Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

[BiffF15]

Gents,

If a lesser turning aircraft can get into what is today called the "control zone", it should be able to maintain an offensive position and kill a better turning plane. I will also state that the control zone has also been called "saddled up" previously. It is similar to getting an adversary face down, with your knee in his back and your gun against the base of his skull. Stronger, faster, better turning he may be but lost the battle he has.

Yes the Zero could out turn pretty much everything it faced, however that doesn't make it impervious to another type getting into position and passing on a dose of lead poisoning from a turning fight. Yes the accepted tactic was hit and run because that worked better the majority of the time. The Corsair had an option to stay a little longer if in a favorable position to push the attack.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Dawncaster]

You never made the limitations clear in post #511. I just wanted to add that the Corsair could only follow for a half-turn because that's what the report stated.



I gave your post a positive rating so my intentions weren't to attack your credibility here. I'm very sorry if that's how you feel.

We need to pay attention to the expression of the report.

"...stay with Zeke 52 for about one-half turn, OR until the speed fell to 150 knots."

For two limitations in reports, there were two questions in my head.

at 10,000 feet, Could Corsair follow the Zeke until 150 knots? - True.
at 10,000 feet, Could Corsair follow the Zeke for only 0.5 turn from 175 knots? - Depend on situation.

So, I tried to write definite thing.

'150 knots' was a definite limitation. But '0.5 turn' was an uncertain limitation, it's based on locked altitude at 10,000 ft and for only one-direction turn. In ACM situation, it may be longer or shorter than 0.5 turn. You seem to want to say that Corsair only 0.5 turn allowed for Zeke in ANY case. But deceleration rate depends on the fighter's maneuver. It's not possible to simply apply '0.5 turn limitation' for various situations in the air combat. whereas, '150 knots limitation' is not affected by such things. So I used it.

You seems define 'follow' as just the same sustained turn. However, even if the turn rate is steadily declining by deceleration, if it can stay with bandit, it's also say 'follow' - until can not do it anymore. However, the term 'stay' was used in the report. So final version that fixed several things is as follows. 'In the report, Corsair was the only fighter to be able to stay with Zeke until 150 knots'

Well, it is an interesting perspective. Thank you for pointing out.

Gents,

If a lesser turning aircraft can get into what is today called the "control zone", it should be able to maintain an offensive position and kill a better turning plane. I will also state that the control zone has also been called "saddled up" previously. It is similar to getting an adversary face down, with your knee in his back and your gun against the base of his skull. Stronger, faster, better turning he may be but lost the battle he has.

Yes the Zero could out turn pretty much everything it faced, however that doesn't make it impervious to another type getting into position and passing on a dose of lead poisoning from a turning fight. Yes the accepted tactic was hit and run because that worked better the majority of the time. The Corsair had an option to stay a little longer if in a favorable position to push the attack.

Cheers,
Biff

Great, it's what I wanted to say.

I hoped that the meaning of being able to follow Zeke at lower speed than other fighter was interpreted like it.

 

[Zipper730]

The book shows that Brown did, but that does not mean that most other pilots do. Brown had less than average stature.

By American standards of the time, he was an inch shorter than an average male. 5'8" and 150 was standard at the time, current standard is 5'9-5'10".

Ronnie Hay, an ace of Royal Marines, praised Corsair's cockpit size.

The Royal Marines had their own aviation arm?

 

[Dawncaster]

By American standards of the time, he was an inch shorter than an average male. 5'8" and 150 was standard at the time, current standard is 5'9-5'10".

Thanks for information!

Did the pilots have a higher average stature than other peoples? Otherwise, I wonder why Eric Brown was famous for having a nickname of 'Winkle' due to his small stature.

The Royal Marines had their own aviation arm?

A number of Royal Marines were Fleet Air Arm pilots during the war.

 

[DarrenW]

Well, it is an interesting perspective. Thank you for pointing out.

You're very welcome my friend.

 

[Zipper730]

Did the pilots have a higher average stature than other peoples?

It seems that fighter pilots run the height range ordinary human beings fit into. Statistically the average human being would be a good starting point.

Otherwise, I wonder why Eric Brown was famous for having a nickname of 'Winkle' due to his small stature.

I don't know, but in the past some Navy guys were a bit taller...

A number of Royal Marines were Fleet Air Arm pilots during the war.

Okay

 

[DarrenW]

"It is the opinion of the board that generally the F4U is a better fighter, a better bomber and equally suitable carrier aircraft compared with the F6F. It is strongly recommended that the carrier fighter and or bomber complements be shifted to the F4U type."

