Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[Maxrobot1]

Hmm. How much weight would the Hellcat lose if a version was built without the wing-fold mechanism and tail hook assembly?
An considering all the mods performed on the Spitfire series, what if the Hellcat was allowed to progress with, say a bubble canopy?
And considering all the engine variants in Spits, how about Hellcats with R3350s? Remember the Griffin was a far cry from the early Merlins.

 

[GregP]

The F6F was 19 : 1 against all air-to-air only opponets combined.

There is not enough data for anyone to say what the air-to-air ratio was versus any particular opponent, and it didn't achieve 19 : 1 agasint the combination of air-to-air, AAA, and combined operational losses. Of course, none of the OTHER fighters achieved the level of the F6F against only air-to-air opponents. Again, if you include AAA and combined operational losses, even the F4U falls to very pedestrian levels and only has about 2/3 of the success of the F6F in air-to-air only. The only reason people seem to want to include AAA and operations for the F6F is to lower the ratio, but if there is no data for their pet aircraft then it is hard to agree on a lower ratio for it. The argument simply degenerates.

Most people who quote stats for fighters only use the air-to-air stats because the pilot cannot see and avaoid an AAA shell and has NO control over mechanical failures. It seems to be only the Hellcat that pushes people to want to include AAA and operations, but they rarely go back and include that data with their claims for other fighters. In many cases, the combined data are simply not there to use.

I have yet to see any data for any British aircraft that includes the entire war, all theaters, broken out by victories over fighters, bombers, and ground kills, with losses to enemy aircraft, AAA, and combat and non-combat operational losses. That is no slap to anything British at all. Maybe the data simply do not exist in ways that can be correlated into a single table format. I don't know, but would LOVE to find data by country that can be used to compare things fairly.

If anyone knows where such data can be found (as in the US Navy reports compiled after WWII in 1946) for other than U.S. types, maybe you could share a source that can be bought (if a book or written report) or accessed if avilable online. Most of the data for US losses and victories exist ... and we all would love to find the rest. Not solely for ranking purposes but more for completeness and fairness.

Let the chips fall where they fall. Perhaps it would also serve to answer the best and worst of threads, too. The top dog could easily turn out to be the Bf 109 for kills per sortie.

 

[wuzak]

Hmm. How much weight would the Hellcat lose if a version was built without the wing-fold mechanism and tail hook assembly?

The Seafire III was around 20-25mph slower than the Spitfire V - but the Merlin 50 in the Seafire had a lower rated altitude. The Spitfire V with Merlin 50M had a similar speed, but that was even lower altitude rated.

The Seafire XV had the Griffon VI, which was a single speed 2 stage engine. With +15psi boost it would comfortably outrun and outclimb a Hellcat. Not sure if the Griffon VI got to use +18psi, and wonder what the performance would be for that. +21psi would require higher grade fuel, and I doubt the navy would like to store two types of aviation fuel.

An considering all the mods performed on the Spitfire series, what if the Hellcat was allowed to progress with, say a bubble canopy?

The bubble canopy didn't make much, if any at all, performance difference to the Spiftire series.

And considering all the engine variants in Spits, how about Hellcats with R3350s? Remember the Griffin was a far cry from the early Merlins.

True, there were major performance differences between the engine variations in the Spitfire. But there were options that the Spitfire and/or the Seafire missed out on.

Merlin 61s were going into Spitfires in 1942 - but the Seafire never got them. As with the 65, 66 70 versions of the 60-series (rated at different altitudes).

The Spitfire never got the Merlin XX 2 speed supercharged engine. That was supposed to go into the Spitfire III, but the XXs went to Hurricanes instead. I imagine that the Seafire III would have had its performance transformed with the Merlin XX.

Griffons were going into Fireflies from 1942, but didn't get into Seafires until 1944.

how about Hellcats with R3350s?

Not sure that R-3350s would give much advantage in wartime Hellcats. First, they were single stage, compared to Hellcat's 2 stage engine. They were heavier, but didn't give much power advantage.

And wartime R-3350s weren't the most reliable.

 

[Aozora]

As a land-based fighter the Spitfire, from Mk VIII onwards, wins.

As an all-round carrier fighter the F6F was only really beaten by the F4U: however the F4U was only really tamed enough to undertake large scale carrier ops in late 1944 (noting, too, that Eric "Winkle" Brown hated the Corsair in all of its forms). The Seafire III was really too limited; although it made a great low-medium altitude CAP fighter it couldn't be used to escort the FAA's Avengers, nor could it range far enough from carrier groups to intercept Kamikaze raids.

 

[GregP]

The F4U did not have the success the Hellcat had in the PTO and was in service almost exactly as long.

The Hellcat flew 66,530 action sorties, shot down 1,445 bombers and 3,718 fighters for a total of 5,163 victories. Air to air losses were 270, with 533 to AAA and 340 operational, all on action sorties (total action sorties losses = 1,163. They lost another 1,298 on non-action sorties, on ground, or on a ship that sunk. Total losses to all causes were 2,461. Air-to-air kill to loss ratio (5163 / 207) is 19.1 : 1.

The Corsair flew 64,051 action sorties, shot down 478 bombers and 1,662 fighters for a total of 2,140 victories. It had 189 losses in air-to-air, 349 to AA, and 203 operational for an action sorties total loss of 768. Total non-actional sorties losses were 856. Total losses to all causes were 1,624. Air-to-air kill to loss ratio (2140 / 189) is 11.3 : 1.

Simple math. The Hellcat wins hands down in the air-to-air mode versus all opponents. That's all that was claimed ... air-to-air kill to loss.

Data from US Navy document OPNAV-P-23V No, A129 dated 17 June 1946 ... not from me. I should not have to post this again. Go download the document. 93% of the victories were claimed by single seat fighters and the bulk of the remainder were claimed by 2-seat dive bombers or lone search planes. The enemy plane must be seen to crash, disintegrate in the air, be enveloped in flames, descend on friendly territory, or that its pilot and entire crew be seen to bail out. The vast majority were over water and any planes "force landing" were usually lost unless they rigged a mast and sailed it home. Didn't happen very often. There weren't large bomber streams with a bunch of gunners all shooting at the same target and claiming it for Navy fighter claims and NO airframes were reclaimed to fly later over the ocean. Any that crashed in the jungle werre likewise not recovered unless within yards of a jungle runway.

 

[CobberKane]

Sure it is. But that son-of-a-gun didn't pay 19:1.

Nope. But it didn't score the great majority of it's kills against paper mâché opposition either.
Oh boy, here we go again...

 

[GregP]

Cobber,

If your rugby team loses, the circumstances don't matter ... you lost. It's the won and lost column that counts. Same for the Hellcat. It PERFORMED when the it was all on the line ... better than anything else did. Ergo, Hall of Fame performance that reads better than anything else that flew. What else do you need? Infinite replays like the 1972 basketball Olympics until your side wins?

Why not post figures including bomber and fighter victories, AAA, enemy A/C losses, and combat operational losees, and non-combat losses to back up your assertions? C'mon, I posted all that above.

Show me otherwise without the noise about quallity of opposition and all that stuff. It achieved what it acheived. So did the Soviets, Japanese, Germans, Italians, etc. Numbers don't lie unless they are lies in themselves, and these aren't. We're not talking about flukes in sports. This was combat, for life and death. Nobody "gave" the other side anything or "threw" the game. They won or died ... or sometimes flew home if they could get away from the other guys.

 

[Marcel]

Nope, numbers don't lie, but they don't tell the whole story usually and there is room for intepretation. Based on post#25, the Hellcat did slightly more sorties than the Corsair and shot down significantly more enemy a/c. Based on this, one could conclude that the Hellcat was better. But what if 50% of the Corsair sorties were groundattack sorties against only 10% of the Helcat's, that would give the numbers a whole different meaning. (taking these numbers out of thin air, it's just an example). I can think of many other factors that could explain the difference, none of which has anything to do with one a/c being better than the other. With other words, it's very hard for anyone to prove himself right in these 'best of' discussions.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Spitfire VIII is basically a Mk IX with a few aerodynamic refinements, 40% more internal fuel and a bit more weight.

Well, not particularly. The VIII was based on the HF.VII airframe without the pressurised cabin - that one was modified with the extra bits and pieces, retractable tailwheel etc; the IX was literally a V airframe fitted with the Merlin 61.

Early Seafires were based on Spitfire Vs. They had much the same attributes, but were slower. Seafires skipped the whole 2 stage Merlin thing and went for the Griffon - in the XV. But that was later in the war.

Yes, so what's wrong with comparing the Seafire with the Hellcat? The Seafire has more in common with the Grumman fighter than its land based counterpart, simply because the Hellcat was designed as a carrier fighter (and before anyone says "but there were land based ones, too" - it was designed for carrier ops). So, which was better? Seafire XV or Hellcat?

 

[buffnut453]

Simple math. The Hellcat wins hands down in the air-to-air mode versus all opponents. That's all that was claimed ... air-to-air kill to loss.

But it's not. The Buffalo had the best kill-to-loss of WWII at around 26:1. But I'm happy to stick with your "simple math" justification.

I do think it's a bit tough comparing the Hellcat--which fought in one theatre and was flown by one service (ok, 2 if you count USMC and USN and I'm discounting Brit use of the Hellcat 'cos it was, frankly, negligable in terms of kills) for the last 2.6 years of the war when the Allies clearly had the upper hand--with the Spitfire which flew in every theatre and was in service for the entire 6-year duration of the war.

 

[nuuumannn]

Yes, I agree, Buffnut. The two were designed as fighter interceptors, but with very different timescales, histories and uses, it's a tough one to make an even comparison. The Spitfire was the only Allied fighter in production before and after the war and was built in greater numbers than any other Allied fighter of WW2. It was built in a large number of variants and sub-variants with different capabilities and armament and served with a large number of nations' armed forces in many different theatres - every theatre the British armed forces served in, for a start.

The Hellcat, although it had an illustrious career was not around for nearly as long, did not serve with nearly as many armed forces and was not built in anywhere near the same number of variants and sub-marks - not to forget that it was purely designed for carrier operations with naval forces. Yes, Hellcats served with the French forces in Indochina post-war, but apart from FAA use in Europe, the Hellcat's combat career was almost exclusively confined to the PTO.

Performance wise, the Spitfire Mk.VIII -as mentioned earlier does compare closest to the F6F-3 Hellcat, but later Griffon engined Spits could easily out-perform the Grumman fighter - except in range, but then they were designed for ops over Europe, not far ranging missions over water, like Hellcats regularly carried out. How can a real comparison of both types in combat, in terms of enemy aircraft shot down etc be made? More Spitfires served in so many more theatres and in such differing combat environments with a vastly more varied type of opposition, making it impossible to provide a realistic comparison or complete and accurate kill figures for the Spitfire. This was made easy for the Grumman since since the figures provided come from one source, the US Navy. Simple numbers do not illustrate anywhere near the sets of criteria required for combat comparison between the two. For example; Spitfires had combat against other Spitfires, against jet fighters, flying bombs, aircraft flown by the Japanese, Germans, Egyptians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Vietnamese, Indonesians (I'm sure I've missed out a few), need I say more.

 

[GregP]

We've had this before BuffNut,

The Buffalo in FInish service accounted for a miniscule portion of Buffalo operations. Take a representaive sample of at least 75% and it just sucks. About 43 aircraft out of 503 built are NOT a representative sample.

The Finns did well, nobody else did even a tenth as well. Since the Germans shots down the early Russian opposition in incredible numbers, the finns did the same thing.

Atypical at best.

Any sample shoud include at least 75% of the planes and be random. Taking the few Finns isn't random. Taking the USN as a sample IS because they operated over 90% of all Hellcats. SO why not take the entire US Navy, with almost all, but not quite all, of the species?

The Finns had less than 50 Buffalos out of 503. Fold them in with any selection of 280 or more Buffalos and you get a very poor performance.

I choose a large percent because we HAVE the data and it IS bad .. for the Buffalo.

 

[nuuumannn]

Oh, and I also forgot about training. The Hellcat pilots were trained by two principal sources, the British/FAA and the US Navy and the majority of them (except the British/Commonwealth and French) came from one country; the United States. Pilots who flew Spitfires were from all over the world and endured vastly different standards of combat training, therefore had far less predictable abilities as combat airmen. This alone makes comparison betwen the two types in actual combat impossible.

 

[GregP]

Combat performance is what counts. It's NOT how you prepare for the game, it's the score at the end that is remembered.

Performance in WWII is the ONLY measure that counts. The rest are excuses for not performing as well as the real winner. Don't make excuses.

Kind of like the underdog winning the gold ... he or she simply did it better when it counted and won the gold.

Same with fighters. The groups and squadron didn't get to pick their assignments, but they DID get to perform. There is a "best" for air-to-air (Hellcat) and a "best" for air-to-ground (don't know yet ... never thought about it in these terms).

C'mon, use data, not emotion or nationalism. I already said the Bf 109 might come out on top and I'm from the U.S.A. Anybody have the DATA?

 

[stona]

Unless two aircraft are flying at the same time, in the same theatre, against identical opposition and carrying out similar missions, kill ratios are utterly irrelevant as a means of comparing different aircraft].

You could for example compare the Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain to get a measure of their relative performance, but even that would be weighted by factors easy to overlook.

I see someone beat me to the Buffalo's stunning success. I'm surprised it wasn't adopted wholesale by all air arms on that evidence

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

You're making excuses. Take the performance as a TYPE, not a small sample, and let tyhe chips fall. The Finnish Buffalos are less than 10% of the Buffalos. The classic statistical trap is the 10% sample that does NOT work as an indicator of the whole. See W. E. Demming for an explanation.

It doesn't fly in the least.

Quit stating your preference and state the numbers that cover a LARGE sample of the population.

Make it anything over 60% of the type. FM-2 and F4F are the same type ... both are Wildcats. The difference is like the difference between the P-51 and the P-51B. Both had different engines, but both were Mustangs.

You'd have a hard time the engineeering world without sufficient proof. Opinions don't provide it.

 

[stona]

Do you think that comparing the ratios of a Spitfire flying in the BoB and a Hellcat flying in the Pacific is a valid comparison? I don't, in fact it is a nonsense.

The success of the Finnish Buffalos is an illustration of why. If you had figures for the Hellcat flying in a comparable campaign to another fighter (even the Finnish Buffalos) then they might be relevant. No such figures exist. Since the Hellcat never flew in a meaningful way in the ETO it is impossible to make any ratio comparisons between it and any of the fighters that operated in that theatre.

Some aircraft did operate in both. How do the P-38s figures in the ETO compare with its figures in the PTO? Anybody know?

At the moment you are attempting to compare apples and oranges. It is all "sound and fury, signifying nothing" to quote the bard.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

Typical apologist. The Spirfire was a family of fighters. Each "generation" competed against each opposite generation. The comparions are equal ... if not, the differences are minor.

Stop apologizing and supply numbers for your favorite type. The Hellcats were developed and the Bf 109's were developed and the Spitfires were developed and were replaced in service as indicated by losses and developments by the other side.

The Spitfire and Bf 109 flew through the war. The numbers equal out or one side was not as good at development, pilot training, or SOMETHING.

No excuses ... numbers. I wonder if they exist. I see a lot of opinions. I have one too, and it isn't obvious from my posts. Show your numbers that support your claims or acknowledge the Hellcat as number one.

C'mon, NUMBERS. Show it, with references. I did.

Refute it with victories and losses, broken out to victories over enemy aircfaft, enemy aircraft shot down, losses to AAA, and operations, combat and non-combat or be seen as an apologist for your favorite type or nationality. If you can't, stop arguing. I'm asking for numbers and sources, not trying to defend the Hellcat.

Not trying to harp on anyone ... trying to get the NUMBERS ... no prejudice here, it falls where it does. Show me something better than the Hellcat!

With the broken out numbers.

Typical missons for Hellcats were for 4 - 12 against whatever was in the air. If more were required, it was an attack and more were launched. Overclaiming was at a a minimum over the ocean ... not many aircraft involved in most situations ... there's nowhere you can escape to except a ditching or an escape. Forced landing is not an option.

 

[nuuumannn]

Combat performance is what counts. It's NOT how you prepare for the game, it's the score at the end that is remembered. Performance in WWII is the ONLY measure that counts. The rest are excuses for not performing as well as the real winner. Don't make excuses.

Rubbish, Greg. Not when comparing aircraft types. You know all too well that quality of individual, pilot training, maintenance, environment all affect performance on the day. This figure of 19 to 1 for the Hellcat doesn't apply to the aircraft alone, so you can't keep banging on about it like it's the only thing that counts. There's nothing saying that the same ratio would not have been achieveable by the pilots using different aircraft.

As for figures and numbers of Spitfire victories, can't say I have them - are there any out there for every combat the Spitfire was involved in? I doubt it, but like I said earlier, on what basis are such figures going to be justified? Your figures for the Hellcat are the use of the type by one service against one enemy in one combat arena. The Spitfire was in action and scored victories in multiple services with varying quality of pilots using different means of determining victories against many different opponents in many different combat arenas. This means your figures are meaningless. Spitfire and Hellcat combat ratios are incomparable. Who are you to say that if the USN used Spitfires/Seafires instead of Hellcats, then the same figures would not have been achieved at any rate? This also makes your numbers meaningless.

Or be seen as an apologist for your favorite type or nationality. If you can't, stop arguing.

Ouch! Is this really necessary, Greg?

 

[GregP]

Rubbish Nuuumannn. They did what they did and one has to come out on top. There are NO equal war thearters. There are NO equal pilots. We only have the RESULTS and they are what they are.

You are apologist for your favorite type, whatever that is and I have my suspicion.

No numbers, no result.

I HAVE numbers. See Post #25. Post yours. Notice no numbers since post 25?

Is there a reason? I think so. Figure it out. Either the Hellcat is the best or you can't prove it otherise with believable numbers from a believable source.

If you can, do it with the numbers or be shown to be an apologist.