I think that it did what it was designed to do brilliantly for its time; land on carriers. It was a bit outclassed by its counterpart, the Zero if the F4F pilot reverted to dogfighting like he was probably taught to do in training. A Warhawk was a better a/c but it could not land on an aircraft carrier.
Best Fighter in the Pacific and CBI Theaters in 1942
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But overrated compared to what? Again I'd say the Zero is the choice for most successful or effective fighter in the PTO in 1942 overall.
But even if the F4F did have more often than not a tactical advantage over Zeroes at Guadalcanal, other Allied types in the similar situations did worse. In most of the early Pacific campaigns land based Zeroes were using their long range against Allied fighters which were much closer to base. And that wasn't all disadvantage for the Zero: its bases were hardly ever under threat from escorted bombing raids (Lae in New Guinea was the exception), whereas the Allied fighter bases (including Henderson field, the usual target of escorted raids v. G'canal) were.
An example is USAAF P-40's defending Darwin against Zeroes in spring/summer 1942. They had radar warning, and the Zeroes were coming from 500 miles away, but the P-40's scored about 1:2. F4F's over G'canal achieved about 1:1, not a minor difference.
Also, in some Guadalcanal missions the Zeroes weren't coming from Rabaul. Later in the Guadalcanal campaign Zeroes were based at Buin 300-some miles from Henderson not so far for a Zero, a few fights were against Japanese carrier raids v Hendersion, and some were F4F's escorting strikes north up the Solomons. And in the 4 carrier battles USN carrier based F4F's also held their own against Zeroes. The F4F results didn't vary dramatically just depending on the scenario. In fact the best success ever by the Zero (or any other fighter) v. the Wildcat occurred while flying all the way from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, the first combat there Aug 7 '42, 2 Zeroes and 9 F4F's lost. So I don't see how the F4F is overrated among Allied fighters in PTO in 1942; it did what no other (significant*) Allied fighter did in 1942: come out even against the Zero overall.
Later in the war the FM-2 was definitely not overrated because the Wildcat as a general type was widely viewed as obsolescent, yet the FM-2 had excellent results against Japanese fighters, even later types, statistically actually better than that of F6F and F4U, though it *was* obsolescent in terms of its slow speed as an interceptor.
*we're excluding the relatively few P-38 missions in late 1942, and actually the P-38 didn't necessarily achieve 1:1 real ratio in those early combats; and by statistical fluke the P-35 could be argued to have done better in the Philippines, since no P35 was actually shot down outright by a Zero, a number were shot *up* by Zeroes but all reached base safely and were potentially repairable, whereas 1 Zero was downed by a P-35, confirmed in Japanese accounts.
Joe
But if even if limiting it to PI and DEI, it's as follows:
-the initial OOB of the FEAF on Luzon was 35 B-17D's. None of the C/D's in Hawaii or elsewhere ever saw combat, except those destroyed in the PH raid.
-17 of those FEAF planes were destroyed on the ground in the intitial Japanese bombing raids Dec 8.
-a total of 48 B-17E's were sent to the DEI by the end of that campaign end Feb 1942 (see Salecker "Fortress Against the Sun"), some came across the Pacific, some via Atlantic>Africa>India. 16 were evacuated successfully, rest lost, mainly on ground or damaged then dest to prevent capture (at least one was restored to flying condition by the Japanese, along with a B-17D salvaged in PI). Others were operational in Australia same time period.
So the B-17E was the main model in actual combat even pretty early on. The last B-17D combat mission was Feb 11, after which a handful survived as second line a/c in Australia. After that all B-17 ops in Pacific were E/F (except the single B-17B used in the Aleutians).