Yes the US Navy definitely loved the F4U (and rightfully so), but fearing that there may be problems with it's development asked Grumman for a design as well. Thankfully the "Iron Works" produced an aircraft which at first inception was an outstanding carrier-born fighter, more than capable of providing the needed "muscle" for the US Navy until the F4U had all of it's problems ironed out. Good thing too, because the important battles at Truk, the Marianas, and Leyte Gulf (among others) were all decided by the time the first F4Us were given permanent shipboard duty (seven months after the May '44 report).

During the final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period (573 vs. 1734), allowing the "Cat" to take top honors as America's premier carrier fighter once again.

The F4U had to be content with being the more successful land-based fighter of the two designs.

 

[Dawncaster]

Yes the US Navy definitely loved the F4U (and rightfully so), but fearing that there may be problems with it's development asked Grumman for a design as well. Thankfully the "Iron Works" produced an aircraft which at first inception was an outstanding carrier-born fighter, more than capable of providing the needed "muscle" for the US Navy until the F4U had all of it's problems ironed out. Good thing too, because the important battles at Truk, the Marianas, and Leyte Gulf (among others) were all decided by the time the first F4Us were given permanent shipboard duty (seven months after the May '44 report).

During the final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period (573 vs. 1734), allowing the "Cat" to take top honors as America's premier carrier fighter once again.

The F4U had to be content with being the more successful land-based fighter of the two designs.

The funny thing was that Corsair was sent to Grumman and helped by them for solve the problems.

But you missed the fact that Hellcat was given much more opportunities. When quoting NASC, you should pay attention to a few points. It was basically pilot's claims in action reports, so it was very exaggerated. Similarly, the identification was also very inaccurate. It's a good reference, but it is inappropriate to treat the kills and analysis against enemy included in it as fact. Some people enjoy to quote a NASC that has not been cross-validated. But it's already proven that it is very inaccurate in the air combat record by many japanese documents. And mostly, they do not consider the situation while saying the NASC figures.

And I think I saw a post like "F4U did nothing for japanese defeat". So I tried to answer that including it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that Corsair was a far latecomer compared to Hellcat as carrier based fighter. Mostly, Hellcat had an overwhelmingly superior situational advantage compared to Corsair. Many pilots in the Hellcat had experience in combat for various situations and have a good understanding of how to keep their combat effectiveness in tandem with the fleet. Under the proper control of the Murderers' Row, they boasted a tremendous air-to-air combat efficiency. Corsair did not have those situational advantages. In late 1944, when the Navy built a new squadrons for Corsairs(mostly it's VBF), they had less average experience and skills than the most Hellcat squadrons.

"...products of these changes were the following: the creation of new squadron at a time when the original squadrons had four and a half months of training, with the result that this squadron was far behind the other in training and organization; the assignment of many pilots to the new squadron who had never flown F4U type planes, such pilots being in the majority, and of some pilots who had never flown fighter planes of any type before..."

Of course, there were some squadrons included VF-17 veterans from solomon like the VF-84, but overall, less than Hellcat squadron's average. And VF-84 leaves with USS Bunker Hill, which has been attacked by Kamikaze. And despite superior average combat experience, VMF's marine corsair pilots showed even less efficiency than navy corsair pilots of the VF/VBF at carrier duty in 1945.

While the Hellcat squadrons showed excellent radio communication with good efficiency against japanese fighters, but Corsair squadrons, on the other hand, was surprise attacked and defeated by omitting warning to each other.

"It was a complete surprise attack....(ellipsis)....If they had been alerted and joined in the combat, the situation might have changed."

In addition, during this period, against 343 Kokutai, Corsair pilots reported almost all of bandits as Zeke, Tony, Tojo, and Oscar. But they were all N1Ks. NASC conducted an analysis based on the reported identification. Therefore, there is a doubt about the conclusion.

In so many combats, the level of pilot experience, skill and situational advantage was the most telling factor. In 1945, considering that the action sorties for Hellcat was 2.5 times that of Corsair, So it is to say the Corsair did well her duty despite adverse conditions. If Corsair had more time to gain experience, it would have been able to show full potential.

For example, Hellcat did not surpass Corsair during the period until early 1944, even if it is limited to the period of Rabaul Air War(from 12 october 1943 to 19 february 1944). Because the fleet at that time did not offer the advantage to the Hellcat as much as the Battle of the Marianas or later yet and had less opportunity. Against Rabaul Kokutai the cradle of many top IJN aces, the Corsair was best allied fighter againt best japanese pilots and it's cross-validated now. The Japanese losses included the Dai 1 Koku Sentai and Dai 2 Koku Sentai that were dispatched for the operations, and as a result, their carrier air groups were also got accumulated damage.

