Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
He never flew them in combat so his opinion was based on how they performed and how they handled. The Ju 87 is famous for its excellent handling and it's stability in a dive, which also contributed a lot to its accuracy.It is clear that Brown was heavily biased against the Corsair but he displayed the same bias against other AC also. For instance he rates the JU87 above the SBD which he says is tied with the Val. Given the supposed good survivability of the SBD and it's combat record, that seems implausible.
He never flew them in combat so his opinion was based on how they performed and how they handled. The Ju 87 is famous for its excellent handling and it's stability in a dive, which also contributed a lot to its accuracy.
I think that is "bias" you are talking about is rather his fair opinion, based on the criteria he could actually witness.
I don't like to compare anything only by statistics but what about the kill/loss ratio for Corsair and Hellcat? F4U 11:1 (2140 destroyed to 189 lost aircrafts) and F6F 19:1 (5163 to 270), why Hellcat was so successful?
I think like any test pilot, he has his good and bad points. As with any pilot, personal bias is going to enter the equation. If you have only one sample of an aircraft to test, and it has issues with fuel, or has been a crashed aircraft that has been patched together, that information should enter into the equation as a sub-par aircraft example.
Additionally, when testing enemy aircraft during wartime conditions, there may not be anyone who has trained and flown the aircraft in combat to understand the nuances of the airplane itself and to explain them. This is probably more true with German aircraft as they were quite good at technical innovation.
It is much easier to fly an aircraft to it's full capabilities when you have access to what the engineers say the limitations and capabilities are. Without that information, test data may not be complete as there are variables that may not be known at the time of tests.
I have a great respect for his wartime deeds as an RAF pilot. He certainly has flown a number of aircraft. But you cannot base any argument on the opinion of one source. Anyone who has ever worked in a test environment knows that a single test will not provide reliable data. You need at least three sets of results to have any chance of reliable test data. When working with numbers and empirical data, three tests run by the same person will provide good data. When working with variables that are subjective, you needs at least three different testers.
Right, that statistic is misleading, whereas the one for F4U's and F6F's flying the same missions off carriers in 1945 is apples to apples. And Corsairs went down when hit by AA substantially more often (and they didn't get hit any less often). Presenting a misleading stat doesn't invalidate an apples to apples non-misleading stat, IMOIn WW2, in the Pacific, the Hellcat and Corsair flew almost the same number of combat sorties. The Corsair dropped more than twice the tonnage of bombs yet had only 349 losses from triple A to 553 for the Hellcat. It has been stated on this forum that the Corsair dropped lots of bombs on unoccupied or lightly defended islands. Only goes to show that statistics can be misleading.
I stand corrected then. So it'd be interesting to know the reason for the ranking positions. Did he tell you anything on that?Actually while he remarked how they handled - he ranked them in terms of comparative value... I had a long running debate with him (polite- I Do respect his knowledge) on several of his ordered ranks.
1. But again, we have apples to apples stats for later in the war, where we don't have to wonder how much of the F6F's higher claimed ratio for whole war was due to the mix of targets. In Sep 1 '44-end of war period we have the claimed ratio for both v fighter types, against the same or similar mix of Japanese air arms at the same stage of their decline (or perhaps partial resurgance in '45 in some cases). The ratio's are almost exactly the same, ~15:1 claimed.1. As pointed out, the Corsair downed relatively more fighters than did the Hellcat. Corsairs were in combat on Feb. 14, 1943. Hellcats were first in combat August 28, 1943. The six and one half month difference may have meant that the Corsair pilots met many more veteran IJN pilots than did the Hellcats.
2. Statistically it still makes me wonder why the Hellcats suffered so many more losses from triple A per ton of bombs dropped.
3. Also, I wonder if a Zero is carrying a bomb and flown by a kamikaze pilot, is it a fighter or bomber.
4. Facts are facts and the Navy apparently preferred the Corsair for fleet defense and I have never heard of anyone other than Brown who would say the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM.
1 Divebombing F4U's would again be Marine units v. bypassed garrisons. In carrier ops in '45 no evidence AFAIK they flew any differently than F6F's, and as time went by those included a lot of USN F4U units anyway. They just lost more planes to AA, and it's not a total mystery why: the F4U's oil system was very vulnerable, why it was eventually re-arranged on the AU-1 (and F4U-7).1. Is it possible that losses in air to ground missions were affected by dive bombing techniques? The Corsair was used as a dive bomber late war and was almost as accurate as SBD in that role. Hellcat could not dive bomb.
2. In tests with FW190, Corsair obviously had many performance advantages over Hellcat. Faster at all altitudes, better rate of climb, better roll rate.
3. During the late war, tons of bombs or rockets per sortie would not be as relevant as total tons for each AC.
4. Are you saying that the kills for each AC is based on wartime claims and not authenticated kills based on research post war? I have wondered about that.
5. In Lundstrom's books, kills by Navy pilots are roughly 50% supported by IJN records. The IJN pilots were even more over enthusiactic in claiming kills.
I stand corrected then. So it'd be interesting to know the reason for the ranking positions. Did he tell you anything on that?
I don't want to derail the thread into a dive bomber debate, but Ju 87 and SBD seem pretty evenly matched in terms of performance stats relevant to their role (offensive and defensive armament, range, speed etc.). And I know Brown had a relatively high opinion on how the Ju 87 performed in the dive.
/QUOTE]
No real correction. In my debates with him I argued weapon system and importance in the supporting the doctrine of the adversaries.
My perception of Brown was that he argued on the basis of how they handled and performed the fighter-fighter mission one on one without regard to other intangibles (like bombload/range/cost) - with the personal bias leaning to the fighter he would prefer to fight in based on manueverability and firepower - or the dive bomber that in his opinion would be the most accurate in point target destruction.
He placed the 51 below Hellcat, Me 109 and Spit in reverse order. I argued that while the 51 one on one would not have more 'manueverability points' than any of the other three - it did succeed in the toughest job in airpower during WWII, namely defeat the Luftwaffe over it's own territory and make Strategic Bombing successful - and none of the other three had the range.
I also argued that a fighter that was nearly equal or slightly superior with equal pilots make interception of the escorted bombers MUCH more difficult, and that aircraft like the Zero, the P-38L and P-47N and F-4U, along with the Mustang - were force multipliers for this reason.
He is also an engineer and we had some lively debates reminiscent of this forum.