B-17 aerial combat victories/losses through DEI, AFAIK, were:
12/7: 2 B-17C's w/o from damage in air by Zeroes, PH, besides ground losses
12/10: 1 B-17D damaged by Army Type 97, flew to Australia, cannibalized; 1 B-17D downed by Zeroes (Colin Kelly's a/c); 1 B-17D downed a Type 97
12/14: 2*B-17D written off, dam by Zeroes, claimed 8-11 Zero, no J loss
12/25": 2*B-17D retired from combat Zero damage claim 2, no J loss
1/17: B-17E damaged then finished off by strafing, clm 7, no J loss
1/25: B-17E shot up but eventually repaired 3 others run out of gas, clm 2 Zeroes and actually downed 2, first actual B-17 victories v Zeroes
1/29: B-17E downed, clms 6, 1 Zero lost
2/3: B-17E downed
2/8: 3*B-17E downed or written off, clm 5 Zeroes, 2 Zeroes act. damaged
2/19: B-17E written off from damage, aerial combat with Japanese bombers
Joe
- Thread starter
- #44
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Joe .... the P40's based in Port Moresby flying in the 2nd half of 1942 did far better than the ones based on Darwin. As the "lessons learned" were rammed home to the newer pilots, their effectiveness went up.
And I still think the Wildcat, based as a land fighter was still inferior to the P40.
drgondog ..... as for the belly turret for the B17 ..... I have read in several books that they were essentially rendered useless when the bomber took off from a muddy field. Unless the pilot could find a rain shower to fly through, then there was little anyone could do to wipe the mud off of the windows. I believe all B17's and B24's arriving in theater (after summer 1942) with ball turrets, had them removed and tunnel gun setups were used instead.
And I still think the Wildcat, based as a land fighter was still inferior to the P40.
drgondog ..... as for the belly turret for the B17 ..... I have read in several books that they were essentially rendered useless when the bomber took off from a muddy field. Unless the pilot could find a rain shower to fly through, then there was little anyone could do to wipe the mud off of the windows. I believe all B17's and B24's arriving in theater (after summer 1942) with ball turrets, had them removed and tunnel gun setups were used instead.
Wildcat
Major
Joe, do have a list of Japanese losses for the Port Moresby and Milne Bay battles?
eddie_brunette
Senior Airman
P40 for me 
Good Armament
Good Roll Rate
Good Armor
Good Diving
Good Zoom
Good Turn
After years and years of reading on warbirds, the one thing I realised about the '40 is that it was "quite good" at everything it did, not exceptional, but good and for me that is enough if I had to choose between planes with:
No armor, but good zoom climb
Good turn circle, but slow roll rate
Lots of armor, but slow climb etc.etc.
For me the best of all the warplanes in the PTO is by FAR the P38, but ill wait for the next polls! And the most beautiful of the above mention planes is the Oscar. Really really pretty plane
edd
Good Armament
Good Roll Rate
Good Armor
Good Diving
Good Zoom
Good Turn
After years and years of reading on warbirds, the one thing I realised about the '40 is that it was "quite good" at everything it did, not exceptional, but good and for me that is enough if I had to choose between planes with:
No armor, but good zoom climb
Good turn circle, but slow roll rate
Lots of armor, but slow climb etc.etc.
For me the best of all the warplanes in the PTO is by FAR the P38, but ill wait for the next polls! And the most beautiful of the above mention planes is the Oscar. Really really pretty plane
edd
- Thread starter
- #47
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Ive heard mixed things about the Hurricanes fighting in Burma.
Anyone have some reliable info on how they actually performed?
Anyone have some reliable info on how they actually performed?
drgondog
Major
Joe - I fear I am nit-picking but here is the C/D list by serial number (incomplete and with some errors) for the 5th, 11th and 19th BG -
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1940.html40-3059/3100
B-17C
2045 (30th BS, 19th BG) shot down by fighters Dec 10, 1941 Luzon, Philippines. Colin P. Kelly killed.
2048 (19th BG) strafed on ground at Clark Field, Dec 8, 1941.
2049 (38th RS, 11th BG) damaged during approach to Bellows Field, Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941. Not repaired, and used as spares source.
2054 was one of the planes that arrived over Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941.
2062 (93rd BS, 19th BG) shot down 10 mi S of Malang, Java Feb 3, 1942.
