Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

[tomo pauk]

The official US Navy victory list are awards by the U.S.A., not claims. The claims have been gone through and vetted. It isn't a claim ratio, it is a victory ratio recognized by the Department of Defense, and the victories have been carefullty scrutinized.

On the page 6 of the document titled "Naval aviation combat statistic, ww2", one can read:
ENEMY AIRCRAFT DESTROYED IN COMBAT - Airborne enemy aircraft claimed destroyedby naval aircraft, in aerial combat only (sorry for the caps, it was written that way)
No need to try to include big guns in the attempt for me to bow down (ie. 'this or that was recognised by a Government agency'), since all belligerents were functioning along the similar lines when it was about aerial victories. As for the victories being carefully scrutinized - the USN claims were not corroborated with Japanese loss lists, at least the report mentioned above does not say so.

If you disagree with it, then there is no list or document in the world that will satisfy you ... so there wouldn't be anything for you to fall back on for comparison. Hey, you have to start somewhere and the original documents are not an easy thing to find or gain access to.

A corroborated document would certainly satisfy me.

But, if you have copies of the roiginal documents, maybe you could share them in here and we could come up with a list of our own.

Now that is a great thing to say.
Greg, whenever I was asking you to provide a document (in electronic form), whether it was about a turbo P-40, or about the P-51 being the Curtiss brainchild, or about the Soviet arming the P-39s with their cannons, and several more, you never, ever, have provided at least a glimpse of an original document to back up your claim. And now I should provide a document, since you've asked for it?
I've posted the original document in this forum, BTW.

 

[GregP]

Tomo,

I can't post a book ... just a title. If a doc is available online, such as at ww2aircraftperformance.org, then you can download as easily as I can. You are being disingenuous here toward me. I have posted document titles, book titles, and document numbers on many occasions.

And the document from the US Navy that recognizes victories is a US Navy study. If that doesn't count to you then so be it. It counts to me. Since this is a forum, everyones opinion is welcome and we are all entitled to our opinions.

Have a nice day.

 

[drgondog]

Tomo P - this could be the reason Greg is having a little trouble with USN Aerial Victory Credits

Naval Aviation Aces.

"The Navy Department has never officially compiled or issued a list of "Aces". During World War II, the war period with the largest number of aerial shoot downs for naval flyers, the Navy did not keep an overall record of individual scores in aerial combat, hence, there is no official list of confirmed shoot-downs.

The most comprehensive work done on Navy and Marine Corps World War II Aces was written and published by Mr. Frank Olynyk. His two books are USN Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat World War 2, Victory List No. 2, published in 1982, and USMC Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat World War 2.

In 1986 the Naval Aviation News magazine published a list of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Aces that had been compiled by Mr. Olynyk. The following list of Aces, as published by the magazine in 1986, includes Mr. Olynyk's World War II list and also those from World War I, Korea, and Vietnam: "

Frank Olynyk is the only one that went to the trouble of compiling claims by USN/USMC as the USN Never officially kept a record of victory credits by pilot during WWII.

 

[CobberKane]

Cobber,
The Hellcat DID fight against Zeros and Oscars, but it also fought against Ki-84's, Ki-100's, and N1KJ's. Didn't seem to have much trouble with any of them. You're not going to try to tell me these Japanese planes were "low performance" are you? They matched up well against the best we had at the end of the war in all the anaysses I have read.

Sorry, we disagree here, but that's OK. Consensus is not required ... it is just a what if. There are no real data to fall back on for the Hellcat in the ETO.

Will you stop apologising for disagreeing with me! Everyone is allowed to, except my wife - she has to do what she's told.
I wish.
Re Hellcat!s kill record: yes it flew against George's, Franks but I don't suppose we will ever know how it went against those fighters speciffically. Just fine, I suspect, given the disparity in numbers and pilot quality by that time of the war, but again, that advantage would not have existed were it deployed over Germany, at least not for some time. And the George, Frank et al were last gasp fighters that were never deployed in large numbers relative to the Oscars and Zeros the Hellcats encountered far more frequently.
Another thing to consider is that a large portion of the Hellcats kills were not unarmoured and obsolescent fighters, but unarmoured and obsolescent bombers. Had it been over Europe it would have been facing almost entirely fighters, and up to date ones at that.
In respect to kill ratios, I don't really see how it matters whether the 19:1 figure is claims or confirmed kills, except in the academic sense. Even allowing for over claiming or error it is obvious the Hellcat utterly dominated it's opposition in the PTO. But as mentioned earlier, so did RNZAF P40s in the south Pacific, and for that matter the Finnish Buffalos during the continuation war. The question is how relevant those figures would be if the fighters were transposed to a different theatre, facing different enemies and a different tactical situation.
An open question: I suggested before that on paper the Hellcat seems to have roughly equivilant performance to mid war fighters like the the Spit VB. Is that a bad call? And if not, what performance advantages would the Hellcat have that would enable it to be succesful in the Late ETO when the Spitfire was so comprehensively outclassed by even early models of the Fw190?

