uncovered crated engines a various remote locations.
Then noticed there were lightly damaged aircraft some with missing engines.

In China they did the same thing hording and storing war material to avoid them from Allied air attack.
The Russian's came in at end of the war and took a lot of this war material and gave it to Mao.

There was so much usable Japanese war material and useable aircraft the Dutch, French, British reconditioned the Japanese fighters and bombers.
Flew them for a few years against the insurgents trying to take their land back form the Colonial powers.

If Japan had a better logistics and supply system the Allies would have had a much harder brutal time.
As it was Japan was almost competed its conquest of China by the end of 1945.
However were so weakened that the Russians ran over them easily. 

Air combat over China was frantic with a lot of Japanese Aces created. 
The US, British and CACW (Chinese America Composite Wing) did well.
But Chinese only units suffered badly.
Interesting issue about logistics, enough was sent to the Allies in China to keep British Oil ports open in Burma.

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


----------



## taly01 (Jan 29, 2019)

> The Japanese planes when they were well maintained were equal to the US and Allies.



For 1943-44 period with "ace" pilots the Ki-61 and A6M5 did have some unique abilities but required skill to use them, where as for average pilots the US planes even in 1943 was a superiour plane, the speed and dive advantage meant allied pilots could always enter and leave combat at will. 
But I do not believe the late war japanese pilots overall were much inferior as often claimed, but the combination of less training, slower planes than the enemy and been outnumbered was fatal.



> Interesting issue about logistics, enough was sent to the Allies in China to keep British Oil ports open in Burma.



Burma is interesting as JAAF performed very well until 1944, but they were facing Hurricane and P-36 until almost 1944. But on the "south pacific Front" they faced P-38 and Corsair from early 1943!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 31, 2019)

taly01 said:


> For 1943-44 period with "ace" pilots the Ki-61 and A6M5 did have some unique abilities but required skill to use them, where as for average pilots the US planes even in 1943 was a superiour plane, the speed and dive advantage meant allied pilots could always enter and leave combat at will.
> But I do not believe the late war japanese pilots overall were much inferior as often claimed, but the combination of less training, slower planes than the enemy and been outnumbered was fatal.
> 
> 
> ...



There were only a few P36's in China and were gone by 1940. Hurricane stayed until 1943. Most of the air war was with P40's and some P43's by Chennault. The Chinese had a good batch of P40's but also the P66's and rest of the P43's. Later Mustang, Lightning and Thunderbolts. There were some Spitfires but


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 31, 2019)

WHAT????


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 31, 2019)

Burma, China, India...
what's the difference?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> There were only a few P36's in China and were gone by 1940. Hurricane stayed until 1943. Most of the air war was with P40's and some P43's by Chennault. The Chinese had a good batch of P40's but also the P66's and rest of the P43's. Later Mustang, Lightning and Thunderbolts. There were some Spitfires but


There were no USAAC P-36 aircraft west of Pearl Harbor, the P-36s at Pearl Harbor having been delivered to Hawaii early in 1941. The US Far East Airforce in the Philippines had on hand: the P-26, P-35A and P-40B/E. 

The Curtiss Model 75 types that saw action in the CBI were the British Mohawk Mk.I through Mk.IV (seized French ordered Hawk 75A-1 through A-4) and those served through 1944.
Chennault flew a Chinese Hawk 75H as his personal hack. The Chinese airforce had Hawk 75Ms and 75Qs plus manufactured several under license as the 75A-5, which ended up serving with the RAF and RIAF in India.

The Dutch operated Hawk 75A-7s beyond 1941 and Thailand operated several Hawk 75Ns before and during the war.

American fighters used by the Chinese in the early years of the war, were:
Curtiss-Wright CW-21
Boeing P-26
Vultee P-66
Curtiss BF2C
Hawk 75A-5/M/Q
Republic P-43
Curtiss P-40

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Feb 2, 2019)

> Burma, China, India...what's the difference?


Its the golden (or is it bermuda triangle) of WW2 combat 

The Chinese Air Force early Curtiss Hawk 75's with fixed landing gear is a strange bird!

