# P-38 Lightning VS F6F Hellcat, Pacific Warriors!



## Josh64 (Sep 27, 2009)

The Lightning and the Hellcat were both the fighters that won the Pacific, that is in terms of destroying the Japanese AAF and NAF, but which is better? Now I'm a USAAF/USAF guy but I have to give my vote to the Hellcat. 

So what about You?


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 27, 2009)

Although the P-38 is faster and flies higher than the F6F, My vote is going to the F6F. It was smaller and slower so it was more agile.

I have a couple questions. 

Which aircraft would stall first? 

What was the unit cost of a F6F.? 

I know the P-38 was 115,000 dollars.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 27, 2009)

Describe the mission for each and then we can decide whats best.

The P38 was clearly superior in several catagories, so lets narrow it down.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 27, 2009)

From what I have read, the initial cost of the F6F without all of the government furnished equipment was $50,000 which got down to $35,000 by the time production ended.


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 27, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Describe the mission for each and then we can decide whats best.
> 
> The P38 was clearly superior in several catagories, so lets narrow it down.



Well both were air superiority fighters

Both were aircraft that turned the air war in America's favor

Both destroyed more than 5,000 Japanese aircraft

But I think the F6F was really the first aircraft to better the A6M Zero in the Pacific War


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 27, 2009)

Josh64 said:


> Well both were air superiority fighters
> 
> Both were aircraft that turned the air war in America's favor
> 
> ...



The P38 was designed to be an interceptor, and that was in 1939.

The P40 held its own against the Zero, when flown with the correct tactics. And that was before the Hellcat was even thought of.


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 28, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 was designed to be an interceptor, and that was in 1939.
> 
> The P40 held its own against the Zero, when flown with the correct tactics. And that was before the Hellcat was even thought of.



The P-38 was designed as an interceptor yes, stopping enemy attacks on Guadalcanal, Luzon etc. but it made an even bigger contribution in the Pacific simply blasting enemy aircraft from the sky at an incredible rate which is the Air Superiority Mission. 

The Hellcat performed almost the exact same mission, but for Naval Operations. This is Fleet Defence, Naval Air superiority etc.

But since the Pacific war was a Naval Struggle, this is why I think the Hellcat made a contribution sooner than the P-38 did.

The P-40 could tackle the Zero yes. But this was a "Holding off" action rather than a "Defeating" action.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Josh64 said:


> The P-38 was designed as an interceptor yes, stopping enemy attacks on Guadalcanal, Luzon etc. but it made an even bigger contribution in the Pacific simply blasting enemy aircraft from the sky at an incredible rate which is the Air Superiority Mission.
> 
> The Hellcat performed almost the exact same mission, but for Naval Operations. This is Fleet Defence, Naval Air superiority etc.
> 
> ...



More than a few allied P40 groups would disagree with you about it being "defensive".

Can your vaunted F6F go on 2600 mile missions? Did your vaunted F6F have an equivalant photo recon variant similar to the F4/F5?


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 28, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> More than a few allied P40 groups would disagree with you about it being "defensive".
> 
> Can your vaunted F6F go on 2600 mile missions? Did your vaunted F6F have an equivalant photo recon variant similar to the F4/F5?



Hey man this is just a fun discussion with everyone voicing thier opinions. I respect your opinion and we're all just having fun. But this discussion is about about the P-38 and F6F not the P-40 anyways. And this is for which was the better FIGHTER, not Recon Plane. But again we're all just having fun and I respect your opinion, you make good points.


----------



## davebender (Sep 28, 2009)

> The Lightning and the Hellcat were both the fighters that won the Pacific, that is in terms of destroying the Japanese AAF and NAF, but which is better?


I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Each aircraft had it's wartime niche.

The F6F was a CV based fighter. Somehow I cannot picture the P-38 operating from Essex class aircraft carriers.

The P-38 was a long range aircraft. The F6F does not have the range to escort B24 bombers to places like Rabaul.

Variants of the F4U could perform both missions. The Corsair was the Uber fighter aircraft of the Pacific war.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 28, 2009)

The F6F-5P carried an aerial camera in the lower left fuselage. It could be in the fight while recording the results of the fight at the same time. 

The Hellcat was designed to be a fighter. The P-38 was designed to be an interceptor. 

Adding photo reconnaissance missions to an aircraft doesn't necessarily make it a better fighter. The P-38 carried 2 engines, which was a benefit, but the Hellcat had an air cooled engine, which eliminated the risk of a coolant line getting shot out and eliminated another liquid that would have to be carried on-board a carrier.

Both aircraft performed their roles as fighters very well for their respective services.


----------



## renrich (Sep 28, 2009)

To begin with the Corsair played a bigger role in the Pacific than the P38 did. I recently read that in the Solomons, the availability rate of the P38 was only 38% whereas the Hellcat rate was near 90%. That tells a lot. If the AC can't fly, it does no one any good. There are some factors which may have played a role in that low availability rate such as spare parts shortages, age of AC, etc. The P40 availability was up with the Hellcat's and the Corsair's was around 66%.


----------



## davebender (Sep 28, 2009)

The F6F operated aboard a CV where you've good good maintenance facilities and aerial combat was rare. 
Put the F6F on an island with primative maintenance facilities and where aerial combat happens every week and the availability rate will quickly drop.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 28, 2009)

renrich said:


> To begin with the Corsair played a bigger role in the Pacific than the P38 did. I recently read that in the Solomons, the availability rate of the P38 was only 38% whereas the Hellcat rate was near 90%. That tells a lot. If the AC can't fly, it does no one any good. There are some factors which may have played a role in that low availability rate such as spare parts shortages, age of AC, etc. The P40 availability was up with the Hellcat's and the Corsair's was around 66%.




The P38 squadrons in NG had good enough availablity rates once the supply chain had its kinks worked out. The probem for the P38 groups/squadrons was the priority the MTO had over planes and eqmt. And when you consider the sole P38 group in the Solomons was there only in the first half of 1943, it was too short a time for anyone to draw a fair conclusion.

And I remember that it was only the P38 that had the performance necessary to fly all the way from Guadalcanal to Bougainville. Superior availability rates means nothing if your AC cant even fly to the battlefield in the first place.

Erich .... the two premier photo recon planes of the war were the Mossie and the F5. The Hellcat was second fiddle when it came to that role.


----------



## Skip M (Sep 28, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Can your vaunted F6F go on 2600 mile missions?



The question should be can the P38 go on a 5000 mile mission. The P38 tries to carry lots more fuel and the F6F just brings it's airfield along to refuel it.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Skip M said:


> The question should be can the P38 go on a 5000 mile mission. The P38 tries to carry lots more fuel and the F6F just brings it's airfield along to refuel it.



And when the carrier is port, just where exactly does the Hellcat fly from?

Do you have any idea just how few days carriers were actually at sea?


----------



## Butters (Sep 28, 2009)

Not to mention that airfields rarely get sunk....

JL

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Sep 28, 2009)

So you are going to station a CV task force 225 miles from Rabaul more or less permanenty?


----------



## Skip M (Sep 28, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And when the carrier is port, just where exactly does the Hellcat fly from?
> 
> Do you have any idea just how few days carriers were actually at sea?



By the time the Hellcat was in service in the Pacific the navy could keep some of it's carriers at sea at all times by rotating them for yard time. The point is this is a apples and oranges comparison. One plane is land base with long range and the other has good range and can live on a carrier. They are different and each can go places that the other can not go. With each plane you must have a runway close enough to the target. While the P38 had better range getting to a new airfield with personal and supplies to get within range may be harder then for the F6F. Apples and oranges.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Skip M said:


> By the time the Hellcat was in service in the Pacific the navy could keep some of it's carriers at sea at all times by rotating them for yard time. The point is this is a apples and oranges comparison. One plane is land base with long range and the other has good range and can live on a carrier. They are different and each can go places that the other can not go. With each plane you must have a runway close enough to the target. While the P38 had better range getting to a new airfield with personal and supplies to get within range may be harder then for the F6F. Apples and oranges.



By the time the navy could keep its carriers at sea for extended times, it was late 1944.

You need well developed fleet anchorages to do that. Even with under way replenishment, your tankers and cargo ships need somewhere to stage from.

Agreed with the apples and oranges argument though.


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Each aircraft had it's wartime niche.
> 
> The F6F was a CV based fighter. Somehow I cannot picture the P-38 operating from Essex class aircraft carriers.
> 
> ...



I just chose these two aircraft because of their equal success in destroying Japanese aircraft. Putting aside Army, Navy, and mission differences, they were both the most successful destroyers of Japanese Aircraft. Since the aircraft are very different as you say and I agree, I'm just curious what people think allowed each of them to achieve equal success, because of thier differences.


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 28, 2009)

I see alot of good and accurate comments about the Corsair. But I chose the Hellcat because it destroyed twice as many aircraft as the F4U did. I'm just simply talking numbers when I chose the P-38 and F6F


----------



## renrich (Sep 28, 2009)

This from Tillman's book. "Corsair", December 1943 during the fight to neutralize Rabaul. "Air Sols had nearly 270 fighters on hand.But 69 were P39s, ill suited to aerial combat with their short range and mediocre performance at altitude. Of the remaining 200, the majority were F4Us and F6Fs. The 71 Corsairs represented one- quarter of all Airsols fighters followed by 58 Hellcats. There were also 39 American and New Zealand P40s and 31 US Army P38s." " In other words the Corsair squadrons maintained an average two- thirds in commission rate compared to over 90 per cent for F6Fs and P40s. The complex, sophisticated Lockheed Lightnings were lowest with 38% operational." This was landbased air power, not carrier based. The AC must have been similarly supported by ground crews. It is clear that the Hellcat was more easily kept operational. The fly in the ointment is that the Hellcats may have had less hours on them than the P38s and Corsairs. But then there are the P40s.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 29, 2009)

The F6F was very good, great even. It was reliable and maybe the perfect carrier fighter because of its stability at low speed and on approach. 

But, IF it had not come along, the F4U could have done the mission, almost to its equal. (or dare I say better?) The Corsair's only real shortcoming was its carrier landings, we all know that story, and it was ultimatley fixed. But if that is all the Navy had, shortcomings or not, it would have been the replacement for the F4F Wildcat.

Now the P-38 Lighting is a bit different. It was out there in the field very early. It too had problems, but it had range and offensive capability that no other allied fighter had at the time...anywhere! Not until the P-51B was there another allied fighter that had the range and offensive / escort abilties. If the U.S.Air Corps in the Pacific, had to wait until 1944 or later for Mustangs, how long would that have extended the war in the Pacific? Which theatre gets priorty? Europe or the Pacific?

As far as serviceability rates. I think even with todays technology, a twin engined turbocharged aircraft will always have more down time than a single engine, supercharged aircraft. Nature of the beast!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2009)

Syscom, I never said that the F6F was a premier photo recon plane, you asked if it could. The answer is yes, it could. And it could perform that recon while still armed. But whether a plane can perform other duties or not does not dictate whether is was a good fighter or not.