2063 (38th RS, 11th BG) w/o Langley Field May 29, 1943. It was one of the planes that arrived over Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941.
2067 (19th BG) destroyed Clark Field, Philippines Dec 8, 1941.
2070 destroyed Hickam Field, Oahu, HI Dec 7, 1941.
2072 (19th BG) heavily damaged on Davao mission Dec 25, 1941 and converted into transport. With 46thTroop Carrier Squadron, 317th Transport Group, crashed Bakers Creek, Queensland, Australia, June 14, 1943 while ferrying troops to New Guinea. Six crew and 34 GIs killed. One survived. 2074 was one of the planes that arrived over Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. Hit byJapanese gunfire while attempting to land at Wheeler Field, setting its
magnesium flare box on fire.
2077 (c/n 2078) upgraded to B-17D standard Jan 1941. Strafed on ground at
Hickam Field Dec 7, 1941. Salvaged Dec 8, 1941
B-17D Fortress in PTO
3059 (19th
3060 (11th BG)
3061 (11th BG, 21st BS) destroyed at Malang, Feb 28, 1942.
3062 (19th BG) destroyed in Philippines
3064 (19th BG) crashed overshooting strip at Malang, Java Jan 17, 1942. Crew survived.
3066 (19th BG)
3067 (5th BG) crashed on takeoff from Batchelor Field, N. T. Australia Jan 28, 1942.
3068 (19th BG)
3069 (19th BG)
3070 (19th BG)
3071 (5th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3072 (19th BG)
3073 (c/n 2101) assigned to 19th BG at Del Monte Field, Philippines.
Attacked by enemy fighters and force landed in center of rice paddy on Masbate Island Mar 1942.
3074 (19th BG) strafed and burned at Singoaasri, Java Feb 3, 1942.
3075 (19th BG)
3076 (19th BG)
3077 (11th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3078 (19th BG) strafed and burned as Singoaasri, Java Feb 3, 1942
3079 (19th BG) crashlanded and wrecked Daly Waters Northern Territory, Australia Mar 14, 1942. One crew member killed.
3080 (5th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3081 (11th BG)
3082 (5th BG)
3083 (11th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3084 (11th BG)
3085 (5th BG)
3086 (19th BG)
3087 (19th BG)
3088 (19th BG)
3089 (5th BG, 11th BG) lost at sea Oct 21, 1942, central Pacific.
3090 (c/n 2118) w/o in accident Sep 11, 1942 at Kuaon Field, HI
3091 (19th BG) damaged in Philippines Dec 10, 1941. Flow to Australia but considered uneconomical to repair and converted to components.
3092 (5th BG)
3093 (19th BG)
3094 (19th BG)
3095 (11th BG, 61st BS) wrecked at Clark Field and restored to flyable status by Japanese.
3096 (19th BG)
3097 (19th BG, *Swoose*) only known US military aircraft to have flown a combat mission on the first day of US entry into WW II and to remain in continuous military flying service throughout the conflict. Original user was 19th BG.
3098 (19th BG)
3099 (19th BG)
3100 (19th BG)
Note that the 5th was at Midway - I do not know if enough B-17s were in PTO to equip the 5th, the 7th, the 11th and 19th by June but the 19th continued combat ops with last remaining C/D's (including Swoose until it became WW and given to MacArthur) in Australia.
The 5th was at Midway and the 11th went to the New Guinea and the Solomons at Guadalcanal.
There is woefully little info on 'last combat mission' of the B-17C/D but it was after DEI .
Again I'd recommend "Fortress Against the Sun" by Gene Salecker. He gives which specific a/c were on pretty much every mission of B-17's in the Pacific. I'd trust this info more than guessing based on less complete sources.
The FEAF B-17D's 'retired' to Australia became transports and trainers, he discusses each a/c specifically, Swoose and the others.