Cheers,
Cobber.

 

[drgondog]

I would wager that 2 or maybe 3 of that 11:1 were late war Japanese a/c.

Wasn't there a Japanese pilot (Muto??) in a George that kicked some F6F butt.

Not hard to be the best when it is basically the only a/c in large numbers in the PTO.

Milosh - I would tend to think that until Okinawa timeframe when the USN was close to Japan, that virtually All of the F6F engagements were with IJN 'equipment' (Zeros, Vals, etc) attacking the fleet...specifically a/c that were below par for the F6F.

I don't have facts in this case, just opinions based on facts - namely that the Raidens and Ki 84's and Jack's were not numerous in and around the campaigns toward capturing Iwo jima.

 

[drgondog]

Will you stop apologising for disagreeing with me! Everyone is allowed to, except my wife - she has to do what she's told.

You live in a different world from me...

I wish.

More like reality - lol

Re Hellcat!s kill record: yes it flew against George's, Franks but I don't suppose we will ever know how it went against those fighters speciffically. Just fine, I suspect, given the disparity in numbers and pilot quality by that time of the war, but again, that advantage would not have existed were it deployed over Germany, at least not for some time. And the George, Frank et al were last gasp fighters that were never deployed in large numbers relative to the Oscars and Zeros the Hellcats encountered far more frequently.

I really agree with you here. Not only was the Hellcat fighting standard IJN fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers in campaigns across SW Pacific through the Mariana's and Iwo Jima, but even around Okinawa there were a large percentage of Kamikaze (low performance) aircraft engaged. IIRC it was only when the fleets closed on Japan in spring 45 that the F^F even encountered the new Japanese fighters. IIRC Saburo Sakai engaged large force of F6Fs and escaped over Japan - in an A6M.

An open question: I suggested before that on paper the Hellcat seems to have roughly equivilant performance to mid war fighters like the the Spit VB. Is that a bad call? And if not, what performance advantages would the Hellcat have that would enable it to be succesful in the Late ETO when the Spitfire was so comprehensively outclassed by even early models of the Fw190?

Cheers,
Cobber.

A great question as the F6F-3 couldn't climb, turn or accelerate withe the VB on paper and the VB was pounded by the FW-190A5... Begs the question about ETO value of the F6F in 1943/1944

Even though there were many Naval Aviators in the aforementioned Fighter Conference at Patuxent River the F6F TIED (at 2%) with the Mosquito, F7F, F4U-4 and F2G as lowest of the Best Fighter Under 25K, and had 3% of vote, beating out F4U-4, Seafire and P-38, for lowest of Best Above 25K.

 

[alejandro_]

I don't have facts in this case, just opinions based on facts - namely that the Raidens and Ki 84's and Jack's were not numerous in and around the campaigns toward capturing Iwo jima.

And they had a number of issues which made them lose many of the advantages they could have had against Hellcats. In the last phase of the war the Japanese suffered massive attrition combined with poor availability. There issues with fuel, engines and materials.It is simply not a match against well flown Hellcats deployed in superior numbers.

 

[Aozora]

A great question as the F6F-3 couldn't climb, turn or accelerate withe the VB on paper and the VB was pounded by the FW-190A5... Begs the question about ETO value of the F6F in 1943/1944.

Comparison report Fw 190A-4 v F6F-3 v F4U-1:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

Some interesting comments and conclusion.

 

[GregP]

Tomo,

I forgot to add the document number, so ... it is:

OPNAV-P23V No. A129, dated 17 June 1946.

I believe you can still find it online, I did ... but some time ago. The authors were a group of some 30 men led by Lieutenant Commander Stuart B. Barber. It was done for Air Branch, Office of Naval Intelligence, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department.

This document doesn't cover any USAAF operations, but does cover all the US Navy aerial actions in WWII. Wish the USAAF had done a similarly complete study and published it ... but the government seems to want to keep data like these to themselves for some reason.

