Best Pacific Fighter?

Bigxiko said:

Sorry about that, don't need to mark that much
I like aviation, but i still have much to learn
i'll try to prevent that kind of mistakes

Click to expand...

You do not need to apologize. Everyone makes mistakes. This place is a place to learn, and as long as you are learning you do not need to apologize.

Hang on.... No Bearcat??
I thought the Bearcat would be a worthy contender
-Carrier operable
-Climbs like a bitch (best piston in WW2 in fact!)
-Carries damn good armament
-Friggin' manouverable!

Otherwise, i'd be leaning towards the Corsair.
How many other single piston aircraft have been known to fly sorties carrying TWO 2,000 pound bombs??
Plus the Corsairs look real nice!

Bearcat did not fight in WW2

If "best" refers to performance specifications, the choice might be between the P-51 Mustang, which isn't on the list, and the F4U Corsair, which is. IMO, the poll should be about what's the most important Pacific fighter, and have two selections, a most important Allied fighter and a most important Japanese fighter. In that case, I'd pick the P-38 (although personally I'm a P-40 fan) and for the Japanese the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.

Jerry W. Loper said:

If "best" refers to performance specifications, the choice might be between the P-51 Mustang, which isn't on the list, and the F4U Corsair, which is. IMO, the poll should be about what's the most important Pacific fighter, and have two selections, a most important Allied fighter and a most important Japanese fighter. In that case, I'd pick the P-38 (although personally I'm a P-40 fan) and for the Japanese the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.

Click to expand...

The P51 didnt enter combat in the PTO untill well into late 1944 when the Japanese AF's were a spent force.

syscom3 said:

The P51 didnt enter combat in the PTO untill well into late 1944 when the Japanese AF's were a spent force.

Click to expand...

The Packard-Merlin Version - but Allison P-51A was in Indo China in late summer 1943, and first B's were in ops in Feb 1944

Having said that the Mustang was not a factor in PTO to same level as the P-38 or F4U or F6F

drgondog said:

The Packard-Merlin Version - but Allison P-51A was in Indo China in late summer 1943, and first B's were in ops in Feb 1944

Having said that the Mustang was not a factor in PTO to same level as the P-38 or F4U or F6F

Click to expand...

Comparing the Allison P51's to the Merlin P51's is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different airplanes.

syscom3 said:

Comparing the Allison P51's to the Merlin P51's is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different airplanes.

Click to expand...

"P51 didn't enter combat until late 1944" is what I was replying to Syscom..did I misread the above statement?

The early Allison engined a/c was designated "P51" and it did get to CBI in Sept 1943 and did fly against JAF in Burma. The B model reached China in Feb, ops in spring, 1944 and the D got there in November?

I, in fact, distingusihed the difference between A and B as well the times they entered combat ops in my comments.

If we want to get technical, the P-51A had a lot more in common with the B/C/D than the H... which REALLY was a different airplane in reality... having the same engine but nothing else airframe wise from its predecessors? Before taking me to task, on that statement I do think it had like 13 parts in common with the D..

And at medium altitudes (up to ~17,000 ft for speed, climb got better for the P-51B at ~8,000 ft) performance of the P-51A was similar to the P-51B (somewhat better in some respects at low alt, due to lighter weight and roughly equal engine performance up to ~10,500 ft). (note the P-51A had a defferent engine than the A-36 or Mustang I/IA, with a higher supercharger ratio with a significantly higher critical altitude -though a lower max manifold limit of 57" Hg producing 1,480 hp at 10,400 ft)

Particularly useful in the PTO where much combat took place at medium to low altitudes, and most japanese a/c had poor high alt performance.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg

Jerry W. Loper said:

If "best" refers to performance specifications, the choice might be between the P-51 Mustang, which isn't on the list, and the F4U Corsair, which is. IMO, the poll should be about what's the most important Pacific fighter, and have two selections, a most important Allied fighter and a most important Japanese fighter. In that case, I'd pick the P-38 (although personally I'm a P-40 fan) and for the Japanese the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.

Click to expand...

I agree, 'best' always turns into comparisons of 1945 planes, either whole new ones or advanced models of older ones, that hardly affected the war. And planes are included or not because they barely managed to fly a few combat missions or just missed doing so. Its' not too meaningful IMO.

For most important, it's certainly the Zero for the Japanese. For the Allies I'd say F6F, since carrier fighter superiority was a key element of the US victory. Carrier superiority was key to the drive across the Central Pacific, MacArthur's drive would have dead ended in the Philippines. You can't get to Okinawa or Japan itself under landbased fighter cover without an American land campaign in China. It's not the P-38's fault, landbased fighters were just less important in the Pacific. And as in 1st paragraph, the F4U-4 was a superior a/c to the F6F-5 but even the F4U-1 wasn't widely used on carriers until 1945. And since the Japanese lost, I'd say F6F was the most important fighter in the Pacific overall.

