Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

GregP · May 28, 2013

Well said Cobber. No pilot thinks he will be a target for the enemy and fights accordingly, When he is ambushed, the toughness of the plane comes into play.

If he isn't ambushed, the Spitfire is as strong as required or more so. If he is, it is better than Zero at taking hits, but not by much. The moral is to stay alert and NOT be a target. Most Spits weren't ambushed and were quite good at dodging attacks and shooting the enemy. Sadly, not all.

zjtins · May 29, 2013

German Aluminium Production
1940 = 265.3 000 metric tons
1943 = 432.0 000 metric tons

That says what they built not what they had left. Once Norway and other non contiguous countries (to Germany) were back in allies hands where Germany get the raw materials come from?
You said nothing of nickel, chrome etc. necessary for high strength steals in armor, guns engines etc.

And tungsten enabled guns to go through more armor. I never read where a tanker said yes I chose to use lesser capable round. Did it make a difference I do not know but it was an indication of reduced resources impacting capability not just production rates.

altsym · May 29, 2013

Germany: 28,499,000 metric tons of steel output in 1944. 113,996,000 total production of steel in 1944 ( includes Belgium, Northern France, Meurthe et Moselle, Protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia), Netherlands, Poland).

Njaco · May 29, 2013

I'm not arguing that material supplies were in great demand during the last 2 years of the war even though manufacturing of planes, tanks, etc rose to their highest levels during 1944. BUT you seem to HYPOTHESIZE that Germany was totally out of any material since 1943 and what they did make was nothing more than paper machete. Numbers don't impress you, facts don't impress you, books don't impress you and even primary sources don't impress you. I'm sorry if I or just about everyone else here doesn't use Wiki as a source. I just couldn't find production numbers for WWII on Youtube.

RCAFson · May 29, 2013

altsym said:
Germany: 28,499,000 metric tons of steel output in 1944. 113,996,000 total production of steel in 1944 ( includes Belgium, Northern France, Meurthe et Moselle, Protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia), Netherlands, Poland).

No, no, no!!! Complete fantasy. See here for the facts:

Axis History Forum • German Steel Production

and the USSBS European summary for WW2:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: over-all ... . - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library | HathiTrust Digital Library

parsifal · May 29, 2013

Once Norway and other non contiguous countries (to Germany) were back in allies hands where Germany get the raw materials come from?

Two basic issues here....norway remained under German control until surrender....it was never retaken. secondly whilst i get what you are trying to say....that Germany suffered from a shortage of raw materials and this got worse as they lost territory, thats not a function of industrial output. its not even a direct function of the strategic air offensive. The advances by the Russians 9mostly) and the allies (to a lesser extent), had more to do with these shortages.

Germany did suffer from a transport problem, as the RAF turned to destroying the rail infrastructure. this was sped up by the allied interdiction campaigns in '43-4. To that extent there is an element of truth to some of what your saying. but I would suggest you are taking a few half truths and twisting them out of proportion to serve your purposes.

fastmongrel · May 29, 2013

parsifal said:
Two basic issues here....norway remained under German control until surrender....it was never retaken. secondly whilst i get what you are trying to say....that Germany suffered from a shortage of raw materials and this got worse as they lost territory, thats not a function of industrial output. its not even a direct function of the strategic air offensive. The advances by the Russians 9mostly) and the allies (to a lesser extent), had more to do with these shortages.

Germany did suffer from a transport problem, as the RAF turned to destroying the rail infrastructure. this was sped up by the allied interdiction campaigns in '43-4. To that extent there is an element of truth to some of what your saying. but I would suggest you are taking a few half truths and twisting them out of proportion to serve your purposes.

I shouldnt worry parsifal zjtins has been put out of our misery by FlyboyJ

parsifal · May 29, 2013

oh well, I knew that was coming.....

parsifal · May 30, 2013

not that great. I asked this question some time back. It had a theoretical range advantage of several hundred miles, but in reality I can find no instances of it ever being used operationally at ranges greater than 230-260 miles. The Seafire III at the end of the war was undertaking offensive operations out to the 180 mile mark, so the effective range difference is about 80 miles. Thats significant, but its not war winning.

nincomp · May 30, 2013

I am beginning to wonder if this is a thread that will never die.
Have you ever driven by a traffic accident and told yourself "I will not look. I will not gawk." A few moments later you find yourself staring and saying to yourself "Ugh... I shouldn't have looked." That is how this thread is for me. I swear that I won't take a peek ... but here I am... again.

Arnold Katz · May 30, 2013

There is no real choice. It's the F6F hands down. For power, range and maintenance, especially Hellcats R2800 engine beats
Spitfires in line, especially on maintenance issues.

fastmongrel · May 30, 2013

Arnold Katz said:
especially on maintenance issues.

What maintenance issues.

drgondog · May 30, 2013

Arnold Katz said:
There is no real choice. It's the F6F hands down. For power, range and maintenance, especially Hellcats R2800 engine beats
Spitfires in line, especially on maintenance issues.

How about firepower, speed, maneuverability, climb, dive, ceiling?

VBF-13 · May 30, 2013

drgondog said:
How about firepower, speed, maneuverability, climb, dive, ceiling?

