Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

Seafires over the years have come in for a lot of criticism about their deck handling characterisitics. Some of it is justified. The performance of the Seafires IIs during torch and later off Sicily were abysmal. What isnt made apparent is the massive improvement that was made on that poor record in 1945. Neither are the reasons for the failures well understood, or how they were overcome. Seafires went from just about the worst aircraft on the deck (from an operators POV) to one of the best. There were good reasons why they remained in service until 1953....they got good at working in the FAA.

The main problems in 1943 were

1) Weak landing gear...a clear aircraft problem....this led to aircraft not being able to use full power on take off, and this in turn caused an even higher attrition rate. There were also some complaints about poor fields of vision whilst taking off or landing....I think a function of the low deep cockpit and the long nose of the Seafire. Later the Griffon engined types had problems with the rotation of the props, and the undercarriage issues crept back in because the old LIII undercariage was re-sued on an aircraft with 600 additional HP.
2)Still air conditions in the med that meant it was difficult for aircraft to get enough lift under the wings, especially with small, slow carriers operating at generally below 15 knots.
3)As alluded to above the carriers being used in 1943 were generally not fleet carriers. they wre generally Escort cariers, operating under less than ideal conditions.
4)Aircrews completely unfamiliar and inexpereienced on the type

by 1945, many of these problems had been eliminated or reduced. the Seafire III had somewhat strengthend landing gear (though this did remain a problem), the type was finally operating from faster, larger fleet carriers which meant beter operating conditions (more air under the wings), crews that finally knew the type and what its limits were. Losses were still heavy to non-operational causes, but far more tolerable than 2 years previous. It took aboutn a month to chew through the supply of Seafire4s, whereas during Torch, they had just about ran out of planes after only two days or so.

But then, what was the record of the Hellcat or the F4U when operating from escort carriers? With poorly trained crews? in conditions less than ideal for carrier operations (which are different to land based types)??

RCAFson said:

you stated German steel production as:



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

Click to expand...

Yeah 28.5 million m-tons. The 114 m-tons I used because the quarter report only went to 4.44, I averaged it for the whole year, hence 114 m-tons.
Anyways my point was for zjtins as he/she said that Germany had run out of raw materials by 1943, clearly, he/she was in error.

If you check the US Navy records, the Hellcats shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in 66,530 action sorties, most all in the PTO. The F4U Corsair shot down 2,140 in 64,051 action sorties, also mostly in the PTO. The F4F Wildcat shot fown 1,327 in 15,553 action sorties.

Looks like a clear case for the Hellcat as the big winner to me in the PTO.

A lot is made of the impressive loss ratios achied by the F6F during 1943-5 . Ther is no denying that it achieved impressive results, but questions are seldom asked about how where when such losses were achieved.

The Hellcat is credited with the destruction of about 4000 Japanese aircraft whilst losing about 200 or so of their own number. What isnt talked about is that the 4000 they destroyed or were responsible for represent the total losses attributed to the hellcat (the 4000 does not include non-operational Japanese losses...in total they amounted to about 17000 of the total 45000 Japanese aircraft lost during the war), whilst the Hellcat losses dont include total losses whilst on operations. Total losses for Hellcats from all causes within the types operational areas amounted to about 2000 aircraft. On that basis the exchange ratio is anything but the claimed 19:1 exchange rate. More like 2:1. moreover, it is actually impossible to separate losses to air combat to "other" losses sustained. Towards the end, the Japanese were not really worrying about fighting the Hellcats. They were too busy concentrating on getting their Kamikazes through to worry too much about losses .

The following is a bit of a summary taken from the following link on Kamikaze losses during the Okinawa campaign. Its losses to all causes, and about 30% of losses are estimated to be from flak. However the remaining losses have to overwhelmingly be at the hands of Hellcats....there really werent many other types in the operational areas....