The variants of the P-36/Hawk 75 and where they all ended up is almost impossible to follow. All the Finnish ones ended up getting Swedish made Twin Wasps of 1065hp due to the low octane fuel Finland used.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 2, 2019)

The CBI is more like the land battle of the Pacific war, whereas the PTO was more of the naval aspect.

With the exception of the occasional Tropical storm or Cyclone, the PTO was a hot, calm-weather naval campaign with intermittent island actions and thus, mostly a Naval theater.

The CBI had a wide range of weather conditions, terrain complications (including the Himalayas), urban warfare and was mostly a land (Army) theater.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> Burma, China, India...
> what's the difference?



Curry?

more serious, see
Warren Weidenburner CHINA-BURMA-INDIA
for maps.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 2, 2019)

Sorry, guys. I forgot to put the _ironic_ icon on my last post.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2019)

The China Theatre was different to the Burma/India TO, moreso in the land war. With a land area greater than Germany, France, and the Low Countries. The Japanese had about 25 divisions to hold this area. there were a further 15 divisions or so on garrison in Manchuria. Five divisions remained in the home islands, 10 Divs in the Pacific and the east indies/Malaya/ Indochina. There were just 2 divs in Burma in 1943.

In China there was never a "font line" as such. The Japanese tended to garrison the urban centres, and the Chinese armies (there were at least two, KMT and CCCP, with numerous private armies under local warlords, some who would fight for either side) amounting to an estimated 500 divs (a div in china could be as few as 200 men, or as much as 40000, if such a thing as a typical KMT division existed, it was about 7000 men, with no logistic tail, no MT no Heavy weapons and no artillery) . 

Most of the actual fighting was actually done by Mao's so called "cadres", another euphemism for armed partisans. these groups never conquered much territory, but they kept the IJA tied down and unsupplied for nearly 5 years. The result was in China a stalemate developed. In 1944, the Japanese raised additional troops and launched aseries of ofensives codenamed *Operation Kogo* (battle of Central Henan) , *Operation Togo 1 *(Battle of Chanheng), and *Operations Togo 2* and *Togo 3*, or the Battle of Gulin /Liazhou, . These were all lumped under the one operational plan, Ichi-Go, ahich had two objectives; open a land route to French Indochina, and capture air bases in southeast China from which American bombers were attacking the Japanese homeland and shipping. 

This offensive was a vicious affair, with Chinese peasants more often attacking the KMT. The KMT suffered more than 5000000 casualties, with the civilian casualties estimated to be 1bout 1.5million deaths. Japan and her local allies suffered about 75000 casualties (we don't know actual IJA casualties),

After the complete withdrawal from Burma, completed by May 1942, there was no contact between the Allied armies and the IJA. The monsoons from June to Late November brought mobile operations to a halt. Further the wholesale transfer of Indian rolling stock to enable the southern lend lease route to the souther Russian border in the Caucasus had led to large scale famines in Bengal, teetering on revolt, which tied down British forces for months. Eventually, however, some offensive moves on a very limited basis were organised into the Arakan Peninsula. The so called Arakan offensive, lasting from December 1942, through to May 1943, was in reality a small scale affair, involving up to 9 Indian army Brigadeds (under the control of 14th Indian Infantry Div) on the attack, being resisted by a single IJA regiment. Later the IJA switched over to attack, and their forcesd were increased to a full division. it was a disastrous campaign, revealing serious weaknesses in the Indian army and their british leadership. Fortunately for the allies, In June 1943, the monsoons intervened again and save their bacon . Some Indian army brigades were so poorly trained they had not even completed their basic training. most of the trained Indian army manpower of the home army was on garrison in Iraq or carrying out the conquest of iran. The 4 divs of the expeditionary forces were in the middle east and north Africa. 

The operations of the chindits, the long range penetration group, was a brigade sized operation, aimed at cutting the Burma railway in northern Burma. A second brigade was added later. It was a substitute for the cancelled main offensive with the group commencing operations February 1943, and commencing withdrawal in April. Many troops, however took months to return

In comparison to what was going on in central China, the Burma theatre was small potatoes. The airlift operations didn't really have much effect until 1943, though the Japanese were very sensitive to any supplies reaching the KMT, understandable really given how badly they were outnumbered. in reality however, the gross corruption within the KMT meant that in reality the resources poured into supporting the KMT were a poor return for the effort. . in many ways those supplies would have been better used in building up and training the indian army

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Feb 6, 2019)

Thanks parsifal for the summary of CBI, i have tried a few times to get some idea whats going on and its very complex.

China seems an enormous land mass for the barely mechanised forces of WW2 Japan, It also looks like China used Fabian tactics (due to their weakness). I am not sure if there were even worthwhile resources Japan gained for their efforts.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 6, 2019)

Offensives were timed for the harvest season. Once the rice was in, the Japanese would attack, seize the harvest and then withdraw to the coastal cities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 7, 2019)

taly01 said:


> I am not sure if there were even worthwhile resources Japan gained for their efforts.



There were huge land and enormous number of people to build up a new empire in China like Mongorians and Manchurians used to do it too.
Not a few Japanese who led, and lead, Japan, including Emperor himself, originated in Korea and China in the history.
The continent was their homeland to be back to.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Feb 9, 2019)

> Not a few Japanese who led, and lead, Japan, including Emperor himself, originated in Korea and China in the history. The continent was their homeland to be back to.



Thanks Shinpachi this is the sort of fundamental information that unfortunately doesn't get into modern military history books. 

The USA support for 1940's China is ironic as it led to Communist China with the change of support to Mao post-WW2 by many high level US politicians leading public and media opinion as the preferred option over Chiang Kai-Shek. The 1945-53 Truman administration was even more infiltrated with communists than Roosevelts 1933-45 one was and Eisenhowers 1953-61 administration was not much better, hence the McCarthy "inquistion" and McCarthy slogan that the US administration had "twenty years of treason" with communism is hard to refute with todays knowledge.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Feb 9, 2019)

I have found this thread very interesting.

I would like to bring up two factors which have not(?) been stressed in this thread so far.


The first is purely operational at a strategic level and revolves around who is on the offensive. At the start of the war the IJN and USN were on a rough parity in ability to fight large scale naval battles and amphibious warfare. The Japanese were on the offensive at sea in an organized and largely pre-planned way until about the end of 1942 or beginning of 1943. The tie(?) at Coral Sea and Japanese loss at Midway put a serious crimp in the IJN's offensive plan and ability. The US quickly gained the offensive in 1943.

A general rule of warfare is that in a maneuver war whoever is on the offensive has an advantage, at least temporarily.

Examples of this are common in the PTO, ETO, MTO, and Eastern Front. In the ETO we saw the successful German attack on France, and the initially successful attack on the Eastern Front against the Russians. In the MTO we saw the see-saw war in the desert between the UK and the Italians or Germans. In the PTO we saw the Japanese successes in the Philipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Dutch East Indies, etc. In most of these cases the attacking forces accomplished the objectives against equal or superior numbers of enemy - mostly because of superior planning and the fact that the enemy was not given time to recover once the attack began. Once the offense was stopped, if the enemy could go on the offensive the advantage switched to the enemy.


The other factor is the ratio of forces. I figure most of the readers of this thread are at least generally aware of the change in ratio of IJN to USN carriers beginning in 1942 after Midway, and the start of the deployment of large number of land based USAAF and Marine aircraft into the PTO.

In the intital engagements between the F4F and the Zero, the F4F faired poorly in kill-to-loss ratio. Once the USN was on the offensive, where the numbers were equal or in favor of the F4F, the kill-to-loss ratio improved. I do not remember the exact numbers claimed/comfirmed kill-to-loss ratio but I believe it was approximately 2:1 overall. (I am seperating the F4F/FM-1 stats from the later war FM-2 stats. The FM-2 was a much better performing model operating in a very different operational environment from that of the early-war model F4F/FM-1.)


In the current(?) subject of the thread, ie Japanese airpower and what was the reason for the apparent drastic change in capability in late-1942 thru 1943, I believe the answer lies mainly in a combination of the above two factors. The introduction of the P-38, F4U, F6F, etc. simply magnified the effect.


Of interest perhaps is the following:

There is a common myth in US tribal lore that the 'Thatch Weave' was some amazingly new method of aerial combat that turned the tide of war in the air, or at least allowed the F4F pilots to survive when outnumbered against the Zero. Neither of these statements is true.