At the time after the air raids in Rabaul from the late 1943 to the early 1944, Japanese carrier task force almost lost it's own sophisticated aerial operation capability. Due to attrition warfare, their aviation power rebuilding was not done properly. Particularly problematic was the skill and organization of the pilot. planes was able to supplement, but the pilot's proficiency, experience and organization were not. Since then, the Japanese have been almost silent until the US forces invaded Mariana, for rebuild the aviation power.

Eventually, when the US Forces entered Japan's 'Absolute Defense Line' Mariana and the Japanese dismissed the passive respond and decided to fight. but their aviation power was still not restored. Just before the battle, the training time with their carrier was pathetic.(Admiral Ozawa's Dai 1 KoKu Sentai was 6 month, Captain Jojima's Dai 2 KoKu Sentai was 2 month, others were 3 month) Japanese commanders complained about it. They were concerned about both numbers and experience .

"Surprisingly, SOMETIMES, these pilots did not only take off safely, but even landed, in bright sunlight, in calm waters, without any pressure, without bullet flaring and distraction."

After the battle began, the Japanese air power, which had been lost in numbers, performance and experience, was annihilated. When they encountered the enemy, they did not react properly and were scattered and hunted. In a situation where the organizational power had collapsed, it was best to just survive even an ace. It is due to the fact that the attrition warfare made over Guadalcanal, Solomon, and Rabaul drove Japanese aviation power into a brain dead condition in solomon.

Whereas, when the Corsair was first deployed on the battlefield, Japanese aviation power still remain the ability to inflict sharp damage on the US forces. They concentrated on surviving veterans from previous collapses and maintained their organizational strength. As a result of the cross-validation, actually, they were often victorious in the air warfare over Rabaul. During this period, Corsair shot down highst number of Japanese fighter in allied fighters.(also cross-validated) On the other hand, losses were also high. The Corsair's air-to-air losses were already 50% of the total war in 1943, but the number of action sorties were only 6% of the total war. it indicates what Corsair did at solomons. She fought against better organized and more experienced, powerful enemies as allied main fighter. Although direct damage have been given by bombers, it's a worthy achievement as a fighter aircraft.

After Rabaul, Corsair and Hellcat went a different way. Hellcats and it's pilots were become stronger day by day. They were intensively operated and gained a lot of proactive victories as an carrier based fighter. Also they were could supported by fleet tactics and were able to fight in an overwhelming dominance. After sufficient experience of pilots and fleets, their strength was improved dramatically. it demonstrates the advantages of an carrier based fighter. In addition, The conditions to fight within the advantage against weakened enemies, made it easy for inexperienced pilots to gain experience and victory, So Hellcat became 'Ace maker' and best carrier based fighter in pacific, It's also due to its easy flying characteristics and the high survivability.

On the other hand, the Corsair squadrons were tied to the beach, so it did not get the opportunity as the Hellcat squadrons. While Hellcats enjoy the Turkey shot season, the Corsair gains experience and skill as a mostly fighter-bomber.

By 1945, the two models pilots with different experiences had a generally difference. Marine pilots were regarded as CAS specialists and received a high reputation from ground soldiers such as 'Angels in Okinawa', In Iwo Jima, they taught Army P-51 pilots the know-how about CAS. On the other hand, as mentioned above, Hellcat showed a better figures as an carrier based fighter. due to it's far superior experiences for it.

It is not just the difference in carrier capability. Despite Corsair's superior performance, more opportunities and better situations for Hellcat were made that result. So It is inappropriate to use figures alone without consideration of the situation.

Reference
1. Records of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
2. IJN Zero Battle Diary #2 - victories and losses for Zero over Rabaul from Aug. to Nov. 1943
3. IJN Zero Battle Diary #3 - victories and losses for Zero over Rabaul from Dec. 1943 to Feb. 1944
4. Genda's Blade - Japan's Squadron of Aces 343 Kokutai
5. J2M Raiden and N1K1/2 Shiden/Shiden-Kai Aces
6. 'Vought F4U Corsair' by Martin W. Bowman
7. 'Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea' by Barrett Tillman

 

[DarrenW]

But you missed the fact that Hellcat was given much more opportunities.

