Corsair loses explained

[Thorlifter]

This is listed on Wiki for the Corsair loses

• By aerial combat: 189

• By enemy ground and ship-board anti-aircraft fire: 349

• Operational losses during combat missions: 230

• Operational losses during non-combat flights: 692

• Destroyed aboard ships or on the ground: 164

Aerial combat is easy to understand.....

I was pretty surprised to see 349 planes lost to ground/ship fire.

230 operational losses during combat. I assume that means planes that returned to base but were too damaged to return to service.

I was floored to see almost 700 losses due to non combat flights. This would be training flights and what else? This number seems really high.

So which category would it be if you were shot up in combat but survived and on the way home had to ditch? Is that a loss due to aerial combat or a loss during a combat mission?

 

[Stig1207]

I would assume operational losses during combat missions are without enemy action and shot up and ditched on the way home would be among the aerial combat/ AAA categories.

 

[Shortround6]

Operational losses would include running out of fuel, mechanical failures and crashes not due to enemy action.

 

[pbehn]

Is it possible that a patrol is classified as "non combat" unless the enemy is engaged?

 

[Dawncaster]

according Naval Aviation Combat Statistics..

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

ACTION SORTIES - Number of planes taking off on a mission which eventuated in an attack on an enemy target or in aerial combat, or both. This basis of tabulation was the number of planes of one squadron taking off on the mission. If any of these planes had action, the entire squadron's planes on the mission were counted as action sorties, including abortive planes, planes which reached the target but did not attack, and planes which escorted or patrolled but did not engage in combat. Thus if 16 VF took off as escort, 2 returned early, 2 engaged in combat, and 4 strafed, all 16 were counted as action sorties. Likewise if 8 planes took off for CAP, and only 2 engaged in combat, all 8 were action sorties. On the other hand, if 8 VF took off for escort, and none engaged in any sort of attack or combat, then none were counted as action sorties, even though they reached the target, and even though the escorted bombers attacked the target. Likewise, CAP planes missions, none of whose planes engaged in combat were not counted as action sorties.

LOSSES OF OWN AIRCRAFT - Loss data have come primarily from two sources: (1) action reports, squadron and ship, covering losses from all causes on missions involving actual combat with the enemy, and (2) loss reports, covering losses from all causes whatsoever.

The losses on action sorties reported herein have been taken primarily from action reports, in which the exact cause of loss can be determined more accurately. Two major exceptions to this practice may be noted: (a) losses on unreported or poorly reported combat missions have been added from loss report sources; these may sometimes be inflated, because of a tendency in the early loss reports to ascribe to "combat" or "enemy aircraft" losses whose cause was unknown; (B) aircraft listed in action reports as seriously damaged rather than lost, and later indicated in loss reports to have been scrapped or jettisoned because of this damage; these have been added as losses on action sorties.

Losses other than on action sorties have been taken from the loss reports, with some confirmation from carrier and squadron reports. The accuracy of loss reports, particularly with respect to cause of loss and date of loss, is frequently debatable, and many adjustments have been made where indicated.

LOSSES ON ACTION SORTIES - Includes all planes counted as action sorties, which failed to return to a friendly base or were destroyed in landing at base plus planes returning and later destroyed because of damage sustained during the mission, plus planes lost on unreported missions which apparently involved action with the enemy. All loses on action sorties have been classified by cause under the three categories Enemy A/A, Enemy A/C, and Operational. Where the exact cause was not given in the action report (planes reported missing) the cause most likely under the circumstances of loss described was arbitrarily assigned, or if the circumstances were not stated, the cause stated in the loss report was assigned.

LOSSES ON OTHER FLIGHTS -These are limited to losses, during each month, of planes assigned to squadrons which reported engaging in action against the enemy during that month. For these squadrons these figures represent all operational losses of airborne planes, on missions not involving action against the enemy; they include also planes later stricken because of operational damage sustained on such flights.