- Greg

p.s. Thanks for posting that, Aozora! I had read it before, but failed to save a copy on my PC (rectified that), and couldn't remember the report number. It basically says what I thought. While the Fw 190 was slightly faster than the F6F, it wasn't by much at all. The Fw 190 and F4U both have great rates of roll, and the maneuverability of the Fw 190 is nothing to write home about.

Ah well, pilot reports are only as good as the skill level of the pilots combined with their familiarity of the aircraft being evaluated. I think they had a relatively standard evaluation test card to fly, so most pilot reports in WWII (from the USA, anyway) will have more or less similar data points. I'd bet British, German, Japanes, Italian, etc. evaluations were also somewhat "standardized," though probably with different data points. Every side was capable of flying a test card and recording the data.

Oh yeah, I went back and found the report. If you are interested, you can download it at:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

 

[Milosh]

How many Fw190A-4s were around when the F6F would have appeared in European skies?

 

[GregP]

I believe the Hellcat was deployed in Aug 1943 while the Fw 190A-4 was starting deployment in July 1942.

They made 976 Fw 190A-4's between June 1942 and March 1943, so they would have been around in general squadrom service, but many were probably on the Eastern front by Sep 1943. How many, I couldn't say. Maybe someone who reads German and has the reports could tell us ...

 

[GregP]

Started looking into the F6F-5 Hellcat a bit.

Empty weight was 9,238 pounds. Internal fuel was 250 gallons (US gal) and it could carry up to 3 external tanks of 150 US gal each. That gives it a total potential fuel capacity of 700 gallons (6.01 pounds per US gallon). At a cruise fuel consumption of 85 gal per hour, (auto lean) the F6F-5 could stay airborne for nearly 8.25 hours (actually 8.23 hours). Lean it back to 75 gph and you can stay airborne for over nine hours if required. Put in 2,400 rounds of 50-cal and you get a takeoff weight of 14,569 pounds including plane, fuel, ammunition, and a 160-pound pilot. That is under the max allowable takeoff weight of 15,415 pounds.

If the Hellcat takes off and climbs to 1,500 feet on the main tanks and then switches to external fuel … and if he gets, say within 100 miles of Berlin and then has to drop the external tanks, his weight drops to around 11,800 pounds, give or take a little, and the combat range SHOULD allow the Hellcat to finish the mission and return to base.

So maybe escort duty isn't quite so unlikely as was supposed earlier in this thread. I'd say was a real possibility. If the Luftwaffe starts intercepting earlier in the mission, simply assign some shorter range fighters to fly ahead, take on the first wave of defenders, and then return home.

That being said, I never DID say I thought the F6F or the F4U should have deployed to Europe ... it was just a "what if" that got carried away a bit ... I real life, I tink they were deployed correctly.

 

[VBF-13]

Nah, no clearing up here.
Attaching the claim ratio to the type of the aircraft makes great injustice to the US pilots, ground/CV crews, command control officers etc. Especially if the main opponent cannot bring to the table anything like (in terms of those neglected attributes of an air force). And, no, every other aircraft is not rated by claim ratio.

Tomo, how were the other aircraft rated? What do you know about that? I understand why not all aircraft were rated. Take the Japanese vs. the Hellcat, for example. What are they going to say, really?

 

[Shortround6]

It doesn't matter how much fuel the Hellcat carries on the way in. Let's say the Hellcat takes off, forms up and flies to Magdeburg, about 80 miles short of Berlin. Let us also say that it has been able to refill the internal tank/s from the drop tanks (dubious) so it has 250 gallons. Now the fight starts, the Hellcat drops the externals and has the full 250 gallons. 15 minutes at Military power will burn about 70 gallons (1943 no WEP-no water injection) Leaving 180 gallons, How much reserve do you want? Absolute minimum fuel burn seems to be a bit over 40 gallons an hour? Call it 20 gallons to find home airfield an land at minimum fuel. consumption speed. Now let's say you are based at Ipswich. It is 445 miles from Magdeburg to Ipswich.

The question is how fast do you want to egress Germany?
If you slow down to 200mph or so you have plenty of fuel to get home (160 gallons) but if you slow down to 200mph you are sitting duck for any German fighters and it is 200 miles from Magdeburg to the Dutch border let alone the English channel.
If you fly at about 285-290 mph you may be able to use the 85 gal per hour figure and still get home with fuel to spare. IF you are not bounced, If there is not a 40-50mph head wind, IF???
MAYBE you can go faster over Germany and slow down a bit over Holland and way down once over water?

And if you can't fill the fuselage tank/s from the drop tanks after warm up and take-off?