And you missed the fact that the Corsair was given much more opportunities in the Solomons as well. Should we diminish the Corsair's accomplishments there, while at the same time make excuses for the Hellcat? Of course not, that would sound like sour grapes. Why use that sort of logic in regards to the Hellcat's wartime successes then?

It was basically pilot's claims in action reports, so it was very exaggerated.

This would apply just as much to Corsair. And there were many more "claims" made in the action reports than what we see in NACS. The numbers reflect what the squadron intelligence officers and commanders deemed as aircraft actually DESTROYED, and they did their very best to eliminate duplicating and optimistic over-claiming. Did over-claiming make it into these reports? Sure it did! But this sort of thing happened everywhere, in every country, and with every unit. It's disingenuous to single out the US Navy flyers and ignore the others which were guilty of the very same thing.

Remember that Corsair was a far latecomer compared to Hellcat as carrier based fighter. Mostly Hellcat had an overwhelmingly superior situational advantage compared to Corsair. Many pilots in the Hellcat have experience in combat for various situation and have a good understanding of how to keep their combat effectiveness in tandem with the fleet. Under the proper control of the Murderers' Row they boasted a tremendous air-to-air combat efficiency. Corsair did not have those situational advantages. In late 1944, when the Navy built a new squadrons for Corsairs(mostly it's VBF), they had less average experience and skills than the most Hellcat squadrons.

Agreed. Why not give the Hellcat pilots (and the US Navy for that matter) some kudos for this? Their accomplishments shouldn't be reduced just because the average FITRON was a disciplined and highly organized fighting unit.

While the Hellcat squadrons showed excellent radio communication with good efficiency against japanese fighters, but Corsair squadrons, on the other hand, was surprise attacked and defeated by omitting warning to each other.

So who should be blamed for this?

In addition, during this period, against 343 Kokutai, Corsair pilots reported almost all of bandits as Zeke, Tony, Tojo, and Oscar. But they were all N1Ks. NASC conducted an analysis based on the reported identification. Therefore, there is a doubt about the conclusion.

Mis-identification of enemy aircraft was prevalent since the dawn of aviation. It happened with Hellcat units as well.

So it is to say the Corsair did well her duty despite adverse conditions. If Corsair had more time to gain experience, it would have been able to show full potential.

It was never my intent to claim that your favorite fighter couldn't have accomplished the same record as the Hellcat if given the same opportunities, just that it didn't.

For example, Hellcat did not surpass Corsair during the period until early 1944, even if it is limited to the period of Rabaul Air War(from 12 october 1943 to 19 february 1944). Because the fleet at that time did not offer the advantage to the Hellcat as much as the Battle of the Marianas or later yet and had less opportunity...

The Corsair was in action six months before the arrival of the Hellcat. Do you think that this had something to do with it as well? I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity. According to NACS, from October '43 to February '44 Corsair units destroyed 620 aircraft, while both carrier and land-based Hellcats destroyed 564. Congrats to the Corsair pilots for a job well done, but it's not like the Navy didn't show up during this period either....

It is due to the fact that the attrition warfare made over Guadalcanal, Solomon, and Rabaul drove Japanese aviation power into a brain dead condition in solomon.

According to NACS (are we allowed to quote this source anymore?) the Corsair destroyed 366 aircraft before the Hellcats arrived in the Solomons. With the rampant over-claiming you spoke of earlier, just how much of a dent did this actually make in Japanese air power there? And while I will agree that the Japanese lost much during the preceding year, they were still a very formidable force and were able to cause much havoc for the allies where ever they were found.

She fought against better organized and more experienced, powerful enemies as allied main fighter. Although direct damage have been given by bombers, it's a worthy achievement as a fighter aircraft.

There were still many competent Japanese fighter units flying well into 1944. Even in 1945 the Japanese were known to inflict heavy losses on well trained allied air units. Hellcat pilots had to deal with them as well.

So Hellcat became 'Ace maker' and best carrier based fighter in pacific, It's also due to its easy flying characteristics and the high survivability.

Agreed.

So It is inappropriate to use figures alone without consideration of the situation. .

During the same time aboard ship the Hellcat officially destroyed three times the number of aircraft as the Corsair. That means that the US Navy utilized it more for the missions at hand. And it was able to deliver. That makes it the more successful carrier fighter of the two. Period.

