Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Perhaps you will explain why, on May 16, 1944, well before the war is over, the Navy concludes that the F4U1D is the best available all round Navy fighter available and recommends that carrier fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to that type.
I'm sorry, I did leave out three dates in that period in Burma, because my notes didn't correctly flag Buffalo in addition to AVG P-40. The counts you gave OTOH entirely ignore the presence and competing claims of the AVG P-40's (and Hurricanes in the 1/24 case). The fairest way to count IMO is to just prorate the opponent's real losses by the claims made by all friendly units and types in the same combat. Later on, the AVG fought mainly by itself and its claims in those cases weren't noticeably less accurate compared to reported Japanese losses than other Allied fighter units in SEA in 1941-42.I just read an excert from this book, and it talks about the 67th Sqd of the RAF shooting down 4 x Ki21's on 12/23 and another 6 on 1/24 - all of which were confirmed.
....When first joining a forum, sometimes it pays to stick a toe in to test the water rather than wading right in and perhaps getting in over one's head.
VB, when you get that copy of Dean's book, you will find that a USN squadron got the Corsair ready for operations on carriers well before the FAA started operations on carriers. The story that the FAA taught the USN how to operate Corsairs off of carriers is a myth. 88171, you might be interested to know that the Corsair had less operational losses in WW2 than did the Hellcat. Corsair-230, Hellcat-340. A word to the wise. When first joining a forum, sometimes it pays to stick a toe in to test the water rather than wading right in and perhaps getting in over one's head.
not to mention while 3 different companies (Chance-Vought, Goodyear, and Brewster) produced the Corsair Hellcats all came (except for prototypes and a few very early -3's) from *one factory*
VB, when you get that copy of Dean's book, you will find that a USN squadron got the Corsair ready for operations on carriers well before the FAA started operations on carriers.
The story that the FAA taught the USN how to operate Corsairs off of carriers is a myth. [/i] Actually I've never heard of this myth. In regards to the FAA I only stated:
IIRC it was the British that first used the F4U successfully from a carrier in April-43 which in turn sparked the idea for the USN.
The part that I did not mean to state was it gave the USN the idea of using on the carriers, what I meant to say was it gave the USN the idea to re-examine the idea of using it from carriers. I read that somewhere and could not remember where and had nothing to back up the statement, hence the "IIRC". If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
Of those losses 321 of the Hellcats were based on carriers (flying 62,240 action sorties) vs 48 for the F4U (flying 6,488 action sorties). NACS pages 22 23 I charted the data based on the NACS (which actually shows 11 fewer Operational Losses for the F4U then the number you quoted)you might be interested to know that the Corsair had less operational losses in WW2 than did the Hellcat. Corsair-230, Hellcat-340.
Without knowing additional data behind the numbers, it can be deduced that landing on carriers is more dangerous then on land - twice as bad for the F4U while slightly more for the F6F (which I find interesting). Does it really mean anything? Not sure but I think it needs to be looked at per sortie versus in total.
A word to the wise. When first joining a forum, sometimes it pays to stick a toe in to test the water rather than wading right in and perhaps getting in over one's head.
As long as I am being respectful of other's opinions and not attacking anybody personally I'm not sure what the issue is. I may give an opinion, but I try to back it up with the facts and data I used to get there. I certainly have no issue with admitting that I'm wrong, as I've learned far more in life being wrong then I ever have being right. I'm really not sure of your point.
But the F4U flew a lot fewer carrier missions. In carrier ops the F4U's operational loss *rate* per sortie was around 50% higher than the F6F's. NASC Table 9, in 1944-45 operations from CV's, F6F operational loss rate was .50 per 100 action sorties, USN F4U squadrons .74, USMC F4U squadrons .79. To review the AA statistic, from NASC Table 29, the F4U loss rate to AA, 1945 carrier operations was 2.3 per 100 sorties which met AA, the F6F rate in the same period and operations was 1.4. NASC Table 11 gives tons of bombs per attack sortie (from carriers) for Nov 44 Jan 45 was .10 for F6F, .11 for F4U; Feb-Jun 45 .14 and .15; Jul-Aug 45 .19 and .18. From same table rockets per strike sorties Nov 44-Jan 45 1.5 and 0; Feb-Jun 1.94 and 2.9, Jul-Aug 2.76 and 3.04. The claimed kill ratio by F4U and F6F v Japanese fighter types in Sept 1944-Aug 1945, was 15.09 and 15.53 respectively (NASC Table 28 ).The Corsair had less operational losses in WW2 than did the Hellcat. Corsair-230, Hellcat-340.
Couple things.
What does that have to do with anything? It was for greater production numbers, it has nothing to do with the airframe. If you're going to use that argument, you may as well say that the Avenger wasn't a good aircraft because it was also made by General Motors...
I'll give you the stiff landing gear problem, Vought should have recognized that. But the nose allowed the center of gravity to remain balanced while giving it the long internal range, something the Hellcat didn't have. The Hellcat did have good range, but the Corsair had better, and having to turn into the landing really isn't a huge problem.