Kamikaze Damage to US and British Carriers

Japanese Naval Planes Used from Oct. 1944 to the end of the Okinawa Campaign1
(including Escorts)

Sortied 2,314
Returned 1,086
Expended 1,228

Okinawa Campaign Losses2

During just the Okinawa campaign, the Japanese Army and Navy combined lost 1,900 aircraft in suicide attacks, 2,255 in combat operations, 2,655 in operational accidents and more than 1,000 that were destroyed on the ground. In contrast, the USN lost 565 aircraft and the British Pacific Fleet lost 203 - 32 destroyed by Kamikazes, 30 in the accidental hanger fire on Formidable, 33 in combat, 61 (mostly Seafires) in deck-landing accidents and 47 from other causes. As the British Pacific Fleet started out with 218 operational aircraft, these losses put a severe strain on the replenishment system.

USN Ships Sunk and Damaged by Kamikazes3
Sunk Damaged
Ship Type Qty Ship Type Qty
CVE 3 (sunk)
CV 16 (damaged)
DD 13 (sunk)
CVL 3 (damaged)
DE 1 (sunk)
CVE 17 (damaged)
DMS 2 (sunk)
BB 15 (damaged)
SC 1 ( sunk)
CA 5 (damaged)
AM 1 (sunk)
CL 10 (damaged)
APD 3 (sunk)
DD 87 (damaged)
LST 5 (sunk)
DE 24 (damaged)
ATO 1 (sunk)
SS 1 (damaged)
Auxiliary 1 (sunk)
DM 13 (damaged)
PC/PT 3 (sunk)
DMS 15 (damaged)
AGP/AGS 3 (sunk)
AH 1 (sunk)
AK/AKA/AKN 6 (sunk)
AM 10 (damaged)
AO 2 (sunk)
APA/APD/APH 30 (damaged)
ARL 2 (sunk)
ATF 1 (sunk)
AV/AVP 4 (sunk)
CM 1 (sunk)
LST 11 (damaged)
PC/PT 3 (sunk)
YDG/YMS 7 (damaged)
Total 288

Not included in the the totals in this section are Japanese Army planes used as Kamikazes and Escorts. In the US Strategic Bombing Survey report, there is an estimate of 2,550 Kamikaze sorties being flown from all services. This number apparently does not include Escorts. Some 475 of these Kamikazes, or 18.6 percent, were effective in securing hits or damaging near misses. It is not clear if these totals include strikes on British vessels, but I suspect that they do not.

Aircraft losses in this section from "Bombers versus Battleships" p. 324.

These totals include ships which were struck on multiple but separate occasions. For instance, USS Ticonderoga and USS Franklin were both hit twice and USS Intrepid suffered a total of five kamikaze hits. Eliminating this multiple counting, the total number of major USN warships struck were 9 aircraft carriers, 2 light carriers, 16 escort carriers and 15 battleships. The great majority of these ships were hit during the Okinawa campaign, with 24 ships being sunk and 198 damaged.
At the time of surrender, the Japanese had more than 9,000 planes in the home islands available for Kamikaze attack, and more than 5,000 had already been specially fitted for suicide attack to resist the planned invasion.

However, if we assume that 60% of losses October'44 through to April '45 are from Hellcats, then they shot down about 2400 of their 4000 in that last 12 months of the war, whilst losing 565 to do it. Thats around 5:1 exchange rate, but it also means that the Hellcats were suffering a much higher wastage rate earlier in the war, when we can assume the japanese were more proficient in the air. To destroy about 1600 enemy aircraft in the air, the Hellcats lost about 1200 or so of their own number. Thats an exchange rate much closer to 1:1. I am not saying these losses were in air combat....only 200 were lost to the japanese that way, but the point is that a lot of Hellcats were lost destroying those 4000-9000 Japanese aircraft.

GregP said:

If you check the US Navy records, the Hellcats shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in 66,530 action sorties, most all in the PTO. The F4U Corsair shot down 2,140 in 64,051 action sorties, also mostly in the PTO. The F4F Wildcat shot fown 1,327 in 15,553 action sorties.