Why don't we evaluate it this way? What did the Spitfire have over the Zero in terms of combat effectiveness? We'll throw out Australia, as the Spitfire was stretched, there. Load them up and put them against one another. I'm seeing you describing a Zero, here, too, for the most part, and I see these machines as a wash, basically. And look at what the Big Cat did to the Zero.

parsifal · May 30, 2013

VBF-13 said:
Why don't we evaluate it this way? What did the Spitfire have over the Zero in terms of combat effectiveness?

Seafires were considered by the BPF, who fielded all three of the major Allied Carrier Fighters (Hellcat, Corsair and Seafire III) to be the best defensive fighter in their inventory. They were credited with from memory 55 kills during the okinawa campaign, had the lowest rate of deck landing accidents and loss rates of all those three

Performance wise the Seafire Ii had the following characteristics

General characteristics

Empty weight: 6,204 lb (2,814 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,640 lb (3,466 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Merlin 55M liquid-cooled V-12, 1,585 hp (1,182 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 359 mph (578 km/h) at 5,100 ft (1,554 m)
Cruise speed: 218 mph (351 km/h)
Range: 513 mi (825 km)
Service ceiling: 32,000 ft (9,754 m)
Rate of climb: 1.9 min to 5,000 ft (1,525 m)

The A6M5 was its contemporary and has the following characteristics. theres really nothing in it. However the Seafire has superior climb (to 5000feet) and dive characteristics, far better protection and significantly better firepower. Against the contemporary of the A6m5 (the Spitfire XIV) ther is no comparison in outright performance. the British fighter has advantages in every major category except its ability to turn ayt speeds below 200 knots

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke-52-TAIC-102D.pdf

Fliht trials comparing the Seke 52 to the Corsair, Hellcat and FM-2 are here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

We'll throw out Australia, as the Spitfire was stretched, there.

Click to expand...

Nope, it was misused

Load them up and put them against one another. I'm seeing you describing a Zero, here, too, for the most part, and I see these machines as a wash, basically.

Click to expand...

Once the British learned how to deal with the Zeke,, the Zeke was not really able to cope with the Spitfire, except with exceptional pilots, which were few and far between by 1945.

And look at what the Big Cat did to the Zero.

Click to expand...

Not that much against a half decent pilot, as the cats found out in November 1943 whilst operating against Rabaul. against defencless rookies, maybe. And who ground the JAAF and IJN pilots into the dust....not the Hellcats. They came in after the hard work had been done basically.

VBF-13 · May 30, 2013

parsifal said:
And who ground the JAAF and IJN pilots into the dust....not the Hellcats. They came in after the hard work had been done basically.

Yeah, I recall somebody having tried to establish that proposition, earlier, in this thread. FWIW, the Mustangs stepped in at much the same spot in the ETO. Didn't they?

RCAFson · May 30, 2013

Here's an interesting article on the Seafire. It states that by wars end it achieved a lower loss rate than F4Us flying the same missions:

http://donaldnijboer.com/pdfs/kamakazikiller.pdf

The use of the 90 gal DTs really made the difference as the fighter then had much more endurance and did not have to land so frequently to refuel thus reducing the accident rate.

drgondog · May 30, 2013

VBF-13 said:
Yeah, I recall somebody having tried to establish that proposition, earlier, in this thread. FWIW, the Mustangs stepped in at much the same spot in the ETO. Didn't they?

No, they didn't.. what they did do, however is go after German fighters that pulled out of range of P-47s and Spits.

If you were a modest student of airpower in ETO you might have known that neither the P-47 nor Spitfire were able to prevent the LW from stopping
deep strategic bombing by the US - dead in its tracks between the August 6, 1943 and October 14, 1943 Schweinfurt attacks. The P-47 was powerless to stop the LW Fighter arm and the P-38 was ineffective.

There was a reason that the 8th AF lost more KIA than the Marines in WWII. IIRC, between the RAF and USAAF, their losses KIA exceeded the combined US/Commonwealth KIA in PTO. After Midway, the IJN was a shell of its former self and it was the F4F that carved the heart out of that pilot pool. Try to recall instances of combat in the PTO in which the USN (or USAAF or RAAF or RNZAF) lost 30 or more shot down in air combat in a day in the PTO after Midway?

The PTO simply didn't meet the intensity test of the Battle of Germany.

altsym · May 30, 2013

RCAFson said:
No, no, no!!! Complete fantasy. See here for the facts:

Axis History Forum • German Steel Production

and the USSBS European summary for WW2:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: over-all ... . - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library | HathiTrust Digital Library

Its the same numbers lol.

RCAFson · May 30, 2013

altsym said:
Its the same numbers lol.

you stated German steel production as:

Germany: 28,499,000 metric tons of steel output in 1944. 113,996,000 total production of steel in 1944 ( includes Belgium, Northern France, Meurthe et Moselle, Protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia), Netherlands, Poland).

The total for German occupied Europe in 1944 was ~28.5 million metric tons, not ~114 million metric tons.

Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

Major

Banned

Airman 1st Class

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Master Sergeant

Colonel

1st Sergeant

Colonel

Colonel

Airman 1st Class

Recruit

1st Sergeant

Major

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Major

Airman 1st Class

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads