Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

magnocain said:
I think the Corsair was hit less often, so more survived
Click to expand...
It's already been mentioned, per the same stats, the F4U was hit slightly *more* often than the F6F in apples v apples comparison, but not statistically signficantly. Both were hit about as often, but F6F's survived significantly more often when hit.

I think one key issue just mentioned by Renrich was the reputation for effective *doctrine of close air support* by the Marines particularly early in the Korean War compared to the cooperation of the USAF and Army initially in that war. That became a general news sort of topic at the time. Of course we often see events in WWII through the lens of later events and this is one example I think. Marine a/c provided close support to Marine ground forces also in WWII, but it was more of an emerging mission, not the key mission for Marine air it's been viewed as post WWII, and not with the same favorable to the Marines/unfavorable to other services connotation as in early Korean War.

But, even books like "Victory at High Tide", about the Inchon campaign, by Robert Heinel, basically official Marine historian, whose books were dual purpose history and recruiting/tradition building tools, not full warts-and-all histories of Marine operations, mentioned the vulnerability of F4U oil coolers to ground fire.

Joe
 
In furtherance of JoeB's point, the report stated:

(e) The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.
 

ok,ok,ok, sorry. The averages that are being used, are they from a total or plane per plane? ( ask this thinking that there were more f6f's than f4u's)
 
I seem to remember a phrase used where the Corsair was called the "Angel of Okinawa" by the Marines because of it's close support efforts during that invasion.
 
magnocain said:
ok,ok,ok, sorry. The averages that are being used, are they from a total or plane per plane? ( ask this thinking that there were more f6f's than f4u's)
Click to expand...
If it was totals and there were more F6F airplanes but more F4U AA losses that would be even more in favor of the F6F... but of course the stats being quoted are rates, planes hit by AA *per* sortie was about the same for the two types but *%* of planes hit which were lost was substantially higher for F4U than F6F. Which to reiterate one more time, compares the two only when both were flying from carriers in 1945.

On what basis would we assume the F6F was the more vulnerable? relatively similar planes built around the same basic engine. But it turns out the F4U was more vulnerable statistically. I don't see anything tricky or complicated about those stats, and since they are generally corroborated by the F4U's widely reported reputation for oil system vulnerability, I don't understand the resistance to accepting the stats and the apparent fact that the F6F was more resistant to combat damage than the F4U.

Joe
 
JoeB, did not the tradition or reputation for good close air support by Marine air with respect to Marine ground forces begin to come about during the action in Venezuela in the 30s?
 
renrich said:
JoeB, did not the tradition or reputation for good close air support by Marine air with respect to Marine ground forces begin to come about during the action in Venezuela in the 30s?
Click to expand...
Marine a/c in Nicaragua in the 1920's I think you mean, was a pioneering US use of air support of ground forces, true. But, that whole mission on the ground, COIN, was viewed as somewhat of a sideshow to the main Marine 'big war' mission as conceived of pre WWII, which was seize and defend forward (naval, it was implied) bases.

And Marine air was largely focused on that sort of mission for a lot of WWII. For example defending Guadalcanal then the northern Solomon bases, with the extension of suppressing Japanese fwd bases (ie. Rabaul) with Marine air power (as well as Army and some landbased Navy), then pounding those bypassed Japanese bases to keep them down through 1945. The pure CAS mission came to the fore at times, but I'd still maintain that if we view WWII Marine air as largely CAS, it's because we view it in terms of a later concept of Marine air, which in turn did have some roots as far back as the 20's, but wasn't really the main Marine air mission in WWII.

Here's a great site with original documents about Marine air operations in Nicaragua:
The Sandino Rebellion: Air-Docs Home

Joe
 
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet but, the turocharger ducting on the P-47 was not all that volnerable. It may get a few holes punched in it but that'll take alot due to the T-Bolt's thick skin, plus small leaks in the turbo ducting doesn't hurt performance horribly bad, especially at low altitude. The ducting would mostly be volnerable to ground fire too, somthing the F4U's oil cooler was far more susceptable to, and loosing the oil cooler is far worse than some turbo ducting.

In fact, the belly ducting on the P-47 increased survivabillity since it acted as a buffer on emergency belly landing and obsorbed much shock, (acting like crumple-zones) to the benefit of both pilot and aircraft. Such a landing wouldn't necessarily total the a/c either as it would often be reparable.(though the turbo systems and belly-skin would probably need to be stripped and replaced)
 
In fact, the belly ducting on the P-47 increased survivabillity since it acted as a buffer on emergency belly landing
Click to expand...