On Mike's point about twin turbocharged versus single supercharged, I agree. Also keep in mind that the Hellcat also was air cooled. Liquid cooling systems add more things to stay on top of, especially on remote airstrips.


----------



## renrich (Sep 29, 2009)

US piloted fighters killsl in PTO, Hellcat-5257, Corsair-2155, P38-1700. How does the P38 have equal success to either Navy, Marine fighter?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2009)

renrich said:


> US piloted fighters killsl in PTO, Hellcat-5257, Corsair-2155, P38-1700. *How does the P38 have equal success to either Navy, Marine fighter*?



The the role it served with the AAF, it's ability to perform multi roles and it performed when it was call upon.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2009)

Let's not forget that it was a flight of P-38s that got Yamamoto.


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 29, 2009)

I guess if you go by kills alone, the Hellcat is the better fighter. But I do not feel this is a good comparison/scenario as the two fighters were made, designed and used for different roles. The Hellcat engaged the enemy more times than the P38. A fair comparison would need to be two fighters that had equal access to the enemy, or were made in similar numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2009)

evangilder said:


> Syscom, I never said that the F6F was a premier photo recon plane, you asked if it could. The answer is yes, it could. And it could perform that recon while still armed. But whether a plane can perform other duties or not does not dictate whether is was a good fighter or not.



Exactly Eric, I too am trying to figure out how an aircraft being capable of performing photo recon determines what kind of fighter it will be. Got me stumped...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 29, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly Eric, I too am trying to figure out how an aircraft being capable of performing photo recon determines what kind of fighter it will be. Got me stumped...



Now that I think of it, both of you are correct.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 29, 2009)

If i had to choose 100 of either plane it would be the Hellcat if for no other reason than easier maintenance, shorter learning curve for pilots and lower initial cost. That doesn't mean I don't love the P38 and its long legs!

While there is no doubt the P38 would stand alone in certain missions, I believe the F6F is a better strategic choice.

You cant choose a plane based on speed, range and altitude stats alone..

.

.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Sep 29, 2009)

As far as contributions to the victory in the Pacific, I can't see that it is any contest. Without the Pacific Fleet, the war in the Pacific could not have been won. The Hellcat protected the Fleet and enabled the Fleet to do it's job. It was also a good fighter bomber and delivered a lot of bombs and rockets onto the enemy. I don't have stats to prove it but I suspect the Hellcat in the Pacific had a record that showed it was much better in the fighter bomber role than the P38. In spite of another thread that is going on, if the US had not had either the Hellcat or Corsair aboard it's carriers, the war would have lasted a lot longer and been more costly to the US. I don't believe the same argument can be made as strongly for the P38.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 29, 2009)

I agree with you 100% Renrich. I think the last half of your post #33 pretty much sums up the discussion as it stands.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 29, 2009)

Even though the bulk of the skilled Japanese airmen (IJA and IJN) had been knocked off by P40, P38 and F4U pilots?

Remember the huge carrier task forces did not make their presence felt untill 1944. In which by that time, the air war had been pretty much been decided.

in 1945, what would you rather have defending your fleet against Kamikazi's .... Corsair or Hellcat?


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2009)

Against Kamikaze, I would choose the Bearcat.


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 29, 2009)

renrich said:


> US piloted fighters killsl in PTO, Hellcat-5257, Corsair-2155, P38-1700. How does the P38 have equal success to either Navy, Marine fighter?



Are you Sure? I have seen multiple sources stating that the P-38 had nearly equal success as the Hellcat.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 30, 2009)

I believe those numbers are correct, or close.

The Hellcat was put into a target rich situation more than the other aircraft, which afforded it the opportunity to have more kills. Obviously it was a great fighter and it (and the pilots) cashed in on that and made many kills.

But it is the carrier task force itself, that gave the Hellcat its ability to be there. If the Hellcat did not exist, it would have been the Corsair. We will never know how the outcome would have been, but certainly the Corsair would have had more kills than it ultimately had during the war.

The Lightning obiously was restricted to land bases. So the range of the aircraft itself was paramount! IF you were to put the Hellcat into the shoes (and air strips) that the Lightning had to operate from, I say the Hellcat would not have had as many kills as the P-38 was able to achieve in the same scenario. Had the Lightning not existed, the Navy and Marines would have had to carry even more of a burden of the war in the Pacific. Or they would have had to wait until P-51's came on line _in strength_ for the Air Corps to contribute what it did in the theatre.

In short, the Navy could have lived without the Hellcat. ( with the Corsair being available) I don't think the Air Corps could have lived without the Lightning.


----------



## renrich (Sep 30, 2009)

Those numbers are, I believe, accurate and came from official sources.


----------



## Josh64 (Dec 17, 2010)

Wow I totally forgot about this thread, anyway thanks everyone for the contributions. When looking at this topic the way most did I agree it was confusing/difficult to make a comparison between the two types. I just picked the P-38 and the F6F because as I said they were the USAAF's and USN's most successful fighters in terms of aerial victories. I'll be honest and say I didn't think of all the other factors at first, but now I see why this was sort of a strange comparison.

I guess I should've done P-38 vs F4U as both were (well F4U was mostly) land based, and had more similar roles and achievements.


----------



## Josh64 (Dec 17, 2010)

renrich said:


> Those numbers are, I believe, accurate and came from official sources.



Right you are, I'm not sure where the sources I was looking at got their info. I should've figured though, your stats make alot more sense


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 17, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Even though the bulk of the skilled Japanese airmen (IJA and IJN) had been knocked off by P40, P38 and F4U pilots?
> 
> Remember the huge carrier task forces did not make their presence felt untill 1944. In which by that time, the air war had been pretty much been decided.
> 
> in 1945, what would you rather have defending your fleet against Kamikazi's .... Corsair or Hellcat?



What may have been the F6F's greatest attribute was it's forgiving docile nature and tough airframe. Mated to the flood of trained but green naval pilots being churned out by the US, it made for a formidable combination. It allowed many a green pilot to become a veteran. So while declining Japanese skill and aging technology contributed to the kill totals, this other attribute, to me anyway, along with solid performance, helped turn the carrier TF's into juggernauts. Quantity has a quality all of it's own after all. 

Kamakaze's require a pure interceptor as time on target is the biggest factor, hence, i'd go with the F4G if an F8F isn't handy. . Better yet....a Stinger missile would be my preference.

I still recall the interesting comments recorded in the book "Zero!" in which, contrary to the stat happy arguments that tend to favor the Corsair, it was stated that the F6F was more feared because it was both fast 'and' very maneuverable whereas the Corsair was extremely fast but with enough warning they could get out of it's way.

The P-38 simply gave them coniption fits because of it's ability to dive out from the stratosphere and then zoom back up into that thin air thx to it's turbo-superchargers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2010)

Comparing P-38 F6F is like comparing apples oranges. The main plus for the P-38 was that it was available in time to confront Japanese in time they were having upper hand, while F6F have had the luxury to fight an enemy already decimated, both in quantity quality.
On the other hand, P-38 was not employed aboard CVs, and it was more expensive, though not prohibitively for USA.
So IMO both lovely planes complemented each other in PTO.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 17, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> I still recall the interesting comments recorded in the book "Zero!" in which, contrary to the stat happy arguments that tend to favor the Corsair, it was stated that the F6F was more feared because it was both fast 'and' very maneuverable whereas the Corsair was extremely fast but with enough warning they could get out of it's way.



I read something a Japanese ace said about the F6F. He said, "It would get behind you and just shower you with bullets, it was awful". 

All the stuff you said about the F6F is true. Simple, rugged, easy to fly. Add to that, faster than the fastest Zero and with an ammo load that allowed it to put out a lot of lead for a while. 

While I like the F4U, I'd rather fly the F6F. 
IMHO

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2010)

About the only thing can be said about comparing these two in the PTO is that they were both high performance fighters with widely diverging mission profiles, one having more flexibility to perform mission (F6F - both carrier and land capable), one having a more range, better climb and acceleration and a second engine security blanket (P-38 ).

For land based comparisons (only) the 38 was more flexible as either an interceptor, long range escort, recon and fighter bomber - but the F6f by virtue of its carrier qual could do the sme things, not quite as well - but one hell of a lot further away and closer to Japan's center of gravity.

After that the single most important aspect of the Hellcat is that it had a huge tactical footprint - and able to deploy deep into Japanese held territory by virtue of being taxied to and from by Carrier battle groups - while the P-38 had to wait for forward land bases to be taken and constructed - but necessarily far behind the F6F possible deployments.


----------



## renrich (Dec 19, 2010)

This thread is about P38 and F6F which I think, the statistics show that there is no comparison as to their impact in the Pacific War. After mid 1943, when the Hellcat became available, it was a workhorse. The Hellcat was reliable, sturdy, relatively easy to operate either from land or a carrier and was relatively easy for pilots to learn to operate. The performance edge the F6F3 over the A6M, however was not great. The F6F5 had better performance and it was somewhat better against the A6M.

An interesting comparison regarding F4U versus F6F is the report on the Williams site comparing the F4U1 and F6F3 versus an FW190A4. Based on that report the F4U1 has a significant edge in performance in every way over the F6F3. Climb, roll rate , maneuverability, Vmax at most altitudes. In addition, post war accounts I have read say that the F4U was an easier airplane to be a good gunner in than the F6F primarily because of better control modulation which contributed to better maneuverability.


----------



## Josh64 (Dec 28, 2010)

I see people are still posting how the comparisons of these two aircraft is wrong. Okay as I've said the only reason I chose the P-38 and F6f is because they both performed similar missions for ther respective services (air superiority, sweeps, and ground attack). I know that their kill tallies were vastly different, and that the F6F flew in the naval campaign, etc. Put aside kill totals, services, the difference between a naval war and a land based war. The fact that they were both the most successful fighters for each service is the reason I chose these two aircraft. Yes the F6F as a naval aircraft made a larger impact in the Pacific war because it was mostly a naval struggle, and gaining the advantage in this arena prevented the Japanese from gaining any further success. However the P-38's contribution in gaining air superiority over the Southwest Pacific, Rabual, New Guinea, etc. and therefore ensuring succesful conquests of Pacific islands made it one of the most important aircraft of the war as well. Yes the pacific war was a naval war I know I know, but it could not have been won without the help of the USAAF and other land based air forces. I completely understand and agree with what everyone is saying, and they are great points. I just thought I'd try and make it clear one more time.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 28, 2010)

I would be careful stating the Pacific was more of a Naval struggle. There were a lot of Army units involved in the Pacific as well and _together_ they got the job done. That being said, let's not forget that it was a flight of P-38s that took out Yamamoto.


----------



## Josh64 (Dec 28, 2010)

evangilder said:


> I would be careful stating the Pacific was more of a Naval struggle. There were a lot of Army units involved in the Pacific as well and _together_ they got the job done. That being said, let's not forget that it was a flight of P-38s that took out Yamamoto.



That's not what I meant at all. I completely agree. Please look at all the previous posts saying that the F6F was superior because it could take off from a carrier which made it more versatile. The only reason this would be an advantage would be because it could go places that a land based aircraft couldn't and also enabled it to help destroy the Japanese navy which was what the core of Japanese power in the pacific was based on (this doesn't mean it accomplished more or was better than land power). I agree with you.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2010)

Josh, the P40's and the F4F's had pretty much wrecked the best the IJN and IJA had to offer well before the USN had the Hellcats in any sizable number.

The P38 had its unique operating environment and the F6F had its. Either would have failed in trying to do the others.


----------



## Josh64 (Dec 29, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Josh, the P40's and the F4F's had pretty much wrecked the best the IJN and IJA had to offer well before the USN had the Hellcats in any sizable number.
> 
> The P38 had its unique operating environment and the F6F had its. Either would have failed in trying to do the others.



I completely agree, there are too many aspects involved which make it impossible to determine what aircraft was "better". Obviously the P-40 and F4F fought very highly skilled foes, and caused attrition from which the Japanese never recovered in 1941-43. 

I'm not saying the F6F was better, I just chose it in comparison due to it's combat record and versatility (yes just opinion based). All fighter types played such an important role that there is no way to compare them because none performed exactly the same missions under the same circumstances, yes some were very similar but all played their part in winning the war.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 29, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Josh, the P40's and the F4F's had pretty much wrecked the best the IJN and IJA had to offer well before the USN had the Hellcats in any sizable number.
> 
> The P38 had its unique operating environment and the F6F had its. Either would have failed in trying to do the others.



SBD (Dauntless) wrecked many of IJN creme aboard the carriers during Midway, too, hence making job for all Anglo-American fighters much easier.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> SBD (Dauntless) wrecked many of IJN creme aboard the carriers during Midway, too, hence making job for all Anglo-American fighters much easier.



The actual number of aircrew deaths at Midway is far smaller than you are implying. 

Read "Shattered Sword" for the facts.

It was the attrition of IJN aviators in the Solomons and IJA aviators in New Guinea in the later part of 1942 and early 1943 that sucked the life blood out of Japans aviation resources.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 29, 2010)

Thanks for the info; would you provide some numbers before I snatch the book from Amazon?


----------



## renrich (Dec 29, 2010)

Here are the kills credited to US piloted fighters during WW2 in the PTO:
F6F-5257
F4U-2155
P38-1700
F4F(FM)-1408
P47-697
P40-661
P51-297
As one can see, both the F6F and F4U supassed the P38 in actual kills and the lowly F4F came close to the P38 in kills. The P38 could undertake some missions the other fighters could not handle because of the P38's longer range. Obviously the Navy fighters could operate off of carriers as well as shorter landing strips. The P38J required 1080 feet to get off the ground. The F4F4 could do it in 710 and the F4U1 could do it in 750 feet. I don't have the figures for the tonnage of bombs dropped by the various types except for the Navy planes. The F4U dropped more than 15000 tons of bombs and the F6F more than 6500 tons. I suspect that both exceeded the amount dropped by the P38 and the F4U almost certainly exceeded the amount dropped by the P38.

The Wildcat was certainly the most effective fighter in the PTO during 1942, when the IJN pilots were some of the best in the world. Later in 1943, the P40s, F4Us, and P38s gradually took over the burdens the F4F had carried in land based actions but the F4F(FM) soldiered on from the Jeep carriers in the PTO and the ETO. The P38 required more ground support than any of the Navy planes, needed more fuel and more spare parts. All of those items were in short supply in the PTO, particularly in the 1942-43 period. Still the P38 did not have the availability of the Navy planes.

It is hard for me to see how the P38 can be ranked as the most important land based fighter, or obviously carrier based in the PTO in WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 29, 2010)

I think we all agree that this is not comparing like with like, one is a long ranged land fighter, the other a naval fighter. For that reason the who shot the most down isn't really fair. Naval forces were attacked by large numbers of aircraft, numbers that land based units would be most unlikely to ever see, so the numbers game is I believe to be of limited value.

Another way of looking at this question is to look at the impact on the war if either plane had not existed.
The P38 - no other aircraft could cover this role until the arrival of the Mustang and P47. However I do not believe that the loss of the P38 would have significantly hindered the war on land. There is no doubt that some headline missions were of value but for instance the survival of Yamamoto would not have been the end of the world. Japan was beaten by better logistics, numbers and training, none of which Yamamoto could have influenced one jot.
The Hellcat. The Wildcat held the ring and achieved great things but its my belief that the Hellcat is the plane that broke the JNAF. The Wildcat would have struggled against the more modern IJN fighters, even the A6M5 with its better speed and improved dive was a major threat. Without the Hellcat the island jumping campaign would be at risk and the end of the war delayed. Without the Hellcat the USN would have to wait for the Corsair, which wasn't routinely deployed at sea until quite late in the war. Indeed if you look at the OOB at the end of the war, its striking that almost all the Corsairs at sea in the USN were on the Essex Class carriers, none on the others.

So there you have it. My vote for the most important aircraft of the two is the Hellcat, not because I believe it to be the best of the two, but because its loss would have had a greater impact on the war.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2010)

Good analysis, Glider. Good point about Yamamoto, his loss wasn't a game changer, but I am sure it was a morale boost for the US.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 29, 2010)

Part of it is timing. 
While the F6F was deployed on Carriers well before the F4U the British were Flying the F4U from carriers well before the US navy. With no F6F I believe the F4U would have found it's way onto US carriers earlier. Maybe more accidents but still?
The other bit about timing is that for part of the war the P-38 carried the mantle of best US land based fighter (or best in the USAAF). It provided top cover or the umbrella that allowed the more numerous P-39s and P-40s to operate as they did. 
AHT has some interesting production numbers. At the end of 1942 1687 P-38s had been built compared to 2871 P-39s, 6883 P-40s, 533 P-47s, 772 P-51s (allison powered) 1900 F4Fs, 179 F4Us and 10 F6Fs. 
During 1943 2497 P-38s were added compared to 4947 P-39s, 4258 P-40s, 4428 P-47s, 1710 P-51s (most with Merlins but the majority don't start showing up until past mid year)), 1537 F4Fs, 2293 F4Us and 2547 F6Fs. 
It is not until late in 1943 that the P-47 takes the lead from the P-38 in production, Merlin Mustangs aren't showing up in numbers at all until the second half of the 1943, the F4F is being phased out until the FM-2s stage a resurgence in 1944. 1943 saw 2293 F4Us and 2547 F6Fs. At the end of 1943 you had production totals of 4184 P-38s compared to 5023 F4Us and F6Fs combined. 
For all of 1942 and a good part of 1943 if you wanted a American fighter that was good over 20,000ft and had range you had one choice, the P-38. 
It helped hold the line and was the premier fighter at the start of the offensives. Could the US have succeeded without it? Yes, but it would have been harder and more costly and taken more time in the beginning. Every theater commander wanted more P-38s during those first two years because there wasn't anything else that could do the job the P-38 could. By 1944 the story was changing and by 1945 it had changed but that does that mean the P-38 was no good or didn't play an important role in the war as a whole?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2010)

No one here is saying that the P-38 was no good. These 2 aircraft had very different roles to fulfill and comparing them is an apples to oranges comparison. It certainly had its share of issue (what high performance piston fighter didn't?), but it did what was asked of it, and it did it fairly well.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 30, 2010)

The only thing that seems to go against the P-38 is cost. I dont think any other airforce could have afforded to spend so much on a fighter. I have often wondered if the real reason the RAF rejected it was not because of performance problems (they could be fixed) but because they realised it would be a maintenance hog and require such a big logistics tail.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> The only thing that seems to go against the P-38 is cost. I dont think any other airforce could have afforded to spend so much on a fighter. I have often wondered if the real reason the RAF rejected it was not because of performance problems (they could be fixed) but because they realised it would be a maintenance hog and require such a big logistics tail.



The P-38 was anything from a "maintenance hog" when you considered the missions it had to perform and the benefits that came with operating a fighter with two engines. In the Pacific, especially during 1943, it was the only fighter that gave the USAAF the ability to take the fight to the Japanese from land bases. I guess the Mosquito was a maintenance hog as well?!?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2010)

I wonder how cheap the Me 110 was compared to a 109?
Or a Ki 45 Nick compared to a Ki 43 Oscar?
Bristol fighters were cheap compared to Hurricanes or Spitfires?


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> The only thing that seems to go against the P-38 is cost. I dont think any other airforce could have afforded to spend so much on a fighter. I have often wondered if the real reason the RAF rejected it was not because of performance problems (they could be fixed) but because they realised it would be a maintenance hog and require such a big logistics tail.



Unless you have two aircraft of similar performance would cost come into the equation, a situation that doesn't apply here. As for the RAF the version they rejected wouldn'y hae been up to the job and as for it being a maintenence problem, I believe that to be a false trail. Any twin is going to need more maintanence than a single but my view is that if the aircraft can do a decent job then its of secondary interest to the senior ranks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

Glider said:


> Unless you have two aircraft of similar performance would cost come into the equation, a situation that doesn't apply here. As for the RAF the version they rejected wouldn'y hae been up to the job and as for it being a maintenence problem, I believe that to be a false trail.  Any twin is going to need more maintanence than a single but my view is that if the aircraft can do a decent job then its of secondary interest to the senior ranks.



Also consider the P-38s evaluated by the RAF did not have turbochargers, and there were numerous conspiracy theories why this happened.

Yes, it's obvious that a multi engine aircraft will require more maintenance than a single engine aircraft, but to assume that a twin, be it a P-38, Mosquito or Me 110 is a "maintenance hog" because of that extra engine is just nonsense unless one can come up with some real and tangible evidence to support their claim.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2010)

A twin will require more maintenance than a single. but since every major power at least experimented with twins because the singles didn't have enough power to a particular job ( range, weight of armament, climb or combinations) it is safe to say that maintenance issue alone would have noy stopped adoption if a particular aircraft was the only game in town for certain missions. 
This applies to given time frames. The fact that a 1943-44 single can do things close to what a 1939-40 twin can do will be ignored.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 30, 2010)

I am not critiscing the P-38 guys its one of my favourite WWII aircraft. However my thinking on the RAFs thoughts at the time came from my father who was an RAF fitter. He wasnt in the service at the time of the RAF evaluating the P-38 he didnt join up till December 1942 but he told me that the RAF was not keen on Turbo-superchargers. He also said the RAF never ran short of pilots but properly trained fitters were always in short supply particulary in the first half of the war. Perhaps worries about a shortage of ground staff sufficently skilled to deal with what was by the standards of the day a very complicated beast came into it. Even by the wars end on a Coastal Command squadron there would be as few as 6 men available to work on a Liberator getting it ready for a ASW flight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> I am not critiscing the P-38 guys its one of my favourite WWII aircraft. However my thinking on the RAFs thoughts at the time came from my father who was an RAF fitter. He wasnt in the service at the time of the RAF evaluating the P-38 he didnt join up till December 1942 but he told me that the RAF was not keen on Turbo-superchargers. He also said the RAF never ran short of pilots but properly trained fitters were always in short supply particulary in the first half of the war. Perhaps worries about a shortage of ground staff sufficently skilled to deal with what was by the standards of the day a very complicated beast came into it. Even by the wars end on a Coastal Command squadron there would be as few as 6 men available to work on a Liberator getting it ready for a ASW flight.