Maybe it was a new tactic to the US, but the concept of mutual support between wing men - or at least members of the same flight/squadron - was not new to the IJN/IJA, Luftwaffe, or RAF/FAA (I would assume it was not new to the French, Italian, or Russians either but I do not know enough about their training and experience early-war to venture any categorical statement). The value of the 'Thatch Weave' (ie mutual support) really only became broadly evident when the US began to outnumber the IJA/IJN during engagements.

Compared to the F4F the Zero was as fast or faster in level flight, had a superior climb rate, a hugely superior turn rate, a higher roll rate at dog-fight speeds, and better visibility from the cockpit. The only area of maneuver the F4F had an advantage in was in dive speed. (I leave out the marginal superior speed at very high altitudes over about 20,000 ft as ther was almost no combat at those heights in the early war.)

The F4F was also less likely to catch fire after the -4 model entered service with self-sealing FTs in late(?)-1942, and the pilot was perhaps more likely to survive hits due to armor being fitted.

When facing equal numbers of enemy aircraft that are that superior in maneuver to yours, the 'Thatch Weave' would simply have ended in two Zeroes tailing two F4Fs and shooting them down. The 'Thatch Weave' primarily worked when two F4F were being tailed by one Zero, the second F4F having a chance to interfere with the Zero safely getting a shot on the first F4F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 10, 2019)

Re: the Thatch Weave -
All air forces practiced some form of mutual support. The RAF and Armee de l'Air used "weavers" as a way to protect their relatively rigid early war formations. They were not particularily successful, since no one was protecting the weaver, and as the Germans noted, the weavers attracted the attention of German fighters more readily than a formation not weaving.
The "Beam Defense" tactic, as Thatch referred to it was to be performed only when the enemy had committed to an attack, at which point the pair was to break into each other, so that the defenders could scare the tailer away and possibly result in an opposite attack if the tailer pursued.
Thatch and other USN pilots noted that the Japanese used fairly predictable attack procedures, and by capitalizing on this were able to counter them.
F4F-4s were first used in combat at Midway. The first F4F-4s had arrived in the fleet with VF-8 on _Hornet _in April 1942. Most USN pilots were not happy with the reduced performance compared to the F4F-3. The F4F-4 was heavier, with the same power as the earlier model. The F4F-3s were all retrofitted with self-sealing tanks by Coral Sea. After Coral Sea, the surviving F4F-3s were put ashore and exchanged for F4F-4s, the on board complement of VF being raised from 18 to 27, due to the space saving of folding wings.


----------



## ThomasP (Feb 11, 2019)

Hi Greg, thanks for the info on the 'weavers'.

Also, thanks for the info on the transition from the F4F-3 to the -4 model. I had not known that the -3 model had been fitted with SSFT by Midway.

re the info on the 'Thatch Weave' aka 'Beam Defense', I could not tell if it supported or contradicted what I had posted? maybe both? Either way could you expand or rephrase?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2019)

If I'm not mistaking it badly, the T-W was trying to employ two pairs at least (not that it would not work with two A/C total). Leader of the pair was to look forward and a bit towards the other pair, while wingman of the starboard pair was scaning to the right, and wigman of the port pair was scaning to the left. Upon seeing the enemy, say on the left, the port pair will make turn to the right, thus a) keeping the distance vs. enemy, and b) alerting the other pair so that pair turns to the left, and fire into enemy in a head-on pass. Head-on pass cancels out maneuverability advantage one side might posses, while favoring the side that has better protection and firepower.
Another advantage of 'loose pairs' is that they will still be flying pretty fast, unlike what will happen in a classic dogfight.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 11, 2019)

Everything I learned about the Weave I got from Lundstrom's _The First Team. _If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> Offensives were timed for the harvest season.