Likewise he discusses in detail the inventory of the groups in Hawaii as of Midway. They still had a few earlier B-17's, but all the a/c on actual combat missions from Midway against the Japanese ships were B-17E's, he specifies for each flight.
So given all the details he provides I don't see a reason to doubt Salecker's statement that the last B-17D combat mission was Feb 11 1942.
And the losses I gave to air action are also case by case correlating his book and Bloody Shambles, again I would take that over general references to 'desroyed' in Joe Baugher lists. Other B-17's were destroyed by enemy action, but on the ground (at PH and Java, as well as Philippines), and I'm not including planes damaged in the air and subsequently repaired or destroyed on the ground or to prevent capture, unless it was one continuous sequence (like the January 17 case, Japanese fighters chased a B-17 to where it force landed, then finished it off with strafing). I'm also not including a loss of an a/c flying from Australia v Rabaul before the end of the DEI campaign, just PH, PI and DEI campaigns.
Joe
Do you have a source for that, which apropo to Wildcat's question gives the actual Japanese losses combat by combat?
Lacking a source describing the actual combats from both sides, and knowing they were fairly few, I haven't concluded anything about that period. From the list of pilot KIA's in Hata/Izawa's "Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units of WWII", I count 7 pilot KIA's in the period of USAAF P-40 ops in NG in 1942, ie after September 17, very small compared to their losses at Guadalcanal in that period. At least 1 of those I recognize offhand as being in a combat with 8th FG P-39's, Dec 7. Incomplete info (that I have) and it seems like a small sample. JAAF fighters also started operations in NG in late December, as did USAAF P-38's, a few combats at the end of the year involved one or both of those.
The Darwin P-40 plus Port Moresby P-39's pre Guadalcanal is two similar a/c in a much larger sample, and consistent inferiority to the Zeroes, something like 1:2. But even that benefited from lessons learned, in DEI campaign were the ratio against the P-40 was much worse than that. The F4F's don't seem to have had any period of consistent inferiority.
Joe
- Thread starter
- #52
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I have a 8th FG unit history that mentions that once the allies had a reliable way of knowing when the Japanese were coming, they could get up in the air and get some altitude. By the end of the year [Dec 31 1942] they had a rough 1:1 loss ration. Since the P40 was far better than the P39, it should have had a better ratio.
Dont forget that as the Guadalcanal campaign unfolded, the IJN stayed at Rabaul and began to turn things over to the IJA in NG.
varsity078740
Airman
- 47
- Aug 30, 2006
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
On the question of whether the F4F was overrated, I can't add much to Joe's post except to say that, to the average history student, the F4F may have been underrated as the Zero had such a fearsome reputation. The F4F4 was a flawed design, compared to the F4F3 and FM2 and yet it held it's own against the Zero although it's short range makes me rate it behind the A6M. I rate the F4F above the P40, mainly because the P40 had such a terrible ROC. It would be interesting to compare, if possible, the relative success of the P40 V F4F at Guadalcanal. I believe that they served together for a while. The P400 and P39 certainly served together with the F4F4 and there is no doubt which was most effective.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
This is a great poll / thread. I haven't voted yet because I cannot pull the trigger for one yet.
The Zero was very good, but I think the Japanese better knew what tactics to use with thier aircraft, thus making it appear better.
The opposite is the P-40. It is overall really better in my opinion, except for the crucial climb and altitude capability. I have to try to get by my bias for realy loving the Warhawk. And opposite the Zero, the USAAC tactics were unknown and caused the P-40 to look worse on a stat sheet.
Similar situation for the Airacobra. But no matter how much I like the plane, the P-40 was definatley better. And I really cannot recall any WWII American pilot claiming a true love for the Airacobra.
That leads me to my current front runner, the F4f Wildcat. It was slower than the Curtiss or Bell, maybe a little faster than the Zero.(or equal ) But it had altitude ability that the other American fighters did not. I think it caused the most damage to the enemy as compared to the Army fighters. But that may be more of better tactics than aircraft performance.
I will ponder more on this, and will likely be influenced by some more cases put forth by the posters here.