Looks like a clear case for the Hellcat as the big winner to me in the PTO.

Click to expand...

Are this claims, or proven shot downs crosschecked on Japanese lost lists?
Claims imply nil to nothing.

Thats another part of the problem. Its impossible to cross check because many of the records on the japanese have been lost or destroyed. All we have are disjointed records and claims.

its not even possible to conclusively determine the total japanese losses, let alone the causes of those losses.

All we know is that in the last 18 months of the war, the japanese suffered attrociously one sided losses. It doesnt suit the victors to ask too many in depth questions like "how" or "when" or "why"!!!!

Those are official US Navy victory credits.

The 19 : 1 ratio is accurate for air-to-air combat only, which is what is claimed. The total losses on action sorties that resulted in the 5,163 victories were 270 lost to enemy aircraft (the source of the 19 : 1), 453 due to A/A, and 340 due to operational issues on the action sorties, either going to or from the target area. These include running out of fuel, an engine that quits for mechanical reasons, etc. So, the total losses on action sorties were 1,163, and 823 for air-to-air loses plus A/A losses. However, the data for other WWII aircraft are not avilable (as far as I know, unless they are quoting other US Navy aircraft from the reports) in such detail and the ratios quoted by most people for other planes are for losses to enemy aircraft only. If that's what is claimed for one type, seems logical to do an apples-to-apples comparison for all types.

There were other Hellcat losses as well, on non-action sorties, that have nothing whatsoever to do with combat. All types have these losses and they do not figure into combat statistics since they aren't in combat.

So the ratios are: 19 : 1 for air-to-air only, 6.3 : 1 if you include Air-to-air and A/A losses, which almost nobody includes when they make claims for other planes. I don't know anyone who includes operational losses on action sorties that occur away from combat in the kill ratio. The only reason it comes up for the US Navy is because the data are available.

Losses to A/A are not usually counted because the pilot cannot see an antiaircraft shell coming and cannot dodge it if he did. You stand a pretty good chance of being shot at by A/A if you attack a warship ... and much less of chance if you attack many ground targets. An airfield will be defended with A/A, and other military targets as well, but something like a train will only have very few or no guns to shoot back at an aircraft. So the A/A losses are directly depended on the A/A at the target and the skill of the gunners, not really on the aircraft.

I'd say that, to be fair, if you want to count the A/A losses for the US Navy, then how do you get those data for such planes as the Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire, Hurricane, etc.? I haven't ever seen these data from British or Axis aircraft, but would surely like to. Anybody know where these data can be found? Or if they even exist? If so, maybe we could get some decent comparisons going.

GregP said:

Those are official US Navy victory credits.

The 19 : 1 ratio is accurate for air-to-air combat only, which is what is claimed. The total losses on action sorties that resulted in the 5,163 victories were 270 lost to enemy aircraft (the source of the 19 : 1), 453 due to A/A, and 340 due to operational issues on the action sorties, either going to or from the target area. These include running out of fuel, an engine that quits for mechanical reasons, etc. So, the total losses on action sorties were 1,163, and 823 for air-to-air loses plus A/A losses. However, the data for other WWII aircraft are not avilable (as far as I know, unless they are quoting other US Navy aircraft from the reports) in such detail and the ratios quoted by most people for other planes are for losses to enemy aircraft only. If that's what is claimed for one type, seems logical to do an apples-to-apples comparison for all types.

There were other Hellcat losses as well, on non-action sorties, that have nothing whatsoever to do with combat. All types have these losses and they do not figure into combat statistics since they aren't in combat.

So the ratios are: 19 : 1 for air-to-air only, 6.3 : 1 if you include Air-to-air and A/A losses, which almost nobody includes when they make claims for other planes. I don't know anyone who includes operational losses on action sorties that occur away from combat in the kill ratio. The only reason it comes up for the US Navy is because the data are available.