Holing the ducting on the P47 simply means the engine looses the boost from the turbocharger.

The P47 is still going to fly. It will just use the carburetor and fly on a normally aspirated engine.

All the best,

Crumpp
 
I know, sorry if I implied otherwise. And the oil cooler on the Corsair would certainly disable the engine, far worse than loss of boost pressure (obviously). The P-51 had a similar problem with grounf fire due to the volnerable plumbing in the belly, mostly for the cooling systems, the radiator in the belly scoop was also probably volnerable, though this didn't seem as much of a problem on the Hurricane iirc... Noth that neither of these last two planes are anywhere near the toughest. (though the Hurricane was easy to repair in the field)

But the buffer effect on belly landings is an interesting feature of the P-47.

The P-39, P-63, and P-40 were probably some of the toughest inline engined fighters of the war. Though the wing-tanks of the cobras were more likely to take hits, at least if one caught fire it wouldn't burn the pilot and might have a chance to seal and extinguish before the pilot has to bail. (the P-38 was very surviable too, though alot of this was due to the twin engines, particularly in early models where technical problems were significant)

Maby liquid-cooled engined craft should be considdered separately, though nearly all of Britain's best A/C used merlins, so this would skew the fighues a bit... Then again some of their best, like the Tempest II used radials.


Should we considder which WWII Jet was the toughest? (probably the Meteor, as far as absorbing damage, due to the twin centrifugal engines; tougher than axial and 2 for security of limping home)
 
Didn't read through the whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been debated ad naseum, but to me, it seems to be a toss-up between the B-17 and the P-47.
We've all seen the pics of 17's shot up so bad, only thing left is the pilot, his seat and his steering wheel, with everyone else hanging off his scarf.
I've heard stories of P-47's loosing major portions of a wing and making it back, as well as very shot up engines.


Elvis
 

The B-26 with its loss/sortie ratio is high on the list. The challenge with ALL discussions about toughness is lack of relevant data to make statistical judgements..

Do we know how many low level missions encountered light to medium flak?, Do we evaluate a Marauder's loss rate to a Fortress or Liberator based on threats en route to target and LW reactions to them? If one mission profile was 12-15,000 feet wouldn't we suspect that it was subjected to heavier and more effective flak fire than one at 26,000 feet? Same question for strafing airfields versus horizontal bombing at medium altitudes?

Do we know the relative flak losses for P-47s versus F-6F and how did the number of flak losses to flak damage to number of sorties in which flak was encountered? Ditto any other a/c in consideration?

Ditto air to air losses - in context of number of missions in which a bomber or fighter encountered enemy fighters and incurred battle damage in the fight?

These questions, unless answered, render a tough environment in which to make a judgement.
 
But for ground attack a/c it has to be the Il-2, or maby the Il-10 (basicly the same in most ways, but with much higher performance) it truely was a concrete aircraft.
 
kool kitty89 said:
But for ground attack a/c it has to be the Il-2, or maby the Il-10 (basicly the same in most ways, but with much higher performance) it truely was a concrete aircraft.
Click to expand...

But how do we (or anybody) truly have a basis to either judge or compare against equally legendary airframes?

The primary reason I try to stay out of deep debate on this type subject is that I simply don't know how one could make a comparison unless perhaps you were able to fly equal numbers of aircraft to be compared - say four each IL-2, Fw 190, P-47 and F6F on the same mission against heavily defended targets for perhaps 100 missions - and keep the data as accurately as possible regarding severity of battle damage on the survivors, for example,..
 
The only way I can determine, roughly, which was the toughest is to look at pilot comments/recollections.... As Bill said, without any concrete data, the rest is all hearsay and bullsh!t....

That being said, just about every German fighter pilot who engaged Allied Bomber streams thought the -17 was the toughest to pop....
 

Exactly. Pictures can be found and incidences recalled of all of these aircraft returning to base after catastrophic damage.

What does it mean? The pilot got very lucky.

All the best,

Crumpp
 

Every one I talked to expressed the same opinion about the B-17. I can't remeber the author of the famous quote "To attack a formation of B-17s is to watch one's life pass before your eyes - holding your breath as you go."

Was it Eder who was shot down 9 times attacking them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
687
Greyman
G
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
591
Dimlee
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register