 

[davparlr]

Well looks like a lot of history buffs have weighed in on this topic, so I'll throw in my .02 for laughs. I tend to trust the tests performed by the various service branches at the time
since their very lives often depended on accuracy. Of course, we can't rule out inter-service rivalries, so a comprehensive view of all the branches performing tests on the various aircraft tend to give a better all around idea of the historical performance. Naval testing early F4U-1 aircraft versus the P51B seems to indicate the F4U the superior perfomer at lower altitudes, while the P51B was faster at higher alts. Interestingly, in this test the F4U had superior climb throughout the alts. More importantly, the maneuverability of each aircraft was tested and the nod went to the F4U, but again, this was a naval test so some bias might be there.

It must be pointed out that the F4Us in this test included water injection which was just becoming operationally available. The P-51B easily outperformed the non-water F4Us from SL to ceiling in airspeed and climb. The advantage shown in this comparison was real after the advent of the water injected F4Us. However, this disappeared in a flash in only four months when high octane fuel was approved for the P-51B, and again, the P-51B was significantly outperforming the F4U-1W/-1D in airspeed and climb from SL to ceiling.

SL speed P-51B -44 fuel 386 mph, F4U-1D(water) 364 mph

Climb P-51B 4430 fpm, F4U-1D 3750 fpm

10k speed P-51B 420 mph, F4U-1D 397 mph

Climb P=51B 3900 fpm, F4U-1D 3550 fpm

20k speed P-51B 442 mph, F4U-1D 421 mph

Climb P-51B 3200 fpm, F4U-1D 2500 fpm

Now this test was conducted by the Army in August 1943 (Beginning of the USAAF bombing campaign in Europe?) as an evaluation of the P38/P47/P1 versus the rival service's F4U. Again, it's interesting to glean some of the same things as was implied in the Navy test conducted above..

It must be noted here that the P-51 tested was the un-lettered Allison powered P-51, not even the contemporary Allison powered, and improved, P-51A, and yet performed quite admirably. Had the test been done against the contemporary up-engined Allison (-81) in the P-51A, it would have shown that the P-51A would have been faster and climbed better up to almost 20k feet.

The comment that "The F4U-1 is better for close-in fighting" could apply to the Japanese Zero against just about all WW2 front line fighters. It went to no avail against those other, less "better for close-in fighting" aircraft, which swept the Zero from the sky.

 

[davparlr]

The truth is that in that 3 month period, something like 60 p-39s were lost or written off. in exchange they shot down or destroyed by their own hand less than 10 zeroes and perhaps as many bombers

After the neutralization of the Philippines, approximately 100 AAF pilots, fresh out of flight training, were diverted to the South Pacific. Were these guys thrown in P-39s and then went to face some of the best combat pilots in the world. Could this have a good result? Would the results be better if they were flying F4Fs. The Navy pilots, flying F4Fs, were more experienced than these AAF pilots.

 

[parsifal]

Don't know, but there was a LOT of training done in Australia for the new arrivals. moreover, the early ferry flights from Townsville to Moresby via horn Is proving to be a disaster. some sources say as many as 16 P-39s were lost in two separate ferry operations, separated by just a few days, In april. A likely cause for these losses would have to be crew inexperience.....probably having the power setting set incorrectly, and not at max cruise.

As a piece of trivia , 7 of those ditched P-39s were scrounged and repared by the RAAF, entering Australian service in early 1943. There were a few other worn and/or damaged P-39s discarded by 8FG that were gifted to the RAAF also entering Australian service from late 1942. The RAAF copies were not liked at all. They did enter squadron service but were never risked in open combat, for the most part they were kept back in Australia for advanced training and home defences. we preferred the thoroughly ordinary CA-12 and CA-13 over the P-39 for front line operations. Ultimately the majority were returned to the USAAC, generally between July 1943 and about March 1944. For that we received discounts in the delivery of other, better Lend Lease aircraft. The USAAC never used these returned P-39s. On return, they were immediately scrapped, before even the war was over,, which is quite unusual for a wartime aircraft. .


http://www.adf-serials.com.au/research/Airacobra.pdf

 

[Dawncaster]

And you missed the fact that the Corsair was given much more opportunities in the Solomons as well. Should we diminish the Corsair's accomplishments there, while at the same time make excuses for the Hellcat? Of course not, that would sound like sour grapes. Why use that sort of logic in regards to the Hellcat's wartime successes then?

The Corsair was in action six months before the arrival of the Hellcat. Do you think that this had something to do with it as well? I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity. According to NACS, from October '43 to February '44 Corsair units destroyed 620 aircraft, while both carrier and land-based Hellcats destroyed 564. Congrats to the Corsair pilots for a job well done, but it's not like the Navy didn't show up during this period either....