LOSSES ON SHIP OR GROUND - These figures are also limited to losses, during each month, by squadrons reporting action during the month. For these squadrons they included all losses, regardless of cause, of planes not airborne at the time of the loss, or at the time the damage was sustained that ultimately resulted in the loss of the plane. Principal causes of these losses included: struck by aircraft landing, taking off or taxiing, or by automotive vehicles; explosions and fires; storms, typhoons; enemy bombing or strafing or suicide attacks on carriers; own gunfire. It should be noted that all losses of grounded aircraft to enemy action are not included (some such losses were of aircraft assigned to pools or to squadrons not in action) nor is the greater part of the listed losses on ship or ground attributable to enemy action. The carrier losses in this category, however, do include all carrier planes lost in enemy attacks on carriers.

It should be noted, in connection with all categories of loss, that the figures for carriers represent all losses in active carrier combat operations (excluding strictly patrol and escort operations) in Pacific combat areas, while the land-based figures represent the bulk of, but not all, the losses of squadrons in active combat areas.

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

'A/A' loss and 'A/C' loss in 'To Enemy' seems including scrapped, jettisoned and ditched planes which damaged by each enemy type.

'Operational' loss, it seems lost through fuel exhaustion or navigational errors or other pilot error or mechanical failure 'ON ACTION SORTIES', for example, crashed by losing engine power during combat missions - not by enemy but with action sortie.

and In the situation presented in main topic, Corsair engaged the enemy a/c.

so it's 'ON ACTION SORTIES' and 'To Enemy A/C' loss or 'Operational' loss.

if cause of the ditch is combat damage = 'To Enemy A/C' loss

if cause of the ditch is a pilot's mistake or mechanical failure(not by enemy) = 'Operational' loss

 

[Reegor]

according Naval Aviation Combat Statistics..

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

'A/A' loss and 'A/C' loss in 'To Enemy' seems including scrapped, jettisoned and ditched planes which damaged by each enemy type.

'Operational' loss, it seems lost through fuel exhaustion or navigational errors or other pilot error or mechanical failure 'ON ACTION SORTIES', for example, crashed by losing engine power during combat missions - not by enemy but with action sortie.

and In the situation presented in main topic, Corsair engaged the enemy a/c.

so it's 'ON ACTION SORTIES' and 'To Enemy A/C' loss or 'Operational' loss.

if cause of the ditch is combat damage = 'To Enemy A/C' loss

if cause of the ditch is a pilot's mistake or mechanical failure(not by enemy) = 'Operational' loss

Thanks, very useful table. Where is it from? I've seen equivalent tables for USAAF, but not for Navy.

Operational loss = accident, in common language. From your description, landing and takeoff accidents would go in this category (except landings of A/C damaged by enemy action).

Where are training losses shown? And losses to squadrons that were not engaged in any action that month? (Since all categories are limited to "of planes assigned to squadrons which reported engaging in action against the enemy during that month.") thanks

 

[Milosh]

Reegor

https://www.history.navy.mil/conten...s/naval-aviation/aviation-monographs/nasc.pdf

 

[GregP]

Wonder why the Navy / Marines and the USAAF don't keep the same statistics? I can't find these same numbers for USAAF airplanes, but the navy has them.

I CAN find OTHER victory-loss data for USAAC airplanes, but NOT the same as the Navy/Marines. For instance, I CAN find sorties, combat losses (but not ground or operational), air kills, ground kills (the Navy / Marines don't break out air and ground kills).

Frustrating, to say the least.

 

[pbehn]

Wonder why the Navy / Marines and the USAAF don't keep the same statistics? I can't find tehse same numbers for USAAF airplanes, but the navy has them.

I CAN find OTHER victory-loss data for USAAC airplanes, but NOT the same as the Navy/Marines. For instance, I CAN find sorties, combat losses (but not ground or operational), air kills, ground kills (the Navy / Marines don't break out air and ground kills).

Frustrating, to say the least.

Probably because they are so different. Organisations collect and collate statistics in a way that is useful to them.

 

[K5083]

From that table, for a similar number of sorties, F6F has higher losses than F4U in every category. This seems to contradict accepted wisdom.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Also interesting that the venerable SBD seems to be the most reliable of all. Nearly as many sorties as both the F6F and F4U, with a much lower loss rate across all categories. But obviously a much lower number of aircraft destroyed.

 

[Glider]

From that table, for a similar number of sorties, F6F has higher losses than F4U in every category. This seems to contradict accepted wisdom.

