Douglas SBD Dauntless upgrade/replacement

As most of us know, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I decided to do a little statistical study and came up with the following which, to me is interesting but does not prove anything. Too many variables. I have copies of the summary of Navy and Marine carrier and land based operations so those numbers seem pretty accurate and thorough. The numbers I have for P47s are certainly not as thorough and I am not sure they compare exactly. For instance the sorties for Navy and Marine AC are action sorties. I am not sure if that means they were likely to see action or if they mean they actually saw enemy action. The sorties for the P47 are just that, sorties. In addition the P47 numbers are from the ETO. The Navy and Marine numbers are for the whole war. That won't make any difference for the Corsair compared to the P47 because the Corsair, I don't think flew any sorties in the ETO.

To begin with the total amount of bombs dropped by SBDs, Marine and Navy was 22918 tons.
The total amount by Corsairs, Marine and Navy was 15617 tons.
One can see that the Corsair was heavily used as a ground attack plane.
The tonnage dropped by both Corsair and SBD was mostly by Marine pilots but I was surprised that the Corsair dropped as many as they did compared to the SBD.

The P47 flew 423435 sorties in the ETO.
There were 3077 P47s lost during those sorties
The P47 was credited with 2686 kills during those sorties

The Corsair flew 64051 action sorties
There were 768 Corsairs lost ( these include by EA, AA and operational, (I am not sure about
those of the P47)
The Corsair was credited with 2155 kills during these sorties.

Therefore the P47 had one loss for every 138 sorties
And was credited with one kill for every 158 sorties

The Corsair had one loss for every 83 sorties
And was credited with a kill for every 30 sorties.

One thing that surprised me was that the P47 flew many, many more sorties than the Corsair. The numbers of the two fighters built was roughly comparable so the P47 was a real work horse.
I believe the Corsair was somewhat more vulnerable to ground fire than the P47 because of the location of the oil cooler and that shows up in the stats assuming the enemy AA was similar in intensity. The Corsair losses are also skewed by the fact that about a third of it's losses were operational. Even though most of the Corsair sorties were land based they were still operating over a lot of water.
According to the stats the Corsair was much more likely to get credit for a kill during a sortie.

As I said above, these numbers are interesting but don't necessarily prove anything.

Very cool!

Shortround6 said:

" However, I am not giving an inch and will ignore any facts that do not coincide with my opinions"

Well, I guess that says it all.

Click to expand...

I guess you forgot the 'LOL' just after that.

Renrich - I wonder how many people would claim that the P47 of comparable vintage is a better fighter than than the P51B which was the best performing P51 in WW2.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean the P-51 'D'?

Njaco, I went back and added the LOL after I realised that someone took me seriously on my comments on my hard headedness. To be fair, I think I am not the only hard headed one on ths forum. LOL I do believe that the P51B and C, after the new factory in Texas got sorted out were better performers than the P51D. The D was heavier and slower, perhaps because of the drag caused by the bubble canopy. Perhaps I am wrong?
It was a surprise when I read the comparison on the Williams site of the F4U1 and the P51B and C although the C crapped out. I realise the comparison was done by the Navy but to me it was a realistic comparison which took all the factors into consideration. The F4U outclimbed the P51 and was more maneuverable and as for speed the advantage went back and forth according to altitude but the delta was never very much. I believe we all make to much over a speed difference of say 15 mph. To begin with individual AC may vary by 15 MPH or even more but I doubt that those kind of speed differences are tactically significant. I have read where fighter pilots have scoffed at differences like that. Also, as in the case of the Corsair V P51B one was faster at 5000 feet the other faster at 10000 feet and then back to the other.The Corsair was also more heavily armed than the P51 not only with guns but with ammo load. Of course the Navy qualified the report by saying that the Corsair was overall better up to 25000 feet which was where the Navy needed to have superiority. The P51B was a real hot rod and to be rated equal or better is high praise especially for a carrier fighter.

VB, thank you for your comment. I am having a little trouble with the number of P47 sorties. The grand total of action sorties flown by all Navy and Marine AC in WW2 was 284,073. That includes even patrol craft such as the PBY. It does not seem reasonable that the P47 flew around twice as many sorties as all the Navy and Marine AC did total unless there is a difference such as the Navy did not judge it an action sortie unless the enemy was encountered and the AAF counted it a sortie regardless of enemy activity. I can't remember where I got the stats on the P47 but I think I have seen them repeated somewhere elso so they are probably valid. My futher info on the ETO shows the following:
P51-213873 sorties
P38-128849 sorties
P40-67059 sorties
P39-30547 sorties

It seems a little far fetched to believe that the P40 in the ETO flew more real sorties than Marine land based Corsairs did in the Pacific (52852)

Njaco, I went back and added the LOL after I realised that someone took me seriously on my comments on my hard headedness...