The Zero was very good, but I think the Japanese better knew what tactics to use with thier aircraft, thus making it appear better.
The opposite is the P-40. It is overall really better in my opinion, except for the crucial climb and altitude capability. I have to try to get by my bias for realy loving the Warhawk. And opposite the Zero, the USAAC tactics were unknown and caused the P-40 to look worse on a stat sheet.
Similar situation for the Airacobra. But no matter how much I like the plane, the P-40 was definatley better. And I really cannot recall any WWII American pilot claiming a true love for the Airacobra.
That leads me to my current front runner, the F4f Wildcat. It was slower than the Curtiss or Bell, maybe a little faster than the Zero.(or equal ) But it had altitude ability that the other American fighters did not. I think it caused the most damage to the enemy as compared to the Army fighters. But that may be more of better tactics than aircraft performance.
I will ponder more on this, and will likely be influenced by some more cases put forth by the posters here.
claidemore
Senior Airman
I don't see much difference in ROC between those two planes. P40B/C "initial" climb rate 2600 ft/min, P40E 2100ft/min. The P40K took 7.5 minutes to 15000 feet, which would mean an inital climb rate greater than 2000ft/min.
F4F-3 2050 ft/min, F4F-4 1950 ft/min.
HoHun?? In looking at your climb rates on page 1 of this thread, you have the P40E at 16m/s at sea level (3149 ft/min). All the stats I've seen list the P40E as 2100 ft/min. You have the F4F at 2952 ft/min and it's usually listed around 2000 ft/min.
Is this because you based your calculations on max combat power settings?
1. The key is whether it reflects the actual Japanese losses, not what was claimed. Otherwise it's a complete apples to oranges comparison with the numbers I gave, which are what each side actually lost. If they only *claimed* 1:1, the actual result could be predicted to have been much worse than that, given the overclaim rate by the P-40 and P-39 units in DEI, Australia, and early NG. In fact I'm surprised their claims would be only 1:1 at that stage; that doesn't sound right, actually.
Also in actual results where both sides losses are known the P-40 didn't do far better than the P-39. The contemporary Darwin P-40 and Port Moresby P-39 results were about the same, based on actual Japanese losses, in a reasonably large sample of combats.
2. The first JAAF fighter unit in the Solomons/NG, the Type 1 equipped 11th Sentai, arrived at Rabaul December 18. According to Hata/Izawa it flew its first combat mission over NG, near Buna December 25, but it's probably the same combat by 9th FS P-40's same place given as December 26 in Hess "Pacific Sweep" (11th claimed 6 for loss of 2, 9th FS claimed 7 for loss of 1, if it does match the P-40's prevailed that day but it shows how you can't compare claimed and actual results). The 11th also flew missions over Guadalcanal from January. JAAF in S/SW Pacific was basically a 1943 thing.
Joe
drgondog
Major
Joe - the records of that period are not exhaustive - B-17E's were incredibly scarce and priorities were moving them to Europe rather than Pacific, particularly as the B-24 was already deemed a better choice. The 5th AF fought with what it had and they used the B-17D's until they fell apart - sometime before Midway but after DEI... all staged out of Australia.
The 7th BG was merged into the 19th on March 14, bringing the compliment to more E's than D's
We can agree to disagree on Feb 11 or even DEI as the last of B-17D combat ops and go on our separate ways on this subject.
Regards,
Bill
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Page 597, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," Climb Comparisons, The P40E at normal power took 21 minutes to climb to 25000 feet and 15 minutes to climb to 20000 feet. The F4F3 at normal power took 9.5 minutes to climb to 20000 feet and the F4F4 took 12.5 minutes to 20000 feet, still better than the P40E. That inability to climb to the altitude where the Japanese bombers were in a hurry was a handicap. One has to be careful in comparing rates of climb because they need to be compared at same power setting and SL rate of climb often does not tell the whole story. Later P40s had better rates of climb but so did the FM2.
