Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

fastmongrel said:

The Bf109 shot down more aircraft than the Hellcat and Spit combined. Therefore it was a better aircraft and won the war single handed. Oops no it didnt impact is not measured by statistics. No Hellcat and US Corsairs, Wildcats and P38s still stomp on Japan. No Spitfire (backed up by the essential Hurricane) and Germany might get to stomp on Britain, if not full defeat then Britain gets to be a vassal state and signs her life away. No Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier, no Fortress Brittania, no invasion of Europe and a new Dark Age spreads over Europe it might be under a Swastika or it might be under a Red Star who knows. Whichever flag Europe is doomed.

Click to expand...

And in that case, France is either speaking German or Russian today...

And in that case, France is either speaking German or Russian today!

Click to expand...

Prost!/Nastarovnye!

renegate326 said:

Hellcat won the war in the Pacific and Spitfire has managed to survive in a battle took place in its own turf.
In terms of impact definitely the Hellcat is the greater legend .

Click to expand...

Please stop spouting b*ll*cks and accept the facts recorded here by more than one member. Some of your claims are ridiculous and, I suspect, deliberately aimed at provoking argument. Either that, or you really do live in a parallell universe !

if his universe is parallel to ours then at least they don't intersect.

I think it would be fair say the Spitfire GAVE more to the UK than the Hellcat did to the US. The Hellcat provided a fighter that greatly contributed to American dominance in the second half of the Pacific war, but at the time of it's deployment it was the best of two good options. Had it not existed the job could have been done by the F4U (I'm sure the carrier issues would have been sorted much more quickly if it were the only game in town.) The FM-1 was also a decent fighter in its circumstances. On the other hand, the Spitfire gave the Brits a design available at the outset of war which was a top rank fighter from the get go, and continued to be so right through to the final curtain. It was expected that the Spitfire would become obselete as the war progressed, but every time a potential replacement challenged it (Whirlwind, Typhoon) an upgraded Spit proved better than the new design. That's quite a contribution, and one unmatched by any other allied aircraft.

fastmongrel said:

Someone who sets up multiple accounts with different logins and ip addresses. Often when they have been banned also sometimes done so that they can agree with themselves when they are losing an argument.

I reckon that a member who was banned recently was a sock puppet who has been banned at least twice in the past on this forum and has been banned multiple times on 2 other forums I lurk on. I wont name him because he is a special ops undercover agent for International Rescue and he might come round one night and kill me with his mighty ninja keyboard skills.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, I wish to refute the vile rumours that I, Cobberkane, am actually Fastmongrel's sock puppet. When I say he is the most erudite, knowlegable and - let's get it out there - well hung individual on this forum my opinion is utterly legitimate.

CobberKane said:

Furthermore, I wish to refute the vile rumours that I, Cobberkane, am actually Fastmongrel's sock puppet. When I say he is the most erudite, knowlegable and - let's get it out there - well hung individual on this forum my opinion is utterly legitimate.

Click to expand...

That's more than we really wanted to know.

Please keep it civil.

Now we are debasing ourselves to compare WWII airplane performance statistics with our genitalia size. Funny. But not appropriate. Because if that logic were true, perhaps South Africa might have won the bloody war.

renegate326 said:

Less impact than Hellcat and I'm certainly not alone on this. I don't have the exact figures but Hellcat must have destroyed more enemy aircraft than Spitfire. As I said, Hellcat won a huge war in the Pacific more decisively than the Spitfire won a battle and that is the difference. I don't think this is a biased opinion.

Click to expand...

Nope. wrong again. The USN has official claims against the IJN and IJA. There were in total, 45000 a/c lost by the IJA/IJN. Nearly 20000 of these were lost to non-operational causes, training accidents, transit flights and the like. That leaves around 25000 lost to combat causes. The USN claims in total 19000 victories, which includes its AA victories, about 4500 a/c. Carrier based fighters claim about 7000 a/c, with the lions share being to Hellcats. These are claimed losses, which is really more a measure of air activity than actual losses. Freeman has estimated that the difference between claims and actual losses were about 2/3....that is, for that 7000 claimed, it might be 5000 actual. but lets apply claims for both side and see where we go


For the battle of Britain, the claimed losses for the LW were well over 3000 alone July to October. Actual losses were less, but we are dealing in claims for both, simply because i couldnt be bothered dealing with you with anything other than a cursory manner.

Between January and December 1941, the LW lost another 5000 aircraft to the RAF in all TOs. Thers 8000 lost to the RAF alone. British bombers, like everyone might be responsible for 10%, AA losses about 400 in 1940, and about 650 or so in 1945....say 1000 to be easy. Bombers and AA account for about 2000 in that period. That leaves Hurricanes and Spits and a few other odds and ends. Spits accounted for about 70% of the fighter command claims in 1941, and about 40% in 1940. A good guesstimate therefore might be 50/50 between Spits and Hurricanes for that time period. if i read Freeman I will get a better figure, but your not really interested in the truth, are you...

by that roiugh estimate Spits in 16 months were responsible for about 4500 German aircaft losses. In the first 16 months of the hellcats service it was responsible for the loss of about 2000 japanese aircraft (to the end of 1944).

So no, the hellcat did not do more to win the war, in terms of raw numbers at least as the Spitfire.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Please keep it civil.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no offence intended

tyrodtom said:

That's more than we really wanted to know.