Click to expand...

Then my apologies to Shortround for shooting from the hip.

As for the "D" model - I wasn't aware of that (and it wasn't meant to be sarcastic ) My impression was the 'D' model was the better of all marks of the 51. Thanks.

Njaco said:

As for the "D" model - I wasn't aware of that (and it wasn't meant to be sarcastic ) My impression was the 'D' model was the better of all marks of the 51. Thanks.

Click to expand...

If fastest is best, then B or C. Otherwise, I'd want a D with bubble canopy, two more guns and that had metal control surfaces, tail fillet and the latest engine controls.

renrich said:

It was a surprise when I read the comparison on the Williams site of the F4U1 and the P51B and C although the C crapped out. I realise the comparison was done by the Navy but to me it was a realistic comparison which took all the factors into consideration. The F4U outclimbed the P51 and was more maneuverable and as for speed the advantage went back and forth according to altitude but the delta was never very much. I believe we all make to much over a speed difference of say 15 mph. To begin with individual AC may vary by 15 MPH or even more but I doubt that those kind of speed differences are tactically significant. I have read where fighter pilots have scoffed at differences like that. Also, as in the case of the Corsair V P51B one was faster at 5000 feet the other faster at 10000 feet and then back to the other.The Corsair was also more heavily armed than the P51 not only with guns but with ammo load. Of course the Navy qualified the report by saying that the Corsair was overall better up to 25000 feet which was where the Navy needed to have superiority. The P51B was a real hot rod and to be rated equal or better is high praise especially for a carrier fighter.

Click to expand...

There are a few items with this test that should be pointed out.
1. Both F4U-1s tested were with water injection, which was just coming on line. At the time of the test, only eight F4U-1s were available with water. Water injection for the fleet was probably several months away.
2. I suspect the Navy slipped a ringer in. I am sure it is not intentional, but rather information gathering for an advanced type. I believe the F4U-1 was an F4U-4 test bed, of sorts. First, there is a comment in the test, under Discussions, para. (c) Drag Condition: "…representative of that to be expected in the F4U-4 airplane…". Second, boost pressure used is 65", where the F4U-1A was 60". AHT shows combat manifold pressure is 59" for the R-2800-8W engine. Third, SL airspeed shows 376 mph. No other 8W engine test of the F4U-1 exceeds 365 mph. Forth, max speed is shown as 450 mph at 29,000 ft.!! These airspeeds are more in common with the F4U-4 than with all other F4U-1 (8W) test. The test of the F4U-1A is closely associated with the other test and I believe most represent the production F4U-1 with water.
3. The P-51B tested was equipped with the -3 engine. The -3 engine was more optimized for high altitude flight. By the time of the test the AAF was flying he -7 engine, which provide much better low altitude performance. In comparing airspeed and climb of the P-51B-7 performance to the F4U-1A, we find that the P-51 is faster with similar climb to 10k and roughly equal up to 20k and above that, increasing in performance. In general the F4U-1A(W) was equal in performance to the P-51B up to 25k, at this time period.
4. However, a few months later, May-June, (probably the same time frame as the F4U-1(8W)s were becoming available) the P-51B and D were upgrading to the 44-1 fuel. With this upgrade in power, the P-51D had an advantage in speed and climb to the F4U-1(W) from SL to ceiling, the P-51B significantly so. The F4U may have had similar performance to the P-51, but only for a couple of months. Performance of the two would take another jump in 1945 with the F4U-4 being operational in May. By that time the water injected, 2200+ hp P-51H was operational also.

Just the fact that the carrier capable F4U was competitive with the P-51, especially in the Spring of '44, when the P-51 was a very dominate aircraft over Germany, is very impressive and is a testimony of the engineers and scientist at Vought.

Seek and you will find. I went back and looked at the first few pages of Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WW2. It turns out that the title Action Sorties means exactly that. Only flights by Navy and Marine AC where they were involved with enemy action were counted. That puts a different complexion on things. I am not positive but it seems that the huge number of sorties flown by the P47 in the ETO and those by the other fighters I posted earlier were all flights made by those AC. So the statistics I arrived at regarding the sorties/loss and sorties/awarded kill are meaningless. If anyone has a source which has the action sorties of the AAF fighters, it would be interesting to see them.