According to NACS (are we allowed to quote this source anymore?) the Corsair destroyed 366 aircraft before the Hellcats arrived in the Solomons. With the rampant over-claiming you spoke of earlier, just how much of a dent did this actually make in Japanese air power there? And while I will agree that the Japanese lost much during the preceding year, they were still a very formidable force and were able to cause much havoc for the allies where ever they were found.

During the same time aboard ship the Hellcat officially destroyed three times the number of aircraft as the Corsair. That means that the US Navy utilized it more for the missions at hand. And it was able to deliver. That makes it the more successful carrier fighter of the two. Period.

You mentioned final year of the war, why bring solomon for it? You wrote 'final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period', So I just explained the situational advantage of F6F during that period. The F6F has already been deployed for a year and has been operating on an aircraft carrier, but the F4U was in the process for placement.

"replacement corsairs were lacking during this operation, resulting in bringing aboard replacement hellcats instead. this led to a depletion of corsairs and an over complement of hellcats....(ellipsis)....it is recommanded that the corsair replacement program be stepped up" from Records of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

Including the difference in average experience described in the last post, It's obviously an advantage for Hellcat, and it's 2.8 times the action sorties reflects that. Your claim is valid only if Hellcat and Corsair are placed under the same situation with deployed same number of airframe. As I pointed, it seems ignore the situation and just focus on the figures. F4U had never been deployed as much as F6F on the carrier deck and also did not have operational experience with carrier. as much as F6F.

In addition, I did not miss early solomon. It clearly outlined the results of the F4U fighting in 1943, including for six months before the arrival of the F6F. It was worse situation than when F6F's arrival, and F4U faced fierce resistance while climbing the Solomon ladder. It was an advancement and it was not an opportunity like the F6F's huntings in 1944~1945. Corsair's air-to-air losses were already 50% of the total war in 1943, but the number of action sorties were only 5% of the total war. before F6F's arrival, It's only ONE percent. The high loss of F4U was due to Solomon's poor ground operationg conditions and enemy pilot's superb combat skill. But You wrote that Corsair had a much more opportunities than Hellcat. It is different from the fact. In fact, F6F already had more opportunities, from October 1943 to February 1944, F6F had about 40% more action sortie than F4U, but F4U shot down more enemy aircrafts and enegaged with more fighter type aircraft against Rabaul Kokutai. And After Rabaul Air War, F6F had a full advantage because it's carrier based fighter and mostly fought against the enemy whose organization had already collapsed - both the US Forces and Japanese Commanders were pointed out. Lastly, during final year of the war, in you mentioned period, the F6F had 2.8 times action sorties with carrier of F4U, which was 27% of total war.

1% with war of attrition situation at ground vs 27% with full advantage situation with carrier.

It is very inappropriate to say that such situations for both models were the same 'opportunity'.

Overall, there is no doubt that during the war the F6F was a better carrier based fighter in World War II. It's excellent carrier operational capability and sufficient performance were enough to take the opportunity. But for me it seems that you insist that F6F is generally three times better than F4U because it's kill claims were three times better than F4U in same period, with completely ignoring Hellcat's situational advantage - much more deployed when F4U's arrival on carrier deck, 2.8 times action sorties, better experience of carrier operations and also better average experience of pilots. So I wrote 'It is inappropriate to use figures alone without consideration of the situation'.

....

...

..

.

But when I think about it calmly, it is officially correct. The things I wrote were based on truth, but they are nothing more than a unnecessary comments for other directions. So I 100% admit it.

'During the same time aboard ship the Hellcat officially destroyed three times the number of aircraft as the Corsair.'

It represents a clear and simple fact.

Agreed. Why not give the Hellcat pilots (and the US Navy for that matter) some kudos for this? Their accomplishments shouldn't be reduced just because the average FITRON was a disciplined and highly organized fighting unit.

So who should be blamed for this?

I am sorry for that. It's not tried to reduce the accomplishments of Hellcat squadrons. What I wanted to say was that better conditions produce better results. The pilot's average experience was an important factor. I wanted to talk about the situational disadvantage of Corsair squadrons.

This would apply just as much to Corsair. And there were many more "claims" made in the action reports than what we see in NACS. The numbers reflect what the squadron intelligence officers and commanders deemed as aircraft actually DESTROYED, and they did their very best to eliminate duplicating and optimistic over-claiming. Did over-claiming make it into these reports? Sure it did! But this sort of thing happened everywhere, in every country, and with every unit. It's disingenuous to single out the US Navy flyers and ignore the others which were guilty of the very same thing.

Mis-identification of enemy aircraft was prevalent since the dawn of aviation. It happened with Hellcat units as well.

By the cross-validation with japanese documents, It has proven to be vague and inadequate to accept as fact for 'confirmed' claims and identification, It is obviously different from the fact. It is only speculation that everything will be the same for all. But YES, if there is no alternative, it is the best choice. And It is also of great value in checking the operational status of the US Navy and Marine during the war. It is inappropriate not to use NACS to research Navy and Marine aviations in PTO.

There were still many competent Japanese fighter units flying well into 1944. Even in 1945 the Japanese were known to inflict heavy losses on well trained allied air units. Hellcat pilots had to deal with them as well.

I wrote about that F4U proved its value in adverse situations from before F6F's arrival to end of Rabaul Air War at Solomon campaign. it's not for Hellcat's mid 1944 to 1945. Well, for 1945, I have described the information about the less efficiency of the F4U.

And there was no competent Japanese fighter units against TF 58 in 1944. Please teach me if such Japanese squadron exists. After IJN once again lost carrier group aviation power in the Philippine Sea, they gave up rebuilding their carrier group aviation power. The F6F Hellcat, supported by superior fleet tactics, had been able to gain a overwhelming situational advantage mostly. Throughout all countries of World War II, there was no any ground based fighter could surpass the F6F with TF 58, It's bases were always moving for tactical advantage and it's strength was almost invincible. more than 10 aircraft carriers and a nearly thousand shipborne aircrafts - The Murderers' Row had fantastic combat capabilities and it was impossible to surpass them in normal fighting. So Japanese responded in an unusual way like Kamikaze or night attack, and veteran pilots had some success. But after the veterans were exhausted, they just wasted their aircrafts and pilots. some survived veteran pilots had some success in home defense of 1945.

 

[swampyankee]

Trying to return to Hellcat & Corsair performance in Europe.

Their main shortcoming seems to be that they couldn't perform the bomber escort mission due to their range and altitude performance. On the other hand, the comparative tests show that they would have been quite competitive with the FW190 and mildly superior to the Bf109 in many altitude regimes. If one objectively looks at the comparative performance of many Allied aircraft in the Pacific, against the IJAAF and IJNAF, vs their performance in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe vs Luftwaffe aircraft, one would conclude that the Hellcat and Corsair would do quite well.

 

[DarrenW]

You wrote 'final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period', So I just explained the situational advantage of F6F during that period. The F6F has already been deployed for a year and has been operating on an aircraft carrier, but the F4U was in the process for placement.

It doesn't matter what the "situational advantage" was, we are discussing which aircraft was the most successful in 1945 during deployment aboard ship. According to the NACS the F6F destroyed three times the number of aircraft with a better kill/loss ratio during the same period (22.1 /1 compared to the Corsair with 16.9/1), that would make it the more successful carrier fighter.

It is very inappropriate to say that such situations for both models were the same 'opportunity'.

To quote from my earlier post #529:

It was never my intent to claim that your favorite fighter couldn't have accomplished the same record as the Hellcat if given the same opportunities, just that it didn't.

I'm not sure how well you have mastered the English language, and I'm not trying to insult you here, but where in the above statement did I say that the Corsair didn't have the capability to achieve the same success as the Hellcat if given the same opportunities?

In addition, I did not miss early solomon. It clearly outlined the results of the F4U fighting in 1943, including for six months before the arrival of the F6F. It was worse situation than when F6F's arrival, and F4U faced fierce resistance while climbing the Solomon ladder. It was an advancement and it was not an opportunity like the F6F's huntings in 1944~1945........F6F already had more opportunities, from October 1943 to February 1944, F6F had about 40% more action sortie than F4U.....

Here is what I said earlier regarding the situation in the Solomons:

I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity. According to NACS, from October '43 to February '44 Corsair units destroyed 620 aircraft, while both carrier and land-based Hellcats destroyed 564. Congrats to the Corsair pilots for a job well done, but it's not like the Navy didn't show up during this period either....

As you can plainly see, I didn't make any excuses for the Hellcat pilots during this period. I actually was in agreement with you when I said "I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity".

Overall, there is no doubt that during the war the F6F was a better carrier based fighter in World War II. It's excellent carrier operational capability and sufficient performance were enough to take the opportunity......

We are starting to thinking alike here, this is a good sign....

But for me it seems that you insist that F6F is generally three times better than F4U .....

This is truly a misrepresentation of what I have said thus far.

And there was no competent Japanese fighter units against TF 58 in 1944. Please teach me if such Japanese squadron exists.

To say that there were "no competent Japanese fighter units" opposing the Task Force is purely conjecture on your part. Let's start another thread about this so we can share information about it. This thread is about the European theater so the topic doesn't fit the original discussion here.

The F6F Hellcat, supported by superior fleet tactics, had been able to gain a overwhelming situational advantage mostly. Throughout all countries of World War II, there was no any ground based fighter could surpass the F6F with TF 58, It's bases were always moving for tactical advantage and it's strength was almost invincible. more than 10 aircraft carriers and a nearly thousand shipborne aircrafts - The Murderers' Row had fantastic combat capabilities and it was impossible to surpass them in normal fighting.

This is a very good. I agree with everything you say here. Let's end this discussion on a postive note and get this thread back on track again, just like swampyankee suggested that we do, ok?

 

[Dawncaster]

Totally Agreed.

Yes, It's unnecessary comments for other directions, as I worte.

I apologize for My lack of understanding of english.

I never knew that what I wrote would be interpreted as a robbery of opportunity. I just hoped that they would be accepted as having different opportunities. but it was
basically off the subject, as you worte.

Why did I ...

 

[DarrenW]

Trying to return to Hellcat & Corsair performance in Europe.

Their main shortcoming seems to be that they couldn't perform the bomber escort mission due to their range and altitude performance. On the other hand, the comparative tests show that they would have been quite competitive with the FW190 and mildly superior to the Bf109 in many altitude regimes. If one objectively looks at the comparative performance of many Allied aircraft in the Pacific, against the IJAAF and IJNAF, vs their performance in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe vs Luftwaffe aircraft, one would conclude that the Hellcat and Corsair would do quite well.

I would also add that with the probable use of 150 octane fuel the two fighters would have a more competitive performance below critical altitude than is often stated in common literature.

 

[DarrenW]

Totally Agreed.

Yes, It's unnecessary comments for other directions, as I worte.

I apologize for My lack of understanding of english.

I never knew that what I wrote would be interpreted as a robbery of opportunity. I just hoped that they would be accepted as having different opportunities. but it was
basically off the subject, as you worte.

Why did I ...

It's ok, even two people with English as their native tongue can be misunderstood when it's in written form. Obviously you are very well educated on the subject and are quite passionate about the Corsair, just as I am about the Hellcat. I think we both want to get the facts straight but sometimes it's hard when the only way we have to express ourselves is with the use of words.

I have enjoyed your input immensely thus far and look forward to much more from you in the future.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Don't know, but there was a LOT of training done in Australia for the new arrivals. moreover, the early ferry flights from Townsville to Moresby via horn Is proving to be a disaster. some sources say as many as 16 P-39s were lost in two separate ferry operations, separated by just a few days, In april. A likely cause for these losses would have to be crew inexperience.....probably having the power setting set incorrectly, and not at max cruise.

As a piece of trivia , 7 of those ditched P-39s were scrounged and repared by the RAAF, entering Australian service in early 1943. There were a few other worn and/or damaged P-39s discarded by 8FG that were gifted to the RAAF also entering Australian service from late 1942. The RAAF copies were not liked at all. They did enter squadron service but were never risked in open combat, for the most part they were kept back in Australia for advanced training and home defences. we preferred the thoroughly ordinary CA-12 and CA-13 over the P-39 for front line operations. Ultimately the majority were returned to the USAAC, generally between July 1943 and about March 1944. For that we received discounts in the delivery of other, better Lend Lease aircraft. The USAAC never used these returned P-39s. On return, they were immediately scrapped, before even the war was over,, which is quite unusual for a wartime aircraft. .


http://www.adf-serials.com.au/research/Airacobra.pdf

The ferry losses from Townsville to Moresby were blamed on weather. The missions were flown and weather closed in causing the losses. A bit more experience or training and they probably would have waited a bit, but the planes were desperately needed at Moresby.

 

[GregP]

You can't compare the F4U to the P-51 because the Corsair can fly over-land missions from land bases, but the P-51 was not and is not a Naval fighter. The F4U-4 outperforms the P-51D, but not by a landslide. The F4U-1 outperforms the Allison P-51, but the P-51B outperforms the F4U-1. This is a bit pointless since the P-51 is not a carrier aircraft.

Better to compare naval vs naval and AF vs AF aircraft overall, don't you think? Just saying, not arguing. Discussions are always fun.