Perhaps then it was his perspective based on where he was and what he was doing at the time (and due respect to him as well) but in actuality the P-38 had a very good mission capable rate despite having the extra engine to deal with.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2010)

I doubt the P-38 was intended to replace either the Hurricane or the Spitfire. 
Bristol Blenheim fighters would be a good candidate. Alternative to the Whirlwind? Supplement Beaufighters? All twins with higher maintenance needs than a single. The plan fact that without the turbos the model 322 had performance well below what the British had been lead to expect sounds at least as likely. Trying to use a common engine with the P-40s to be delivered during the same time frame does show some concern with maintenance issues but the deletion of the counter rotating propellers in pursuit of this goal further degraded the aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks for the info; would you provide some numbers before I snatch the book from Amazon?



121 aircrews lost (which includes non pilots in VB and VT types)
370 aircrews survived. 

Bad losses but far from crippling.



> Shortround6 ..... I doubt the P-38 was intended to replace either the Hurricane or the Spitfire.



The P-38 was designed from the start as a high altitude bomber interceptor. It was put into the traditional fighter category due to necessity, not by design.

As for the P-47's performance in the Pacific; it was not effective at all. Its short range kept it out of many a battle that the P-38 could fly to. And the P40 had far better performance at the lower and middle altitudes.

We can also say that like the F4U, the moment the P38 came on the scene, it had such a performance advantage over the Japanese types, it dominated the sky. And with its long legs, it could go to where the bombers went. A land based Hellcat did not have the range. That's why the P38 has an edge up on the Hellcat.

Not once in the war did a Japanese type ever have a performance edge over The P38 as to make it vulnerable. But the Hellcat was dated in 1945 as better Japanese designs took to the air. It was by fate that the Hellcat had many of its kills against poorly trained pilots flying inferior aircraft. But during the rare times later in the war when a good Japanese pilot was flying a modern type, the Hellcat was shown not to be an invincible machine and suffered accordingly.


----------



## Swooper (Dec 30, 2010)

Ive always been a big fan of the P-38, such a powerful looking plane. The hellcats main advantage was being carrier based which was very important so I have to give it the edge there.


----------



## renrich (Dec 31, 2010)

From "Corsair" by Barrett Tillman, page 55. 

"At this time AirSols had nearly 270 fighters on hand. But 69 were P39s, ill suited to aerial combat with their short range and mediocre performance at altitude. Of the remaining 200, the majority were F4Us and F6Fs. The 71 Corsairs represented one-quarter of all AirSols fighter followed by 58 Hellcats. There were also 39 American and New Zealand P-40s and 31 US Army P38s."

" In other words, the Corsair squadrons maintained an average two-thirds in commission rate compared to over 90% for F6Fs and P40s. The complex, sophisticated Lockheed Lightings were lowest with 38% operational."

This was in December 1943 and age of the airplanes may have had something to do with the in-service rate. The Hellcats were relatively new to the battle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

renrich said:


> From "Corsair" by Barrett Tillman, page 55.
> 
> "At this time AirSols had nearly 270 fighters on hand. But 69 were P39s, ill suited to aerial combat with their short range and mediocre performance at altitude. Of the remaining 200, the majority were F4Us and F6Fs. The 71 Corsairs represented one-quarter of all AirSols fighter followed by 58 Hellcats. There were also 39 American and New Zealand P-40s and 31 US Army P38s."
> 
> ...



Good info, but it's actually known as "Mission Capable Rate" or MC rate. There's also a "Fully Mission Capable" rate that indicates that everything of the aircraft is functional. Aircraft from that era and even today sometimes go out without everything functioning and there's a predetermined lists that specify what must be functional on the aircraft so it can either fly combat or just fly. Again, I'd like to know his source of information on this because there are many variables that go into these numbers and when you take them. For example, you can have parts shortages or damage to aircraft that can't be repaired at the squadron level, so they must go depot, so that's not the fault of the aircraft. You can also have two or three aircraft go into a maintenance phase check for a day or two and that also affects your MC rate. Its obvious that the P-38 will always have a lower over all MC rate because of its engines.

At 31 P-38s running a 38% MC rate you can be looking at 22/ 23 aircraft that were at least MC. One of the big grounding problems with the P-38 was boost problems in the inter-cooler system in models prior to the "J." Again, I'd like to see more specifics on this because I do know that by 1944 the P-38J was running an overall MC rate into the 80%.


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2011)

FB, you would know more about this than I but it seems to me that whether an airplane is ready to fly or not depends a lot on the quality and quantity of ground personnel available to work on the plane and the availability of spare parts. In the Solomons in 1943, from what I have read, the situation was pretty primitive, which must have effected the readiness of AC. Of course in the fall of 1942 and early 43, it was so primitive that spare Navy pilots, whose planes were shot up by IJN shore bombardment or by local artillery were issued 03s and sent to the front lines.

There is a bibliography in the book which is fairly limited. Barrett Tillman has written a lot of books about WW2 AC but I don't know where his info comes from.

In the "Great Book of WW2 Aircraft" on page 19 it says of the P38 in late 1942 in North Africa that the 1st and 14th FGs were to fly Lightnings as units but it was rare to get more than 10 planes on a mission because aircraft and spare parts were scarce. Sounds like the same issue in the Solomons.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

renrich said:


> FB, you would know more about this than I but it seems to me that whether an airplane is ready to fly or not depends a lot on the quality and quantity of ground personnel available to work on the plane and the availability of spare parts. In the Solomons in 1943, from what I have read, the situation was pretty primitive, which must have effected the readiness of AC. Of course in the fall of 1942 and early 43, it was so primitive that spare Navy pilots, whose planes were shot up by IJN shore bombardment or by local artillery were issued 03s and sent to the front lines.
> 
> There is a bibliography in the book which is fairly limited. Barrett Tillman has written a lot of books about WW2 AC but I don't know where his info comes from.
> 
> In the "Great Book of WW2 Aircraft" on page 19 it says of the P38 in late 1942 in North Africa that the !st and 14th FGs were fly Lightnings as units but it was rare to get more than 10 planes on a mission because aircraft and spare parts were scarce. Sounds like the same issue in the Solomons.



All correct Ren, so when one looks at MC rates all this has to be considered. I would see aircraft like the P-39 and P-40 with higher MC rates than the P-38(42 - 43 time frame) because of not only the twin engine situation but both aircraft were in production a lot longer at this point the logistic system was probably well established. Additionally I would bet dollars to donuts that there were a lot more mechanics who were well trained on both the P-39 and P-40 in lieu of the P-38. Of course you need maintainers to keep these aircraft in the air as well as parts. I do know the first combat ready P-38s were slow coming to all theaters, it seems that changed by the end of 1943/ 1944.

In the end, when you can establish a level playing field where logistics and adequate personnel are available for all aircraft, then a measure of real time MC rates can be established, although that scenerio rarely happens. Keep in mind however that the bean counters who look at this stuff do consider parts shortages and inadequate manning so that's why you'll see units living with 25 and 30% MC rates.

In the case of the 14th FG only being able to field 10 aircraft, it would be interesting to know how many aircraft the unit actually had.


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2011)

What would be interesting to know would be the average time that a new fighter would stay in service, not counting if it was destroyed by friendly or enemy action, and also know in which theatre of operatons a fighter lasted longest. I recently received online a series of photos made when the P51s began to operate off of Iwo Jima. I forwarded them to Dan because I know not how to get them on this forum. The photos had captions and it was absolutely amazing how many Mustangs were destroyed not by enemy action in that environment. Crippled B29s making emergency landings destroyed a lot. Landing gear collapses got a lot. Apparently there were bad cross winds. It was stated that the environment there( wind, sand, corrosion, etc.) was very hostile and there were a lot of engine failures. It was not easy duty for the pilots with eight hour missions, most over water.

In the article, it seemed to be saying it was two FGs, 1st and 14th that could only get up ten AC.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

renrich said:


> What would be interesting to know would be the average time that a new fighter would stay in service, not counting if it was destroyed by friendly or enemy action, and also know in which theatre of operatons a fighter lasted longest. I recently received online a series of photos made when the P51s began to operate off of Iwo Jima. I forwarded them to Dan because I know not how to get them on this forum. The photos had captions and it was absolutely amazing how many Mustangs were destroyed not by enemy action in that environment. Crippled B29s making emergency landings destroyed a lot. Landing gear collapses got a lot. Apparently there were bad cross winds. It was stated that the environment there( wind, sand, corrosion, etc.) was very hostile and there were a lot of engine failures. It was not easy duty for the pilots with eight hour missions, most over water.
> 
> In the article, it seemed to be saying it was two FGs, 1st and 14th that could only get up ten AC.




From what I understand many fighters weren't expected to last more than 500 hours. Multi engine aircraft lasted a little longer. Its pretty obvious that many of these aircraft would have probably lasted longer as many of them were abused while in service and I'm sure that shortened the life span for many of them. I have an accident report from my kids' great grandfather who flew B-24s where he was out on a training mission after the war and the LMG collapsed. If I remember correctly the aircraft had 1,800 hours on it which by today's standards is still considered brand new.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2011)

There were some F4's and F5's operating in the SW Pacific as early as July 1942. I dont know for sure, but there had to be the same working in N Africa in the fall of 1942.

I wouldn't doubt that they got first call on spare parts which impacted other groups untill the supply situation worked itself out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> There were some F4's and F5's operating in the SW Pacific as early as July 1942. I dont know for sure, but there had to be the same working in N Africa in the fall of 1942.
> 
> I wouldn't doubt that they got first call on spare parts which impacted other groups untill the supply situation worked itself out.



Agree...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2011)

There was also the 343rd FG that was active in Alaska as early as June 1942.

They too would have been receiving parts and supplies that the other groups had to contend for.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> There was also the 343rd FG that was active in Alaska as early as June 1942.
> 
> They too would have been receiving parts and supplies that the other groups had to contend for.



Yes, and from what I understand they did pretty good for what they had to work with.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2011)

Flyboy, given that that the weather in the Aleutians was generally crappy with the airfields getting fog, ice and snow on a regular basis. I would suspect that the P38's landing gear arrangement would make it the superior AC (compared to any tail dragger) from a take off and landing point of view.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy, given that that the weather in the Aleutians was generally crappy with the airfields getting fog, ice and snow on a regular basis. I would suspect that the P38's landing gear arrangement would make it the superior AC (compared to any tail dragger) from a take off and landing point of view.



On hard and PSP runways, yes - through mud and dirt the tail draggers would have the advantage.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> On hard and PSP runways, yes - through mud and dirt the tail draggers would have the advantage.