Losses to A/A are not usually counted because the pilot cannot see an antiaircraft shell coming and cannot dodge it if he did. You stand a pretty good chance of being shot at by A/A if you attack a warship ... and much less of chance if you attack many ground targets. An airfield will be defended with A/A, and other military targets as well, but something like a train will only have very few or no guns to shoot back at an aircraft. So the A/A losses are directly depended on the A/A at the target and the skill of the gunners, not really on the aircraft.

I'd say that, to be fair, if you want to count the A/A losses for the US Navy, then how do you get those data for such planes as the Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire, Hurricane, etc.? I haven't ever seen these data from British or Axis aircraft, but would surely like to. Anybody know where these data can be found? Or if they even exist? If so, maybe we could get some decent comparisons going.

Click to expand...

I have serious doubts, that you can claim "official US Navy victory credits" as accurate.
We have learned in this forum that every national victory credits are exaggerated, if they were crosschecked with the enemy loss lists.

From official German loss lists from Freiburg, which are accurate till the end of 1944, all claims from USAF a/c's (fighter, bomber and fighter bomber) were highly exaggerated. For which reason do you claim, the claimed victories in the PTO are accurate?

DonL - strip out US heavy bomber claims and match up against Caldwell, Prien, etc and US Fighter Command credits against LW loss lists are pretty accurate.

I have researched quite a few of the 1944 battles as well as corresponded with Caldwell, Prien, Muller, etc and began to run across a common thread. Namely, a significant percentage of claims and subsequent credits for US involved German a/c crash landing. When looking at the other side, many crashed a/c were less than 60% damaged and did not enter the 'Loss' column record.

Unfortunately the destruction of so much LW data prevents an in depth records exam of both operational reports as well as Quartermaster summaries.

@ drogondog

I think both the heavy bomber claims and the fighter bomber claims are heavily exaggerated. I'm aware that the claims of the USAF fighter are much more accurate.
The intention of my post was, to show that's not this easy, to claim official national victory lists as accurate.
If we look at the last 3-4 years discusion about official german victory lists and the heavy dispute about this issue in this forum, where are two irreconcilable groups in this forum, I'm very careful in the meantime to claim national victory lists as accurate.

rough rule of thumb for the RAF was that their claims exceeded actual losses inflicted by about 30%. Thats according to Forsyth. However there are many exceptions to that generalization, and especially early in the war, there are some very gross overclaims.

Also, it seems that the bigger the battle, the biger margin of error crept in, as pilots would claim the same aircraft as their own.

no-one was immune from this. asa Forsyth states in his book....claims should not be viewed as any sort of relaiable indication of loses, more an indication of air activity.

Its an uncomfortable fact that we all need to get used to.

GregP said:

I'd say that, to be fair, if you want to count the A/A losses for the US Navy, then how do you get those data for such planes as the Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire, Hurricane, etc.? I haven't ever seen these data from British or Axis aircraft, but would surely like to. Anybody know where these data can be found? Or if they even exist? If so, maybe we could get some decent comparisons going.

Click to expand...

John Manrho and Ron Putz broke down the cause of Luftwaffe losses very accurately during Operation Bodenplatte as follows:

47 per cent by Allied AAA
23 per cent by Allied fighters
5 per cent by German Flak
5 per cent in accidents
5 per cent by either Allied AAA or fighters (assume 2.5% flak, 2.5% fighters)
3 per cent from technical failures
1 per cent from fuel starvation
11 per cent to unknown causes (could be any combination of the above, unverified so we cannot assume anything)

54.5% do to flak/AAA, 25.5% due to fighters.

We only have the data we have. My take on it is that if someone shot an enemy aircraft to the point it had to depart the battle and crash lands, he gets a victory. Some don't agree with that and that's OK. I don't really have any issues with the definitions as long as they are used consistently across the board. Therein lies the rub. Looking at it another way, if we haven't got the data to check and verify everything from WWII by now ... 70+ years later, then we are probably stuck with what data we have.