Basically the Corsair had better everything than the Hellcat except landing qualities. It was quite capable of operating from carriers, and did during the late part of the war, so it DID do what it was designed to do, and then some, as it wasn't originally designed to do ground attack.
And nobody's saying the Hellcat wasn't a good plane. All people are saying here is it wasn't quite as good as it's made out to be, and that the Corsair was a better aircraft. The Hellcat was a very good plane, its combat record shows that, but it's not the be-all end-all as some claim (not saying you are, I'm just saying some people do).
I'm sorry, I did leave out three dates in that period in Burma, because my notes didn't correctly flag Buffalo in addition to AVG P-40. The counts you gave OTOH entirely ignore the presence and competing claims of the AVG P-40's (and Hurricanes in the 1/24 case). The fairest way to count IMO is to just prorate the opponent's real losses by the claims made by all friendly units and types in the same combat. Later on, the AVG fought mainly by itself and its claims in those cases weren't noticeably less accurate compared to reported Japanese losses than other Allied fighter units in SEA in 1941-42.
I left out, for Burma:
12/23 67th Sdn and the AVG intercepted Type 97 bombers escorted by Type 97 fighters and claimed 3 and 10 bombers respectively, the 98th Sentai lost 2 and the 62nd lost 5, see p. 245. The AVG also claimed a Type 97 fighter but none were lost. 4 P-40's were lost, 2 or 3 to bomber return fire per the description in Shambles and "Flying Tigers" by Ford. On a prorated basis, 67 sdn would be credited with 3/13*7=1.6 bombers.
12/25: Buffaloes claimed 1 bomber and 3 fighters, AVG 15 and 9. The Japanese lost 4 Type 97 bombers, and 2 each Type 97 and Type 1 fighters, p.250. The AVG lost 2 P-40's one to bomber return fire, 67 sdn lost 4 Buffaloes all apparently to fighters. Prorated score of Buffaloes was 1/4 bomber and 1/2 each Type 97 and Type 1 fighter.
1/24: Buffaloes claimed 4 as I read it, Hurricanes another, and the AVG 4 bombers and 6 fighters, for no Allied loss. 6 Type 97 bombers were actually present and 5 were lost, along with 3 Type 97 fighters, p. 265. Prorated, the Buffaloes would get credit for 2.2 bombers.
I did include Buffalo combats in Burma 1/20 and 1/23 already, and after the 1/24 combat, the RAF fighters in Burma were Hurricanes.
Altogether my previous omission would add ~4 prorated victories over Type 97 bombers for Buffaloes, so a big % addition to the 5 total non-fighters I quoted, but I don't think it dramatically changes the answer to whether Buffaloes downed a lot or few Japanese bombers: pretty few. And a reason I don't like that kind of measure, absolute number of bombers downed by fighters, so didn't' quote it originally (on the previous thread) and probably shouldn't have at all, is that omissions affect an absolute number in only one direction. Same thing with a few other cases where the Japanese result isn't clear (eg. Buffaloes claimed a single engine bomber 1/13 over Burma, combat just not mentioned in Japanese accounts).
OTOH in case of fighter-fighter result as a ratio, if you omit a few combats by accident at random, it shouldn't affect the ratio much, as my omission of the 12/25 fighter-fighter case doesn't affect the ratio much. Likewise if a combat isn't mentioned on the Japanese side it's just thrown out of the ratio along with any Allied losses in that combat. There's no apparent tendency for more successful Allied combats not to be mentioned on Japanese side: it seems random based on missing records.
I could see Buffalo results v bombers being highly important if they went 10:46 in 22 known, two side documented, fighter combats but downed dozens of bombers, but clearly we're talking a relatively small number of bombers, and not outstandingly more than other Allied types managed.
Joe
VB, my remark about new member testing the water was not directed at you. My apology, as I was not clear.
That is the thing, the Hellcat faced the inexperienced pilots(in outdated aircraft might I add), so how can it be considered the best plane in the pacific?Following is an interesting quote from John Lundstrom's second book, "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign." which I think sheds some light on the relative performance of US fighters in the PTO. " Due in no little measure to the severe losses inflicted during the Guadalcanal Campaign by Marine, Navy and USAAF fighter pilots, the number of experienced Japanese pilots declined greatly. Replacements proved to be inadequately trained and the worsening war situation forced the Japanese to commit masses of green pilots to battle with disastrous results. BY MID 1943 MOST OF THOSE THROWN INTO COMBAT WERE LITTLE MORE THAN STUDENTS WITH MINIMUM FLIGHT TRAINING. ( my caps) After the defeats in the Marianas and the Philipines, Kamikaze tactics became the Imperial Naval Air Force's only alternative to surrender." The Hellcat went into combat at the end of August, 1943, and unless unlucky, the pilot of the Hellcat would face an IJN pilot with little experience, poorly trained and in an inferior aircraft.
Couple things.
What does that have to do with anything? It was for greater production numbers, it has nothing to do with the airframe. If you're going to use that argument, you may as well say that the Avenger wasn't a good aircraft because it was also made by General Motors...