I've always seen PSP runways on the Aleutian Islands. The weather conditions precluded anything but.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> I've always seen PSP runways on the Aleutian Islands. The weather conditions precluded anything but.



Yep! For the most part it was a necessity that probably saved lives.


----------



## J.D. (Apr 8, 2011)

My vote goes unequivocally to the Hellcat.

From Wiki:



> Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers)[23] and destroyed 5,163 (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1).[24] The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, and 3.7:1 against the Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war.[25]



Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't say it in the article but it provided around 70% of USN kills. Combined with the Marines, who generally used F4Us, it doesn't look quite so good but still accounts for 56%.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2011)

There is more than few posts on this thread that cover time of use of both planes (from mid 1942 for P-38; from '43 for F6F) - highlighting important difference in quality of Japanese air forces' pilots (declining) and of USN/USAAC (increasing). Bottom line is that achievements of units eqquipped by F4F, F-40, P-39, F4U *P-38* in 1942 - late 43 made life a lot easier for F6F when it appeared in late 1943. 
This is not to say F6F was not a great plane.

As for number of kills vs. number of claims, we have a thread that sheds some light on that.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Mar 31, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> There is more than few posts on this thread that cover time of use of both planes (from mid 1942 for P-38; from '43 for F6F) - highlighting important difference in quality of Japanese air forces' pilots (declining) and of USN/USAAC (increasing). Bottom line is that achievements of units eqquipped by F4F, F-40, P-39, F4U *P-38* in 1942 - late 43 made life a lot easier for F6F when it appeared in late 1943.
> This is not to say F6F was not a great plane.
> 
> As for number of kills vs. number of claims, we have a thread that sheds some light on that.


The F6F is the top air to air fighter of the Allied Nations. You can't change that. The Night Fighter Hellcat had 2x20mm cannons and 4x.50 caliber machine guns. That means it had more powerful weapons then the P-38. The Hellcat was the BEST scorer of the war, and there is nothing you can do to change that. In a dogfight, the Hellcat would shred the P-38, and it was also a better strategic plane. It was the best plane for the USN.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Mar 31, 2014)

The Hellcat destroyed over 5,000 Japanese aircraft. P-38 destroyed 3,785, but (I think) some of those were in Germany


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2014)

In case you decide to stay here a while, you will hopefully learn that I am not here to change historic accomplishments of any people taking part in the historic events, nor the accomplishments of the equipment that was designed and produced for (not only) purposes of war. 
Now, if I may give you an advice or two:



> The F6F is the top air to air fighter of the Allied Nations.



When coming out with such a broad and powerful statement, it wold be good to state the plane's deeds in all ww2 years. You may want to start from 1939. Then you might want to list theaters of war the specific aircraft fought, how good/bad handled the adversaries, how good/bad etc.



> The Night Fighter Hellcat had 2x20mm cannons and 4x.50 caliber machine guns. That means it had more powerful weapons then the P-38.



The 1st sentence might be called 'cherry picking' - choosing of non-common weapon setup and a non-common A/C version, and then claim that your yardstick need to be applied for every other setup/version of your favorite A/C. You might also want to discriminate central and wing-mounted batteries, significance may skew the result of comparison now or then.



> The Hellcat was the BEST scorer of the war, and there is nothing you can do to change that.



Again, stating the numbers of your favorite A/C and other contenders, while also stating the sources, will skyrocket reliability of your broad-sweeping statements.



> In a dogfight, the Hellcat would shred the P-38, and it was also a better strategic plane.



The sentence is an opinion. I have plenty of those, and always want other people to agree with me. Several years ago, I've started to sometimes back my opinions with facts. 



> It was the best plane for the USN.



I am of the opinion that SDB was the best plane for USN. People flying it sunk plenty of ships, including like half of dozen of IJN aircraft carriers, before they even knew about F6F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> The F6F is the top air to air fighter of the Allied Nations. You can't change that. The Night Fighter Hellcat had 2x20mm cannons and 4x.50 caliber machine guns. That means it had more powerful weapons then the P-38. The Hellcat was the BEST scorer of the war, and there is nothing you can do to change that. In a dogfight, the Hellcat would shred the P-38, and it was also a better strategic plane. It was the best plane for the USN.



The ONLY reason why the F6F had “more victory claims” than the P-38 was because of the environment it was placed in. The F6F operated in a much more plentiful target rich environment against IJN units with diminished skill capacity, especially later in the war. The P-38 fought mainly against JAAF units and was able to gain air superiority in late 1942 months before the F6F flew its first mission.

Like many "rookies" who come on here and spout off "Osprey Book" information, with a little research from reliable sources you will find that the 19 to 1 kill ratio of the F6F was based on "Claims" not actual confirmed kills. Despite that the F6F had an excellent combat record.

The P-38(L) had a higher service ceiling, was faster, had a better rate of climb and a higher lift to drag ratio. The F6F had lighter wing loading and was lighter over all, was a bit more maneuverable and probably accelerated better. Although both shared the same range, the P-38 could be taken an extra 500 miles (1,800 miles) if flown properly (Charles Lindberg showed this to the 475th Fighter Group.

Stategic plane? Please explain?

Both aircraft were fine aircraft in their rights but would also outperform each other in certain combat situations. I could tell you my friend that an experienced P-38 driver would never "dogfight," especially at lower speeds. I suggest some research before spouting off about the accolades of one aircraft blindly against another. BTW, for the record, I'm a former sailor (AD).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 31, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> The Hellcat destroyed over 5,000 Japanese aircraft. P-38 destroyed 3,785, but (I think) some of those were in Germany


I'll make a few observations here, first of all: it doesn't go over well to "kick down the door" of the forums and throw your opinion around. If you'd like to make a point, put up some data to back your claim. Your argument you posted regarding the F6F kills versus P-38 kills was invalid the moment you said "I think".

The other observation I make here, is that comparing kill ratios between a USN and USAAF aircraft is apples and oranges. They fought in different situational settings and fullfilled different needs.

So instead of attacking other members with your opinion, how about showing _why_ you choose the F6F over the P-38 with some facts?

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


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

This is a quote: The F6F was a CV based fighter. Somehow I cannot picture the P-38 operating from Essex class aircraft carriers.

I can, but it doesn't end well


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

Oops, why didn't it have the quote thing? Oh well


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

Pros and Cons of the P-38 and F6F

F6F
Pros: Powerful weaponry, great carrier aircraft, pretty maneuverable, was a match for the Zero, easy to maintain

Cons: Somewhat slow, uglier then some planes, did have as much range as most planes in Europe (didn't need as much range)

P-38
Pros: Powerful weaponry, great speed, great range, helped take the Pacific Islands back

Cons: Expensive, not the easiest to maintain, old design

Also, would an Army Hellcat be heavier or lighter? It might be lighter because it would not need the extra strength for the arresting gear, or heavier because it could have more armor because it would not need as short of a runway?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> Oops, why didn't it have the quote thing? Oh well



Be advised that your reprieve is behavior based. For the last time I suggest you browse the forum and figure out the way things work here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Be advised that your reprieve is behavior based. For the last time I suggest you browse the forum and figure out the way things work here.


I know how to do the quotes, it is just I didn't want the whole statement. I know how to do it, but since I didn't want the whole quote, I erased part of it, but accidently erased the part that does the quote bubble


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I'll make a few observations here, first of all: it doesn't go over well to "kick down the door" of the forums and throw your opinion around. If you'd like to make a point, put up some data to back your claim. Your argument you posted regarding the F6F kills versus P-38 kills was invalid the moment you said "I think".
> 
> The other observation I make here, is that comparing kill ratios between a USN and USAAF aircraft is apples and oranges. They fought in different situational settings and fullfilled different needs.
> 
> So instead of attacking other members with your opinion, how about showing _why_ you choose the F6F over the P-38 with some facts?



Thanks, didn't relise I was doing that...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> The Hellcat was the BEST scorer of the war, and there is nothing you can do to change that.



Hmmm, I think the Bf 109 would have something to say about that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 3, 2014)

it's great to carry enthusiasm for a favorite aircraft, but in an international group that has such a wide range of favorites, it's best to bring a _"why"_ to the table when discussing your favorite. It helps everyone see and understand instead of sounding like you're trying to shout the guys down over a ball-team at the pub.

By the way, it's a fact that the F6F did score such a high degree of victories over the P-38, however take into consideration as to how it happened.
Early in the war, Japan had a high number of seasoned veteran pilots and ample aircraft. The victories scored over Japanese pilots were hard earned and came at a heavy price.

As the tide of war changed against the Japanese by improved U.S. and Allied men and equipment started to thin the ranks of the veteran Japanese pilots. Then it got worse. 

By the time the Hellcat was introduced, Japan was in serious trouble. Their pilots had a very short life expectancy, pilots who had very limited schooling and had to face a sky darkened by Allied fighters. So battles like the "Marianna's Turkey Shoot" became a reality for the Empire where it was impossible just several years earlier.

The Hellcat did a solid job of bringing the fight to the Japanese but it also performed a solid job of preventing Kamikaze attacks against the fleet.

So this is why the P-38 had much lower numbers in the PTO than the F6F...it (and other types) paved the way for the F6F to execute virtually unrestricted air superiority


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hmmm, I think the Bf 109 would have something to say about that.



Yes, that was when I was dealing with favoritism instead of facts


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2014)

I am glad we got thet figured out...


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 3, 2014)

OK, now we can all agree the the Hellcat is the best in the world


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 3, 2014)

If nothing else, the P-38 is an interesting example of an aircraft can struggle in one theatre and excel in another. I’m sure I’m going to tread on a few toes by saying so, but in the ETO it was an average performer, and an expensive one at that. Sure, the tactics of the time put it constantly on the defensive as an escort fighter, but it’s also true that it had icing and engine issues at altitude, and it’s tendency to go into compressibility in a dive gave the German pilots and easy out if the 38 got on their tail. As one veretan said: “They could out-turn us, out-dive us and out-climb us – it was their show for quite a while.” 
In the PTO the P-38 shined. There it had a speed and dive advantage over the Japanese fighters it never enjoyed against the LW, and the climate and lower altitudes alleviated the icing and reliability problems. Had the Lightning only fought in the Pacific, we might all be surmising that it could have transferred it’s impressive record to the ETO, whereas in fact history records that it did things much tougher there. This serves as a caveat for assuming the Hellcat, in turn, would have excelled in the ETO from mid- 1943. In fact, I’d say that against fighters that equalled and often exceeded its performance, flown by an air force that still had a solid core of veteran pilots, it would be silly to suggest the Hellcat could have duplicated its PTO record in the ETO. I think that against FW190s and 109Gs The Hellcat would have held its own, just as the P-38 did, but no more, and that it is nonsensical to hold up its Pacific record as evidence of superiority over other types that operated in other theatres.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2014)

Hi Tomo,

A few posts back you implied the F4U made contributions in 1942 and the Hellcat was introduced in late 1943.