What we have for at least SOME of the data are the victory credits awarded by a country to their service pilots. In the case of the US Navy, their awards went through the best verification they could have at the time slightly after the war ended and were tabulated in a specific report. I have yet to see the USAAF data tabulated in a mnanner similar to the Navy, and have not seen any other data tabulated that way in a single report. The only source I have found for data broken out by types in a manner allowing some decent analysis is the Navy data from OPNAV-P-23V No. A129 dated 17 June 1946.

As soon as I can find some data that are accumulated in a manner allowing analysis or at least tabulation in a spreadsheet or other computer application, I'd like to do a comparison. Right now, it's tough.

Some people even want to include non-combat losses in with combat statistics. In the vast majority of cases, fighters and bombers didn't attack alone and it was well known whether a loss was operational on the way to or from a target, was as a result of combat, and whether the loss was due to A/A or to an enemy aircraft. Perhaps not in ALL cases, such as if nobody came back, but for most surely. I'm pretty sure that if our guys knew that, then so did the Japanese, Germans, British, Soviets, etc.

If we can't agree on what data to count across the board, then maybe tabulating it for analysis won't solve anything even we had the data. The real challenge is finding the data, accumulating it, and making a useful tabulation of the results. And then getting people too agree on what they want to count.

I doubt seriously the loss data for most Axis aircraft is available in a fashion that allows us to determine whether or not the loss was on an action sortie, was due to A/A, was non-combat related, etc. But it would be nice to find it and have a good discussion and maybe it does exist.

Meanwhile, I won't argue too had about it in here and certainly won't question primary sources.

The only Japanese ace I have heard talk was Saburo Sakai in the mid-980's in Arizona at the old Doug Champlin Fighter Museum at Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona. He was there for an American Fighters Aces Association meeting that was open to the public and, afterward was given a ride in Bill Hane's P-51. In his talk, he said the arrival of the Hellcat in numbers signaled the loss of the war to the Japanese pilots since they were being beaten pretty regularly from that point forward. Seemed like a nice fellow and got along well with the US aces in attendance. And I realize his is only one opinion and perhaps not in line with everyone's opinion.

Has anybody else heard talks from other Japanese WWII pilots? If so, what did they say?

Several in here have heard talks by former Luftwaffe wartime pilots. It would be nice to also heard a summary of what was said at the time.

When a aircraft gets damaged in a air to air engagement, and is attempting to limp home, then encounters AA, goes down.
Who makes the determination, from the evidence left ? Maybe a live pilot from a relatively soft crash landing, or maybe a dead pilot with just a smoking hole in the ground left of him and his aircraft. And all kinds of varibles in between those two extremes possible too.
All you'd have left is maybe the after action account of the AA crew, and a after action account from the allied pilot, but with no way maybe of tieing the incidents together.

Well I don't dispute the Manrho/Putz figures, as that area of Belgium/France have the heaviest AAA in all of Europe, for it being the V-1 rocket corridor.
I suppose with the Allies, the fighter would get the shared kill. Or they would mark as one damaged (fighter), one kill (AAA battery) for the same plane.
Or it got filed as part of the 11% unknown cause. Regardless, its one of the more accurate 'after the fact' reports I've ever seen. Kudos on the research.

Where can I find the Manrho/Putz figures?

In their book: Operation Bodenplatte - The Luftwaffe's Last Hope. Chapter 13 'Aftermath', pages 272-302.

Thanks altsym!

GregP said:

What we have for at least SOME of the data are the victory credits awarded by a country to their service pilots. In the case of the US Navy, their awards went through the best verification they could have at the time slightly after the war ended and were tabulated in a specific report.

Please tell us the process by which the pilot and his witness either submitted an attested and signed report immediately post action and/or were interviewed by the Squadron Intelligence Officer before forwarding to Review Board? Why wait until after the War if it was anything more than collecting and documenting claims?