Re: P-51A, 10th AF P-51A's escorting B-24's into Burma from India in a series of raids in late November 1943, claimed a low ratio of Japanese fighters compared to their own losses, and actually apparently downed fewer of the defending JAAF Type 1 ('Oscar') and Type 2 2-seaters ('Nicks') encountered than P-51's lost. The raids were discontinued. The P-51B/C however made a serious impression on the JAAF in China in 1944. They first sent the Type 4 ('Frank') into combat there in part to try to counter the P-51.

Joe

Land based fighters were extremely important.

The F6F was essentially reserved for fleet use, so their extensive use was not untill the carriers began sustained operations after the summer of 1943.

In the meantime, the Corsairs and P38's in the SW Pacific were in a daily battle with the IJA/IJN.

You can say that the Hellcat is what made the carriers invincable. But it was the Lightning and Corsair that destroyed the remaining "cream of the crop" Japanese pilots.

<simon> said:

Hang on.... No Bearcat??
I thought the Bearcat would be a worthy contender
-Carrier operable
-Climbs like a bitch (best piston in WW2 in fact!)
-Carries damn good armament
-Friggin' manouverable!

Click to expand...

Did the Bearcat fight in WW2?

No...

syscom3 said:

Land based fighters were extremely important.

The F6F was essentially reserved for fleet use, so their extensive use was not untill the carriers began sustained operations after the summer of 1943.

In the meantime, the Corsairs and P38's in the SW Pacific were in a daily battle with the IJA/IJN.

You can say that the Hellcat is what made the carriers invincable. But it was the Lightning and Corsair that destroyed the remaining "cream of the crop" Japanese pilots.

Click to expand...

Not unimportant, but less important. The South and Southwest Pacific campaigns were a series of advances that led to the re-conquest of Philippines. Beyond that, landbased fighter supported landings couldn't get to Japan without seizing territory in mainland China (with US forces, a huge undertaking consciously avoided). Carrier superiority was necessary to finish things off, (eg. Mariana's B-29 bases, Okinawa, invasion of Japan itself: carriers), basic geo-strategic fact of the war.

Less capable landbased fighters could still have worn down the Japanese in the Solomons and NG campaigns just at higher cost, but excellent fighters were a more critical commodity for the limited deck space of carriers.

Also the scale of F4U combat was considerably smaller than F6F. F4U sdns saw little action between early 1944 (when the Rabaul campaign ended) and early 1945 (when assigned to carriers in part because underutilized), the critical phase of the war, a year of pretty constant large scale F6F ops downing very large numbers of carrier and landbased Japanese a/c. F6F's also did some fighting from land bases in the Solomons, and F4U's only entered service there in early '43 a few months before carrier operations started up again in earnest in summer, and flew alongside F4F's, P-40's (and P-38's) in Solomons in that period: credit for gradually attriting the Japanese air arms pre-1944 is shared among a number of types. F4U perhaps better plane than the F6F, but no way as important in the Pacific War, as it played out.

In scale of operation it's a little closer between P-38 and F6F but same issue, F6F campaigns were the ones which absolutely had to happen and where it was more important for the fighters to be superior plane for plane, whereas it can be debated whether the P-38's main campaign, leapfrogging up the New Guinea and eastern DEI to the Philippines, was even necessary to winning the war. However within that campaign the long range of the P-38 was a critical advantage: it set the distance by which each amphibious operation could advance from the previous under landbased air cover.

Looking at the big picture level of the war, I can't see a non-carrier fighter being named most important in the Pacific War. If another category was introduced for most important landbased fighter, then it would be P-38, not the F4U.

Joe

Joe, the number of combat sorties flown by Hellcats and Corsairs was almost the same-66530 to 64051. The Hellcat delivered 6503 tons of bombs, the Corsair 15621 tons. The Corsair began to replace the Hellcat on carriers because the Navy decided that in all respects it was a superior fighter. That judgment was made public on May 16,1944. The F6F had a better kill/loss ratio. The ratio of fighters shot down by F6F over bombers was a little over 2-1 with a total of 5257. The ratio of F4U fighter to bombers was about 4-1 with a total of 2155 kills, about 400 more than the P38. One could make the case that a study of Hellcat and Corsair kills proves the superiority of the Corsair because the Corsair was engaged in the Solomons when the skill and training level of the IJN pilots was still relatively high and because the Corsair was shooting down fighters rather than the easier to vanquish bombers. Actually, comparing operational losses of the two AC somewhat belies the reputation of the Corsair as an "ensign eliminator."

renrich said:

Joe, the number of combat sorties flown by Hellcats and Corsairs was almost the same-66530 to 64051. The Hellcat delivered 6503 tons of bombs, the Corsair 15621 tons. The Corsair began to replace the Hellcat on carriers because the Navy decided that in all respects it was a superior fighter. That judgment was made public on May 16,1944. The F6F had a better kill/loss ratio. The ratio of fighters shot down by F6F over bombers was a little over 2-1 with a total of 5257. The ratio of F4U fighter to bombers was about 4-1 with a total of 2155 kills,

Click to expand...