Unless I have this wrong the F4U was made operational in the Pacific on 28 Dec 1942, making it, for all practical purposes, around the first of the year 1943. The Hellcat became operation al in the pacific in early February 1943, about 2 months and 1 week later. So they were in service for approximately the exact same time, within a couple of months.

I'm not too sure the F4U blazed much of a trail for the Hellcat in that short timeframe. They fought at about the same time, but the Hellcat was on the carriers in the thick of things while the USA decided whether or not they wanted to fly Corsairs from carriers. If I am not mistaken, deployment of Corsairs on US carriers was not until late 1944, so the Hellcats had a couple of years of a more "target rich environment" than the F4U did.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2014)

Neither plane did anything combat wise until 1943. The first Corsair squadron was 'declared' operational on Dec 28th 1942 but it was still in the United States. First combat Mission was Feb 13 ( no action) with first actual combat on Feb 14 (St. Valentines day Massacre with the Americans being the massacrees. 

First US Hellcat combat Mission was Aug 28th 1943 by land based VF-33 followed in just a few days by carrier operations against Marcus Island.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo,
> 
> A few posts back you implied the F4U made contributions in 1942 and the Hellcat was introduced in late 1943.
> 
> ...



Maybe it would be best to quote a sentence from the post #86:

_"Bottom line is that achievements of units eqquipped by F4F, F-40, P-39, F4U P-38 in 1942 - late 43 made life a lot easier for F6F when it appeared in late 1943. "_

I've stated the time frame of "in 1942 - late 43", ie. from 1942 until late 1943. You are right that F4U didn't do anything for Allied cause in 1942, but they did fight in a good chunk of 1943, prior F6F arrived.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 4, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> As the tide of war changed against the Japanese by improved U.S. and Allied men and equipment started to thin the ranks of the veteran Japanese pilots. Then it got worse.
> 
> By the time the Hellcat was introduced, Japan was in serious trouble. Their pilots had a very short life expectancy, pilots who had very limited schooling and had to face a sky darkened by Allied fighters. So battles like the "Marianna's Turkey Shoot" became a reality for the Empire where it was impossible just several years earlier.


I'm not understanding that last sentence. Is it to say several years earlier there were no Hellcats?


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> OK, now we can all agree the the Hellcat is the best in the world



Sarcasm, correct? I can't always tell here


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> I'm not understanding that last sentence. Is it to say several years earlier there were no Hellcats?


The F6F Hellcat may have been delivered to the U.S. Navy in 1942, but didn't see action against the Japanese until September of 1943.

To expand a little on the part about the "Turkey Shoot":

The Battle of the Philippine Sea commenced on 19-20 June, 1944, and it was a solid defeat of Imperial Japanese forces both in the air and at sea. It was such a route, that it's been nicknamed the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" because Japanese air power was virtually swept from the sky. Estimated losses for Japanese aircraft were as high as 645 against U.S. losses of 123.

Two years earlier, the Battle of Midway commenced 4-7 June, 1942, where the Japanese to U.S. aircraft loss ratio was much closer to a match.

Several factors came into play at the Marianas Turkey Shoot: better radio communications, improved radar, improved and veteran U.S. pilots, poorer trained and fewer veteran Japanese pilots and the presence of dominant U.S. fighters (Hellcat).

Had the Japanese made better decisions and employed better CAP, the attacking U.S. land and sea elements would have fared far worse then they did during the Battle of Midway. At the Battle of the Phillippine Sea, the Japanese land and sea elements simply did not have a chance.


----------



## Totalize (Apr 4, 2014)

These kinds of discussions can really be a can of worms when trying to state which aircraft was better.
Yes, the Hellcat was responsible for downing some 5000+ aircraft but until the Corsair arrived on the U.S. carriers it was really the only fighter the U.S. Navy had to combat the Japanese while the USAAF not only had the P-38 but the P-47, P-51 etc. I think it would be a better comparison to total All the USAAF fighter kiills in the pacific for the same period. I don't know what that number is but I am sure it would be closer comparison.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2014)

Totalize said:


> These kinds of discussions can really be a can of worms when trying to state which aircraft was better.



Agree - but understand that one of the participants in these discussions is a 12 year old...

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2014)

Totalize said:


> These kinds of discussions can really be a can of worms when trying to state which aircraft was better.
> Yes, the Hellcat was responsible for downing some 5000+ aircraft* but until the Corsair arrived on the U.S. carriers it was really the only fighter the U.S. Navy had to combat the Japanese *while the USAAF not only had the P-38 but the P-47, P-51 etc. I think it would be a better comparison to total All the USAAF fighter kiills in the pacific for the same period. I don't know what that number is but I am sure it would be closer comparison.



Re. bolded part: let's not downplay the F4F, the USN carrier-borne fighter for almost half of Pacific war. Carrier-borne USN Corsair didn't became a factor until almost 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2014)

Let's take a look at the total numbers of U.S. victories by type.

But before we do, let's also take into consideration the conditions the U.S. was operating with during the Pacific theater. The Japanese had an advantage at the start with good performing, long range aircraft manned by well trained and seasoned pilots. The U.S. started the war with older or untested designs manned by trained but unseasoned pilots.

As the war progressed, improvement of U.S. aircraft designs, better training and an increase of men and materials caught up to and passed the abilities of the Japanese ability to supply aircraft and trained pilots to the battle front.

This is where the aircraft like the F6F were able to overtake the earlier aircraft types with such high numbers of victories.

The following victories by type represent the PTO only. Any victories in other theaters (ETO, MTO, CBI) are not included:

*F6F:*. 5,160
*F4U:*. 2,140
*P-38:* 1,700
*F4F:*. 986
*P-47:* 697
*P-40:* 660
*FM-2:* 422
*P-51:* 297
*P-39:* 288
*SBD:*. 138
*TBF:*. 98
*P-61:* 63
*F2A:*. 10
*P-36:* 3
*P-43:* 3
*P-26:* 2
*P-70:* 2
*P-35:* 1

The numbers for aircraft listed above include all versions of that type listed. The numbers are as close to accurate as possible, based on various sources.

There may be some that will want to argue over the absolute exact number of victories, but these are presented to show how the F6F measured up to other U.S. types used in the PTO and again, taking into consideration the circumstances (as I mentioned at the beginning of this post) of how it came to have such a high count.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Totalize (Apr 4, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Re. bolded part: let's not downplay the F4F, the USN carrier-borne fighter for almost half of Pacific war. Carrier-borne USN Corsair didn't became a factor until almost 1945.



True, but I believe we are discussing the operational period of the Hellcat versus the same period for the P-38. This period also coincided with that of the Corsair i.e when the Hellcat became operational the Corsair was as well though they were land based at the time. The wildcat was also operational during this period aboard I believe mainly escort carriers but they were not the U.S. Navy's front line fighter (though they got their share of front line fighting in the Battle of Samar when trying to defend the Taskforce Taffy-3 from Admiral Kurita's powerful Task force though this did not include any Dogfights with opposing Japanese A/C) during the period of the Hellcat 1943-1945.


----------



## beitou (Apr 4, 2014)

syscom3 said:


> Not once in the war did a Japanese type ever have a performance edge over The P38 as to make it vulnerable. But the Hellcat was dated in 1945 as better Japanese designs took to the air. It was by fate that the Hellcat had many of its kills against poorly trained pilots flying inferior aircraft. But during the rare times later in the war when a good Japanese pilot was flying a modern type, the Hellcat was shown not to be an invincible machine and suffered accordingly.



Syscom, do you have any specific engaments in mind where the Hellcat came out second best. I would be most interested in details of them. Were any improvements or changes made to to Hellcat once it started to slip behind or was its performance adaquate to not justify any loss of production?


----------



## Totalize (Apr 4, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Let's take a look at the total numbers of U.S. victories by type.
> 
> But before we do, let's also take into consideration the conditions the U.S. was operating with during the Pacific theater. The Japanese had an advantage at the start with good performing, long range aircraft manned by well trained and seasoned pilots. The U.S. started the war with older or untested designs manned by trained but unseasoned pilots.
> 
> ...




These are interesting numbers, particularly the kill count of the Corsair. I am not surprised by such numbers. If one looks at the strategic situation in the Pacific you have the USAAF working its way toward Japan from the West ( i.e. new Guinea, Philippines etc.) as opposed to the U.S. Navy/Marines fighting up from the South and East of Japan. This operational area was much closer to Japan geograhically. The threat was nearer to Japan so its understandable the Japanese military would deploy more of its air assets to what was considered the more immediate threat.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - but understand that one of the participants in these discussions is a 12 year old...



And YOU understand that you are being a jerk. Yes, I am 12, but if people really want to know that, they can go to my profile. I am a lot smarter then you think, and while not as smart as the people on this site, about 60% smarter then people my age. You are acting like the bullies at my old school, calling me stupid and pretending I can't hear you. Lighten up a bit, will you? Please take MY feelings into consideration before you post. 

CV-6


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 4, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> *F6F:*. 5,160
> *F4U:*. 2,140
> *P-38:* 1,700
> *F4F:*. 986
> ...


Interesting figures. Do you have any info on the P-43 victories in the PTO?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2014)

Wildcat said:


> Interesting figures. Do you have any info on the P-43 victories in the PTO?


The figures for the Lancer are somewhat vague, unfortunately. It seems that most of the victories scored by the P-43 were intercepting high-altitude, long-range KI-46 "Dinah" recon aircraft. There were 3 victories in the PTO and 3 more in the CBI for 6 total while service with the USAAC/USAAF.

The P-43A had good speed and high altitude performance (ceiling was almost 36,000ft./10,970m) but was a poor match for the Japanese fighters at lower altitudes. With some modifications, it may have become a decent fighter, but it's R-1830 radial was in high demand for the B-24 and DC-3, so any upgrades were abandoned and production stopped after 272 were built.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> And YOU understand that you are being a jerk. Yes, I am 12, but if people really want to know that, they can go to my profile. I am a lot smarter then you think, and while not as smart as the people on this site, about 60% smarter then people my age. You are acting like the bullies at my old school, calling me stupid and pretending I can't hear you. Lighten up a bit, will you? Please take MY feelings into consideration before you post.
> 
> CV-6



Calm down.

Joe was only letting him know that you were 12. It kind of helps people when they know who they are talking to.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 4, 2014)

Wildcat said:


> Interesting figures. Do you have any info on the P-43 victories in the PTO?



They are very interesting. Overall, Japanese aircraft losses in the war were about 45000, of which the japanese say 17000 were to non-combat causes. Estimates for the USN flak kills are about 2500-3000. We dont have losses to ground fire from other sources, but surely less than 1000. According to GGs list, I count roughly 13000 to fighters. That leaves about 12000 un-accounted for , but most likely to two main causes: bombers and ground overruns. We know that the Russians claim at least 1700 captured in the very last days of the war, and upwards of 1000 in their air combats (making them the second highest nationality in the pacific). They also make what are considered spurious claims for pre-1941 losses in the japanese air forces of around 1000 aircraft. I dont have any information on chinese claims 1937-45. That leaves about 9000 to bombers and other causes, excluding chinese and early war Russian claims. 