I have yet to see the USAAF data tabulated in a mnanner similar to the Navy, and have not seen any other data tabulated that way in a single report. The only source I have found for data broken out by types in a manner allowing some decent analysis is the Navy data from OPNAV-P-23V No. A129 dated 17 June 1946.

What was the form of the tabulation that made it so special to you? Are you talking about Victory Credits (Encounter Reports, Squadron Intelligence/Mission Reports), Losses (MACRs, Accident Reports for USAAF), or what?

As soon as I can find some data that are accumulated in a manner allowing analysis or at least tabulation in a spreadsheet or other computer application, I'd like to do a comparison. Right now, it's tough.

Some people even want to include non-combat losses in with combat statistics. In the vast majority of cases, fighters and bombers didn't attack alone and it was well known whether a loss was operational on the way to or from a target, was as a result of combat, and whether the loss was due to A/A or to an enemy aircraft. Perhaps not in ALL cases, such as if nobody came back, but for most surely. I'm pretty sure that if our guys knew that, then so did the Japanese, Germans, British, Soviets, etc.

If we can't agree on what data to count across the board, then maybe tabulating it for analysis won't solve anything even we had the data. The real challenge is finding the data, accumulating it, and making a useful tabulation of the results. And then getting people too agree on what they want to count.

I dount seriously the loss data from most Axis aircraft is available in a fashion that allows us to determine whether or not the loss was on an action sortie, was due to A/A, was non-combat related, etc. But it would be nice to find it and have a good discussion and maybe it does exist.
.

Click to expand...

MACRs probably have far more validity than any USN similar report - simply because many losses were duly noted in a KU or J report for any US aircraft loss found on the Continent through 1944...the Pacific Ocean didn't reveal many clues with respect to losses and the Japanese records are poor to non-existent. The combination is what I used to compile the 355th FG Loss statistics and the rest of the 8th AF (WIP).

Absent such processes as Existed within say 8th AF for both losses and victory credits how do support USN process 'better'?

You know drgondog, I wasn't there and do not know the complete details, having been born after the report was created. Maybe you could tell me how it was done. Volunteers at our Museum who flew for the Navy just post-war say it was a well considered report. They were certainly closer to it than I was or am.

One thing is that the report is victory awards by the Navy, not a claims list. One of the things they DID was to cross-check the claims with the after action reports for accuracy. If there are people who doubt the Navy, fine. That's their perrogative and I would not attempt to change their mind. I'll take it at face value and would accept British, German, or Japanese data from official military reports before any civilian revisionist reports. I doubt if any report summarizing a 5+year long war is 100% accurate, but if all the national lists are even 95% accurate, then we could still make some very valid comparisons. I probably would not trust Soviet data simply due to their history of rewriting the facts to fit the new party line.

As for what is so special, I posted the report number and, unusually so, it is availavle online for download. You probably already have it in your pdf fliles. Most of the USAAF data I have seen listed individually doesn't tell you the vicitim type or the type of the victor for individual data, just the name, rank, unit, date, victories awarded. So the US Navy tables that list action sorties, victories over fighters, bombers, losses on action sorties, losses on non-action sorties, especially by aircraft type are in a form I prefer since the essential data is there.

I have seen the USAAF WWII data in scanned form, but the scanning is terrible, generates WAY too may OCR errors when that is attempted, and I'm not going to type in tens of thousands of records for fun. Maybe if I get REALLY bored. I might work on it with someone, but don't want to tackle that one alone. Likely if I did and even if it were 100% correct, most wouldn't believe it anyway. If they don't buy into official victory lists, why would they think any better of an honest attempt to collect the data for later analysis?

And if you don't credit the OPNAV report, that's fine. You may be right. And you may be ignoring a good source. You certainly have turned up with and shared some data in here before, so maybe you have different totals?