The Royal New Zealand Air Force operated Grumman Avengers, but not as torpedo bombers, so they operated primarily as attack aircraft against land targets. One task they carried out was crop dusting of Japanese crops with aviation fuel! Post war, Kiwi Avengers were used in crop dusting trials with a more productive outcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I very much doubt that a Zero hit the way that Hellcat in the picture was would trap back on the boat



Zeroes could take a lot more punishment that what most people realise. They were not structurally weak, contrary to popular opinion. A light weight structure doesn't mean a weak structure. Yes, Horikoshi carried out lightening measures, which included lightening holes in everything, but it wasn't structurally weak. In Sakai's book Samurai (admittedly embellished a bit by Caidin, unfortunately) he discusses occasions where Zeroes returned back to the carriers completely shot up, their pilots wondering how they made it back in the condition they were in. The following is from a report written for an aviation magazine during the war on the A6M3 Model 32;

"Nothing has been spared to keep weight down, neither excessive manhours to manufacture complex units, nor increasing maintenance difficulties for ground crews. Lightening holes, for example, are used prolifically— even in the pilot’s seat—and diameters as small as half an inch are found throughout the craft. Outstanding of the weight saving measures is complete elimination of protective armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. It all results in a plane that is extremely vulnerable despite good maneuverability at medium speeds.
_This weight-saving design would indicate that the craft is flimsily built but such is not the case, for its strength compares favorably with many American-built planes_."


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 12, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The Royal New Zealand Air Force operated Grumman Avengers, but not as torpedo bombers, so they operated primarily as attack aircraft against land targets. One task they carried out was crop dusting of Japanese crops with aviation fuel! Post war, Kiwi Avengers were used in crop dusting trials with a more productive outcome.


The Avengers were used quite often as bombers later in the war, as their Torpedo Bombing role diminished.

Here's a TBF being loaded for a strike against Japanese held positions.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 12, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> A light weight structure doesn't mean a weak structure. Yes, Horikoshi carried out lightening measures, which included lightening holes in everything, but it wasn't structurally weak.


Obviously not, or it wouldn't have withstood the violent aerobatics for which it was famous, but the issue here isn't structural strength per se, but damage tolerance. Reread "Eagles of Mitsubishi". When you apply the Horikoshi method of weight reduction (increasing the allowable structural elastic deformation at limit load), you are eroding the fatigue life of the structure and reducing the available redundant load paths.
It's the redundant load paths that determine whether a structurally compromised outer wing panel, stabilizer, control surface, engine cowling, etc, stays attached or parts company in flight after being hit. Any product of the Grumman Iron Works is well endowed in this department.
Add to this, the Zeke had a one piece wing, which meant that all the sheet metal reconstruction had to be done in place, taking up valuable hangar space. The Hellcat's damaged wing, as mentioned in the post, was unbolted at the fold line and a new one bolted on, and the bird probably made it on deck for the last cycle of the day. The Zeke, OTOH, if it made it back to the ship at all, might well join Davey Jones Air Force if the time, space, manpower, parts, or residual cannibalisation value aren't worthy of the effort of rebuilding it.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Feb 13, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> American fighters used by the Chinese in the early years of the war, were:
> Curtiss-Wright CW-21
> Boeing P-26
> Vultee P-66
> ...



Hello GrauGeist,
I believe there were also a bunch of Curtiss Hawk III and other assorted Curtiss biplanes in service at various times.

Regarding the general discussion of Japanese pilot quality:
It is worth noting the number of Japanese aces that finished their training before the outbreak of the war as compared with the number that completed their training after the war started. That is a pretty good indication that training and replacement pilot quality during the war were significantly inferior to pre-war.

- Ivan.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 13, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GrauGeist,
> I believe there were also a bunch of Curtiss Hawk III and other assorted Curtiss biplanes in service at various times.
> 
> Regarding the general discussion of Japanese pilot quality:
> ...



Ivan,

That would be correct if your adversary did not improve. Newer, better planes along with better trained pilots / tactics will result in a skewing of the data. I agree the quality decreased on the Japanese side however counting aces is only one part of the equation.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 15, 2019)

DarrenW said:


> We are like kindred spirits my friend. I knew when I saw your moniker that you would be amongst the most intelligent and learned of them all......


Okay, what does that say about me???


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Curry?
> 
> more serious, see
> Warren Weidenburner CHINA-BURMA-INDIA
> for maps.


My Dad served in Burma in WWII.


----------