Click to expand...

Oh, God, my eyes are bleeding again...

parsifal said:

by that roiugh estimate Spits in 16 months were responsible for about 4500 German aircaft losses.

Click to expand...

Where and when? Germany never had a strengths of 4500 combat aircrafts at all.
cimmex

cimmex said:

Where and when? Germany never had a strengths of 4500 combat aircrafts at all.
cimmex

Click to expand...

I think Parsifal is only talking of claims not actual losses.

CobberKane said:

Furthermore, I wish to refute the vile rumours that I, Cobberkane, am actually Fastmongrel's sock puppet. When I say he is the most erudite, knowlegable and - let's get it out there - well hung individual on this forum my opinion is utterly legitimate.

Click to expand...

(Channeling Jane Austen) Why thank you sir you are too kind but pray do not talk of such things or people will gossip at the next County Ball and a lady has only her reputation.

fastmongrel said:

I think Parsifal is only talking of claims not actual losses.

Click to expand...

You can only claim aircrafts which were there…I wonder what his intention is...

cimmex

cimmex said:

You can only claim aircrafts which were there…I wonder what his intention is...

cimmex

Click to expand...

I dont know his intentions but claims by their very nature dont mean the aircraft existed. RAF pilots claimed to have shot down He113 fighters.

According to Murray (Luftwaffe Attrition) the Luftwaffe had lost 20000 A/c to all causes between 1939 and the end of 1941. About 70% of those were lost to combat causes, and a lot less than 50% of the 1941 totals were suffered on the eastern Front. According to Caldwell, in 1943, about 14% of Luftwaffe combat losses were suffereed on the Eastern Front. Even if it was double that in 1941 (which in itself is unlikely, given the poor showing of the VVS in 1941), at least 70% of LW losses were suffered on either the western or southern fronts.

The quarterly strength returns for the LW from 1939 through to the end of 1941 were as follows (Operational Serviceable Source Ellis, which in turn is based on the LW Quartermeisters strength returns):

1939 (at outbreak): 3468
12/39: 3800
3/40: 4158
6/40: 3684
9/40: 3015
12/40: 3465
3/41: 4296
6/41: 4264
9/41: 4461
12/41: 3552

Some mention needs to be made of german ready reserves. According to Murray, Germany entered the war with about 6 weeks of ready reserve aircraft, which are not included in the above figures. These are generally not included in the LW strength returns, but neither are they well reported in other sources....they are often just wild guesses) Germany in the opening months had mostly obsolete or worn out types in their reserve parks, so a disproportionate amount of production was used to bring these reserve formations up to a modern park. by the battle of france the Germans had managed to pretty much normalise their reserve parks in terms of having up to date types in their stores. The BOF and the BoB more or less reduced those reserves to zero, though I am not relying on those "hidden losses" to show the extent of LW losses.

It certainly is true that the LW more or less maintained its frontline strength in this period. However, what is not shown here are the new arrivals accepted by the LW from new production

There is a considerable difference in the source material available as to the numbers of new aircraft received by the LW 1939-41. If we assume that the whole of 1939 production, including that received 9/39 to 12/39 was taken up normalising the LW reserve parks and establishing the initial strength returns for the LW, we get the following production figures

Murray:

1940: 10826
1941: 12401

The LW entered the war and emerged at the end of 1941 with basically the same number of a/c on strength. That means that the entire production of 1940-41 were taken up restoring reserves, or replacing losses. remember though, i have not included the 1939 figures to try and offset the skewed reserve situation the germans were facing in 1939.

On the basis of Murray's figures, the LW managed to achieve a wastage rate of about 22000 aircraft 1940-41

According to the HMSO statisical index, the LW accepted the following new returns 1940-41. The HMSO records are different because they include aircraft of foreign manufacture trainers and gliders.

1940: 11257
1941: 14540

Using the HMSO figures, the results are slightly worse for the LW. They produced roughly 25000 a/c in the time period, according to this source.

Whichever way you want to cut it, the LW was suffering heavy losses, even during its relatively pain free period of victories. Some of these aircraft just fell out of the sky, some just wore out. A lot were lost to combat. How many to fighters...dont know, but Foremans day to day accounts, suggest around 70% were being lost to fighter activities. Westermann estimates LW losses to Flak to be a somewhat higher proportion, but both these analysts agree, the LW was taking heavy losses in this period.

I think more than reasonable to claim the Spitfire was responsible for a big share of that.

still missing where and when (16 month)happened those 4500 Spitfire claims.
cimmex

cimmex said:

Where and when? Germany never had a strengths of 4500 combat aircrafts at all.
cimmex

Click to expand...

TABLE XII
German Aircraft Strength

May 11, 1940 June 21, 1941
Close Recce 335 440
Long-Range Recce 322 393
Single-Engine Fighters 1,356 1,440
Night Fighters 263
Twin-Engine Fighters 354 188
Bombers 1,711 1,511
Dive Bombers 414 424
Ground Attack 50
Coastal 240 223
TOTAL 4,782 4,882

Strategy for Defeat: The <i>Luftwaffe</i> 1933-1945

In 1940 German produced some 10,826 a/c of which 7103 were fighters and bombers yet in a year the Luftwaffe only increased it strength by ~100 a/c.