There is another glitch in the numbers also. In the Consolidated Summary of the Navy, Marine table there are losses on combat sorties divided into three categories. For instance the land based Marine Corsairs lost in action sorties were to AA-207, to EA-141 and to Operational-157. In addition On Other Flights- there were 458 losses and on Ship or Ground-48 losses. So the Marines operating Corsairs from land bases lost 1011 Corsairs. I won't bother to add up the Navy similar losses and the carrier losses but it looks as if the total of all Corsair losses will be about 2000-2500. Compare that to the 3077 P47 losses in the ETO. None of this proves anything but one can see that almost as many Corsairs were lost by the Marines in non action flights as there were in Action Sorties. The non action flights I assume are mainly training. I would guess that if one had all the numbers for all US AC in WW2 the losses of non action flights versus action sorties losses ratios would be similar.

I'm just postulating but I'm assuming anything outside the UK in the ETO would be a combat sortie

davparlr said:

There are a few items with this test that should be pointed out.
1. Both F4U-1s tested were with water injection, which was just coming on line. At the time of the test, only eight F4U-1s were available with water. Water injection for the fleet was probably several months away.
2. I suspect the Navy slipped a ringer in. I am sure it is not intentional, but rather information gathering for an advanced type. I believe the F4U-1 was an F4U-4 test bed, of sorts. First, there is a comment in the test, under Discussions, para. (c) Drag Condition: "…representative of that to be expected in the F4U-4 airplane…". Second, boost pressure used is 65", where the F4U-1A was 60". AHT shows combat manifold pressure is 59" for the R-2800-8W engine. Third, SL airspeed shows 376 mph. No other 8W engine test of the F4U-1 exceeds 365 mph. Forth, max speed is shown as 450 mph at 29,000 ft.!! These airspeeds are more in common with the F4U-4 than with all other F4U-1 (8W) test. The test of the F4U-1A is closely associated with the other test and I believe most represent the production F4U-1 with water.
3. The P-51B tested was equipped with the -3 engine. The -3 engine was more optimized for high altitude flight. By the time of the test the AAF was flying he -7 engine, which provide much better low altitude performance. In comparing airspeed and climb of the P-51B-7 performance to the F4U-1A, we find that the P-51 is faster with similar climb to 10k and roughly equal up to 20k and above that, increasing in performance. In general the F4U-1A(W) was equal in performance to the P-51B up to 25k, at this time period.
4. However, a few months later, May-June, (probably the same time frame as the F4U-1(8W)s were becoming available) the P-51B and D were upgrading to the 44-1 fuel. With this upgrade in power, the P-51D had an advantage in speed and climb to the F4U-1(W) from SL to ceiling, the P-51B significantly so. The F4U may have had similar performance to the P-51, but only for a couple of months. Performance of the two would take another jump in 1945 with the F4U-4 being operational in May. By that time the water injected, 2200+ hp P-51H was operational also.

Just the fact that the carrier capable F4U was competitive with the P-51, especially in the Spring of '44, when the P-51 was a very dominate aircraft over Germany, is very impressive and is a testimony of the engineers and scientist at Vought.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent analysis davparlr.

Thanks Mike.

PB, that could be true as far as the AAF was concerned but the Navy seemed to be very clear that if enemy action was not encountered, it was not an action sortie. I do know there were a lot of training and breaking in flights of the P47 and other US fighters once the airplanes were delivered to the UK. Quite a few P47s were lost because of landing gear problems and engine problems early on. Looking at the sortie numbers of the P40 and P39 in the ETO, I have to believe that any flight was regarded as a sortie.

I remember reading a book written by a pilot who flew B-17 sorties out of Italy. Every time an engine was changed the crew was required to put 10 hours of flying on it before joining a combat mission. He wrote that these engineering flights took up a good deal of their time. Maybe fighter pilots had to do the same. I can't imagine these being counted as sorties.

renrich said:

VB, thank you for your comment. I am having a little trouble with the number of P47 sorties. The grand total of action sorties flown by all Navy and Marine AC in WW2 was 284,073. That includes even patrol craft such as the PBY. It does not seem reasonable that the P47 flew around twice as many sorties as all the Navy and Marine AC did total unless there is a difference such as the Navy did not judge it an action sortie unless the enemy was encountered and the AAF counted it a sortie regardless of enemy activity. I can't remember where I got the stats on the P47 but I think I have seen them repeated somewhere elso so they are probably valid. My futher info on the ETO shows the following:
P51-213873 sorties
P38-128849 sorties
P40-67059 sorties
P39-30547 sorties

It seems a little far fetched to believe that the P40 in the ETO flew more real sorties than Marine land based Corsairs did in the Pacific (52852)

Click to expand...

i'm reading the statistical digest of USAAF and all fighters sorties in ETO were 570097 airborne, 527314 effective, for comparison in FETO were 271400 airborne and 235868 effective (this data is available only from '43)