I think you have to remember the setting. Generally speaking by the time the Corsair was in wide use the Hellcat had 'broken the back' of the IJN.

 

[GregP]

The low loss rate for the F6F is always taken as losses to enemy aircraft in combat, where it IS the King.

If you include all other losses including operational losses in and out of combat, losses to flak, losses on ship or ground, etc. then the loss rates are quite comparable.

But, if I were in combat, particularly in the PTO over miles of water, give me a Hellcat any day of the year! In cold weather, I'd also take the Hellcat over the Corsair because the Hellcat didn't get carb icing failures around the carrier due to good intake design. It did not use ram air in the main stage like the Corsair did. It DID use ram air in both low and high blower, though, and should absolutely have done so.

The stats should have been standard, and should have taken in the needs of both services. They eventually got to the same end user, the Department of War.

 

[Milosh]

Greg, Table 1 in the link I posted shows losses to AA, EA and operational.

 

[GregP]

Hi Milosh,

Good document, and thanks (I have it, too). It gives very nice numbers for Navy and Marines. It breaks out losses on action sorties, other flights, and on ship or ground. It gives enemy aircraft destroyed in combat, but doesn't break out air or ground kills.

The USAAF data gives air kills and ground kills, and combat losses (not broken out by enemy A/C , flak, operational, etc). In other words, not total combat and non-combat losses.

So, direct comparison is not really possible ... it's apples to oranges.

However, there is some very interesting data in table 28. It is aerial combat results by type for the last year of the war. Naturally, the FM shows up well as it was on escort carriers a lot, was seldom used, and was deployed where the main battles had been fought a lot of the time, and was "cleaning up" the stragglers.

The table shows the F6F and F4U very close to one another in kill-to-loss, but the F6F shot down 3 times more aircraft by virtue of being more numerous and much more widely deployed. Nevertheless, the F6F was slightly better in kill-to-loss ratio.

If you do some calculating, you can get kill-to-loss ratio versus individual enemy types. The F6F was better than the Corsair against the Frank and Jack, two of Japan's best fighters of the war. It was also better versus the Zero. Interestingly, the Corsair was MUCH better versus the Tony, making me believe the Marines were fighting IJA pilots much more often than the Navy was.

Not making any real statements here ... just looking at the numbers.

Check it out in Milosh's link above for yourself. Again, thanks, Milosh!

 

[daveT]

"I was floored to see almost 700 losses due to non combat flights. This would be training flights and what else? This number seems really high."
Yes the number is high, but TRUE. You can see the list of accidents for yourself at this link. and this is just for the F4U, it does not include the F3A and FG models
F4U Corsair USN Accident Reports
At just one Corsair training base, There were at least 144 Corsair training accidents related to MCAS Mojave during WWII. The Corsair accidents are broken down as follows: 65 FG-1 accidents, 63 F4U-1 accidents, and 16 F3A accidents all from Corsair aircraft assigned to MCAS Mojave.
You can read the story about one of the accidents here:
http://www.aircraftwrecks.com/pages/dave trojan mrp/Story Remembering a Hero.pdf

 

[ChrisMcD]

Just a thought.

The SBD was apparently one of the easiest aircraft to land on a carrier and the Corsair had the worst sort of reputation for being the opposite!

 

[gumbyk]

Just a thought.

The SBD was apparently one of the easiest aircraft to land on a carrier and the Corsair had the worst sort of reputation for being the opposite!

From the anecdotes I've heard, it wasn't on landing that most accidents happened. In New Zealand training squadrons, torque rolling on take-off and go-around was a regular occurrence.

 

[pbehn]

From my limited knowledge there is was a tendency for landing operations to go Fubar, a broken arrester wire or one heavy landing could lead to a situation where lightly damaged planes were pitched over the side in order for others to land.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I was floored to see almost 700 losses due to non combat flights. This would be training flights and what else? This number seems really high.

Hello Thorlifter,

There was probably a reason why the Corsair was also known as the "Ensign Eliminator".
It didn't behave well at low speeds which isn't a great thing for a carrier fighter.
It had relatively poor lateral control and an uneven stall.
The uneven stall was cured by putting a "spoiler" on the leading edge of the wing that stalled last so both would stall at the same time....
There are many other ways to get killed at low speed.

- Ivan.