 

[GregP]

Well Shortround, I guess 8 hours duration just won't do it for you, so maybe we should never have tried it with the Mustang either? With a 945 mile combat range, it will do just fine (unless you are going to say the Navy's specs on it are just plain wrong), and NOBODY can make it home fighting and flying at combat power all the way. Hell, the ENGINES wouldn't make that a good deal of the time. Since the vast majority DID make it home, it follows that they didn't fight their way home very often.

The Germans never had the aircrfaft or pilots to attack the average bomber stream continuously on their return to base.

After looking at it, I say the Hellcat COULD have been used as an escort without much trouble. I think you're just stirring the pot ... If an 8-hour mission won't do, abandon the war effort, it's a lost cause. Might as well surrender ... to the guys flying a fighter than has only 10 - 15 minutes over England flying from bases right across the channel.

Ya' think? Naaaa ...

 

[Jabberwocky]

p.s. Thanks for posting that, Aozora! I had read it before, but failed to save a copy on my PC (rectified that), and couldn't remember the report number. It basically says what I thought. While the Fw 190 was slightly faster than the F6F, it wasn't by much at all. The Fw 190 and F4U both have great rates of roll, and the maneuverability of the Fw 190 is nothing to write home about.

Greg, the alierons on the 190A in that test were incorrectly adjusted, and so the aircraft wasn't rolling nearly as quickly as it should have been. There is correspondence between the RAF and the US on the tests relating to the rate of roll, including a side by side list of relative rolling rates. The USN tests were down by about 30% at some points.

The British also have some documentation on Corsair II (F4U-1D) on FW 190 roll rates

150 mph
'Corsair II' roll (Vought figures): 81 deg/sec FW190 (RAF tests): 108 deg/sec

200 mph:
Corsair II: 97 FW190: 119

250 mph:
Corsair II: 88 FW190: 160

300 mph:
Corsair II: 84 FW190: 128

350 mph:
Corsair II: 75 FW190: 96

400 mph
Corsair II: 64 FW190: 75



USN tests of a F4U-1 vs various USAAF fighters in August 1943 reports that the aircraft had the same rate of roll as a P-47C up to 300 mph (indicated), above which the P-47C is better and "remains better as the diving speed increases".

Same tests report that F4U-1 has a better rate of roll than the P-51 (type not given) "at all level flight speeds", but at 280 mph ASI the P-51 becomes better and remains better as diving speeds increase.

Against a stripped down ("light weight" is the exact wording) P-38G the F4U-1 "may have a slight edge" in rate of roll at slow speeds, but the P-38G has "the better rate of roll because of the high stick forces and ineffective ailerons" on the F4U-1.

 

[GregP]

We all know the Fw was a great roller, and I'm not surprised it out-rolls the F4U. You wouldn't have any URL's for the docs, would you?

As for the escort mission for the Hellcat, it might be wise for us to remember that in WWII, nay-sayers were shoved aside and the "can do" guys were promoted. The task was to figure out how to get the job done, not to find a way to cancel the mission. That's why they came up with paper drop tanks for the P-51 that the factory said would never work ... but did. If the P-51 had not arrived when it did, then the task would probably be to figure out how to escort the bombers to Berlin and back with the assets on hand.

When I suggested the Hellcat, it was a casual "what if," but if the P-51 had NOT showed up when it did, then what would have been the fate of daylight precision bombing by the Eighth Air Force? How could we have DONE it with the available assets minus the P-51?

I know it never really happened, but if the P-51 turned out not to be an option, then what WERE the options for daylight escort for the heavies?

I think the British didn't have enough Spitfires to free up a sufficient number for regular escort duty ... IF they could have increased the fuel quantity to allow it. Recall that at the start of precision daylight bombing, the Germans were still raiding the British Isles on a regular basis, and Fighter Command would not leave home plate undefended. So, the assets that were available would have to be somehow deployed to support the daylight mission, or it would have to be abandoned.

The real question for this "what if" would be, how are we going to get the escort job done without P-51's?

The answer cannot be, we have a Hellcat with an 8 - 9 hour mission capability, but that's not long enough. We have to be better than that or we'd be replaced as war planners.

 

[Shortround6]

It is not the TOTAL duration that matters. It is the duration on internal fuel after you subtract the fuel for combat (unless you keep the drop tanks on during combat) and keep a reserve to help find your home field.

Why was the Mustang so good?

Figures from a 1954 Manual for the F-51D 1850rpm full throttle at 25,000ft burns 59 gallons an hour for a true airspeed of 335mph. Range of 445miles needs 80 gallons of fuel. This from the chart for 8,000- 10,200lbs and empty wing racks.