Of the 45000 over 5000 were expended as Kamikazes, and of these about 2000 were lost to flak (which rather brings the flak losses into question).

As you know Japanese losses are really hard to accurately pinpoint in that top down approach, and I dont have the detailed ground up knowledge that you or Joe have......but in a very rough and general way, I think these estimates roughly tally up


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> And YOU understand that you are being a jerk. Yes, I am 12, but if people really want to know that, they can go to my profile. I am a lot smarter then you think, and while not as smart as the people on this site, about 60% smarter then people my age. You are acting like the bullies at my old school, calling me stupid and pretending I can't hear you. Lighten up a bit, will you? Please take MY feelings into consideration before you post.
> 
> CV-6


Now you're gone for 3 weeks - you don't learn. I've told you several times to READ some of the threads on this site and LEARN what we're about, but you're too stubborn and thick headed to keep your mouth shut and just LEARN. Some of us have more time around warbrids then you've been alive, but instead of embracing that resource you just continue to shove your head further up your butt. I'm being overly tolerant with you, just not banning you outright so you have one more chance. Heed these words and if you decide to come back - you will not get another warning!!!!


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 4, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> The F6F Hellcat may have been delivered to the U.S. Navy in 1942, but didn't see action against the Japanese until September of 1943.
> 
> To expand a little on the part about the "Turkey Shoot":
> 
> ...


It's my opinion the Hellcats would have creamed the Japanese aircraft at Midway, and sunk that whole striking force, too, had we had them, imbalances in pilot experience notwithstanding. They were just that good, in my opinion. I was just wondering if that's what you meant, or were thinking differently. That's not to say there isn't room for thinking differently. I'll concede there is, as we're weighing a lot of factors.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 4, 2014)

> It's my opinion the Hellcats would have creamed the Japanese aircraft at Midway, and sunk that whole striking force, too, had we had them, imbalances in pilot experience notwithstanding. They were just that good, in my opinion. I was just wondering if that's what you meant, or were thinking differently. That's not to say there isn't room for thinking differently. I'll concede there is, as we're weighing a lot of factors.



The Hellcat itself as a fighting platform just was not that good compared to the Zero. A little faster, not much, similar rolling, did not turn or climb as well, and dove better, from a slight advantage in the dive if looking at the A6M3 to a much larger advantage if looking at earlier versions. It's more durable and armored better, and has similar firepower.

It was better than the Zero yes, but not by a real big margin.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 4, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> The figures for the Lancer are somewhat vague, unfortunately. It seems that most of the victories scored by the P-43 were intercepting high-altitude, long-range KI-46 "Dinah" recon aircraft. There were 3 victories in the PTO and 3 more in the CBI for 6 total while service with the USAAC/USAAF.
> 
> The P-43A had good speed and high altitude performance (ceiling was almost 36,000ft./10,970m) but was a poor match for the Japanese fighters at lower altitudes. With some modifications, it may have become a decent fighter, but it's R-1830 radial was in high demand for the B-24 and DC-3, so any upgrades were abandoned and production stopped after 272 were built.



Do you happen to know the location of these victories GG? I've always liked the P-43 and had never heard of it claiming any kills outside the CBI theatre.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> *F6F:*. 5,160
> *F4U:*. 2,140
> *P-38:* 1,700
> *F4F:*. 986
> ...



For the TBF and the SBD, was it defensive fire?

Wasn't there one SBD pilot who used his forward firing guns to shoot down a Japanese fighter?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2014)

The SBD was actually used as a fleet defensive fighter on several occasions, but you may be thinking about "Swede" Vetjaska who fought and downed two Mitsubishi A6M aircraft during the Battle of Coral Sea.

The SBD downed several Japanese torpedo and dive bombers as well as downing fighters both by defensive fire and by attacking with the forward armament. I believe the numbers shown were for total Japanese aircraft downed, both offensively and defensively.

The TBF/TBM wasn't used as a fighter like the SBD but still had situations where they challenged Japanese bombers and fighters, so the numbers would reflect defensive and offensive victories.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Let's take a look at the total numbers of U.S. victories by type.
> 
> But before we do, let's also take into consideration the conditions the U.S. was operating with during the Pacific theater. The Japanese had an advantage at the start with good performing, long range aircraft manned by well trained and seasoned pilots. The U.S. started the war with older or untested designs manned by trained but unseasoned pilots.
> 
> ...




Would love to see those numbers compared to air to air losses


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Would love to see those numbers compared to air to air losses


I have been mulling over the idea of creating a forum database of victories by type. We have alot of folks here who would be able to contribute accurate numbers.

It would take alot of work and research, plus there will of course, be conflicting opinions.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> > Now you're gone for 3 weeks - you don't learn. I've told you several times to READ some of the threads on this site and LEARN what we're about, but you're too stubborn and thick headed to keep your mouth shut and just LEARN. Some of us have more time around warbrids then you've been alive, but instead of embracing that resource you just continue to shove your head further up your butt. I'm being overly tolerant with you, just not banning you outright so you have one more chance. Heed these words and if you decide to come back - you will not get another warning!!!
> 
> 
> !



Hey Flyboy, I get why this kid has annoyed you and I'm not taking issue with your decision, but if he's really only twelve, couldn't you language have been a little more considered? Just a thought.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 5, 2014)

whatever our age, income bracket, nationality, whatever, there are rules that apply, for our own protection. Allowances were made for this kid, because of his age, but he simply would not listen. end of story and end of discussion

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2014)

I have no issue with the rules or the penalty, Parsifal


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> Hey Flyboy, I get why this kid has annoyed you and I'm not taking issue with your decision, but if he's really only twelve, couldn't you language have been a little more considered? Just a thought.



*NO*

This issue isn't for discussion or debate so I suggest it gets dropped now.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *NO*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I guess if I have issues with a culture where a moderator feels justified in telling a twelve year old he is thick, stubborn and has his head up his butt, I can always leave. Thanks and all the best everyone - you too, Flyboy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> Well, I guess if I have issues with a culture where a moderator feels justified in telling a twelve year old he is thick, stubborn and has his head up his butt, I can always leave. Thanks and all the best everyone - you too, Flyboy.


Here, I'll make it easy for ya!

Now can we get this thread back on track please.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I have been mulling over the idea of creating a forum database of victories by type. We have alot of folks here who would be able to contribute accurate numbers.
> 
> It would take alot of work and research, plus there will of course, be conflicting opinions.



My interest would be the P-39 and P-40 (hint, hint)


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 5, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I have been mulling over the idea of creating a forum database of victories by type. We have alot of folks here who would be able to contribute accurate numbers.
> 
> It would take alot of work and research, plus there will of course, be conflicting opinions.



I wonder how many people would get banned over a database of victories. I reckon it would just be the mods left whilst everyone else is on the beach

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 5, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> I wonder how many people would get banned over a database of victories. I reckon it would just be the mods left whilst everyone else is on the beach


Whenever statistics are discussed, there's always a strong debate over numbers.

In all honesty, I think this is how good, hard numbers become recognized and agreed upon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> I wonder how many people would get banned over a database of victories. I reckon it would just be the mods left whilst everyone else is on the beach



Only if it shows that the Hellcat shot down 1,000,000 aircraft for the loss of 3.....


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Only if it shows that the Hellcat shot down 1,000,000 aircraft for the loss of 3.....


would have been 1,000,001 but a P-38 snuck in and poached the Hellcat's kill!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Only if it shows that the Hellcat shot down 1,000,000 aircraft for the loss of 3.....



You mean it didnt. You just cant trust the internet these days next thing you will be telling me the Moon landings were for real and not faked by Disney.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> You mean it didnt. You just cant trust the internet these days next thing you will be telling me the Moon landings were for real and not faked by Disney.



And I guess that's your opinion!!!!


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 5, 2014)

Garyt said:


> The Hellcat itself as a fighting platform just was not that good compared to the Zero. A little faster, not much, similar rolling, did not turn or climb as well, and dove better, from a slight advantage in the dive if looking at the A6M3 to a much larger advantage if looking at earlier versions. It's more durable and armored better, and has similar firepower.
> 
> It was better than the Zero yes, but not by a real big margin.


I'm not taking anything away from these so-called "meatballs," in their day, but tactically, in my humble opinion, they couldn't stay with these Hellcats.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 5, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> You mean it didnt. You just cant trust the internet these days next thing you will be telling me the Moon landings were for real and not faked by Disney.


Actually, the word on the street is that the moon-landings were staged by the CIA 

So then one must wonder if the incredible success of the F6F might actually be a government coverup where UFOs were used against Japan and disguised as propellor driven aircraft!


----------



## GregP (Apr 6, 2014)

I have a pretty good database of victories by type for US aircraft, but have yet to find any reliable numbers for the Axis or even our allies. I got the Navy and Marine totals from a 1946 US Navy OpNav study and the USAAF numbers from several sources including Francis Dean. The Navy and the USAAF don't keep the same stats! 

EVERYONE seems to know a different number for victories in the Battle of Britain, but NOBODY seems to have the complete numbers for the UK for the entire war. The data must be out there somewhere, but finding seems to be the trick.

I DO have a very good database of Axis (and Allied) claims by Aces (5 or more victories), but none for victories actually awarded, other than for the USA. For instance, I have a great breakdown for the top three to five guys, so the data MUST exist, but it sort of disappears for aces somewhat farther down the list, even for ones with 150+ victories. My listing for Erich Hartmann shows 352, so I figure it must be claims.

In the British list, the top scorer's victories include a lot of kills over V-1's. 

In almost everyone else's book, a "victory" is one that is over an airborne, manned aircraft that is normally expected to be armed when flying. So ... technically, the V-1's don't count as victories since it wasn't manned. Also, you wouldn't expect, say, a Fieseler Storch to be armed, so a victory over one of those might technically not be counted either.

The "rules" get rather "interesting," depending on whose rules you look at, and I have noticed that nobody seems to agree on "the rules."

It is one thing to keep track of ground kills, and quite another to include them in a list of "victories" since they obviously weren't airborne when destroyed. Also, many people say that if you shoot down a plane, and it actually GOES down, but they later recover it, it doesn't count as a victory. 

I say poppycock to that. If you shoot it out of the sky, it damned for sure SHOULD count. Otherwise the word victory becomes meaninglessly technical and nobody will EVER agree on ANYTHING.

So, if we DO want to start this, I can offer a good start for part of it, but maybe we should discuss the "rules" first in a dedicated "rules for aerial victories" thread. Even if we come up with a good set of rules ... the original data is VERY hard to find and vetting the list could be a labor of many years by a LOT of people ... and we might not ever FIND enough data for confirmation for the vast majority of pilots.

You can't even get 3 or 4 Americans to agree on how many Pappy Boyington shot down! Friends of Joe Foss claim he got 21 or 22 or less because they want their guy to be number one, but the US Navy / Marines still say 28. Some say 26, and others say less. And THIS is a case that is officially recognized as 28!