Again I'm not talking 'superior' I'm talking important. A lot of F4U sorties were
'hold down' operations against bypassed garrisons in 1944 with little or no air opposition, that's why the sortie and bomb numbers are high but the kill claim numbers much lower. But 1944 is when Japanese naval and air power was really smashed, and the F6F had more to do with that than any other fighter. It's the point at which carrier groups starting taking on large land based air contingents and defeating them, opening the path to directly attacking Japan. Marine F4U sdns only deployed on carriers from January 1945, and the first USN sdn (beside F4U-2 night fighters) that February. The fast carrier groups remained mainly F6F through the end of the war. So the F4U might have been the plane in that critical role, but it wasn't.

Joe

Joe, I see your points. Perhaps when judging the most important Pacific fighter, we should consider the Wildcat. It was the fighter which was there in the beginning. It was there at Coral Sea, when the IJN had it's back broken at Midway and in the Solomons until spring of 1943. One could almost say that the Hellcats and Corsairs just did the mopping up.

I agree the distinction must (or should) be made regarding 'Best' versus 'Most Important'

Era's are also interesting.. for example the F4F did a good job against the Zero through the Battle of Santa Cruz, but the F6F dominated Pacific Fleet Ops from late 1943 to the end of the war. If you have a debate about 1941-1942 the 'best' and 'most important' have to consider the Zero. For 1943 it becomes more murky as the F4F was still in prime service, holding it's own but not dominating the Zero but the Corsair and Lightning were land bound while the USN was systematically enabling 'toe holds for them' in the SW Pacific. But clearly the F4F could not approach any of the above from a pure perfromance POV.

I also agree with JoeB how important Carrier Ops were throughout the war in projecting 'tactical and strategic footprint.

From a raw performance (best) to most important, one ETO comparison could be Ta 152 to Mustang. From my personal perspective the Ki 84, P-38J and F4U-4 were all superior to the F6F - but none as 'important' to PTO airpower as the F6F.

I still view the F6F and P-51 as the most important US fighters in their respective theatres from late 1943 to EOW.

Bill, those are all good points and for the time mentioned, I agree.

But I will keep reminding you ...... the carriers did not engage in any systematic operations untill 1944.

Throughout 1943, the only two fighters that did bring the fight to the Japanese and were clearly superior to them was the P38 and F4U.

And it was the USMC and AAF units that so depleted the IJN and IJA, that the USN was able to steamroller through the Marshall islands.

The F4F and P40 were important aircraft, but far being the best.

syscom3 said:

But I will keep reminding you ...... the carriers did not engage in any systematic operations untill 1944.

Throughout 1943, the only two fighters that did bring the fight to the Japanese and were clearly superior to them was the P38 and F4U.

And it was the USMC and AAF units that so depleted the IJN and IJA, that the USN was able to steamroller through the Marshall islands.

The F4F and P40 were important aircraft, but far being the best.

Click to expand...

So, in your opinion carriers and carrier air were insignificant until 1944? Interesting thought.

That would be dismissing the contribution Halsey/USN carrier air made to the entire Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands campaigns, to neutralize Rabaul and Truk, suppress Japanese reinforcements and actually provide the bases for the P-38s and F4U's (and B-24/25/17/29's).

That would be dismissing the fact that Carrier Air brought the F4U's to location and positioned the USMC Air from Guadalcanal to Vella Lavella in 1942-1943.

That would be dismissing the contributions to Coral Sea, Bismark Sea and Midway air battles.

In short, carrier operations were a lot more that air battles - and they engaged in plenty of those. The purpose of Fighter Aviation was air superiority and the USN achieved that at Midway from a Fleet Operations POV, and that enabled the US to cohesively island hop, bypass strongholds, put up land based ops, supply them, and take the next series via Carrier Task Force.

No contribution from USAAF through 1944 was possible w/o carrier airpower, except for places like Darwin in Australia - everything from New Guinea to Iwo required carrier air to enable the movement and supply of everything the USAAF required to fight.

I'm probably as big a USAAF bigot as there is but even I have a hard time 'dismissing' Brown Shoe contributions in 1942 and 1943.