The P-51 was also supposed to do 397mph true airspeed at 25,000ft using 42in MAP at 2400RPM Burning 89 gallons an hour. 100 gallons will do nicely for 445 miles.

Sticking 3 or even 2 150 gallon drop tanks on a Hellcat just gets it into Germany further than it can get out.

The USAAF figured a P-47D with 670 gallons of fuel had a combat radius of 600 miles. That is two 150 gallon drop tanks and 370 gallons internal. Hellcat has 67-68% of the internal fuel, what do you think the radius would be?

Except it is not really 67-68% is it? lets say both planes use 20 gallons for warm up and take-off before switching to drop tanks, Lets say both planes use 70 gallons in combat after dropping tanks and lets say both planes keep 20 gallons reserve for bad weather and finding home field. Late model P-47 now has 280 gallons and the Hellcat 160 gallons. Hellcat has 57% of the fuel the P-47 does to get home.
The difference between an early P-47 with 605 gallons and the late one with 670 gallons was 175 miles of combat radius. That extra 65 gallons was worth 175 miles on the way out, radius 425 miles even with two 150 gallon drop tanks. Hellcat is 55 gallon down on the early P-47. IF it gets the same miles per gallon at the same speeds that 55 gallons was worth 148 miles. Lets round up. Combat radius 280 miles for the Hellcat. Or about what a P-38J would do WITHOUT drop tanks.

The F6F just doesn't bring anything to the table in the ETO.

 

[Shortround6]

If the P-51 had not arrived when it did, then the task would probably be to figure out how to escort the bombers to Berlin and back with the assets on hand.

When I suggested the Hellcat, it was a casual "what if," but if the P-51 had NOT showed up when it did, then what would have been the fate of daylight precision bombing by the Eighth Air Force? How could we have DONE it with the available assets minus the P-51?

I know it never really happened, but if the P-51 turned out not to be an option, then what WERE the options for daylight escort for the heavies?

The real question for this "what if" would be, how are we going to get the escort job done without P-51's?

The answer is real simple, Use P-47s with 370 gallons of internal fuel and use P-38s. It's about 580 miles from London to Berlin and 510 miles from Norwich to Berlin.

P-47with 370 gallons internal and 300 external was good for 600 mile radius. P-38 with 410 internal and 330 external was good for a 650 mile radius. P-51 with 269 internal and 150 external was good for 700 mile radius. ALL using the same speeds, altitudes, conditions.

The answer cannot be, we have a Hellcat with an 8 - 9 hour mission capability, but that's not long enough. We have to be better than that or we'd be replaced as war planners.

the answer is precisely "we cannot use the Hellcat" we have two planes that can out range the Hellcat. They are faster, they can climb better at altitude. Using Hellcats gains nothing. Anybody who actually thinks the Hellcat could perform deep penetration escort missions should be replaced as a war planner.

 

[GregP]

We have a completely different take on this one, Shortround, go figure.

Max range on a clean F6F-5 was 1,130 miles. Combat range was 945 miles, CLEAN. They're not my figures, they come from Grumman. In my experience, Grumman is reliable when it comes to product data. Berlin is 580 air miles from London, so the F6F-5 can almost make it CLEAN (within 50 - 125 miles). With ONE 150 -gallon drop tank, the max range was 1,650 miles and combat range was 1,500 miles. That's more than it needs with a good reserve.

I'd say offhand that THREE 150-gallon drop tanks would MORE than get it there and back, maybe there, back to home base, and back to Berlin again. I don't see where you are coming from at all, and I'd plan it and FLY it with no trouble ... by the Grumman book on the F6F-5. You maybe aren't looking at a Navy manual with typical performance charts used for mission planning or you might change your tune.

Look at NAVAER 1335A (Standard Aircraft Flight Characteristics for the F6F-5 Hellcat) and you can do the calculations for yourself.

It would work just fine and might have been used unless someone could come up with a better solution. That is certainly possible ... I haven't examined the potential candidates and arrived at a "top 3" list for trial missions.

This IS just a "what if" after all. And coming up with potential solutions rarely gets you replaced ... NOT coming up with them does, and that comes from my experience in US Military. They may or may not try your plan, but presenting one when it is needed is a good thing.

A G3 has to make it happen, not find a way not to do it. And you don't always get to choose your assets, your job is to take the assets available and do the job. The Hellcat would work if you plan by the book. Might not be the best choice, but that isn't a unit commander's call.