Still, it is an interesting thought.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 6, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> So then one must wonder if the incredible success of the F6F might actually be a government coverup where UFOs were used against Japan and disguised as propellor driven aircraft!


Now that's just plumb implausible. Everybody knows you can't put a propeller on a flying saucer, it would fall off going at the speed of light!


----------



## Glider (Apr 6, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> Now that's just plumb implausible. Everybody knows you can't put a propeller on a flying saucer, it would fall off going at the speed of light!



or to put it another way _'Warp factor nine!! she canno take it any more captain'_


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> Now that's just plumb implausible. Everybody knows *you can't put a propeller on a flying saucer*, it would fall off going at the speed of light!



Sure you can, here's how:
Rotating Prop Disc Tutorial


----------



## GregP (Apr 6, 2014)

Pretty good try at it. I haven't really seen any that were better.

Some DID have a somewhat more widely-produced shape, though ...


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 6, 2014)

Glider said:


> or to put it another way _'Warp factor nine!! she canno take it any more captain'_


I love it when Kirk would call for more power and Scotty would be on his back under the machine with a wrench out or something.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 6, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Sure you can, here's how:
> Rotating Prop Disc Tutorial


That looks like a Klingon ship. The Japanese wouldn't be fooled by it.


----------



## GregP (Apr 6, 2014)

Does it have a corbimite device installed?


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 6, 2014)

I believe those were only specific to Starships, Greg. I could be wrong. I didn't check in Wikipedia.


----------



## beitou (Apr 6, 2014)

Galaxy class starships, to be Mr Picky.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2014)

I suppose this calls for an expedition to the secret Nazi base in Antarctica to find out...


----------



## GregP (Apr 6, 2014)

Perhaps they can get by with some occult action. Just summon a demon.


----------



## Totalize (Apr 7, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> I'm not taking anything away from these so-called "meatballs," in their day, but tactically, in my humble opinion, they couldn't stay with these Hellcats.



I am reading the Last Zero fighter. It is a book on real life experiences of IJN Zero Pilots. For those that encountered the Hellcat they had a good measure of respect for it.

One has to realize that during the period when the Hellcats were fully operational they were often facing zero units (A6M5) whose a/c were not top performing. They were often patched up from bullet holes with the paint worn away to the bare metal and engine maintenance that was often poor due the lack of supplies and spare parts. As one Pilot said how could we be victorious in battles with the Americans when we would launch 35 or 40 zero's only to see then off in the distance 200 Hellcats heading straight for us and our base. When they got close 100 would peel off and strafe our airfield while the other 100 would fly top cover ready to take us on. Most of these hellcats were new a/c while ours were "jalopys".

Of course it wasn't always one sided. In one instance on Formosa(Taiwan) a IJN pilot waited in his dug out while the Hellcats strafed the airfield then just after they past he ran from his dugout and jumped in his Zero and took off. Catching up to the Americans he blew the tail end charlie away and got the third a/c in a similar fashion. The leader and his wingman then executed a Thatchweave but the IJN pilot was experienced enough to not get trapped by this maneuver and rolled away with the Hellcats in pursuit. He came roaring back over the airfield and headed far out to sea. Everyone thought he was a goner but he smartly led the hellcats away from their carrier which ultimately caused them to break off pursuit and head back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 7, 2014)

Totalize,
I just started that book and so far it seems fairly well written!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

> One has to realize that during the period when the Hellcats were fully operational they were often facing zero units (A6M5) whose a/c were not top performing. They were often patched up from bullet holes with the paint worn away to the bare metal and engine maintenance that was often poor due the lack of supplies and spare parts.



Interesting. Makes complete sense, though I never really thought of this before.



> one Pilot said how could be victorious in battles with the Americans when we would launch 35 or 40 zero's only to see then see off in the distance 200 Hellcats heading straight for us and our base. When they got close 100 would peel off and strafe our airfield while the other 100 would fly top cover ready to take us on



This is the king of thing that I'm talking about that makes it very tough to be competitive in air kills, going above and beyond the pilot issue. And I'm sure things like better radar and better radio communications would combine to have the Hellcats usually knowing where and at what altitude the zeros would be, while Japanese fighters would usually not be privy to this information.


----------



## Totalize (Apr 7, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Totalize,
> I just started that book and so far it seems fairly well written!
> Cheers,
> Biff




Biff,

It's a fine book. The author plans a few more books like this based on additional interviews with surviving pilots.


----------



## Totalize (Apr 7, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Interesting. Makes complete sense, though I never really thought of this before.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the king of thing that I'm talking about that makes it very tough to be competitive in air kills, going above and beyond the pilot issue. And I'm sure things like better radar and better radio communications would combine to have the Hellcats usually knowing where and at what altitude the zeros would be, while Japanese fighters would usually not be privy to this information.




Indeed, 

The radios in the zero had very short range. Most pilots preferred hand signals and of course a person only has limited vision range. Alternatively, rocking of the wings was also used for communication. One of the biggest advantages the Hellcat possessed, indeed all allied fighters in general, was their radios. Maintaining formation through radio comms was a very key factor in a dogfight as it helped the pilot maintain the protection of his wingman and even more so his formation. Without it one could find himself alone and separated from his group unable to catch up or reform with a friendly a/c. At this point he would be a juicy target and attacked without fail.


----------



## GregP (Apr 7, 2014)

If they were ina dogfight, the radio was not much used. In a dogfight, the wingman's major job is to stay with the leader and watch the six o'clock position and any enemies coning from the sides.

If they were jabbering during a dogfight, who would you hear? Only ONE guy unless all were on different frequencies.

From talks at the Planes of Fame events, the radio was a very GOOD thing, but not in a dogfight. Only when NOT in a dogfight could they take the time to talk after thinking a bit about what to say. Of course, that doesn't mean NOBODY did it .... it means that's what a lot of guys have said who were there, but not all to be sure.

If nobody else was talking, and you wanted to do so, the frequency was clear.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

Makes sense, Greg. I was not thinking of the radio advantage in a dogfight as much as I was thinking of it in the ability to vector better and to be in a better position at the start of an aerial combat. I think radio makes it easier to say "We have an incoming flight of 50 Zekes at 10,000 feet, we are going to take a position betwen them and the son at 15,000 fett and dive on them".

Seem it would be a lot easier to communicate this with a radio than by hand signals and wing wobbles


----------



## GregP (Apr 7, 2014)

Yeah, made for a good communication system, but the enemy could listen in, so they mostly used hand signals unless the transmissions were coded. Many were.

"Rendezvous at Point Able" doesn't tell the enemy much ... unless you fail to move "Point Able" around between missions. Then they have you figured out in short order.


----------



## Totalize (Apr 7, 2014)

GregP said:


> If they were ina dogfight, the radio was not much used. In a dogfight, the wingman's major job is to stay with the leader and watch the six o'clock position and any enemies coning from the sides.
> 
> If they were jabbering during a dogfight, who would you hear? Only ONE guy unless all were on different frequencies.
> 
> ...




Greg,

I disagree that a radio was not a good thing in a dogfight. A dogfight is not just one plane vs. plane locked in mortal combat where each pilot is only focused on getting the most out of a/c (strengths and weaknesses), his physical ability and situational awareness. It's much more than that. After all what you have is many a/c all swirling about diving, climbing, turning and rolling. In such a situation loosing site of your wingman, formation and s/a becomes a very real situation. Having a radio allows a pilot to call out his situation and listen to his comrades for audio cues. For instance radio call sign; I am to the north toward the mountains (or some landmark) at 15,000 heading west. Or, radio call sign : you have 3 zekes on your six break right. The R/T was very active in a dogfight. From what I have read losing site of your wingman and ability to form off him put a pilot in a perilous situation. For the Japanese pilots this was tantamount to a death sentence. They practiced and practiced formation flying till they were bored to tears. Failure to keep up meant certain death. 

Another example of the use of radio in a dogfight was an instance in the ETO where a member of of the 4th FG, it may have been kid hofer or Duane "bee" beeson got separated from his wingman and flight and was cornered by some Luftwaffe fighters who thought they had a sure kill. This pilot was able to call out over the radio for help. When asked where he was he replied something to the effect I am being clobbered down here by the railways tracks. His fellow pilots, taking his visual cue, were able to dive down and ward off the enemy fighters . There are many more examples of this kind of use of the radio in a dogfight. Now, I am not saying that r/t chatter was freely used as it was not allowed but in an urgent or emergency situation it was and there was a lot of that in a dogfight. 

Losing ones s/a and not communicating (for American fighters using the radio) can cause death in a heartbeat. In the book I mentioned I am reading one of the Japanese pilots was in a dogfight trying to get his bearings when a Hellcat suddenly appeared off his wing, just as suddenly another Hellcat came zooming in from above ( perhaps both were intent on shooting him down) and collided with the hellcat off his wing. Both a/c disintegrated right before his eyes and tumbled earthward.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 7, 2014)

That's OK, you can disagree.

However, remember they usually had anywhere from 1 to 4 frequencies. If they weren't on the SAME frequency, then only the guys on that frequency could hear you. If several guys were transmitting at once, nobody heard anything intelligible.

But, if the frequency was clear, then what you say is possible. And ... if it was clear, then nobody was in trouble enough to call anyone else.

The main issue was simultaneous transmission.


----------



## Totalize (Apr 7, 2014)

Yes. The audio on the radio could be unintelligible if many we're transmitting at the same time hence the general rule that it was to be used in an emergency situation only. Radio discipline was practiced as well with the aim of reducing simultaneous transmissions.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 7, 2014)

on board radios were always a mixed bag when it came to be assistance or hindrance in fighter control. Overall they were an advantage, not so much for the airborne commanders, who tended to rely on hand signals and teamwork, rather radios allowed fighter assets to be vectored to where they were needed by the ground based fighter controller. 

Trouble was, that many US pilots, before they learnt the need for good radio discipline, tended to clog up the communication with useless chatter, ansd this had a twofold effect, not only could the fighter controller not get his message to the people that needed to hear from him, the in flight C&C also suffered, because people were too busy trying to understand or say things that really did not need to be said or communicated. The result was invariably confusion and an overall disjointed defence that often led to less than optimal results for US fighters. Later, as radio discipine was practised and refined, this problem did disappear, and US fighter control overtook everybody because of theiur better radios and superior ground based detection systems. 

The Japanese are often criticised because of their poor early type radios. But I think in some respects this improved their fighter defences. As a receival device from ship to plane, Japanese radios were adequate, but inter plane comms were pretty restricted. this made fighter control actually easier, as it eliminated the incessant and uneccessary chatter that plagued the early US efforts. unfortunately for the Japanese, range was still limited to los near the ship, and the ship had no radar. at least early on, making radio direction almost impossible. So, it was not the poor radios that caused the japanese problems, it was the inability to provide meaningful central fighter direction from the ship that was the problem. By the time this was corrected, after Santa Cruz, the japanese had already suffered some very serious defeats.


----------

